vruz

vruz:

by Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish / The Atlantic

The NYT’s account of systemic use of torture largely by Shiites on Sunnis, revealed in the Wikileaks doc-dump, is here. It’s horrifying - along the lines of Abu Ghraib and Bagram, but also, in many cases, even worse and cruder. It occurred during US occupation of the country; although most of the torture was perpetrated by Iraqi security forces, and although on occasion American forces prevented torture, some occurred under American control, and there was inevitable enmeshment as they fought alongside:

The documents show that Americans did sometimes use the threat of abuse by Iraqi authorities to get information out of prisoners. One report said an American threatened to send a detainee to the notorious Wolf Brigade, a particularly violent Iraqi police unit, if he did not supply information.

[…]

Ambers has a summary here. The Guardian:

In two Iraqi cases postmortems revealed evidence of death by torture. On 27 August 2009 a US medical officer found “bruises and burns as well as visible injuries to the head, arm, torso, legs and neck” on the body of one man claimed by police to have killed himself. On 3 December 2008 another detainee, said by police to have died of “bad kidneys”, was found to have “evidence of some type of unknown surgical procedure on [his] abdomen”.

The forces that conducted these horrific acts are the forces we are handing the country over to. History will harshly judge this war, and those of us who supported it, its long-term strategic effect, and so forth. In particular, it appears, that one of the main actors was Iran, and Iran has emerged as the core winner. But the hell unleashed by the incompetent occupation led to over 100,000 often gruesome civilian deaths in what was a nation-wide bloodbath of almost frenzied proportions.

I think it can be said, now more forcefully than ever, that whatever moral legitimacy this war once had is now gone forever.

It was worse than a mistake. It was, in many ways, a crime.

vruz: time for war crime tribunals, Bush, Blair and Cheney.  doesn’t matter you’re a friend of the nazi pope, Tony.

now you see why robert gates hates wikileaks so much.

it’ll seriously be the day when the Bush Admin. and the policy-makers responsible for orchestrating the lie that was the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent civil disintegration and sectarian chaos, are finally held responsible for their actions, put on trial, and, most importantly, are found guilty and punished for all their evils.

newleft
newleft:thepublics:


The Monster Testifies at  Gitmo Hearing: Former Bagram Interrogator Damien Corsetti Discusses Abuse of Omar  Khadr.
GUANTANAMO BAY — His nickname wasn’t “Monster,” he admonished the   lawyer. It was “The Monster.” That was what the Bagram Collection   Point’s interrogators, guards — and most especially detainees — called   Army interrogator Damien Corsetti. And it was important to him that the   court correctly record his story.
Back then — in 2002 at  Bagram, and later at Iraq’s notorious Abu  Ghraib prison — Corsetti was  as fearsome as his handle. Although  acquitted, he went before a  court-martial proceeding related to the  abuse of a detainee in Iraq.  Now, Corsetti is an unemployed veteran of  two wars, unable to work  because of post-traumatic stress disorder, and  an infamous figure in the  U.S.’s post-9/11 history of torture.
But he testified on  Wednesday morning from a remote location on behalf  of one of the former  inmates at Bagram whom he used to intimidate and  brutalize: Omar Khadr,  the 23-year old Canadian citizen who has been in  U.S. custody for nearly  eight years. The large man once known as “The  Monster” — the nickname  is tattooed in Italian on his stomach —  provided rare sworn testimony  about the abuse of detainees in U.S.  custody in the Afghanistan war’s  early days, the product of what he  described as command pressure for  intelligence and unclear rules about  permissible interrogator behavior.

newleft:thepublics:

The Monster Testifies at Gitmo Hearing: Former Bagram Interrogator Damien Corsetti Discusses Abuse of Omar Khadr.

GUANTANAMO BAY — His nickname wasn’t “Monster,” he admonished the lawyer. It was “The Monster.” That was what the Bagram Collection Point’s interrogators, guards — and most especially detainees — called Army interrogator Damien Corsetti. And it was important to him that the court correctly record his story.

Back then — in 2002 at Bagram, and later at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison — Corsetti was as fearsome as his handle. Although acquitted, he went before a court-martial proceeding related to the abuse of a detainee in Iraq. Now, Corsetti is an unemployed veteran of two wars, unable to work because of post-traumatic stress disorder, and an infamous figure in the U.S.’s post-9/11 history of torture.

But he testified on Wednesday morning from a remote location on behalf of one of the former inmates at Bagram whom he used to intimidate and brutalize: Omar Khadr, the 23-year old Canadian citizen who has been in U.S. custody for nearly eight years. The large man once known as “The Monster” — the nickname is tattooed in Italian on his stomach — provided rare sworn testimony about the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody in the Afghanistan war’s early days, the product of what he described as command pressure for intelligence and unclear rules about permissible interrogator behavior.

robot-heart-politics:suitep:apsies: brooklynmutt:

Jesse Ventura schools The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck on torture

“If waterboarding is OK, why don’t we let our police do it to suspects so they can learn what they know?” he asked. “If waterboarding is OK, why didn’t we waterboard [Timothy] McVeigh and Nichols, the Oklahoma City bombers, to find out if there were more people involved? … We only seem to waterboard Muslims… Have we waterboarded anyone else? Name me someone else who has been waterboarded.”

