MATTHEWGOODONLINE

What is torture? According to the dictionary it is defined as:

“The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something. Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety.”

With regards to torture, the 17th Article of the Geneva Conventions states:

“No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

Thanks to the likes of John Yoo, in the aftermath of 9/11 the United States went about systematically attacking what it labeled legal ambiguities regarding what constitutes a prisoner of war. It was argued by Yoo, and others, that those captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere were not prisoners of war but rather enemy combatants, and were therefore not assured the protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. This precedent led to the current detention system employed by the United States, how detainees may be interrogated, and the ability of the United States to hold individuals indefinitely without any legal recourse. It also set a precedent with regards to the ability of the United States, a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, to both usurp its authority and redefine those aspects of it that challenge US detention and interrogation methods.

In short, the United States took the position of being able to adhere to the Geneva Conventions when it chose to, or disregard or redefine it when it presented obstacles.

By September 11th, 2006, the number of those detained in the War On Terror exceeded 83,000, none of whom, at that time, were charged with definable crimes under International or US law, nor brought to trial. It was during this immense detention roundup that entirely under qualified US military personnel were following wholly ambiguous rules of interrogation, the majority of whom had no training in interrogation techniques whatsoever and were commonly placed in the position of interrogating detainees after periods of instruction that were, in some cases, as short as six hours. Likewise, soldiers stationed at detention facilities were urged by a variety of individuals, from intelligence personnel to military contractors, to help ‘soften up’ prisoners, again despite the fact they had no experience working in such facilities, let alone dealing with prisoners. These were the individuals that were thrown to the wolves following the Abu Ghraib and Bagram scandals while no high level officer or member of the intelligence community, nor any member of the administration itself, was ever held responsible despite the fact that the interrogation directives themselves emanated from the highest offices in US government.

That said; let’s return to the primary question – what is torture?

While there are those that believe that torture is a wholly physical phenomenon, the truth is that since the 1950’s the Central Intelligence Agency has worked diligently on constructing an interrogation platform almost entirely based on psychological manipulation, including the development of LSD and other drugs as part of its chemical interrogation program known as MK-ULTRA (directed by the CIA’s Technical Services Staff, thus the digraph ‘MK’), which was later renamed MK-SEARCH in 1964. During that period, the following routinely occurred under the umbrella of the program:

- Experiments were conducted without the knowledge or consent of test subjects.

- Academic researchers were unaware in numerous cases that their work was being used to help provide the CIA with data.

- US soldiers were dosed with LSD to study its side affects with regards to mind control (Operation Teapot - Subproject 54, Perfect Concussion).

- Pregnant women were exposed to radiation and other substances and the testicles of inmates at an Oregon prison were irradiated without their knowledge (Operation Teapot – Subproject 54).

It is believed that over 150 different subprojects were carried out under the umbrella of MK-ULTRA. Unfortunately, as ‘luck’ would have it, the majority of the records regarding MK-ULTRA were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by order of Richard Helms, the director of the CIA between 1966 and 1973. As an aside, Helms remains the only CIA director to have ever been convicted of lying to Congress.

So how is this applicable to what is currently transpiring with regards to detainees? The answer is rather straight forward – the CIA’s extensive research into the use of detrimental psychological methods was transformed into the official American handbook on torture. The irony, of course, is that many people do not equate psychological mistreatment with the term ‘torture’, which is, in truth, the genius of its guise. Also of note is that much of the sensory deprivation techniques used by the United States military and CIA were initially researched by Dr. Donald Hebb, a Canadian psychologist, who, at his own admission, has claimed that the prolonged affects of sensory deprivation can easily result in a permanent state of psychosis after a minimum of six to eight days.

For example, take these images that hundreds of millions of people have seen since the detention facility at Guantanamo was opened…

In this photograph, and dozens of others like it, we see detainees at Guantanamo wearing hoods, blackened goggles, ear guards, and mittens. To your average observer this image doesn’t seem all that bad. In fact, it seems rather benign given what the individuals in the photographs have been accused of.

