home

Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghanistan

Friday's Guardian reports on documents it has received that disclose torture of prisoners at Bagram and Kandahar in Afhanistan. The documents allege that prisoners were subjected to mock exeuctions, sexually humiliated and, in some cases, raped. "Trophy" photographs were taken of the abuse and destroyed. The Guardian obtained the documents from the ACLU, which received them pursuant to it's Freedom of Information Act request.

Photographs taken in southern Afghanistan showing US soldiers from the 22nd Infantry Battalion posing in mock executions of blindfolded and bound detainees, were purposely destroyed after the Abu Ghraib scandal to avoid "another public outrage", the documents show. Here's one case:

In the dossier, the Iraqi detainee claims that three US interrogators in civilian clothing dislocated his arms, stuck an unloaded gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, choked him with a rope until he lost consciousness, and beat him with a baseball bat.

"After they tied me up in the chair, then they dislocate my both arms. He asked to admit before I kill you then he beat again and again," the prisoner says in his statement. "He asked me: Are you going to report me? You have no evidence. Then he hit me very hard on my nose, and then he stepped on my nose until he broken and I started bleeding."

The documents show both a cover-up attempt and confirmation by a medical doctor:

The detainee withdrew his charges on November 23 2003. He says he was told: "You will stay in the prison for a long time, and you will never get out until you are 50 years old."

A medical examination by a US military doctor confirmed the detainee's account, yet the investigation was closed last October. "It is further proof that the army is not seriously investigating credible allegations of abuse," said Jameel Jaffar, a lawyer for the ACLU.

Two more former prisoners have come forward:

In a separate case, which the Guardian reveals today, two former prisoners of the US in Afghanistan have come forward with claims against their American captors.

In sworn affidavits to a British-American human rights lawyer, a Palestinian says he was sodomised by American soldiers in Afghanistan. Another former prisoner of US forces, a Jordanian, describes a form of torture which involved being hung in a cage from a rope for days.

The prisoners have since been freed. Neither was ever charged with a crime.

Hussain Adbulkadr Youssouf Mustafa, a Palestinian living in Jordan, told the lawyer, Clive Stafford-Smith, that he was sodomised by US soldiers during his detention at Bagram air force base in 2002. He claims to have been blindfolded, tightly handcuffed, gagged and had his ears plugged, forced to bend down over a table by two soldiers, with a third soldier pressing his face down on the table, and to have had his trousers pulled down.

"They forcibly rammed a stick up my rectum," he reports. "It was excruciatingly painful ... Only when the pain became overwhelming did I think I would ever scream. But I could not stop screaming when this happened."

Another prisoner alleges being hung from a hook.

In a second affidavit, the Jordanian citizen, Wesam Abdulrahman Ahmed Al Deemawi, detained from March 15 2002 to March 31 2004, says that during a 40-day period of detention at Bagram he was threatened with dogs, stripped and photographed "in shameful and obscene positions" and placed in a cage with a hook and a hanging rope. He says he was hung from this hook, blindfolded, for two days although he was occasionally given hour-long "breaks".

The Guardian contacted the U.S. for a response.

By the time of going to press last night no response had been received other than an email from a Major Steven Wollman in Kabul, saying he was researching the question.

For more information on the detainees, visit CagedPrisoners , which has photographs and information of 500 detainees, news articles, interviews, current status and in some instances, letters written to family members while in captivity.

The New York Times Friday also reports on the newly released documents.

< Detainee Blinded at Guantanamo | Book Review: Constitutional Chaos >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Bush should go to prison not the troops, maybe someone should use a baseball bat on our non government? I would like to say we have a abu ghraib here, its called our prison system. And one guy should be doing some time in it, his name is "Government"! but we will see about 10,000 troops doing time at the end of next year. Join the Army go to prison.

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#2)
    by Walter on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:41:53 AM EST
    "They forcibly rammed a stick up my rectum," he reports. "It was excruciatingly painful ... Only when the pain became overwhelming did I think I would ever scream. But I could not stop screaming when this happened." I thought this happened only in New York City.

    From reading the lawyer's account, he foreswore an affidavit stating that such account was verified by a US Military MD. All I have to say then: where is are the MD's report and findings? Anyone can foreswear affidavits, but the proof is in the pudding.

    They never had it so good, right Jim? This is the work of the administration that you love so much. This is the work of Dubya and Alberto. Now we have Negroponte of the death squads moving up. You connect the dots, kimosabe.

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#5)
    by DonS on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 06:33:57 AM EST
    no, no, no, its a few bad apples. The US would NEVER condone, participate in, execute, render for, order, ignore, cover up or excuse torture. Murcins are only good, uh, except for a few bad apples, and actually I thinkk the media makes it all up anyway.

    CA - Well, whatever happened, my first question is what is an Iraqi doing in Afghanstian? Taking the waters? Getting a high mountian tan? That must be it, because we know that there are no terrorists from Iraq. (Yes, dear CA, that is sarcasm.) Now to the unproven charge. If it happened, it shouldn't have. As before. Investigate, charge, try, convict and pubush. IF you have evidence. Until then, keep on ranting. You never had it so go.

