There is a popular meme making the rounds, which suggests that the abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison was not “torture” or was more akin to fraternity-style hazing. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, who gets his last link from me in this post, presents the case:
I’m really surprised (and increasingly irked) at how widespread the label of “torture” is becoming, to describe what took place at the Abu Ghraib prison. I expect this stuff from places like CounterPunch and Indymedia and buzzflash, but even some people who ought to know better are starting to use the term. As despicable as the acts were that these MPs are accused of, those acts were not torture.
. . . .
Let me say it again, because it apparently needs to be repeated until we’re all sick to death of hearing it—what happened at Abu Ghraib was way over the line, any line, any time. If convicted, the soldiers involved should be disciplined. No one suggests otherwise.
But this is not an example of serious torture. The English language is demeaned and degraded by using such a word inappropriately, in the same way the language is degraded when creeps like Ted Rall call the US Army “indistinguishable from the SS.”
(Emphasis in original.)
Torture is defined as “1a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.” American Heritage Dictionary Online. Let us see if Mr. Johnson is correct, and that “[t]he English language is demeaned and degraded by using [the word ‘torture’]” to describe activities that took place at Abu Ghraib. The Taguba Report includes the following allegations:
Based on the confessions of the soldiers involved or credible documentary evidence (videos, pictures, etc.), U.S. soldiers, military contractors, or other operatives were involved in:
a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
Based on detainee reports that Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba found credible in light of “the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses[,]” U.S. soldiers, military contractors, or other operatives were involved in:
a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
You don’t even have to wonder how Charles Johnson would react if photographs of American soldiers in Iraq, suffering what CJlgf calls “hazing” at the hands of Iraqis, were available all over the Net: with an independent investigation confirming that the photographs were merely the tip of the iceberg.
Normally I click the link and read the post, but I think I just want to stay way away from Little Green Footballs right now.
God knows I have no desire to come to LGF’s defense, but I’ve been obsessing about this topic since someone called me on having admitted that Johnson’s assessment had occurred to me as well.
What I think is driving this misunderstanding (and I do consider what happened torture) is the predominance of the photos in the media over the descriptions of actions that took place.
You catch glimpses of the images in every street corner newspaper machine, through the windows of TV stores, in the countless internet stories you may not have the time to read…but how often do you read the list above? In the photos you see no blood, no open wounds, no bite marks, no physical evidence of beatings etc.
The number of times you see the images (and, remember, the people whose faces you can see—the most memorable part of any image psychologically—are all smiling, not recoiling or gasping or crying—the other bodies are faceless and sometimes indistinguishable from one another—you see no easily discernible emotion in them) far outweighs the number of times you read the list of atrocities Von presents above.
None of which is to excuse the minimizing of the torture…only an attempt to explain why saying it’s not “torture” is perhaps laziness more than an evil willful blindness or downplaying of America’s responsibility here.
There are more photographs. To my mind–at least one of them is worse, in a way. Go to Washington Monthly, or the Post story he links to. Hell, hell, hell.
Josh Marshall quotes Rush using the distilled version of this meme: “This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it …”
Truly disgusting. *Almost* enough to make me wonder which is worse, the torturers or their apologists?
Ed, agreed.
A little off topic, but what I am wondering is… Are our guys in psyops now exploiting this to scare the enemy? Let’s face it, we still have our silk gloves on, and I am not sure if they can ever come off to the extent that will make our enemy fear us.
Yeah, it takes me back to my frat days, when we beat that one uppity pledge to death and packed him in ice.
Katherine,
The image of the prisoner laying on the floor with the dog collar around his neck is the first one I’ve seen where you can see the prisoner’s face.
It makes a much bigger impact for that as well.
By the way, go check out Tacitus, Moe is asking for you there.
“This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it …”
Even if it were true that the actions themselves were the same, there’s a huge difference between voluntarily subjecting yourself to humiliation and having it forced on you. I can understand people being resistant to using the word “torture”, but Rush’s statement is way beyond the pale, just jaw-droppingly stupid.
I’d say the bloke on a box one is torture of a kind at least.
I saw Moe’s tip. It’s a good idea. I’m actually in NYC during the Democratic convention and Boston during the Republican convention. Frustrating. I’m pretty determined to be in NY for the RNC, if I can do it without missing registration for my classes. But the Democratic convention coincides with my wedding anniversary, and the tentative plan is to be on a beach somewhere.
Do you think they’d let me into the RNC if they start credentialing bloggers? Probably not. Also, my head might explode.
The thing that got to me, about the lead photo in the Post, was all the other soldiers walking around casually.