Now take a look at this photograph…

This photograph shows a subject undergoing one of Dr. Hebb’s sensory deprivation experiments. In it the subject is blindfolded, their hands are encased, and their auditory capability has been removed. They are also covered by a blanket, which can be removed and then replaced to control their body temperature and further disorient them (which is also the reason why their hands and feet are covered).

Returning to this image (on the left), we see detainees at Guantanamo sitting in stress positions outfitted with much of the same sensory deprivation equipment worn by the test subject in the photograph above.

That said; the application of sensory deprivation represents only the beginning of the process of psychological torture. Once desensitized and physically overwhelmed, the implementation of fear and degradation are then introduced. While not all prisoners are immediately subjected to sensory deprivation, they are subjected to fear and degradation, which is then commonly followed by the application of sensory deprivation, usually represented by being held in small rooms, cages, or cells in stress positions that make it impossible to sleep. This state is then capitalized on by the introduction of fear, degradation, and the implementation of further sensory deprivation techniques, such as the use of strobe lights and loud music in a dark room while enduring painful stress positions - or other techniques such as waterboarding (though it should be noted that waterboarding is a technique that can be employed outright in an attempt to break an individual).

This photograph (to the left) is, perhaps, one of the most familiar images produced during the Abu Ghraib scandal. In it a prisoner is standing on a small box, their head covered, with wires attached to each hand.

The point of this position is to place the prisoner in a state of fear having told them that they will be electrocuted if they attempt to get off of the box or lower their arms. In actuality the wires aren’t attached to anything, but the prisoner is unaware of that because they have been placed on the box while hooded. Thus, they believe that they will be electrocuted if they move.

In truth, it is far worse than having a gun put to your head and the trigger pulled. At least in that scenario you have no control, and the fear is minimized by the fact that it only lasts a few seconds before you’re killed. In this instance the prisoner is placed in the position of fearing death, or extreme pain, based on their own actions. The catch is that if they’re left in that position long enough exhaustion begins to play a significant role, only heightening their fear despite the fact that they’ve become so fatigued that they begin to lose the ability to remain in the position that they have been told will ensure their well being. The psychological impact of this procedure, while obviously perceived to produce results, would most likely end in the prisoner immediately stepping off of the box if it is repeated enough times that they are driven to the point where death is viewed as a release, even given the stringent view of suicide in the Islamic faith.

When cultural and religious elements are introduced into the equation, humiliation also becomes part of the process. In the case of Muslim men, sexual assault or overt sexual behaviour by female interrogators, forced nudity and masturbation, sexual humiliation, and the forced imposition of homosexual acts are all examples of techniques that have been employed because of the offense and trauma they cause. Coupled with the affects of sensory deprivation and fear, the impact of such techniques works to further degrade the mental state of prisoners.

It is in such a state that, according to the tenets of the doctrine, individuals are more likely to divulge information. But, in truth, they are simply more apt to say whatever it is that their captors want to hear because of extreme disorientation – and that is not the production of reliable intelligence.

If you believe that psychological mistreatment does not constitute torture try a simple experiment at home (and no, I am not actually saying that you should do this, I am just demonstrating a point).

First, get a knife, place the blade over your forearm, and cut yourself. If you are too afraid to do it, remember that feeling.

Second, get a friend to blindfold you, place a hood over your head, wrap towels around your feet and hands, bind them together with something, and then have them place you in a small closet with your arms raised over your head. After they do that, have them turn the thermostat up to full.

After that, every hour have them turn the heat off and wait 30 minutes. Then have them place ice cubes or icepacks inside your clothing, leaving them there for 30 minutes. After that have them return, remove the icepacks, place a winter coat on you, turn the thermostat back up to full, bind your hands back together and resume holding them over your head. Repeat this process for 12 hours.

Chances are that you will not last 30 minutes in that closet. If you last four hours, I will bet you that you would rather willfully cut yourself rather than spend another four hours in it.

Ultimately, what is more torturous? Killing an individual outright, physically torturing them to the point that they could die, or driving them psychologically to the point that they want to? It is one thing to be executed by another. It is altogether another matter to be brought to that black precipice at which you would gladly execute yourself.

