home

Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct

Human Rights Watch sent this letter out to Senators Monday (I received a copy by e-mail and don't have a link.)

June 20, 2005

Dear Senator:

Critics of the Bush administration's detention policies, including Senator Richard Durbin, have recently stirred controversy by comparing interrogation techniques used in Guantanamo and Iraq to those used in the Soviet penal system known as the "gulag."

Clearly, there are profound and fundamental differences between the global detention system the United States has established in places such as Guantanamo Bay, and the prison camps of Stalin's Soviet Union. .....

Nonetheless, in his floor statement of June 14th, Senator Durbin was absolutely right in two important respects.

First, the interrogation practices he cited, which were allegedly witnessed by FBI agents in Guantanamo, are consistent with practices that were approved by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and U.S. military commanders. For example, the agent who recounted seeing detainees "chained hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor, with no chair, food or water," who had "urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18-24 hours" was describing, in vivid terms, what the Defense Department refers to as a "stress position" -- a technique that was approved for a time by Secretary Rumsfeld for Guantanamo as well as by commanders in Iraq. The agent who stated that he saw detainees held in rooms so frigid that they were "left shaking in cold" and the agent who saw a detainee "almost unconscious in a room with a temperature probably over 100 degrees" next to a pile of his own hair were both describing a technique known as "environmental manipulation" -- using extremes of hot and cold to induce suffering and stress -- that was at various points approved in both Guantanamo and Iraq.

Second, as disturbing as it may seem, these and other interrogation methods approved by the Bush administration were among the favored methods of the Soviet secret police at the height of Stalin's terror. Techniques such as "stress positions" (which include forcing prisoners to stand or squat for extended periods of time, or binding them in painful, contorted postures), sleep deprivation, exposure to heat and cold, long periods of isolation, often with deprivation of light and sound, removal of clothing, and threatening prisoners with dogs (all of which were approved by U.S. officials in the last three years) were developed and perfected by the Soviet NKVD -- the predecessor of the KGB --during that terrible time. The Soviets employed these methods, often in combination, to cause fear, disorientation, humiliation, and physical pain, without leaving physical scars. In fact, these were among the most notorious techniques used to coerce confessions from the victims of Stalin’s show trials in the 1930’s. Knowledge of these methods undoubtedly passed to modern interrogators from their predecessors, who may well have learned of them from the documented record of the Soviet police state.

Stalin used these techniques because they were effective, not in getting the truth out of prisoners, but in making them lie -- to confess to crimes they did not commit so that their spirits would be broken along with their bodies. Such cruel methods obviously have no place in a democratic society that upholds the law. Just as important, they should be of no use to a society that needs accurate intelligence from detainees, rather than forced and false confessions. Congress should require a clear set of interrogation rules that forbid all US government agencies from engaging in such conduct.

Sincerely,
Tom Malinowski
Washington Advocacy Director
Human Rights Watch

< Interview With National Journal's Blogometer | Trial Starts for RNC Protester in New York >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#1)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    Rather than discuss the substance of what Human Rights is saying, I imagine that my friends on the right will be attacking them for what they did not say. They are not saying that the guards at Guantanamo are like Stalin's secret police. However, when we allow them to use some of the same interrogation techniques we begin to lessen the difference between us and them.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#2)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    Dear Tom: You write,
    Stalin used these techniques because they were effective, not in getting the truth out of prisoners, but in making them lie -- to confess to crimes they did not commit so that their spirits would be broken along with their bodies.
    So, we are now making the prisioners lie? Tom, did you ever wonder what happened to those "innocent" prisoners we released? Try this link. In it you will find such tidbits as:
    One of the more notable cases involved Mohammed Ismail (search), one of two teens held at Gitmo until he was let go last year. He was recaptured four months later fighting American troops in Afghanistan. The memo notes that at the time of his capture Ismail was carrying a letter "confirming his status as a Taliban member in good standing." "One of the most publicized cases, Mr. Ismail, was released to great fanfare at Guantanamo," Hunter said. Ismail "did a press conference at which he thanked the United States for educating him, because we teach them to read and write at Guantanamo."
    Tom, in the Vietnam era it was easy to make claims, and get the MSM to distribute them for you. Still is. But now we also have the cable news, and the Internet. Kinda balances things, eh?

