Monday, January 31, 2005
Guantanamo Bay Tribunals Ruled Illegal (again) `
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer: [Federal District Court Judge Joyce Hens] "Green also ruled that hearings set up by the government to determine if the prisoners are `enemy combatants' are unconstitutional. Those hearings, called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, had been criticized by civil rights groups because detainees are not represented by lawyers and have few legal rights."
Reuters: "the Guantanamo military tribunals for terrorism suspects are unconstitutional" and "procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are 'enemy combatants' subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners' rights to due process of law."
What I want to reiterate here is the fundamental premise of limited government as in the U.S. Constitution: it is not about the "prisoner's rights" or "detainee's rights" or "P.O.W.'s rights" or "enemy combatant's rights" or any such individual notion; it is about prohibiting the Government from abusive behavior and authority beyond reproach.
What you do to the least of your bretheren...
Friday, January 28, 2005
More Sexual Torture: The Case of the Classified Thong `
Seattle Times: Guantanamo Bay Female interrogators' tactics aired
Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.
A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon review for a planned book that details ways the U.S. military used women as part of tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics.
The author of this manuscript (the central source of the story) is former US Army Sargeant Erik R. Saar, age 29. The way the report describes him isremarkable:
Saar didn't provide the manuscript or approach AP, but confirmed the authenticity of nine draft pages AP obtained. Saar, who is neither Muslim nor of Arab descent, worked as an Arabic translator at the U.S. camp in eastern Cuba from December 2002 to June 2003.What is so bizarre is the implication that if the source were Muslim or Arab, or even if he had approached a reporter with information, that the resulting report would be less credible. That might make sense in a world where:
- Islam is the enemy.
- Our military is involved in racist wars.
- We had multiple, corroborated, transparent accounts of operations inside Guantanamo that contradict Saar's, or contradicting evidence.
Saar himself comments that "the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used," adding somewhat presumptively "even though it is not the case." So the question arises: what constitutes religious war?
One female civilian contractor used a special outfit that included a miniskirt and thong underwear during late-night interrogations with prisoners, mostly Muslim men who consider it taboo to have close contact with women who aren't their wives.This is written as though for a God-fearing Christian American, sexual contact with a foreign interrogator while shackled in a military prison after 3 years incommunicado with your wife would be... untaboo? To be clear, lets this by its proper name. Being fucked. Or prison rape. Take your pick. I believe that it is still taboo.
This information contextualizes the earlier reports "Some Guantánamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by 'prostitutes'." These stories didn't run much in US media, indicating they were essentially discounted. But what are they supposed to think? "Now that's an intelligence professional of the world's only military superpower." Put yourself in the role of this 21-year-old Saudi man (you were an 18-year-old boy when they picked you up in Afghanistan):
The man closed his eyes and began to pray, Saar writes. The female interrogator wanted to "break him," Saar adds, describing how she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.
So we've got linguists devising interrogation methods now, on the fly. Sounds like a serious operation there. The article goes ahead to point out "Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with women other than a man's wife or family, and with any menstruating women, who are considered unclean." Oh, that explains it.The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts. The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.
Really what you should do is become Satan to break them, then they'll tell you all the information you want to know. Notably, Mosaic (strict Jewish) law says the same thing about women and menstruation, some Christians are similarly strict about contact with women outside the family, and menstruation is cited by the Catholic church in denying women access to priesthood. Why this interjection?
"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," says the draft. The interrogator used ink from a red pen to fool the detainee, Saar writes.
She put her hands in her pants and the detainee then saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand, [Saar] says.
"She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred. " She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward" — so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle. "He began to cry like a baby," the draft says, noting the interrogator left saying, "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."
And what about the information? Nothing. It didn't matter.
Sexual tactics used by female interrogators have been criticized by the FBI, which complained in a letter obtained by AP last month that U.S. defense officials hadn't acted on complaints by FBI observers of "highly aggressive" interrogation techniques, including one in which a female interrogator grabbed a detainee's genitals.