(Warning! This post got a little out of hand, length-wise)
Right on, Von.
This is something that I think needs to get corrected in the media, and quick. Dissembling about whether or not the actions committed in that prison by American servicemen do or do not constitute torture are wholly and completely out of place. It doesn’t take much to see that the acts committed violate article 5 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Now, naturally, the state of that document is certainly questionable as far as how it applies to the United States. However, it is a useful benchmark.
This meme needs to go away. Those events shouldn’t have taken place, that seems to be pretty much universally agreed upon, but that statement seems to be an afterthought in some cases, to the explanations and claims that this behavior isn’t really that bad.
Torture is not okay. Not ever. We’re supposed to be a society that does not condone ‘cruel or unusual’ punishment. Not in times of peace, not in times of war. The arguments that torture is useful are out of place, frankly. Resorting to torture means that we have failed in some other respect. I’m certain that what-if scenarios can be provided that would seem to paint this sort of behavior as plausibly necessary, but I think this is not so.
From the Israeli Supreme Court ruling in which it struck down state-sanctioned torture (thanks to Billmon:
(I understand the hypocrisy evidenced in that statement and the subsequent behavior of the IDF, however I think the meat of the statements is relevant.)
Sorry for the length here. Just felt like this is an important point, that needs to be made.
…the subsequent behavior of the IDF
Here we go.. Such as?
“only an attempt to explain why saying it’s not “torture” is perhaps laziness more than an evil willful blindness”
You are a kind and generous person, Edward, more magnaminous than I am feeling right now.
kenB beat me to the punch.
I say: no excuses. Don’t try to diminish what was done. There are rules for acceptable treatment of prisoners of war, and those rules were violated. End of story.
And don’t hand me a bunch of crapola about them being illegal combatants; those rules are there to prevent abuse, period. And the UCMJ has its own set of rules that apply in case there’s a loophole in the Geneva Conventions. Find the facts, build a case, and convict the perpetrators. It’s. That. Fargan. Simple.
Stan LS,
The Israelis call it “Necessity Defense”.
Info here: http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/press.asp?menu=7&submenu=1&item=143
The IDF may not be the most appropriate ones to refer to, which I am aware, but it is certainly true that Israel does apply techinques that fall under the veil of torture. But like I said, I think the words themselves have merit, even though the court didn’t have the political will to make them stick.
“There are rules for acceptable treatment of prisoners of war, and those rules were violated”
I thought when they first opened Guantanamo, this is wrong, and has potential for abuse. But I let it slide.
When we went into Iraq, I worried about the lack of controls, if we do “x” in Guantanamo, what the heck will we do with prisoners in Iraq? I really didn’t want to think about it.
Katherine has room to talk here, has a little moral high ground. I don’t.
But we can no longer be trusted. Period. From Bush to Ashcroft, from Padilla to Afghanistan, the entire WoT detainee system must be put under international controls, for America no longer has any moral credibility.
You are a kind and generous person, Edward, more magnaminous than I am feeling right now.
Nah…I’m just too dumb to know when to shut up.
I’m stuck in the unenviable position of wanting the reconstruction to go well and quickly, so we can bring home the troops but leave a strong Iraq behind. The soldiers, officers, and intelligence officers responsible for these crimes should be tried and punished (and I’m close to saying Rumsfeld should be fired), but as a nation, we need to remember our obligation to the people of Iraq in the reconstruction.
In other words, we should dwell on this only so much as is needed to correct it, punish the guilty, institute the needed systemic changes, and regain whatever moral authority we can to get the job done as quickly as possible.
It’s a hell of a job, but let’s get moving on it.
Oh, and can we not make this about Israel, please. The US f%^ked up here. We should be front and center. We lead by example, not comparisons and excuses.
…the entire WoT detainee system must be put under international controls…
I disagree so strongly that it’s only through sheer force of will that I refrain from punching a hole in your chest, ripping out your still-beating heart and showing it to you while you die. I think the way for us to regain our moral standing in this matter is…to regain our moral standing. If we give it to the UN, it’s completely out of our control. Picture the UN guards standing idly by while opposing factions of prisoners murder each other.
Just kidding about the ripping-the-heart-out thing. I just thought Frank’s rules of debate were rather amusing.
Are our guys in psyops now exploiting this to scare the enemy?
If attempted, Stan LS, I think such an approach would be counterproductive. One’s natural reaction to humuliation is hate, not fear — as anyone who has been hazed will tell you. (And, as should be clear, I am absolutely not equating hazing with the abuse.)