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    My grandmother used to call that "po mouthing." Like Durban's non-apology, this non-gulag gulag comparison just lacks the strength of its conviction. Say what you like about Amnesty International (and I have) but at least they were out front with their disdain for America. Or, if you like, American behavior. Say what you like about Durban The Turban, at least you know where you stand with him. (Downwind by my preference!) -C

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    PPJ: Your ignorance and audacity inspire me. 3 of the released are allegedly killed as a result of post release terrorist activities. So tell me how that proves they were not bitter from the experience once getting home and feeling safe? As far as Ismail learning to write and praising the US, MOST captives who FEAR recapture will only say nice things about their captors publicly out of fear. Really Jim, can you please take your analogies beyond the 6th grade and read a tad bit of history or psychology or is reading big words too tough for you>?

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    Oh! Well, shut my mouth! FOX News says "blah-blah-blah", and Duncan Hunter says "blah-blah-blah". Oh, and don't forget to add a little Rice to that recipe, as in "blah-blah-blah". I feel very enlightened now. Can someone explain why only 5 of the 38 have been released thus far? It has been almost a year since they were found to "no longer meet the criteria for that status", i.e. "enemy combatant". Jlvngstn-6th grade? You're too nice today.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    I actually like the letter. If Richard Durbin had said something similar to this on the floor of the Senate, it would have changed the direction of the debate. That doesn’t mean I agree with the contents of the letter. I certainly disagree with the “conventional wisdom” that use of these techniques, can only produce lies. It doesn’t surprise me that the Soviets use of these techniques produced lies, that was the Soviets GOAL. In fact, I would guess that the Soviet prisoners told the truth, before they told their lies. If true, that means it is the continued use of these techniques that produced the lies. Therefore, one of the things we should be debating is the effectiveness of these techniques. We should also debate whether these techniques are justified. To be blunt, how much “torture” is justified to save one life. Sadly, Richard Durbin has harmed the debate. Hopefully, people like Mr. Malinowski, can get it back on track.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    Stockholm Syndrome is a mental and emotional coping mechanism that seems to be inherent in the human psyche. It is a way of forgetting, or dissociating from, one's own pain and feelings of terror, anger, and helplessness by focusing on the face, voice, odor, mannerisms, etc. of the abuser or captor. Stockholm Syndrome is subconsciously used by many victims to deal with dangerous individuals by mimicking them unconsciously, thereby enlisting their protection and kindness. By expressing sympathy towards the aggressor, the victim can sometimes avoid harm or death at the aggressor's hands. Psych 101.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#8)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    Cliff! Welcome back! Durbin the Turban? I like it. JL writes:
    PPJ: Your ignorance and audacity inspire me
    And your ability to make excuses for these people is astounding. Soldier - Durbin would never have said that. It is too close to a real apology. cheetah - Now let me see, we have a report that provides proof that some of these folks attack again, and you fluff it? That's even more astounding. You did read the link, didn't you?
    Citing a memo prepared for him by his staff, Hunter proceeded to discuss some of the at least 10 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo, only to re-join the fight against the U.S. coalition bringing democracy to Afghanistan.
    You know, if you believe that some of these people are innocent, hey that's possible. But when you still believe they are innocent after they attack us for the second time... That's just plain ignorant.
    According to the memo sent to Hunter by his staff, 558 detainees have been through Combatant Status Review Tribunals set up last July. Of those, 520 have been confirmed as "enemy combatants" while 38 have been found to no longer meet the criteria for that status. Five of the 38 have so far been sent to their homelands while the State Department is making arrangements for the others.


    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    PPJ- "if you believe that some of these people are innocent". Of course I read your link. Where do you think I got the information? Stop misquoting people, as I didn't use the word "innocent" in that post. The info I cited came from your link. Maybe you are the one who didn't read it. The determination that was made on the status of these 38 detainees was not made by me, but, as it says in the link YOU PROVIDED, that determination was made by the Combat Status Review Tribunals. Maybe you need that "shower" now.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    You even provide that information in your above post. Troubling.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    PPJ: Your inability to utilize resources beyond those of the republican talking points memos is always prevalent and evident. When challenged with something as simple as the stockholm syndrome you consistently fail to refute validity and fail to cite analogies that are congruent with the argument at hand. If I were detained by Iran for 2.5 years, you bet your ass I would join a resistance movement, but that may also be over your head. "Proof that they attacked again" You have evidence you want to share with the class of the "first attack" by those killed? Of course you do not. The difference between most people here and you Jim, is that most people here readily acknowledge that they do not know if the people had terrorist ties and committed terrorist acts prior to their detention. Maybe they were terrorists prior to detention, maybe the anger and rage at being tortured made them feel like a little payback. Kind of like most of the right leaning folks on this website, they cannot wait to see justice mitigated in the form of the death penalty for those accused of murder. You have no special knowledge regarding their activities prior to being detained and have offer no proof to your "special knowledge". If a man is incarcerated for rape and subsequently released as a result of DNA evidence clearing him and he rapes someone upon release from prison, does that prove he raped the first time irrespective of the dna evidence? The arguments with which your accusations and conclusions are meted out with are so basic it is an insult to those who wish to debate these issues with any sincerity.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    Jl, Sorry, but I am having trouble following your reasoning. I though the Stockholm Syndrome caused the captives to identify with their captors and even defend their captors after they have been released and are no longer in danger. Where am I going wrong?