And yet they deem it legal.

The reaction by many US conservatives, including Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain, to the recent US Supreme Court decision to grant detainees held at Guantanamo the right of Habeas Corpus has been, dare I say, rather un-American. In fact, McCain has even gone so far as to call the decision the worst in the history of the Supreme Court. One wonders if Mr. McCain, and those who share his view, have read Thomas Paine’s Rights Of Man?

Of those detained at Guantanamo, how many are innocent? Some officials have claimed the number could be in the hundreds – all of them held without official charge and without legal recourse or access to council under the auspices of either US or International law. Basically – they have absolutely no rights. They can be disappeared, transferred to undisclosed locations, and can be made to endure whatever their captors decide is “acceptable” given the circumstances.

Some of you might view the facility at Guantanamo as essential with regards to US national security. Some of you might agree that granting detainees the right to Habeas Corpus is a disastrous decision because it’s gifting them rights that they don’t deserve given the now familiar mantra that the War On Terror is a “new kind of war” that requires the employment of a strong and determined mindset to fight. Unfortunately, when it comes to the rule of law, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot claim to be a global champion of it while completely denying due process to a select few. Because if that precedent can be established and its hypocrisy not confronted, then the question ultimately has to be asked – where does it end?

True democratic principles do not conform to the whims of a Presidential administration, nor those that support its flagrant abuse of the rule of law. They demand the existence of impartiality, of legal representation, and the right to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus three times. The United States Constitution specifies that it can only be suspended “…when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”. Of course, many disagreed with the legality of Lincoln’s right to impose the suspension, but the circumstances were, of course, much different than those now faced, though it is still an issue that is argued over to this very day.

Legally, can those that have been held by the United States in legal limbo for the last seven years be viewed as invaders? Did 9/11 technically constitute a military invasion of the United States? Obviously they cannot be classified as individuals in revolt as they are not US citizens. Therefore, according to the Constitution, they have to be labeled as members of an invading force for Habeas Corpus to be suspended. The problem, of course, is that the majority of them were apprehended in foreign countries, and therefore not a part of any invasion force. In that case, International Law should take precedent, not to mention articles of the Geneva Conventions, but the protections of both have also been denied them.

The Red Cross was granted access to the facility at Guantanamo, had the courage to attack its conditions and hypocrisy, and have since been denied access to it. The United Nations followed suit, with the UNHRC coming to similar conclusions. Of course, neither had any impact on US policy.

So, after seven years in legal limbo, the US Supreme Court has granted those being held at Guantanamo the right of Habeas Corpus, which, in layman’s terms, means that detainees can individually take their cases to US courts and contest unlawful imprisonment. But the Supreme Court’s decision is not without its caveats. The ruling, in part, reads…

“United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.”

Thus, while detainees have been granted the possibility of redress, US courts possess the right to consider challenges to the legality of their detention. That stipulation is, in truth, a loophole that provides US courts, on a case by case basis, the right to consider whether the auspices of Habeas Corpus will be granted. One very important of the ruling though is that it does provide the chance for a precedent to be set with regards to finally clarifying the legal status of detainees.

McClatchy’s eight-month investigation into the US detention system post 9/11 and wrongful imprisonments is, in my opinion, a must read. McClatchy describes the journalistic investigation as follows…

“An eight-month McClatchy investigation of the detention system created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has found that the U.S. imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, stripped them of their legal rights and allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into a school for jihad.”

The following is an excerpt from Guantanamo: Beyond The Law…

“The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted “Allahu Akbar” — God is great — as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar’s head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as “the worst of the worst.”

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo’s Camp Four who hissed “infidel” and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn’t: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

“He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government,” a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.”

To view the report’s complete table of contents click here.

One of the most important aspects of this report, though it should come as no surprise, is that it exposes the fact that the projection that the United States knew what it was doing with regards to the capture and imprisonment of those deemed a threat was, in many cases, simply guesswork, a system aimed at presenting the façade of action rather than achieving real goals. In effect, the method employed was akin to fishing with explosives.