“If we hadn’t waterboarded to begin with, none of this would be a controversy, would it? Torture is torture. If you’re going to be a country that follows the rule of law, which we are, torture is illegal.”

HP

Mohamed: (My emphasis above in bold)
The HP framed this issue of waterboarding best: as between those who have actually experienced the procedure first hand that insist it is ineffective at best and torture at worst against those who couldn’t be more removed from its employment that argue that it works in thwarting terrorist attacks. with that being said, Hasslebeck is the biggest hyprocrit alive.

jeremyscahill

jeremyscahill:

image

This is my latest, in-depth investigative report for AlterNet.

Excerpt:

The IRF teams “were fully approved at the highest levels [of the Bush administration], including the Secretary of Defense and with outside consultation of the Justice Department,” says Scott Horton, one of the leading experts on U.S. Military and Constitutional law.

[…]


While the dominant media coverage of the U.S. torture apparatus has portrayed these tactics as part of a “Bush era” system that Obama has now ended, when it comes to the IRF teams, that is simply not true. “[D]etainees live in constant fear of physical violence. Frequent attacks by IRF teams heighten this anxiety and reinforce that violence can be inflicted by the guards at any moment for any perceived infraction, or sometimes without provocation or explanation…”

While much of the “torture debate” has emphasized the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” defined by the twisted legal framework of the Office of Legal Council memos, IRF teams in effect operate at Guantánamo as an extrajudicial terror squad that has regularly brutalized prisoners outside of the interrogation room, gang beating them, forcing their heads into toilets, breaking bones, gouging their eyes, squeezing their testicles, urinating on a prisoner’s head, banging their heads on concrete floors and hog-tying them — sometimes leaving prisoners tied in excruciating positions for hours on end.

In early February 2009, at least 16 men were on hunger strike at Guantanamo’s Camp 6 and refused to leave their cells for “force feeding.” IRF teams violently extracted them from their cells with the “men being dragged, beaten and stepped on, and their arms and fingers twisted painfully.” Tubes were then forced down their noses, which one prisoner described as “torture, torture, torture.”

vruz

vruz:

Ventura: You give me a water board, Dick Cheney, and one hour

Jesse Ventura (former Navy S.E.A.L.) interview on Larry King, CNN

ht: Sullivan

Jesse Ventura: I would prosecute every person who was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it, I would prosecute the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law.”

Larry King:  You were a Navy S.E.A.L.

Jesse Ventura: Yes, and I was waterboarded [in training] so I know… It is torture…I’ll put it to you this way:  You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

thank you.

jeremyscahill

Obama May Redact Bush-era Torture Memos Before Releasing Them

jeremyscahill:

image

The White House may try to release a censored version of the ‘Bradbury’ memos, covering up ‘certain operational details of interrogations.’ ACLU calls the move ‘inconsistent’ with Obama’s ‘promise of transparency’

By Jeremy Scahill

As criticism builds over the Obama administration’s position continuing or defending repressive Bush-era policies, Thursday will present a key test of how commited the Obama administration is to publicly revealing details of the Bush administration’s torture program. That’s the deadline the Justice Department faces in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU seeking to force the White House to make public three 2005 memos written by Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from 2005 to 2009 under President Bush. The memos are believed to detail Justice Department legal justifications for torture, including water-boarding and the banging of prisoners’ heads against walls.

As previously reported, the Obama administration has been debating whether to release the memos or to release them redacted. The CIA has argued releasing the memos would threaten US national security, while rights groups and some administration officials believe the public has a right to read the memos.

Now it appears the “Obama administration is expected to release some operational details of a Central Intelligence Agency interrogation program and its legal rationale, while seeking to keep secret the names of detainees and the way techniques were applied to particular prisoners,” according to the Wall Street Journal. “An announcement is expected Thursday on the release of memorandums in which Department of Justice lawyers gave legal guidance on CIA interrogations.”

According to the paper, official are “still deliberating what portions” of the memos would be released. Two officials said the White House plans to “propose redacting parts of the memos,”  including “certain operational details of interrogations.”

The ACLU shot back at the report. Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, said:

“The new Justice Department should turn over unredacted versions of these memos, not blacked out versions that cover up critical information. The information in these memos is vital to the historical record and to informing the public about what actions were carried out in its name. The release of the memos is also crucial to holding officials accountable for authorizing torture. Withholding this information would be completely inconsistent with the Obama administration’s promise of transparency and its commitment to turn the page on the abuses of the last eight years.”

If the administration attempts to redact the memos instead of handing them over to the ACLU unredacted, it will reportedly need a judge’s approval.