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    Soldier, see Jims comment about how happy the boy was that he got to learn english.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    Note that the ss analogy is strictly limited to that argument and the other arguments stand to reason for the following: Crimes committed post release do not reflect innocence or guilt prior to detention. Those detained and released and subsequently killed in actions against US soldiers may have been operating out of anger and repulsion over treatment in said US facilities.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    Jlvngstn- Excellent points. I would love to be allowed to debate these issues with sincerity, as well, and without these off-point smokescreens that people like PPJ use to steer the discussions off course. This debate needs to focus on the principle of innocence until proof of guilt, one that some people seem unable to grasp, and the questions surrounding the status of these detainees, as well as the matter of their treatment while in our custody. Simply calling these people terrorists, while sitting behind a keyboard somewhere, doesn't even meet the smell test.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    cheetah, You argument is sound and I appreciate a real discorse. I will try and add to that. IMO, and the presidents, these captives do not technically deserve the right to proove their guilt or innocence. They are enemy combantants, not solidiers, not criminals. They technically can be held until the end of hostilities (a debatable point) and do not need to be held as soldiers would according to the Geneva Convention. But we are anyway and IMO other then some extreme cases they aren't being tortured. In fact other then Abhu Grahib I would estimate that none have been "tortured" in Gitmo. Interrogated? Yes. Kept up late? yes. Hade women act sexually in front of them? yes. Accidentaly peed on the Koran? yes. But not torture. Lets reserve Torture for when it happens. Some idiots @ Abu Ghrahib and Saddam. Not Gitmo. So that being said what should we do with them. My opinion, put them in front of a military court and determine if they should be held, sent to criminal court, or released. Do this on a periodic basis, give the captives a little more wiggle room but nothing close to the American justice system. But my opinion is just that. International law, our law does not require this. Currently the supreme court has ruled on what Bush and Co. are doing so the system is working. Lets move past the miranda rights, and due process dilly dally because its a waste of time. However I do think for PR reasons bush and co. should establish a clear system for dealing with them and keep Gitmo open.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    I don't know what the status of these detainees, en masse, truly is. Some may be POWs, some may be enemy combatants, and some may be actually innocent. In any case, I don't know, and that's part of the point. I believe this case warrants the light of day, and I will say this again; evaluate each case fairly, try them, then either sentence them, or let them go.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    JL - What are you talking about? I didn't even comment, or for that matter read closely, your "Stockholm" comment, and you attack me? Sir, that's BS. You have become DA. (Comment on me or else!) ;-) But, since I now have time..... Are you telling us that the terroist are now suffering from SS? And you base this on the re-captured illegal combatant's comment that he was happy we taught him how to read? Really? Pardon me while I laugh and laugh and laugh. BTW - Since he was captured with proof he was a Taliban member, his SS case must have been extremely mild. One might even be tempted to say it didn't exist. slado - Some good thoughts. Here is a link that will give you lots of details. cheetah - You don't want to debate because you would have to read the links and respond to things like this:
    According to the memo sent to Hunter by his staff, 558 detainees have been through Combatant Status Review Tribunals set up last July. Of those, 520 have been confirmed as "enemy combatants" while 38 have been found to no longer meet the criteria for that status. Five of the 38 have so far been sent to their homelands while the State Department is making arrangements for the others.
    Now, is the memo a lie? Did the attacks by the released terrorist not happen? cheetah, pay attention to the man behind the screen because this is Kansas, and Dorthy has lost her sense of humor. You need to connect with reality.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    PPJ- Yeah. Whatever. Why don't you give your "spin machine" a rest before it breaks down. I hear the spare parts are hard to come by.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Already read the link, as I already said once. You sound tired.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#21)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    cheetah - Tired? You're the one who can't make an argument beyond talking about spin. The link has definite information in it. If the information is wrong, refute it. Your problem is you can't refute the facts, so we get the old personal snarky comment, but nothing else.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    1:you misquoted me. 2:I asked a question. Go back and read it, answer it if you want to. I don't care. 3:you are rude. Leave me alone.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#23)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    PPJ, Lets understand your position. You are not disputing Human Rights Watch when they said that the Bush administration is using some of the same techniques that were deployed by the secret police in Stalinist Russia. However, where you disagree with Human Rights Watch is over motive. Whereas, Stalin used these techniques to make prisoners lie, you are saying that we are using these abusive techniques to, I guess, make the prisoners tell the truth. So, what you are saying is that if Stalin had changed the purpose for his abuse, then the abuse would have been ok.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Jim, really, was 6th grade all that tough? A person who was released from being detained, no thought of ever seeing his family again, abused and maybe tortured, comes out and thanks his aggressors and you say "See, we are doing a good thing". That is either sheer stupidity or brainwashing, there is no way anyone can refute that. Secondly, were you detained by the Iranians for 2 years and released to a country where you could give some payback, would you? Or would you cower in the corner like a scared little coward? I don't know, maybe I would protest, but why get arrested as an agitator and get sent back to gitmo? No way, if I am going to get arrested again I am going to take a the memory of a few mullahs cut throats with me. So to make an accusation that a subsequent crime post release, is indicative of pre-detention guilt is not only ridiculous and stupid, it goes to evidence of prejudicial presupposition.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    john horse, It sounds like you may be commenting on my post, not PPJ’s. You’re right that I didn’t dispute the technique arguments. Please don’t assume that that means I agree with the comparison. Under Clinton, Federal prisoners were required to take showers. Under Hitler, Jewish prisoners were also required to take showers. Do you agree with the comparison? You can always make inflammatory comparisons and some people will fall for them. It doesn’t make them accurate. But, what I was commenting on, is the claim that there are techniques that will only produce lies, and citing the Soviet gulags as evidence. That’s silly and I explained why. Maybe it’s time to start claiming that the Left is using some of the same disinformation techniques as Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Jl, From your arguments, it sounds like you believe it was a mistake to release any of the prisoners. Is that true?