First, McClatchy Newspapers has conducted an eight-month investigation of the US detention system created in the aftermath of 9/11. Guantanamo: Beyond the Law is an unprecedented examination of the detention system, one which every free thinking person should seriously examine. It is a five part series that will begin publication on the 15th of this month.

“Reporter Tom Lasseter, with help from Matt Schofield, conducted in-person interviews with 66 former detainees now living mostly in the Middle East and South Asia. No other news organization has matched the scope of this investigation, which covered 11 countries on three continents.

The McClatchy investigation’s conclusion: The United States rounded up scores of people who were innocent of any connection to terrorist groups or were only low-level Taliban grunts or common criminals.

In several cases, detainees had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government when they were picked up. This happened because the U.S. relied on tips from rival Afghans or bounty hunters seeking cash rewards, and because the U.S. underestimated the complexity of the warlord culture. Guards then routinely brutalized detainees at the Kandahar and Bagram air bases in Afghanistan, where the investigation found that abuse was much worse than it was in Guantanamo.

At Guantanamo, however, innocent men, adventure-seekers and low-level Taliban grunts were thrown together with hardcore Islamic militants who quickly took advantage of the prison camp’s rules to turn Guantanamo into a school for jihad, McClatchy found.

Bush administration lawyers created a legal system that deprived detainees of any rights under international law and made it nearly impossible for them to defend themselves, with no ability to call witnesses, seek legal help or appeal their imprisonment, even though they’d never been charged with a crime.

The U.S. held these detainees for years and then simply released them with no explanations, no apologies, no compensation.”

The Façade Of Iraqi Sovereignty

In the following quote, which comes from an article published in today’s Independent, take particular note the employment of the term “gets away with” within the context of the greater issue…

“American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces.”

Get away with? Isn’t a large swath of the US population under the impression that the government of Iraq was democratically elected? Was that not the point of the whole ‘purple finger’ affair? Is the government of Iraq not that of a sovereign country? Or is it one that simply exists as cover for a US hegemonic agenda?

The article continues…

“The current United Nations mandate for US troops expires at the end of this year and Washington wants to conclude a bilateral agreement with Baghdad for the future deployment of US forces. There are just over 150,000 US troops in Iraq living on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks.

Construction work over the past five years has turned these bases into small towns of trailers, hangars and blast walls, equipped with a Pizza Hut, Starbucks-style coffee shops, cinemas and swimming pools.”

Isn’t it reassuring to know that US personnel in Iraq have the ability to start their day with a double macchiato while the people that they’ve been told they’re there to liberate and defend have lived without basic sanitation, intermittent electricity, a devastated national healthcare infrastructure, and other basic fundamentals for years?

Now that’s a war.

I can think of nothing more insulting to veterans of, for example, the 101st Airborne, who slugged their way through some of the most vicious combat in Europe during World War Two, or the Marines in the Pacific Theatre at the same time for that matter, than the fact that Pizza Huts and swimming pools are waiting for those at the end of patrols. That’s not meant to take anything away from the unique and highly stressful situation that US combat troops in Iraq have to face – but it still remains a significant irony.

Ultimately, will the Iraqi government get its way? Obviously the question that has to be seriously asked is – will it even matter if they do?

On A Side Note…

Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The boogieman whose importance was over-amplified by the Bush Administration to justify the ongoing occupation, a “group” that did not exist in the country prior to the invasion in 2003, and one that, while the insurgency was in full swing, represented 5% or less of it (and it should be noted at this point that the other 95% of the insurgency was not aligned with them, and most would have gladly done away with them as well). Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is actually nothing more than a small part of a larger Salafi Jihadi movement, consists primarily of foreign fighters, the majority of which come from Saudi Arabia. Next to Saudi fights, Syrians and Libyans round out the top three of those that comprise the backbone of what is known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqi contingent is, in truth, smaller.

That said; according to The Times Online, the CIA has declared that al-Qaeda in Iraq is all but defeated. Unfortunately, the information presented is a little strange…

“The CIA has declared that al-Qaeda is virtually defeated in Iraq and that the country is seeing its lowest level of violence for four years.