    Did it ever occur to you PPJ that the Iraqi in Afghanistan could have been sent there after being picked up in Iraq and then rendered to a facility outside of his home country? The U.S. would never do anything like that, right? It is the Brown Shirts like yourself who continually make up the lamest excuses for the complete lack of humanity that Shrub and his cronies display. Sure the individual soldiers should be held accountable, but they are only reacting to an atmosphere of permissiveness that is being fostered by higher up in the chain of command, and it all starts with the commander in cheif. Torture is inexcusable and useless as so many governments throughout the world have realized. It is only effective as a means of control on the citizenry of a country, not as a means of intelligence gathering. Sadists like yourself get off on torture, so I am not surprised that you offer up the most token of denouncements of it. Saddam and his ilk were and are kept in power by people like you.

    I meant the commander in chief. I hate it when I get so worked up I don't correctly spell words, but fascists like PPJ always find an excuse for any horrible behavior. I am sure that if the evidence of U.S. soldiers raping women in detention centers in Iraq or Afghanistan ever came to light he would say it was just the troops letting off some steam. Criminals always have a good reason for their actions.

    Jim,
    Now to the unproven charge. If it happened, it shouldn't have. As before. Investigate, charge, try, convict and pubush. IF you have evidence.
    Your reply is offensively disingenous, Jim, and your faux-naif commitment to the Rule of Law rings disgustingly hollow. Why? Because as you surely know, the problem we have is that those in a position to provide the "evidence" are more than likely exactly those who committed the crimes. Assuming that the people responsible understood perfectly clearly that what they were doing was illegal, do you think it likely that they allowed anyone to capture any evidence of their wrongdoing? Not everyone is as dumb as Miss England and her "boyfriend". My point is even backed up by a statement from the prisoner in the original post: the prisoner says in his statement. "He asked me: Are you going to report me? You have no evidence." And unfortunately for the poor Iraqi guy having his arms dislocated, the torturer is absolutely correct. What's worse than that is how people like you are happily singing along to the same filthy, corrupt, evil tune: "You got no evidence, so I committed no crime. Tell it to the judge, boy - your word against mine." Do you *really* think that Saddam's torturers routinely left evidence lying around connecting them directly to their crimes? And yet you accept without question that such crimes happened under his rule. Why? Amnesty International spends almost all it's efforts in trying to piece together tiny fragments of evidence proving acts of torture. Can you show me where I'd find the kind of evidence that you would accept to prove that Saddam tortured prisoners? Because by and large, all we have are testimonials from the tortured, but by your standards, this doesn't count. So what kind of evidence would you accept? Video? Photos? Even these are disputable -in the case involving UK soldiers, the defence was basically "Well, that photo showing my fist moving towards a prisoner's face was actually a joke - I was just PRETENDING to hit him." Pretty damn sick. Do you really think that the only time any prisoner abuses happened in Abu Ghraib was that one night of Miss England's birthday? How lucky for us that they captured the moment for posterity. Do you really think that the only time the LAPD beat up a black man it just happened to get captured on video? How lucky for Rodney King. Get real, Jim - the US is routinely abusing those held in its prisons abroad. As the saying goes - if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and floats like a duck I don't need a lawyer to prove to me that we're looking at a duck. Likewise I doubt you'll ever get a signed order from Bush, but that sure as hell doesn't mean it isn't US policy to torture prisoners.

    If there were absolute proof of torture against absolute innocents, PPJ, would you still defend it?

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#12)
    by jeaubleau on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 08:57:40 AM EST
    Bush is doing exactly what I elected him to do. Keep my country and my children safe. I thank God daily that our Prisident has the ballz to do what is necessary to ensure my survival. God Bless that great man!

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#13)
    by DonS on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 09:03:06 AM EST
    The fallback position, even when found out -- as with WMD's -- is that, ipso facto, actions were justified anyway because ---------------- (fill in the blank). Those who control the mechanisms of government, business, and the media get to write the script. Dissenters merely harden that position and sharpen the lies. When lying becomes commonplace, the truth becomes oddly out of sync.

    Jeaubleau, He's doing an excellent job alright. Allowing detaniees to be held without being charged with a crime, held indefinately, tortured. Attacking a country that did not attack us. Letting the man who DID attack us go free. Iran is developing nukes, North Korea may already have nukes. I feel safer already.

    There is the possibility that the soldiers hold their own grievance towards those they see as responsible for 9/11. If through torture, evidence was to be procured that leads to the thwarting of more attacks against America, and the saving of American lives, would it then be acceptable?

    Steve A.... Allowing detaniees to be held without being charged with a crime, held indefinately, tortured. There crime is fighting against the US...and they can all rot there for all I care! You obviously don't understand the meaning of "war"! Attacking a country that did not attack us. They are involved in terrorism & therefore guilty. Letting the man who DID attack us go free. Nobody let him go free. But if you must blame someone... point at your boy Clinton! Iran is developing nukes, And have been doing so for years (before GW) North Korea may already have nukes. They do...and you can again thank your boy Clinton. I feel safer already. You should

    Burgerboy, can you find anywhere in recent U.S. history that torturing a detainee has provided ANY information that has helped with the "war on terror"? I know alot of the intelligence we gather will be confidential, but that doesn't blur the fact that Ashcroft and the DOJ have been unable to prosecute anyone for any suspected terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11 and I am sure that many of the "persons of interest" that were picked up after the terrorist attacks were subjected to "extreme interrogation" methods. Would you support the rape of a female detainee if she gave up information? What would you do when that info turned out to be nothing of worth? Are you completely blind to the fact that history has shown torture to be an incredibly ineffective method of intelligence extraction? Most people will say anything to stop the torture and that doesn't mean any of the utterances are true.