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    No Soldier, however that is a good argument. If they have built up resentment and are more likely to become terrorists as a result or our detention system, aren't we creating our own problem? Similar to the war in Iraq, which was supposed to reduce terrorism and weaken the foundation of terrorism according to this administration; both have served as fuel for the fire according to the latest CIA analysis relative to Iraq and terror. We should not expect people to forgive our transgressions and violations of human rights, rather we should expect anger and resentment and hostilities. Providing access to legal representation, informing detainees of their trial dates and of course cessation of torture or "stressing" would go a long way in confirming our values and beliefs as to the presumption of innocence at best and fairness despite our certainty of their guilt. At the crux of these arguments rests the forethought of those against the detainment and war in Iraq that this would fuel terror and make us less safe. I believe the CIA report listed yesterday confirms that.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    P.S. I think we should release those that cannot be proven guilty and if we have to suffer consequences by releasing innocents whose anger at being detained is a catalyst for their change, well perhaps a reexamination of policy would be in order. The policy created the problem with those leaving and committing acts of violence, not the other way around.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Jl, I don't think that conditions are stable enough to allow for fair trials. Additionally, since the events of any trial can be criticized, I think we would be opening ourselves up to even more attacks. That's why I think the hearing are enough for now. But, if what you say about the detainees is true, then I am sure there is a lot of pressure for then to join the insurgents when they are released, even if they aren't inclined to. But, a lot of the insurgents get killed. By releasing the detainees, aren't we really sending them to their deaths? In fact, couldn't we avoid the trials completely, by slowly releasing the detainees and then killing them on the battlefield?

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    In 1994 the US Senate ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. US law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts. Our government seems to have misplaced this record of their own ratification, and we may well pay for that. If they had remembered to work within the rule of law, as they want everyone else to, we wouldn't be caught in this trap. Determine their status, try them or let them go based on that status. We, as a nation, are not above the law.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Soldier, I would rather 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent remain detained. The trials would last a year or two years, and while I agree with the instability factor, I still find it unsettling that many have claimed to have been sold into detention. Could be that everyone of them are lying about being sold, but one is too many for me. Their choices when they leave are their choices alone and should not play into their right to a fair trial.

    Re: Human Rights Group: Durbin Was Correct (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    I must correct myself. Ratified the Convention against Torture in 1994.