Nineteen US military personnel have died in Iraq this month, according to the Pentagon, making May the least deadly month for US troops since the beginning of the war.

The deadliest month for US troops was May 2007, when 126 died as the insurgency in Baghdad raged.

The main reason for the drop in violence, which has also seen a big decline in Iraqi civilian deaths, is a ceasefire by the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose forces have been directly confronted by US and Iraqi troops for over a month.”

First, lower levels of violence compared to the level of violence during the height of the insurgency cannot be attributed to al-Qaeda in Iraq, as the majority of Iraqi insurgents were not affiliated with them.

Second, Moqtada al-Sadr and the substantial Shi’ite militia that he commands are about as far away as one can get from al-Qaeda. In truth, as it stands now, they represent the most powerful militia in Iraq.

The article continues…

“Mr Hayden gave warning that al-Qaeda still posed a serious threat. Such caution appeared justified after two suicide bombers struck in northern Iraq on Thursday, killing a total of 20 people in separate attacks.”

One minute they’re defeated, the next they’re still a serious threat. There’s nothing better than the propaganda required to keep the flames fanned.

It’s eight o’clock in the morning. I have no idea what I am doing up, other than the fact that I went to bed pretty early. I watched The Other Boleyn Girl last night after rehearsal and prior to passing out. Why is it that no one can portray the Tudors with any historical accuracy?

Recent Catastrophes

Matters in China are looking grimmer by the day, as are conditions in Burma. One searches for words to put such catastrophes into context, but there are few. The best that I can offer is to suggest donating to the following relief efforts:

Oxfam
The Red Cross

Oxfam
The Red Cross

News Of Note

Congratulations are due the Supreme Court Of California who ruled yesterday that the State law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

According to a recent report, the United States has detained some 2,500 children in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at the US facility at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. While that number has decreased, there are still some 500 juveniles being detained in Iraq, 10 at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and of the 8 youths detained at Guantanamo, only two remain that were under 18 years of age when they first arrived. Of course, such detentions fly in the face of International Law as it pertains to Child Soldiers and juveniles, but there really is not point in arguing that fact being that the tenets of International Law only apply to those situations that the Bush Administration considers to be in their interest.

Speaking of juveniles, it seems that the United States is violating an international protocol forbidding the recruitment of youths under the age of 18 for service in the military. In the report entitled Soldiers Of Misfortune, it was found that the military is also disproportionately targeting poor and minority public school students. This, of course, should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone. It’s conveniently always the “dregs of American society” that seem to be “compelled” to defend the “American way of life” while middle and upper class white kids sit at home watching them die on television. The sad reality of modern American wars is that if you want to see one brought to an abrupt end, have rich white kids come home in metal boxes.

The “N” Word

President Bush, who recently claimed that he gave up golf because he thought it sent the wrong message to those that have lost loved ones in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, addressed the Israeli Parliament yesterday claiming that negotiating with militant organizations and radical governments was no different than the appeasement of the Nazi’s…

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said. “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, Mr. Bush, the United States did nothing. It did not declare war on Germany, nor would it until Germany declared war on the United States on December 11th, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Habour. It would not act when France and the low countries were invaded and occupied, nor would it act when British cities were being decimated by German bombers.

For almost three years, while members of my family were in uniform, and their comrades were being stranded on French beaches having the crap kicked out of them only to be evacuated by civilian pleasure craft, the people of the United States wanted nothing to do with what was transpiring in Europe. By the time the “appeasement”, that you so casually referred to yesterday, had taken its toll, and Western Europe and parts of Africa were in German hands, the American public was still overwhelmingly against US involvement. Let’s also not forget that while Germany was being “appeased” by governments that had seen an entire generation devastated by war not two decades prior, major US financial institutions and corporations were doing business with the Reich, and would make millions in the process while those that would eventually fight along side American troops were being killed.

The reason, Mr. Bush, that you evoked the word “Nazi” yesterday was solely because you were in Israel, which is rather ironic being that an American company, that being IBM, sold the very machinery to the Nazi’s that they would later use to calculate the number of Jews, and others, eliminated during the Holocaust. Even more, that your own grandfather was the director of the Union Banking Corporation, with a convenient single share to his name, the assets of which were seized in 1942 under the Trading With The Enemy Act.