    I know this is my last post of the day, and I am now sorry for wasting it on the likes of B.B., PPJ, and any of the other fascists who regularly visit this site to spread their disease of ignorance and hate. Shrub never has made me feel embarassed for being an American, but people like you do. What kind of monster gave birth to the likes of you guys? Your arguements are complete and utter crap. People like you should put your money where your mouth is, join the armed forces, and go and torture the citizens of the world who might even think about resisting and taking up arms against the U.S. But unfortunately your kind never does. My oldest brother and my father both served their country and would have never tortured anyone, no matter who told them to. My father served in the Pacific theater during WWII and never lowered himself to the level of a common thug by abusing or letting other soldiers abuse their POW's. He maintained his humanity, something B.B., PPJ, and all the other fascists lost a long time ago.

    "If through torture, evidence was to be procured that leads to the thwarting of more attacks against America, and the saving of American lives, would it then be acceptable?" No. I mean, yes, to right wingers. For them, the ends always justify the means. Thus, if we have to destroy every principle America was founded on to save America, so be it. Or so the neocons will tell us. Why? Because it's the definition of republicanism: there are no principles, just brutal force to be used against everyone who is deemed "guilty", and anyone who claims otherwise is a weak, America-hating pinko.

    Thank you Sherman. And your dad, and your brother. It's sad that Jeaubleau feels safer. Undoubtedly a lot of Germans felt safer watching their not quite Aryan neighbors disappear overnight. It is my educated opiniont that there is a thin line between humanity and depravity (Lord of the Flies, anyone?). The potential Himmlers and Mahler's (sp?) of the world walk the same streets as us waiting for the political agar to grow their hate in.

    There [sic] crime is fighting against the US...and they can all rot there for all I care! You obviously don't understand the meaning of "war"! You obviously don't understand that there are rules to war that we as a civilized nation, if we want to retain that status, must abide by. You also don't seem to understand that in any war of this type, where the combatants do not wear uniforms, many innocent people are caught up in the sweeps and end up in jail. So to assume that all of the people being held and tortured by the U.S. are terrorists is just wrong. There is ample evidence that we have apprehended and detained people based on mistaken identity or just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or even because we were paying warlords bounties on "Taliban" they turned in. Without any review there is no way for these wrongly detained people to protest their detention.

    "If through torture, evidence was to be procured that leads to the thwarting of more attacks against America, and the saving of American lives, would it then be acceptable?" Why don't we turn this question around. If, by torturing detainees, we make the terrorists hate us more, incite more terrorist attacks, and lead to the recruitment of more terrorists, and weaken our ability to object to torture and abuse of our citizens by others, would torture be unacceptable?

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#23)
    by nolo on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 10:43:49 AM EST
    Thank you, Sherman. Though I have to say we're probably fortunate that the likes of BB and Burgerboy and Jeaubleau never go farther than their greasy little keyboards with this kind of crap.

    Sherman - I invite you to Occams Razor. I also note that the prisoner was complaining, he didn't mention being moved from Iraq, although he had ample oppoprtunity. As for troops raping, the only ones doing that lately accused of that are UN troops in the Congo. Sherman, lean close and let me whisper in your ear. "Innocent until proven guilty, Sheman." It works for all of us. It is kind of a bed rock in our justice system. Now, that's a good boy, get on with your rant. Ian - It seems that we have put quite a few troops in jail, so why do you dismiss an investigation? I mean, unlike the UN, when we investigate, things happen. Bad people are punished. Dearest No Name - I have repeatedly condemed torture on this very blog. So you either want to make a statement/question that you know the answer to in an inane attempt to insult me, or you are dumb. Wait. We may have a twofer here. Sherman - "...can you find anywhere in recent U.S. history that torturing a detainee has provided ANY information that has helped with the "war on terror..." Can you find evidence that it has not? Sherman, your question is just so.... dumb, I guess is the best description. I mean, if it had, we wouldn't know about it. And gee, Sherman, I guess you think that only your father served. BTW - Mine also did and millions of thers, so don't feel unique. And I hate to pop your bubble, but many prisoners were killed, on both sides. Read some history. And you know something else? I also served. How about you? Let me guess. Always too busy. Dearest No Name - It is always easy to parttle on about ethics and such when you are setting comfortably at your desk behind your computer? I will answer you like this. A generic, no. No torture, but lots of psychological tricks. IF the situtation was that the prisoner had information about a specific attack that would kill Ameericans, yes, and damn the niceties. Feder F - Actually, what we have here is gurellia warfare. A war in which terrorists blow up carbombs, hijack airplanes, behead innocent people. Now tell us how gently we should treat these lovely, sweet people. As for making them "angry," good heavens. After someone has pledged to kill you as a matter of religion, how much madder can he get? Your logic sucks. mfox - Just how informed is your opinion?

