From Knight-Ridder:
“It was standard operating procedure for the Army to hold some detainees in secret in Afghanistan for up to several months without reporting them to the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to military officers familiar with the policy.
A similar practice was later used at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, where the physical and sexual abuse of detainees prompted the Department of Defense to launch several sweeping investigations of its detention policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. (…)
The policy was described to Knight Ridder in varying levels of detail by three military officers who all spoke on the condition of anonymity. A former interrogator also described the policy in a recently published book.
According to their accounts, the policy was developed following the rout of the Taliban and after coalition forces installed their headquarters at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to fight the remnants of the Taliban and to pursue Osama bin Laden. The policy was written in June 2002.
Six months later, two detainees were killed at Bagram. Neither of the detainees appeared to have been given a serial number, making it impossible for the International Committee of the Red Cross to know they existed and request an interview with them.
One died after he was hung by his arms from the ceiling for days. Another was beaten and died of associated injuries. The Army said it’s preparing to identify a group of military intelligence officers and military police officers responsible for the abuse.
Members of the same military intelligence unit that are implicated in the deaths and abuse at Bagram were later involved in abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, according to a report first published by Knight Ridder and subsequently confirmed by two major investigations by the Army and the Department of Defense.”
But wait, there’s more:
“The highly-publicized inhumane treatment of prisoners by U.S. forces is but an extreme example of common U.S. military practices that serve to alienate much of the population. Some of these less well-publicized activities are perhaps more alarming, because they are condoned by the chain of command. These include “test firing” weapons from moving vehicles in urban areas, shooting at Iraqi vehicles on major highways, destroying walls that have anti-American graffiti painted on them, collectively detaining all males in a given area or village for up to several weeks or months, and detaining preadolescent family members of suspects in an effort to force suspects to turn themselves in.
American forces have even left notes stating that the suspect must turn himself in to gain the release of his family members. An American field grade officer responsible for a recent operation of this nature told me that this was an extremely effective practice. However, they have undermined America’s most powerful weapon in Iraq: public perceptions of legitimacy and honor.” (Emphasis added.)
Detaining all males in a given area? Detaining the children of suspects? Detaining any children at all? Keeping prisoners secret from the Red Cross, as a matter of policy? This is abhorrent. Not only that, it’s in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. Article 33: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” Article 34: “The taking of hostages is prohibited.” Article 143: “Representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall have permission to go to all places where protected persons are, particularly to places of internment, detention and work.
They shall have access to all premises occupied by protected persons and shall be able to interview the latter without witnesses, personally or through an interpreter.
Such visits may not be prohibited except for reasons of imperative military necessity, and then only as an exceptional and temporary measure. Their duration and frequency shall not be restricted.
Such representatives and delegates shall have full liberty to select the places they wish to visit. The Detaining or Occupying Power, the Protecting Power and when occasion arises the Power of origin of the persons to be visited, may agree that compatriots of the internees shall be permitted to participate in the visits.
The delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross shall also enjoy the above prerogatives.”
Now, Alberto Gonzales, the Bush administration’s White House counsel, has argued that the nature of the War on Terror “renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.” However, the Geneva Conventions are not optional limits that we voluntarily adhere to because we think they are the legal equivalent of today’s hip new fashion accessories. They are a treaty we have entered into, and which is therefore binding on us, and has the force of law. You and I do not get to decide that the laws governing, say, software piracy have been rendered “quaint” or “obsolete” by the internet, and that therefore we are not obliged to obey them. If we tried to argue this way before a judge, s/he would probably just burst out laughing and then sentence us. Likewise, if our government concludes that the Geneva Conventions are quaint and obsolete, the proper response is to announce our withdrawal from them, not to conclude that we can violate them at will, as we seem to have done.
More righteous anger, please.
If Katherine were still alive, she’d go insane with divine rage.
Expect the robots to keep telling us “its only a few bad apples.”
Getting a lot of bad apples in a lot of different places. Sounds like a bad apple tree.
From the same article:
“The ICRC challenged the use of Article 143 in the case of a Syrian detainee who had been interrogated for more than four months.
Viewed as a “special project,” the detainee, who was a suspected member of al-Qaida, was kept in a totally dark cell about 2 meters long and 1 meter wide and without a window, latrine, water tap or bedding. A picture of “Gollum,” the character from the “Lord of the Rings” film trilogy, was posted on the door of his cell.