It is worse than that. As blogged previously here, the FBI actually said such interrogations "destroyed any possibility of prosecution." Apparently the Bush Administration doesn't plan on ever prosecuting them (in America), though. You might be tempted to believe the interrogations support US National Security interests, thereby trumping all other considerations. Except that the same FBI complaint declared the them totally useless, having "produced no intelligence of a threat-prevention nature to date". That is why they have to get contractors to conduct them. The FBI wouldn't do such a sloppy job for so long. They have evidentiary standards, professional codes, and actual counter-terrorism interrogation experience. Let's be sure to not listen to them on this one.
U.S. Southern Command revealed that 20% percent of Guantánamo guards are women, but withheld the number of female interrogators. They also offered the pro-forma counterfactual assurance, "U.S. forces treat all detainees and conduct all interrogations, wherever they may occur, humanely and consistent with U.S. legal obligations, and in particular with legal obligations prohibiting torture."
I started thinking: can you imagine if the roles were reversed? But that is not strong enough. You cannot imagine imagine the roles being reversed. It is not even within the capacity of imagination. But what we can do, apparently, as a country and as a culture, is pretend that we never read that article, and the hundreds like it. Don't mention it and nobody will notice... not notice it, and not notice our knowing. How can we be implicated if we didn't know? We had no idea!
The other bizarre angle on this is to reinterpret cultural forces like the performative hypersexual of Britney Spears as military psychological conditioning. Strip tease for freedom, baby, one more time. Because what America really needs is to put more emotionally fractured, physcially aggressive, sexually demonstrative individuals in positions of total power over others.
How old was this interrogator? Do you think she had ever had a healthy sexual relationship?
Friday, January 21, 2005
Inauspicious Inaguration `
Israel, Rupert Murdoch, the Wall Street Journal and some Polish paper like Bush's speech. WSJ invokes historical superlative, while justifying the war in Iraq:
Not since JFK in 1960 has an American President provided such an ambitious and unabashed case for the promotion of liberty at home and abroad.
To which the Toronto Star added, "unabashedly aggressive." Germany, Turkey and parts of Ireland, among others, were likewise more critical. Call me a pinko commie, but I thought the most interesting responses were from China.
Maybe it is just rhetorical style, or the doggedness of a rival, but try some of "People's Daily" on for size:
Judging from Bush's inauguration theme in 2005, being morally conceited and
militarily aggressive are two major elements of American nationalism.
Now that's style. But there was also poetic warning:
No banquet under the sun will last forever. After the firework fades away
Washington is still under a dark sky. The sole superpower sends a sense of inauspiciousness to the world when it's president is inaugurated under wartime security standards: America, where [are] you heading?
And even real insight!:
American nationalism displays the following characters.
First, it is originated from the worship to 'The American Creed', with liberty, democracy and the rule of law lying at its core. The Creed takes form along with the shaping and developing of the country, but has been taken by many Americans as a truth or standard that 'fits all'. From a religious perspective, many Americans indulge themselves in a sense of superiority, believing themselves 'men chosen by God.'
Second, due to the nation's superior natural and geographical conditions, and its history of never being invaded, American nationalism is void of historical bitterness found in typical nationalism of some other peoples.
Third, American nationalism shows a strong inclination of being self-centered, a combination of an isolationism tendency (being disdain to associate with other peoples) and a sense of mission to save 'the fettered world' by whatever means it desires. American nationalism rejects nationalism in other peoples, which doesn't, or unwilling to learn other people's emotions and thoughts, but adopts American standards in all cases.
Fourth, in foreign policy, American nationalism takes a form of a mixture of morality and pragmatism. Sometimes America holds ideology as the benchmark, deciding a friend or foe by American values, beliefs and political considerations; sometimes it exercises double standards for the sake of national interest, showing a certain degree of moral hypocrisy.
It seems like all four are fairly accurate descriptions (and not necessarily negative, either). Write on, red writer....