    As for making them "angry," good heavens. After someone has pledged to kill you as a matter of religion, how much madder can he get? Your logic sucks. No, yours is the logic that sucks. You claim to condemn torture but advocate it in a situations where the specific attack that would kill Americans. My point that though, morality aside, in some cases there may be a tactical advantage to torture and prisoner abuse, the strategic disadvantages of torture and prisoner abuse are being ignored by there proponents. That is, if we get a reputation as torturers and abusers it increases resentment towards us. Consequently, it makes recruitment of terrorists easier and increases the danger to Americans, ultimately resulting in more, not less American deaths. As a former soldier, you know that lives are sacrficed in every war for strategic ends. If you want a concrete example look at 1945 Europe. In the west, against the British and the Americans, the German Army finally collapsed and surrendered enmasse, in the east, the German Army literally fought to the death against the Russians. The difference was that they knew that if they surrendered to the Americans or British they would be treated well while surrendering to the Russians was tantamount to committing suicide. Consequently, casulty rates for the Russians remained high until the last days of the war while the Americans and British cruised through Germany with ridiculously low casulties.

    Sherman - I do to any detainee that is a US citizen. Which, btw, I have noted several times before. For your run of the mill thug, I'd just keep him until he war is over. But.. for those citizens I extended the full protection of our CJ system? Try'em and if convicted, hang'em. Feder - I specfically disavowed torture as a tactic, or as a strategy, UNLESS there is a specific case where we know that an attack is planned. And no, lives are not "scarficed" for strategic ends. You don't run off and fight a battle you don't need to. And no, the Germans didn't surrender until it was clear that the war was over. Read some history.

    Dear Sherman I, in no way advocate the torture or rape of anyone. There has been post 9/11 terrorist convictions. and from the GAO Dear Freder Frederson I donít think this will indeed make them hate us more, it is just more fuel for their already burning fire. The typical Islamic reply will be the kidnaping and beheading of the nearest infidel or infidels. Preferably a Christian or Jew, but any infidel will do.

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#29)
    by jeaubleau on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    You can pretend that torure is unacceptable under any circumstance, but if your child were being held by Islamic madmen intending a midnight beheading, and the man tied to the chair in front of you knew the location, please tell me it wouldn't be okay to smack him around until he talked.

    At the risk of repeating myself, Jim - I didn't dismiss an investigation. What I said was that evidence is by definition hard to get in these cases. There are established procedures for civilian interrogations to reduce the potential for abuse - such as video recording interviews and appointing custody officers who are answerable to superiors unconnected with prisoner management. These could and should have been implemented at the first hint that abuse was happening in foreign jails. But I'm digressing from the point I'd like to make which is that your "innocent until proven guilty" line is nothing more than the most transparent hypocrisy. The people that are being tortured by Americans have certainly NEVER been even tried in court, much less found guilty of any crime. And yet we're pulling their arms out of their sockets and beating them about the face and head to extract some kind of non-specific "information", apparently to "save American lives". Lean close and let me scream this into your ear: "Innocent until proven guilty - no matter what God you believe in, Jim". As Orwell never quite said: "All prisoners are innocent until proven guilty, but American prisoners are more innocent than others".

    JB- And that exact scenario happened to you .....when? You are a coward. Fear controls you.

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#32)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:53:41 AM EST
    PPJ you keep saying you are against torture but on every post about torture you do your damdest to say that this particular case is not torture. So as usual you are being disingenuous. Same with your stand on detainees. You've adopted your stand because it still allows you approve of any tactic at all since they are not citizens while at the same time seemingly holding a moral position. However, you are no better than the new AG and Bush who constantly try to get around the issue by looking for technicalities, loop holes, or whern all else fails redefine the words. So although you are against torture you have yet to see torture carried out against anyone protected by the GC. I believe thats your position. The establishment of the GC was meant to protect people from torture nad represented a recognition of everyone right to humane treatment. Your attempt to continually skirt the issue ignores this fundamental motivation behind the GC. Of course the rights approach is to attack every incident reported. is it true, what are the circumstances, etc etc concentrating each time on the tree in front of them, thereby diffusing the impact of each new allegation. However, for those who step back and see the forest the view is not pretty. We even have documentation on how the admin tried to redfine everything. Yet few care and only the lowly grunts are being held accountable, sometimes. But this is a country that treats its own prisoners in its jails inhumanely, has no problem killing them in the name of vengence no matter if they are retarded, young, elderly whatever. We try kids as adults and call it justice when it really is only a way of satisfying some self-serving selfrightous view of justice and right/wrong. We have religious leaders preachinmg hate against 2 billion of the worlds population because its fits their political agenda. We kill 100k civilians in a war predicated on lies and the conservative main stream corporate media is too busy kissing the prez's butt to keep their access to notice or care. And to top it all off, the wignuts think that there will be no blowback. That because we are the might moral USA that no one can or should touch us. And it is this delusional thinking that will in the long run make us less safe and isolated in a world that has a global economy and others have most of the oil/gas reserves.

    Jim said:
    I do to any detainee that is a US citizen
    Do you recognise these words Jim:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident - that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    Note that it doesn't say "All Americans", or "All Christians" or "All Republicans", it says "ALL men" You clearly don't agree.

    This whole thing smells of a foundless allegation; similar to one which was trotted out right after the Abu Graib abuses. Does anyone remember a press conference in which a human rights organization put forward a middle aged man, all wraped-up in bandages. He goes gimping into the press conference, and makes all sort of wild allegations of torture at the hands of the Americans. At mid conference, one of the journalist confronted him, and with a few well placed questions, exposed him for the fraud that he was. All while the cameras were rolling. In his shame, he undid his bandages right there and then and stormed out of the press hall like a 20-year old sprinter. Does anyone remember that? If this Iraki interloper was brutally sodomised, and subjected to fractured bones, he is sure to have internal scaring of all sorts. Where's the proof?