Fay-Jones investigators later uncovered a photograph showing the Syrian detainee kneeling on the floor, with his hands bound behind his back, being confronted by a black military dog.”
Why is it the idiotic details like the poster of Gollum that bring this home?
Just to throw off pursuit from the Malkin thread, I absolutely reject the idea that torture is an acceptable practice. Just because certain of our adversaries don’t adhere to the Geneva Conventions doesn’t mean we ought to be able to throw the whole thing on the scrap-heap when dealing with them. And certainly there’s something to be said for that we can’t simply pick and choose what portions of the conventions we adhere to.
There may be points to be made about the Conventions being out of date, but I’m of the opinion that as far as torture goes…we shouldn’t go there.
“I absolutely reject the idea that torture is an acceptable practice. Just because certain of our adversaries don’t adhere to the Geneva Conventions doesn’t mean we ought to be able to throw the whole thing on the scrap-heap when dealing with them. And certainly there’s something to be said for that we can’t simply pick and choose what portions of the conventions we adhere to.”
This is 3 different issues at once.
1. In point of fact, according to the Geneva Conventions, the Convention protections do not apply to combatants who don’t adhere to them. That is part of how the Geneva Conventions on combatants works.
2. Not everything against the Conventional protections is torture. But the US is barred from torture by other treaties. Torture is unacceptable.
3. The Geneva Conventions on non-combatants certainly applies to civilian children and any other non-combatant. That would disallow things like detaining all the males (unless they were all combatants) or ransoming children for their parents.
I’m not a lawyer, and I ask this question in all seriousness: If, as the Constitution says, ratified treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, and if the executive branch then violates those treaties, what mechanism is there, if any, to remedy the problem and/or prevent future violations?
Lex: I think that the remedies would start with, say, Congress withholding appropriations (or something else the executive wants) until the parties responsible resign (or whatever the legislative deems to be appropriate assurance that this will not happen again — obviously, passing a law won’t work), and end with impeachment.
I’d settle for subpoenas.
The only nice thing to learn in that article: Jack Reed was an Army Ranger. Who knew?
Donald Rumsfeld should stand trial in the Hague for war crimes.
Hilzoy argued that the manner in which the US has conducted the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan justify expelling Bush from the White House. I don’t think she goes far enough.
This K-R story, Sebastian, is my response to your comments in the Afghanistan thread. How could that invasion been done differently? Don’t murder persons in custody. Our press may not cover these stories very well, but I suspect that the Afghanis know full well that men can go into US custody, and not come back. And those who do get back to their families must have some lovely stories to tell at the dinner table.
I don’t have the time today to look up the UCMJ, but I suspect that a lot of the conduct mentioned in the K-R piece is criminal even if it falls outside the Geneva conventions. Who’s going to take the fall? Who’s the next Lt. Calley? Or will Congress finally start exercising some oversight power and call the power-mad lunatics to order? not if gwb wins.
a few days ago, I disagreed with Blue and argued that Bush does want, in fact, a police state. the expression “police state” is such a loaded term that it is probably not possible to have a coherent discussion using it. Godwin’s Law and all that.
A better statement is that the Bush admin is contemptuous of the rule of law, and that this contempt is a danger step towards a uniquely american kind of totalitarianism. dissent suppressed? no, dissent ignored and ridiculed.
the k-r story is more evidence of the steps the admin is taking down the slipperly slope. and we do not need to hit bottom for the bush admin’s conduct to have immense adverse impact on america. as we are finding out in Fallouja again today, there are profound consequences when the rest of the world finds out the difference between what america says, and what america does.
Francis
It becomes less and less of a mystery as to why the Administration opposed the International Criminal Court.
bold be gone damn you
Sebastian: you raise an interesting question that I have actually been wondering about for a while. As best I can tell, Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda, however, is not. That’s not surprising, however, since the parties are states. Why, then, if we invade Afghanistan, do we get to say that our prisoners are not subject to the Geneva Conventions, especially if they were fighting with Taliban units? I mean, surely membership in an organization that is (like any non-state organization) not a party to them isn’t enough to disqualify a person — or if it is, I’m going to have to give up my membership in the Baltimore Bird Club.
did that work?
“As best I can tell, Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda, however, is not. That’s not surprising, however, since the parties are states. Why, then, if we invade Afghanistan, do we get to say that our prisoners are not subject to the Geneva Conventions, especially if they were fighting with Taliban units? I mean, surely membership in an organization that is (like any non-state organization) not a party to them isn’t enough to disqualify a person — or if it is, I’m going to have to give up my membership in the Baltimore Bird Club.”