“There are rules for acceptable treatment of prisoners of war, and those rules were violated”
“And the UCMJ has its own set of rules that apply in case there’s a loophole in the Geneva Conventions.”
Slart, are you honestly saying, that yes , we are violating some of the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions, and will continue to do so,but you can trust us, we know where to draw the line?
After this? Do you really expect Brazil or Sweden to take that at face value?
If you pick and choose which rules and standards you will follow, and then demand secrecy, no, you have no credibility. And the World has the right to speculate and guess at what we might be doing.
And if you don’t like the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross have been screaming for access for years.
“humuliation” = humiliation, of course.
Edward: …the entire WoT detainee system must be put under international controls…
I agree so strongly with you that it’s only with difficulty that I refrain from silently lowering Slarti in a slow dipping device into a pit full of ravenous monkeys until he admits you’re right.
I would love to believe that this is the tipping point at which Bush takes control, fires Rumsfeld, puts someone in charge who’s outraged by US breaches of the Geneva Conventions and has a passion to reform, and the US regains its moral standing in the eyes of the world.
But that’s just a fantasy. (Much like the pit of ravenous monkeys: thanks, Slarti, great site) It isn’t ever going to happen. As others have observed, the administration’s response has been very much what it was to the Plame Affair: pretend it didn’t happen till it actually hits the TV screens, and then express regret without actually taking any action to fix it.
This is one issue on which we could expect that President Kerry would take a markedly different view from President Bush. But Kerry won’t gain power till January 2005 – can the inmates in the military detention centers really wait that long?
Before anyone rips out anyone else’s still beating heart….when I hear “international controls”, I don’t picture the UN taking command of the prisons–I picture the Red Cross visiting them.
I wonder what influence this has on the Supreme Court cases. What’s much, much more important, though, is that it seems to have awakened Congress. They need to stay awake.
I think the way for us to regain our moral standing in this matter is…to regain our moral standing. If we give it to the UN, it’s completely out of our control. Picture the UN guards standing idly by while opposing factions of prisoners murder each other.
I agree with Slartibartfast. The way to prove we can live up to our moral code is to, in fact, live up to our moral code. Buck passing doesn’t get us there.
My feeling is that since Rumsfeld and Limbaugh don’t think this is torture and it’s being blown out of proportion, I’d be willing to participate in an experiment. I will voluntarily reproduce the conditions and actions (except the murders) of the soldiers and contractors if they will voluntarily agree to be the Iraqi detentionees (i use that word since 60% of these people were found not to be guilty of anything).
Also I wish that I could see photos on newsstands but the New York Post doesn’t seem to think it warrants the coverage. Strange, no?
Slart, are you honestly saying, that yes , we are violating some of the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions, and will continue to do so,but you can trust us, we know where to draw the line?
Yes, I’m saying that. And I believe that, unless we do exactly nothing about the abuses.
Let me amend that agreement, though. If by “we” you mean “some soldiers”, then I agree. If you mean something else, I’m going to have to ask you if you’ve got a mouse in your pocket. Unless you’re implying that there was in fact agreement with (or even incitement of) such behavior at the highest level of government. In that case, I’d have to ask you to produce evidence.
Before anyone rips out anyone else’s still beating heart….when I hear “international controls”, I don’t picture the UN taking command of the prisons–I picture the Red Cross visiting them.
I can get behind this, or a variant of this. But it doesn’t mean I’m not going to piledrive Jesurgislac into a folding table.
Von: The way to prove we can live up to our moral code is to, in fact, live up to our moral code.
That would be great if I believed that Bush & Co were at all likely to prove it or to want to prove it.
I don’t. Do you?
What about Guantanamo is evidence of violations and abuses?
“we are violating some of the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions, and will continue to do so”
A cite? Evidence of systemic violations and abuses? Guantanamo itself. Torture or abuse at Guantanamo? Not what I am saying. The facility itself, the refusal to classify the detainees or give them a hearing is a violation of international norms.
Heh. I just love responding before the post I’m responding to. I claim the Carnak award!
Baywatch
A lefty site dedicated to the question, but with a ton of links and some good docs.
Sometimes Slart. “Somebody has a problem with Guantanamo and the Geneva Convention? Prove it”
I think you are just sending me googling.
The oral arguments in front of SCOTUS happened in the last couple of weeks. The site has links to briefs and transcripts.
why bother?
Bob: Guantanamo itself. Torture or abuse at Guantanamo? Not what I am saying. The facility itself, the refusal to classify the detainees or give them a hearing is a violation of international norms.