    Boquisucio said:
    If this Iraki interloper was brutally sodomised, and subjected to fractured bones, he is sure to have internal scaring of all sorts. Where's the proof?
    Ermm... the proof is in the original post. Read it before you embarrass yourself further:
    A medical examination by a US military doctor confirmed the detainee's account, yet the investigation was closed last October.


    Ian The lawyer alleged that a US MD "confirmed" the abuse. But he himself did not proffer any sort of proof himself. All he did was to foreswear an affidavit. I can go running to a Notary and forswear that leprechauns live in my basement. Just because I foreswear it, doesn't make it true. The same has happened here.

    Sherman.... My oldest brother and my father both served their country and would have never tortured anyone, no matter who told them to. It's nice you can speak for them...I'm sure they appreciate that. But...having never been in combat yourself...I really don't think you can say what you would or wouldn't do until you find yourself there! He maintained his humanity, something B.B., PPJ, and all the other fascists lost a long time ago. I served my country proudly..(in a war that had a lot less reason than this one) You don't know me and can't really comment on my humanity. But I will say this... you act like a human, you deserve to be treated like one... you act like an animal...you deserve to be treated like one. Make sense to you? Thus, if we have to destroy every principle America was founded on to save America, so be it. Nobody is talking about destroying any of that. In a time of war... sometimes you have to deviate a little... that's all. What's your plan...wait till we go under and then proudly say.."well at least we didn't violate anybody's rights before they blew us up"?

    And no, the Germans didn't surrender until it was clear that the war was over. Read some history. The Germans surrendered to the Americans and British when it was clear the war was over. They never surrendered to the Russians even after it was obvious the war was lost. In fact, as late as 29 April 1945 elements of the German Army were desperately trying to break out of the southern suburbs of Berlin to the west just so they could reach the American lines and surrender to them rather than be trapped by the Russians (See Chapter 23 of Berlin, The Downfall by Anthony Beevor).

    Dear soccerdad We have religious leaders preachinmg hate against 2 billion of the worlds population because its fits their political agenda. We kill 100k civilians.... Any proof?

    ...And no, lives are not "scarficed" for strategic ends. You don't run off and fight a battle you don't need to.
    was your point "scarficed" should read "sacrificed", or are you truly commenting that no lives are "lost" for strategic ends. if thatís your statement then ______, (add first negative thought that comes to mind).
    ...the man tied to the chair in front of you knew the location...
    you know he knows the location, but you don't know the location, how do you know he knows the location, did you torture someone to identify him as being someone who knows the location, or does he just look like he knows. logically challenged!!!
    ...In his shame, he undid his bandages right there and then and stormed out of the press hall like a 20-year old sprinter...
    so from this incident, all allegations of torture are a sham, a hoax, to make america/ns look bad. btw: whew, currently, were doing a damn good job w/o outside assistance.
    I really don't think you can say what you would or wouldn't do until you find yourself there!
    so american troops may be torturers.
    But I will say this... you act like a human, you deserve to be treated like one... you act like an animal...you deserve to be treated like one.
    thatís mighty christian of you. none of you good christian reps here seem to be asking the important ?WWJD?

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#41)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    BurgerBoy you can start here Just use google there plenty out there

    You act like an animal you deserve to be treated like one. During Desert storm American Forces took photos of Burned out Iraqi trucks (from A 10 warthog fire)containing charred Iraqi corpses showing NY yankees' caps on their charred skull and big fat stogies in their charred teeth/jaws, placed there by those same US forces taking the pictures. My friends (US army reserve) said the reason for these pictures was they all wanted a few souvenirs. I don't know if anyone did anything wrong in the above incident but I try not to make judgements about who are the animals anymore and it is something that has made me understand that right or wrong depends on your perspective as to who is the victim and who is the perp.

    Peanuthead, I do not jump into the conclusion that all allegations are a sham. That is a leap in your logic. All I stated was, that it smells like another hyperbolic and unsubstantiated allegation. We have to wait and see whether this was hyperbolic. But so far it remains unsubstantiated. From what I read, the ACLU did not put forward any trace of physical evidence supporting this hear-say allegation. Until then, it remains just that - UNSUBSTANTIATED.

    Freder F... You obviously don't understand that there are rules to war that we as a civilized nation, if we want to retain that status, must abide by. Dude...ever hear "all is fair in love & war"? The rules are only good if everyone plays by them. If your enemy isn't 'observing' the rules...you certainly better be ready to go there too..or you will lose! I guess we can stand up & shout...hey, thats' not fair...and see what happens huh? You also don't seem to understand that in any war of this type, where the combatants do not wear uniforms, many innocent people are caught up in the sweeps and end up in jail. I understand that perfectly! I wouldn't agree with 'many'...but yes there are certainly some. So to assume that all of the people being held and tortured by the U.S. are terrorists is just wrong. I never assumed that. Without any review there is no way for these wrongly detained people to protest their detention. Sure there is... and the ones that have been proved innocent have been (or will be) turned lose. If, by torturing detainees, we make the terrorists hate us more, That's laughable dude. Gee let's not piss them off huh?...LOL In case you missed it... they already killed 3000+ of us and have vowed to kill more. I for one, won't coddle them in the hopes they will leave us alone... But I know you lefties want to kiss & make up.... try to reason with the unreasonable and hope all will be well. I (and most on the right) want to kick their ass and make them regret they ever f'd with me. So, you go hide in the corner and we'll protect you. weaken our ability to object to torture and abuse of our citizens by others, would torture be unacceptable? Dude..they are cuting Americans heads off...and guess what...they'd cut yours off just as fast as mine! That is, if we get a reputation as torturers and abusers it increases resentment towards us. Muslims respect authority (agression) and see no action as weakness... I think if we kick their ass (like we did in WWII) they won't f with us anymore. Do you fear the Japs or Germans at this point. Do you think they will ever attack us again?