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Official WMD Search Ended `
You know, I know, and by gum, now these blokes do, too. It's official: Iraq had no WMDs.
"Charles Duelfer, the CIA special adviser who led the ISG's weapons search, has returned home and is expected next month to issue a final addendum to his September report concluding that prewar Iraq had no WMD stockpiles, officials said."
Among the reasons they stopped physically searching is the risk to their safety in continued operations on the ground in Iraq. This doesn't speak well for the occupation either. Call me cynical, but I imagine that the US elections being over also helps.
More interesting as a point of news, Reuters reports from an unnamed defense official that "Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Joseph McMenamin was replaced last month as the ISG's military head by an officer of lesser rank... Air Force Col. Lloyd Somers is now serving as acting director of the ISG." It seems odd to replace the chief right before his job concludes and the final report is made. I would like to hear McMenamin's account before he leaves the scene altogether.
At the White House, folks had to admit the search may be over, but fear not. Scott McClellan's battle with reality goes on:
"McClellan insisted today that the war was justified. He rejected the suggestion
that the administration's credibility had been gravely wounded in ways that
could weaken its future response to perceived threats." (NYTimes)
Maybe he's right, inasmuch as you don't have to worry about gravely wounding your credibilty if you don't have any.
Friday, January 07, 2005
The Man Who Would Be Ashcroft `
Read for yourself the primary source material:
Jan. 22, 2002
Jan. 25, t002
Mar. 6, 2003
Dec. 30, 2004
Congress Considers Ohio's Voting "Irregularities", Kills Messenger `
So much crap. Punchcards, touch screens, "missing" machines, day-long lines in the rain, outright fraud, incompetence, discarded voter registrations (outright fraud), Constitutional Amendment for marriage "sanctity", the complete subversion of provisional balloting, Ken Blackwell, Ken Blackwell, Ken Blackwell (outright fraud). I saw an old guy forced to wait for hours on foot, mostly outside in the rain, finally get within reach of the voting machines when he collapsed into convulsive seizures on the floor. We had to call a squad. He never got to vote. Meanwhile the head of our County Board of Elections misreports the number of voting machines deployed for days, even after the election. "How many machines in that total again?"
Anyway, some people prefer not to consider a given problem. (Remarkably, some people may also benefit from it. Are these usually the same people? Hmmm...) The justifications this time are undisguised: "there might be problems, but we got the right result". Should we be surprised? Ends justify means. Means are only a pragmatic consideration. We make up the rules as we go along. Or, in short, we make the rules.
Equally distressing as an illustration of human weakness, examine the difficulty people have taking an individual stand against criticism, even when it is in their own interests. Then consider how much less likely we are to stand up for some kind of abstraction or system, like say, Democracy or the electoral process (regardless of pragmatic interest). People talk a lot of shit about Democracy. It justifies a lot of actions for us, good, bad, convenient, whatever. But the number of times we actually evaluate what we *are* doing is slim.
The motivations for inaction are rooted in pragmatism, and ultimately, in fear. In a San Francisco Gate analysis, my Congresswoman Deb Pryce displays some intimidation towards those who would delay the system, for even a few hours, from proceeding along as though no problems existed:
"So eager are those who abandon their jobs as public servants, they castRead that correctly. That they "abandon their jobs" is her assertion (her threat). They're so eager? For what, distraction? Quick, you distract them and I'll ... continue watching the inauguration? Or what, you distract them and then I will, in turn, distract them from your distraction?
themselves in the role of Michael Moore, concocting wild conspiracy theories to
distract the American public."
I've got it! First we dress up like Indians, and then we dump all the tea
into Boston Harbor. I'm sure it will distract the American public!No, that won't work. We need a conspiracy theory. A wild one.
Indeed, let's get to concocting immediately. Someone else can fill our elected offices if they figure out we're gone.
Fine. But there's one problem: I don't know how to concoct.
It's easy. Just ask yourself, "What Would Michael Moore Do?"
Brilliant!