Yes. Plus, there is considerable evidence that many of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are there, not even because they’re “battlefield detainees”, but because they were kidnapped and sold to the US authorities for the bounty being offered for “Taliban”. (Which shouldn’t have surprised anyone. To quote Lord Vetinari, when offering a bounty on rat tails appears to increase the number of rats, tax the rat farms.) All detainees at Guantanamo Bay were funneled there through Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan. There are areas of Bagram Airbase, used for interrogation, to which the Red Cross are denied admittance: two men were kicked to death there in December 2002. I thought stories about sexual harassment that one ex-Guantanamo Bay prisoner was telling must be exaggerated or be fantasies: I’m not so sure now.
I would put Slarti’s head through drywall, but it would give him no time to consider what was said, plus it’s hard to repair the drywall and paint over it perfectly to cover up the hole. Besides, I think we’re basically on the same page: I think an acceptable solution, once all soldiers and their commanding officers and the “civilian contractors” involved have been prosecuted, is for the Red Cross to have access to all areas in US military detention centers, including the right to make surprise inspections, and authority to demand changes if standards are not met.
And give Amnesty International the task of sorting out who’s actually being held in a US detention center in Iraq, and for god’s sake make sure that no Iraqi just “disappears”.
Usually, when quoting someone, it’s best to not put something that they didn’t actually say inside of quotes. I didn’t say no one had concerns about Guantanamo. I just asked for a little evidence that Guantanamo itself was evidence of some sort of violation.
oops what did I do…. the links work
I would put Slarti’s head through drywall
I don’t think you’ve got a wall big enough, Jesurgislac.
There. I had to say it, before anyone else did.
It’s LGF–what else would you expect? Detainees are killed, raped, molested and otherwise assaulted and degraded and LGF calls it ‘hazing.’
Frankly, this is a result of this appointed administration making it up as it goes along.
God knows what’s going on at Gitmo–that’s the scary part.
I don’t think you’ve got a wall big enough, Jesurgislac.
I would have one specially built just for you. 🙂
von,
If attempted, Stan LS, I think such an approach would be counterproductive. One’s natural reaction to humuliation is hate..
I disagree. You have to factor in cultural differences. For example, you’ld think that a natural reaction to diplomacy/compromise is that of some kind of respect. Yet, as has been shown time and time again, they view such overtures as signs of weakness.
I think psyops should be exploiting this.
gotta nominate that one to the troll drinking game rules.
I hadn’t seen that game. Thanks.
Appointed…gotta nominate that one to the troll drinking game rules.
God knows what’s going on at Gitmo–that’s the scary part.
As opposed as I am to the “enemy combattant” defense for Gitmo’s extralegal status, 6 months ago that statement would have struck me as alarmist to a degree. Now, I think it sounds realistic.
Not because I think there’s systematic torture going on (God I hope not), but because I could not have imagined we would be so stupid as to let what happened in Abu Ghraib take place, and now I simply don’t know what to think is beyond the pale.
To see the look upon your face as I launch you into space
I would have one specially built just for you. 🙂
Shades of
Edward,
but because I could not have imagined we would be so stupid as to let what happened in Abu Ghraib take place
Let’s be fair. We have over a 100,000 troops deployed there. Unfortunately, these things are bound to happen, just as they happen in the civilian population in US. I am not trying to excuse it, but there’s a difference between the actions of a few and a set policy.
Jes, Slart, stop with the g–d— mindreading, already. It’s making my head hurt.
I was under the impression that most of the people at Gitmo were illegal combatants. Guess I need to do a bit more reading.
“I was under the impression that most of the people at Gitmo were illegal combatants.”
“Unlawful combatants” I think is the phrase the administration uses, and what exactly they are, and how it is determined, is precisely the question under dispute and adjudication.
Unfortunately, these things are bound to happen
I disagree. I think we assumed they wouldn’t happen because we’re the good guys, and so didn’t provide oversight to ensure they didn’t. Now they have, and we must now put safeguards in place.
Maybe forevermore, too. That’s just a bit of what these guys have done.
I disagree. I think we assumed they wouldn’t happen because we’re the good guys…
I am sure that procedures/training will be modified, etc., but at the same time, when you are dealing with such a large amount of people…
After all – murder is illegal – yet it happens. There are always bad apples out there no matter what we do.
I was under the impression that most of the people at Gitmo were illegal combatants. Guess I need to do a bit more reading.
Try this.
If only they had been lucky enough to be held prisoner by Saddam Hussein…
I’m not justifying their actions, but a little perspective couldn’t hurt either.