    "Sherman, lean close and let me whisper in your ear. "Innocent until proven guilty, Sheman." It works for all of us. It is kind of a bed rock in our justice system." The post was about docs alleging prisoners were tortured by interrogators. Are you saying those docs don't exist, or did not allege, etc? Or are you just saying they are presumed false until a torturer is identified, prosecuted and convicted? Also, were the folks in the PHOTOGRAPHS OF ABU GHRAIB ATROCITIES, tortured by people who HAVE BEEN CONVICTED, presumed innocent until proven guilty? Lean close and let me kick you in the ass. "The lawyer alleged that a US MD "confirmed" the abuse. But he himself did not proffer any sort of proof himself. All he did was to foreswear an affidavit." Yup. Must be bogus. Stuff like that NEVER happens. And did not happen in this instance unless someone can provide actual PHOTOS. (Can't prove a thing, can't prove a thing, nanner nanner!)

    Posted by at February 18, 2005 02:40 PM Yup. Must be bogus. Stuff like that NEVER happens. And did not happen in this instance unless someone can provide actual PHOTOS. (Can't prove a thing, can't prove a thing, nanner nanner!) To the contrary, if those prisoners were tortured as they claim, surely a medical examination performed by an independent MD's of their choosing can corroborate a Previous Fractured to a Nose Bridge, Torn Rotating Cup Ligaments, and Scarring in the Sygmoid Muscle. If you do not know what they are: look them up in a Medical Dictionary. All that I've heard so far, is unbased allegations. If they can back them up with Medical Records, I'll be listening.

    Without any review there is no way for these wrongly detained people to protest their detention. Sure there is... and the ones that have been proved innocent have been (or will be) turned lose. B.B., Jim, Boquisucio... your logic wouldn't stand up to a seveth grade Q & A. Your hubris in your refusal to believe what you don't want to is only second to your xenophobia masquerading as patriotism. Freder, this is an argument that's been going on since the Grainer posts here. PPJ gets shot down on one thread, then goes to the next torture thread and starts all over again with his imaginary friend/strawman "the guy who knows that Americans are going to be harmed". At lunchtime I took a walk and it suddenly dawned on me that PPJ comments on lefty sites because the tighty-rightys don't want him. He's more embarassing than Donald "we go to war with what we have" Rumsfeld and most of them are at least trying to be logical....or admit they think all Muslims are terrorists and deserve what they get. Feder - The information you provided is very informative, insightful, well-written and compelling. I'm wondering if you're American as your perspective seems so unaffiliated. I'm going to try my best from now on to use my 8 1/2 x 11 plain white "ignore" tool for PPJ. Perhaps he'll be around when the feet of clay crumble. I'm not hopeful, however. P.S. It would be helpful in ignoring PPJ if y'all wouldn't respond either as this makes me have to go back and read his post to see what he said this time. Just a thought.

    peanutgallery... thatís mighty christian of you. none of you good christian reps here seem to be asking the important ?WWJD? I'm not a Cristian! I'm a realist. If you seperate yourself from humanity, you can't really expect to be treated humanly. What the hell is WWJD? no name..... During Desert storm American Forces took photos of Burned out Iraqi trucks. Yeah...so? Americans took pictures of dead nazis & japs with their rifles & flags.... does that make them bad.

    Thanx for the luv Peanuthead

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:42:16 PM EST
    To the winger true believers any barbarism perpetrated by the U.S military is only so many broken eggs in thier visionary "regime change" omelet - we all know this. Theyve all bought into the same visionary scenario foisted by the same U. of Chicago Nietzchean ubermenschen (Chalabai included), in the administration.

    For those seeking greater insight on the usefulness versus the uselessness of torture in war, check out this book review. Note that, despite BurgerBoy's big butch "bring it on"-style comments about all being fair in love and war, you'll notice in the article that torture was NOT used by British interrogators in WW2. Why? Well, at least in part because (as the commander of one of the prison camps put it) "it is the act of a coward", but also because "it is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise." Read the article - it's very good.

    mfox Your hubris in your refusal to believe what you don't want to is only second to your xenophobia masquerading as patriotism. To me words have meaning, and I mean what I say. Let's start with Xenophobia. Vladimir I. Ulyanov once stated: The only Capital is the Human Capital. Surely you have fond respect for the father of the Bolshevik Revolution. It is this foreign human capital invested into our country, that hve made us who we are today. An inmigrant myself, a Xenophobic I am not. Now, let's tackle Hubris, shall we. Webster defines Hubris as: Wanton disregard for that which is customary. It is not customary to heel to those who wish us ill. Thus, there is no hubris in my statements neither. Thanx for the luv to you too.

