Salon: More cold-blooded than Abu Ghraib

[kskiska]

An international law expert explains why the new Red Cross report on the Guantanamo prison camp is more disturbing than the U.S.-operated torture chambers in Baghdad.

By Eric Boehlert

A confidential Red Cross report detailing interrogation techniques "tantamount to torture" at the United States-run prisoner camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, offers the latest evidence that the Bush administration is systematically flouting international law as it battles the war on terrorism, says one legal expert. "All of this looks pretty clearly like a deliberate policy to create prisons at which all kinds of interrogation techniques can be used and remain unfettered by law," says Leila Sadat, law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and vice-president of the American branch of the International Law Association.

The Red Cross report on the Guantánamo prison camp, which documented apparent prisoner of war violations found during a June inspection, was first reported in Monday's New York Times. According to the Times account, Red Cross investigators found that interrogation methods were "more refined and repressive" than they discovered on earlier visits. "The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture," the report said. The Red Cross found that prisoners were subjected to beatings, as well as cold temperatures and loud, persistent noise and music. The inspection team also detailed what they described as "a flagrant violation of medical ethics," citing instances where military physicians, at least indirectly, appeared to be aiding in the interrogation of detainees.

(snip)

What was the most striking element of the Red Cross report on Guantánamo Bay?
What really shocks me is that the detention policy and inhumane treatment was so bad. Guantánamo Bay has really been in the public eye, there's been tremendous international pressure on the United States about it, the Red Cross has been in there. And I just didn't think that conditions in Guantánamo Bay would be as bad as the Red Cross report makes them out to be.

This report was based on a June visit to the prison camp. Were you surprised because the Pentagon had apparently done little or nothing to alleviate the conditions at Guantánamo, even after the widely publicized Abu Ghraib scandal in spring?
We know that the detention and interrogation technique used at Abu Ghraib migrated from Guantánamo Bay, so I supposed I shouldn't be surprised. But my impression from reading press accounts was that they were using somewhat gentler interrogation techniques and producing more intelligence. And the Schlesinger report gives the clear impression that Guantánamo was better than Abu Ghraib, because they had more soldiers, that it was more professional, and there was a chain of command. So yes, maybe I'm being naive, but I am surprised that they were using torture at Guantánamo.

And it's interesting -- I was just listening to the media and they don't want to say it was torture. They say "tantamount to torture."

more…
http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/12/01/redcross/index.html

[Jack Rabbit]

1. What does 'tantamount to torture' mean?

Oh, well. Why use one simple word when an awkward phrase will do?

[demgrrrll]

2. Essentially equal to torture or a tortured way of saying it was torture.

This administration is evil. Pure evil.

[Briar]

3. The Red Cross can't say "torture" outright,

as the article explains, because that would trigger legal ramifications.

Given this criminal administration's attitude to international law and conventions, their response would be to refuse the Red Cross access to Guantanamo, thus putting Bush and co where they belong - in the same category as North Korea.

[teryang]

4. This is "non impact torture"

Torture which doesn't leave any marks but is torture all the same. Some active duty military personnel experience these techniques in their training for possible capture. Not leaving a mark is a propaganda or concealment technique to allow plausible denial. Originally collection and development of this knowledge or tradition was purportedly for the purpose of training to prepare for the "enemy's violations of the Geneva Conventions." Now like our alleged defense against biological warfare it has become something else entirely.

For many people if you can't see the results, it isn't torture. This is the problem with the dumbed down population, if they can't see it, it isn't real. If you've ever experienced these techniques or observed their effects over even as short a time as a few hours, you know its torture. Try getting into a stress position in a concrete cell, virually naked, cold with a wet floor, or overheated and humid, for even a short a period as sixteen hours with no opportunity to relieve oneself or to consume water. Try standing up for eight hours straight while listening heavy metal played backwards at intensities to close those which damage your hearing. Do this after going without sleep for two days. Some persons breakdown after only a few hours IN A TRAINING SITUATION. Other persons with strong wills or dominance oriented personalities may last for considerable periods but may die or go nuts in the process over a prolonged period.