Mistakes have been made, the situation should be corrected and that is happening.
Amnesty International is close to a joke. Maybe they should go protest out in front of the U.N. about Sudan being on th HR commission. Atleast we are trying to fix the problem.
Odysseus, it really doesn’t work to say “Well, at least the US is better than Saddam Hussein.” There has been remarkable unanimity on this topic from both left and right on this blog (I can’t remember the last time Slartibartfast and I were 95% in agreement on a topic outside of the greatness of Douglas Adams): it is despicable and wrong to torture prisoners, and it doesn’t make it better to point at someone else who did worse.
hey, while we’re playing “embarrass the wingnuts,” here’s my contribution.
asdf: My contribution to ‘dogpile on the whackjobs’ would have to be Cal Thomas:
War is nasty business, and the rules don’t always comport with a book of etiquette.
Talkleft is engaging in an error, I think. There’s nothing in the article they cite that says even one of those 140 have been in detention for two years.
Limbaugh did this, as noted here, and I went with it there.
Charles Johnson didn’t raise my opinion of him by taking his endorsement of me as an “anti-idiotarian” and former praise and various links to me, and turning them into declarations that I had been, in the past, “whining” to him for links, etc. It was predictable, and he lived down to his reputation.
It’s sad how Charles moved from valuable and respectable to vicious and contemptible.
It really is. Maybe someday he can pick himself up out of the muck. I won’t plan on it, but I will hope for it.
James notes: “I’d say the bloke on a box one is torture of a kind at least.”
According to reports, it’s purely psychological; no actual electricity involved. Pure bluff.
That, of course, means we’d want our relatives subjected to it, or wouldn’t really object, according to the Limbaugh apologists. It’s not real torture. So I guess they’d not object to being picked up for a traffic ticket and subjected to it. It’s all in good frat fun.
Let’s have some perspective, people.
I’m sure Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t object to a few weeks of this fun, subsequent to being convicted of a drug crime. After all, we’re soft on prisoners in the US, he says.
Jes,
Even you and I agree if you read my post.
I didn’t finger point. I made a sarcastic statement to peopole on this site who consistently find fault with the U.S. to provide context to their continuous assault on the U.S. government and in particular this administration.
Why isn’t it good enough to say and I am quoting myself here because you often put words into people’s mouths “Isn’t it good enough for us to say this is horrible? It’s truly embarrasing as an American. The people involved should be tried and punished if found guiltly. And the prisons should be held to the same standards that we have in the U.S. or even better.”
My first comment relates to so many here that are willing to jump on the U.S. bashing band wagon but ignore the really bad guys. That is so common on this site it is mildly revolting.
It seems to me that it is a useful function to reflect back the details that so many leave out of context at this site.
And you are quoting me saying something that I didn’t say…
“I disagree so strongly that it’s only through sheer force of will that I refrain from punching a hole in your chest, ripping out your still-beating heart and showing it to you while you die”
Personally, I’d like to object to having anyone subjected to Kate Capshaw screaming at them. Who’s talking “torture” now?
The tactic of blasting bad music at towns we are assaulting is now well known. But who invented blasting us with bad movies?
sdfkjf
Again, this situation should have been expected, no matter who the guards were cite. My question is “Didn’t General K. take Psych 101?”.
My first comment relates to so many here that are willing to jump on the U.S. bashing band wagon but ignore the really bad guys. That is so common on this site it is mildly revolting.
OdysseusInRTP: Please stick around, then, and provide some balance.
Stan —
You have to factor in cultural differences. . . . Yet, as has been shown time and time again, they view [diplomatic] overtures as signs of weakness.
Well, I don’t think that’s unique. Virtually every culture negotiates from strength, and, when confronted with a diplomatic overture, attempts to exploit it. International relations, cultural clashes — these are games of hardball, regardless of the nation or culture involved.
So I don’t think I’ve read the situation wrong. Humiliation is an insult to pride. Pride must be defended. Unless the pride is beaten down by repeated humiliations (unlikely to occur, here), the short-term result is aggression, not meekness.
The Tipton Three were in gitmo for two years. Many others that caught earlier are still there.
There’s nothing in the article they cite that says even one of those 140 have been in detention for two years.
However long they were in Guantanamo Bay, given that they were innocent kidnap victims, was too long.
In a way, this seems like a perfect storm:
-“Unlawful combatants” were stripped of any and all rights at the whim of the Bush League.
-Private contractors like CACI were given far too much authority and too little supervision, and, as a bonus, they’re don’t fall under UCMJ.
It’s a wonder that this isn’t more widespread.