    Feder - The information you provided is very informative, insightful, well-written and compelling. I'm wondering if you're American as your perspective seems so unaffiliated. Thank you. And yes I am American. It's sad that you find it unusual that American would be defending the principles laid out in the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, all of which the U.S. was instrumental in drafting and advocating and is a signatory to.

    soccerdad Yeah Billy Graham is really a hatemonger.. sure... When did the truth become hate? So how would you like to explain the great civil rights that Saudi Arabia practices? Or Iran and their numerous civil rights violations or any other Islamic country on the map. You have got some off the wall ideas built upon a wet cardboard foundation.

    Ian - All men that are US citizens, only. The reason is simple. As a citizen you have certain rights, and responsibilities, thus you are expected to do certian things and act certain ways. So, if you are not a citizen, and do not have the responsibilities, then you do not have the rights of a US citizen. Now all men are created equal, and all men are endowed, and all men can pursue happiness, either in their own country, or they can become a US citizen.

    No Jim, your interpretation is incorrect. Do you not understand the word "unalienable"? Surely you do. It means that these rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are inherent in the very fact of being human. They are given by God (insert your own preferred deity here) and neither you nor anyone else can either take them away or deny them to another human. You can't possibly tell me that the people who wrote the Declaration intended it to mean only US citizens for the simple fact that at the time of writing there was no such thing as a US citizen. And furthermore, are you going to sit there are tell me that the only people who have basic human rights are US Citizens? Do you really believe this? REALLY?

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 04:38:18 PM EST
    Why is it that I cannot recall widespread abuse and torture in the first gulf war or the serbian conflict? Comes from the top I guess.

    mfox - You always seem to be concerned about why I am here. Perhaps it is to point out the errors in youer logic. Perhaps it is because I want to. Either way, I comment, therefore, I am here. Your comment regarding Rumsfeld, and his out of contect statement, is very typical, and demonstrates an appalling lack of factual information. Tim Russert tried it on TV last sunday, and Rumsfeld made him look like an idiot by reading the whole statement. You have joined Russert.

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#59)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 05:21:48 PM EST
    Burgerbrain - I am not surprised at your reaction. Just another dumba@@ neocon. What about the US torturing people, denying them rights, starting a war based on lies. Thats all ok by you ain't it?

    Ian - No one is taking their rights away. They have them. But what they don't have is a right to be a citizen of the US, and subject to its laws and benefits. Is it your position that everyone has the right to be a US citizen? And the writers were doing so with the presumption that we would be a country.

    For Starters, there is no "22nd Infantry Battalion" in the US Military. There are a couple of 90+ year old veterans from the 22nd Inf Bn that served in WWI, but the unit was disbanded in 1919. If those old coots were beating up on anyone, be impressed they still have the energy!

    Sherman, lean close and let me whisper in your ear. "Innocent until proven guilty, Sheman." It works for all of us. It is kind of a bed rock in our justice system. Oh God. The irony of PPJ defending the torture of detainees with the claim that everyone ought to be considered "innocent until proven guilty". I'm not sure I can bear it. Is PPJ real?

    J Man. As real as real can be, and as you folks keep telling me, due process must always be given, no matter how bad the crime... Are you saying it applies to terrorist suspects but not to US military members? Why am I not surprised? DA - Then what are you demanding? Please be specific since you have now taken up speaking for "those of us." Everyone has the same human rights. But they do not have the same legal rights. For example, everyone does not have the legal right to be an US citizen. et al - Someone. Please describe to me what we should do with a person we have captured, say in Iraq, who we know is a terrorists.

    Jim - "et al - Someone. Please describe to me what we should do with a person we have captured, say in Iraq, who we know is a terrorists." First question: How do you "know" he is a terrorist if you haven't put him through the legal process of accusation, trial and verdict? If he is found guilty by a jury of his peers, having received proper legal representation (not a sentence from a military court, held in camera with no impartial advocate) THEN you may call hima terrorist, and then he should be punished appropriately. Second question: Why does it matter that he's in Iraq? If America is the occupying force, it seems to me that they should apply the same procedures and protections to the person they've arrested as they would at home. Do you agree? Or do Iraqis have the same reduced rights that non-Roman citizens had in their empire?

    Ian - Sounds good. BTW - I have about three or four thousand like him. I guess I just hold him until I get him through the process? Now, can we agree on punishment? How about hanging? "it seems to me" ??? What level of jurisprudence do you represent? But if you want to rely on past actions, the last time we captured someone in the process of committing terrorist acts against the US, we hung 6 out of 8 of them, used a military tribunal to do it, and did it all in around 8 weeks. Works for me, except I would like 8 of 8.

    DA - I made my point. Why don't you tell me? Seems like you are wanting to get off on a tangent. Gald to see you want to lock him up. How about bail? All charged people have reduced rights. They are defined in our CJ system. As for your Roman question, why can't you understand? Everyone has human rights. Everyone doesn't have the right to be a US citizen.

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#69)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:28:50 AM EST
    To PPJ torture = due process.

    PPJ: Why don't you take a break, or is your retirement in your palatial retirement home not so enjoyable? Go get some exercise. Clear your head. Think about why you and those you defend seem to have no concept of shame.

    Maybe PPJ's "palatial" retirement home is actually an institution.

    Sherman, lean close and let me whisper in your ear. "Innocent until proven guilty, Sheman." It works for all of us. It is kind of a bed rock in our justice system. Funny you're not even to consider extending this courtesy to the detainees. Apparently in your world, being in our custody is proof of guilt.