Nope it is actions like not attacking in uniform that makes you a non-protected combatant. It is not fighting within an established chain-of-command that makes you non-protected. Both rules are meant to protect civilians and are very important. The first allows us to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, the second allows for orderly surrenders which facilitate cessation of hostilites.
Do we have any basis for believing that there was any attempt made to distinguish between Al Qaeda fighters and Taliban troops? Everything I have read suggests there was not.
Also, I definitely remember reading that some parts of the Geneva convention apply even to illegal combatants and other non-signatories.
Regardless of the legality, I can’t think of any legitimate reason to hide prisoners from the International Red Cross. We knew, before this started, what usually happens to people who are disappeared. And now we know it has happened at the MDC Brooklyn, Abu Ghraib, other locations in Iraq, quite possibly Guantanamo, and now Afghanistan, and God knows where else.
Donald Rumsfeld should stand trial in the Hague for war crimes.
Even if the US signed the treaty that would not be a logical first step. The ICC is for people that will not be prosecuted in their own country. If you feel that he should face trial, he should face it in the US, unless you fear that the US does not have a proper judicial system.
“The treaty gives the ICC jurisdiction that is complementary to national jurisdictions. This ‘principle of complementarity’, as it is known, gives states the primary responsibility and duty to prosecute the most serious international crimes, while allowing the ICC to step in only as a last resort if the states fail to implement their duty — that is, only if investigations and, if appropriate, prosecutions are not carried out in good faith. Bona fide efforts to discover the truth and to hold accountable those responsible for any acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes will bar the ICC from proceeding.”
Peripherally related, but I saw an article about a week ago — I can dig it up if necessary — relating the fact that military commanders in Iraq noted that, since they had decided to stop torturing, murdering and otherwise abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, they were receiving more useful tips and high-level information both from detainees and other Iraqis. Gee, no kidding?
The outrageous thing about the ICC is not our failure to ratify the treaty. It is that we have promised not to extradite war criminals from some of the very worst human rights abusers on earth to the Hague, if they will agree not to extradite Americans.
I bet you anything the Republicans in Congress still will not launch a serious investigation of these allegations, either. Anyone who tells themselves that if Bush is re-elected it will be Nixon part II is kidding themselves. Watergate would never have come out if Nixon had a Republican Congress like this one–and Woodwards (as he was in the 1970s) and Bernsteins are also in short supply.
Anyone familiar with the culture at Knight-Ridder? They seem to be the only ones doing any serious investigative journalism anymore, besides Sy Hersh.
Mad AZ: I know. If you had told me a decade or so ago that the only three papers (actually, newspaper web sites) I would read each and every day would be the NYT, the Washington Post, and Knight-Ridder, I would have thought that either you had gone mad or I was about to.
“Do we have any basis for believing that there was any attempt made to distinguish between Al Qaeda fighters and Taliban troops? Everything I have read suggests there was not.”
Everything I read suggests that for the most part the Taliban wasn’t fighting in uniform and was thus fighting as unlawful combatants.
“Also, I definitely remember reading that some parts of the Geneva convention apply even to illegal combatants and other non-signatories.”
I strongly suspect that you are thinking of the Geneva Conventions on non-combatants. If I am correct, signatory states are to apply them to non-combatants even if the country invaded is not a signatory state. But that has nothing to do with Taliban fighters. (Lots to do with holding children prisoner against their families, which one of the reasons I condemn such acts.)
The tangent into the Geneva Conventions is interesting (and it’s always fun to remember that the American Revolutionaries rather laughed at the idea of fighting in uniform), it should probably be reiterated that the relevant document is the UN Convention Against Torture, which the US is a signatory to and which contains no stipulation for the combatant status of the tortured.
If you had told me a decade or so ago that the only three papers (actually, newspaper web sites) I would read each and every day would be the NYT, the Washington Post, and Knight-Ridder, I would have thought that either you had gone mad or I was about to.
I would have thought: isn’t that the TV show with the talking car?
In all seriousness, this is why K-R is tha shizznit.
praktile–Very much alive. Recently returned from Ireland. (Beautiful, beautiful place.)
Not allowed to read about politics on account of it gives me wrinkles.