    Unfortunately all of us are paying WAY too much attention to PPJ, Burger Boy and all the other closeted fascists whom don't seem to have enough guts to let themselves be identified as the Brown Shirts they obviously are in life. What we are all agreed upon, those of us with an ounce of humanity left, is that torture is not just lowering yourself to the level of the enemy(and is always a sure fire bet to fail) but also does nothing to improve the relevance and validity of the "intelligence" gained by it. What needs to happen now is a concetrated effort on the part of the folks here and on other sites like it to make sure our elected and un-elected officials are reminded that they are OUR employees and must do what WE tell them to do; so go out and start getting folks who are likeminded to organize and turn up the heat on the junta that is now in power. The Geneva Convention needs to be reinforced vehemently and not regarded as "quaint" or obsolete. On a personal level, Bureger Boy, what the hell does the terribly snide comment about "I am sure you speak for your father and brother..." mean anyway, you putz. Come on, say what you really mean, don't pussy foot around, because it might surprise you to know that I DO speak for them since they are a couple of the few people I have known since birth. Both of them ended up becoming ANTI war activists, my father protested the Vietnam conflict and would have been sick to his stomach by the blatant over use of power that seems to be the only foreign policy the Repuglicans can understand. My brother is still a Repug, and this always makes for exciting discussions during holiday times, but is a REAL conservative who is AGAINST nation building and interfering in other countries business. Imagine that, a father who leaned to the left and a sibling who leans to the right and both understood that it takes ALL kinds to make this country work, not a bunch of Sheeple like you and your fascist brethren who love to take up space here.

    This guy, if his arms weren't dislocated, would do everthing is his power with those arms to kill you, your family, your friends and your contrymen. War is never pretty. But I, for one, don't care what lengths we have to go to to win. This is a non-story.

    mb wrote: But I, for one, don't care what lengths we have to go to to win. I think you and Osama share this dedication to your cause. Could be we have a problem with the fundamentalists who don't care what lengths we have to go to for a win.

    Yeah, right CA. Those nasty Billy Grahm types going around cutting off heads. Just like Osama.

    PPJ: As real as real can be, and as you folks keep telling me, due process must always be given, no matter how bad the crime... Are you saying it applies to terrorist suspects but not to US military members? Who is denying due process to US soldiers, PPJ? If anyone is, you should complain loudly to the Pentagon, who will doubtless be very concerned. Where do you claim this happened? In what jurisdiction? And what does this have to do with a prisoner being tortured by US soldiers?

    Sherman - You must be a complete idiot if you haven't read and understood my comments that torture is immoral and illegal. For startes you can read this thread. I specifically call your attention to my 2/19 at 8:13AM comment. You know, you have a potty mouth and act as if you speak for others. Frankly, I doubt your various claims, instead I see them as a way to launch an attack and try to get the other party off balance. Won't work with me. And as for the GC and ICAT, I have commented several times that both need to be updated. So try and educate yourself about the positions that I have taken before you start dribbling nonsense off your chin. It might even help you get taken seriously. But at least, this time, you haven't managed to mix up threads. That's progress.

    DA - So, he isn't covered by the GC, but we should act like he is covered. Right? I think you just made my point. Thanks

    DA - Despite your wish that it did, it does not. Read the GC and you will discover that it does not. Are you okay? Normally your are a little swifter.

    Re: Documents Describe Torture at Bagram in Afghan (none / 0) (#84)
    by Patrick on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:56:49 PM EST
    Those opposed to the U.S.A. Don't click here.

    Patrick, that was a nice collage of photos of the troops. Being anti-war is not being anti-soldier or anti-USA. In fact, we consider ourselves quite patriotic, just as we consider our soldiers patriotic and appreciate their sacrifice. It doesn't stop us from viewing the photos and thinking, Bring them home.

    PPJ: DA - Despite your wish that it did, it does not. Read the GC and you will discover that it does not. Heh. But you have obviously never read the Geneva Convention, or you would see for yourself that it does cover all detainees - until (Section 5) - a competent tribunal proves that a detainee is not covered the the Geneva Convention. As Bush & Co have never sought to prove by means of competent tribunals that any detainee in US power is not covered the the Geneva Convention, it follows that all the detainees held by the US are entitled to the full protection of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. And you know this, Jim, because I've literally lost count of the number of times I've had to point it out to you - yet you keep right on ignoring what the Geneva Convention says, and repeating instead what Bush & Co have told you it says. Go check the facts sometime, please.

    This is why certain people voted for Bush They want a president who will do anything to anyone who presents a threat. even if the threat based is on a stereotype and no facts. It takes the height of hypocrisy for Bushco to criticize Syria for having troops in a foreign country This is the behavior people elected Bush to do. They have created a hate based policy against all muslims and the result is the ability to make non persons out of citizens.

    I'm amazed at the hypocrisy of some people. All this indignation from the left about the treatment of the enemy...where was all that indignation when our Americans were being tortured in Hanoi? The left was glorifying the North Vietnamese. Where was the left's indignation when our soldiers were dragged through Mogadishu? Spent on attacking US policy and pushing a withdrawl -- which fed Bin Laden's twisted perceptions far more than most realize. Where was the left's indignation when Al Jazeera showed bodies of Americans that had been captured and executed by Iraqis? Where was the left's indignation when Nick Berg's head was being sawn off? Spent screaming about photos of naked pyramids. As far as I'm concerned, there's a credibility issue here. That hypocrisy extends to other arenas -- like people saying they're pro-soldier while they feed enemy resolve and inhibit US commitment.