Kidding about that but it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea. Currently starting academic paper on “extraordinary rendition”. Have located the names of 16 people who have been “rendered” so far, as well as lovely quotations like this one:
“Better intelligence has come from a senior Al Qaeda detainee who had been held in the U.S. base at Guantanamo, Cuba, and was ‘rendered to Egypt after refusing to cooperate. They promptly tore his fingernails out and he started to tell things.’” —Newsday, 2/6/03, quoting former intelligence official Vincent Cannistrato
and this one:
“because the [Convention Against Torture] has no enforcement mechanism, as a practical matter ‘you’re only limited by your imagaination.’
Wall Street Journal, 3/4/03, quoting anonymous intelligence official.)
So I am angry about this article but no longer surprised–and if hilzoy is slightly less angry than me she’s even more righteous. Glad to have left the place in good hands. With that, I return to my crazy-making Nexis searches and sane-making Daily Show. Also, go Red Sox and J-E-T-S.
Yo Katherine!
I don’t think that I’m less angry, really; it’s just that, being older, I had to find a way to sublimate it into something else a while ago, or else my head would have exploded and my heart would have withered away and vanished in a puff of smoke, leaving a horrible void behind. Plus, I got to practice on Reagan and Bush, who were not nearly as annoying. Which I never thought I’d say after Iran/Contra, but there we are.
Thanks, Katherine. You’re doing God’s work.
Nah, God would never vote for me. I’m just trying to free poor fafnir.
francis, your comments are spot on. if you post anywhere else besides ObWi, i’d love to know.
wilfred: nope, just here. Along with Crooked Timber it’s the only place I can stand the comment threads. Drum’s used to be interesting but has been taken over by trolls from the left and the right. Atrios’s threads are just an embarrassment. I got banned at Tacitus for . . . i’m not really sure. Yglesias just recently gave up.
Francis
Katherine, s’okay – the Fafblog Two broke out of Gitmo a little earlier.
Drum’s used to be interesting but has been taken over by trolls from the left and the right.
It’s amazing how much time I’ve saved since I learned to rapidly scroll through the 200+ long comment threads for the five or six posters who’re worth the effort. Not really a skill I recommend acquiring but if you’re there, well, there ya go.
More on this story:
Reactions from Republicans (not that I don’t think the democrats’ reactions are interesting too, but to avoid any suspicion that the reactions I’m posting are partisan):
“Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said, “The situation with C.I.A. and ghost soldiers is beginning to look like a bad movie.””
And:” “We had a gigantic failure of leadership – one that a year ago, I would have said was impossible to have in the United States Army,” said Representative John Kline, Republican of Minnesota, who is a retired Marine colonel.”
On the other hand: “For the most part, Republicans, including Representative Duncan Hunter of California, the panel chairman, sought to minimize the significance of the abuses, saying they reflected misconduct by a tiny minority of American soldiers.
By contrast, the Democrats, including Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the panel, said that the Bush administration had been wrong, after the abuses became public in April, to portray them this way.”
I’m waiting for the transcript of this to come up, so that I can check out the comments of Randy Cunningham.
The Senate Armed Services committee has 13 Republicans and 12 Democrats. The Democrats would only need one Republican on the Senate committee to vote with them to subpoena some of the key documents.
There’s been a recent argument among Democrats about whether McCain’s a real maverick, with real integrity, or if he just flirts with us and says the right things only to act like all the others in the end.
As far as I’m concerned, this is the real test. He can be the decisive vote if he so chooses. And this is an issue he has a very personal reason to take seriously.
I don’t expect he’ll read me calling him out, but if anyone here is a constitutent–please, please, please write to him in the strongest terms possible.
affordable homeowners insurance online life insurance quote cheap senior health insurance buying term life insurance policy home owners insurance quote homeowners car insurance insurance life price quote term health insurance broker arizona empire plan health insurance group insurance life quote florida health insurance compare life insurance quote insurance life life quote whole healthy family health insurance renters insurance ny california car insurance law online smoker life insurance blue cross blue shield health insurance humana health insurance quote renters property insurance flood insurance map florida instant health insurance quote affordable health insurance ohio home owners insurance dog cost of flood insurance group health insurance pa employed health indiana insurance self universal life insurance quote family florida health insurance plan sports car insurance missouri health insurance cheapest car insurance whole term life insurance california group health insurance quote auto and renters insurance low cost family health insurance best car insurance company affordable health insurance quote for individual florida health individual insurance plan