Like it or not, an American President addressing the Israeli Parliament is little more than a corporate president addressing shareholders.

Yesterday’s Congressional testimony by FBI Director Robert Mueller was one of the most blatant examples of doubletalk that you will ever come across. During his testimony, Mueller verified that numerous FBI agents had complained about the conduct of CIA interrogators and their use of harsh techniques. Given that, according to Mueller’s testimony, when questioned by Rep. Robert Wexler…

Interestingly, when asked by Rep. Stephen Cohen about informing others about the conduct witnessed by FBI agents, Mueller had this to say…

“But if you find out that other agencies may engage in torture, that you believe is illegal — does your protocol include informing those agencies that you believe their actions are illegal?”

“Yes,” Mueller answered.

“Who did you inform?” Cohen asked.

“At points in time, we have reached out to DoD, DoJ, in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate, let me put it that way,” Mueller said.”

Now, going back to Mueller’s responses to Wexler on the exact same subject…

You’ll notice that Mueller did not mention that the FBI had reached out to the Department of Defense regarding the matter, as he did in response to the same question by Cohen, only that he repeatedly stated that the FBI had not violated its protocols.

In essence, the FBI, having been confronted by the reality that the CIA was using illegal interrogation techniques, did what any agency would do within the landscape of the US federal system – they made sure to cover their own ass while not pissing in the CIA or the Department of Defense’s Cornflakes. Of course, given who was the head of the Justice Department at the time, it’s not a stretch to believe that if the FBI had approached the Department of Justice regarding the matter that they may have been told to simply mind their own business, which would, of course, lead them to actively ensure that they were protected were any of it to be revealed. And that, it seems, is precisely what has occurred.

I also want to make a quick point regarding the Central Intelligence Agency. For those of you that are unaware, the CIA’s mandate forbids domestic operations, which means that all domestic operations, including anti-terrorism initiatives, fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI within the United States. Obviously, the occurrences being discussed occurred outside of the United States, which would make them the province of the CIA as well as any other agency attached to the matter. The FBI’s involvement in such matters has primarily to do with two things: the discovery of current threats within the United States and the discovery of information directly related to 9/11.

After the initial invasion of Afghanistan, numerous individuals were detained by the FBI in correlation to what was, at the time, a domestic investigation into the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, if you do some research into the period shortly following the invasion, you will discover that the CIA all but showed up and took over the handling of detainees. Numerous individuals, some since retired, have since commented on the timing of the CIA’s intervention at that stage, and how the FBI was summarily cut out of the loop. That is not to say that the FBI has not since been present at various locations, such as jails in Ethiopia, where off the books detainees have been held and interrogated, something that contradicts Mueller’s testimony yesterday.

Rep. Wexler’s questioning of Mueller can be viewed below…

I will give one thing to the government of Jean Chrétien – on September 13th of 2002 a letter was sent by the Canadian government to the United States government regarding the detention of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen captured at the age of fifteen in Afghanistan and charged with killing a US soldier. Despite his age, we was still classified by the United States as an ‘enemy combatant’.

In the letter, which was issued from the Canadian Embassy in Washington, the Canadian government argued that due to Khadr’s age his detention at Guantanamo was “inappropriate” and not in accordance with laws shared by the US and Canada regarding “young suspects”. In truth, under international law, Khadr’s age should have automatically categorized him as a child soldier, but given that the United States had usurped international law by creating an ambiguous category for those detained in the War On Terror, Khadr was not treated as such and thus transferred to the facility.

No matter Khadr’s background, or that of his family, the fact remains - under international law he was a child soldier when captured and should have been treated as such. The reality that he is now set to become one of the first people to face an American War Crimes tribunal since the Second World War is utterly ridiculous.

The fact that some action was at least taken by the last government is something. The fact that Mr. Harper’s government has done nothing but placate the Americans regarding this issue speaks volumes, especially given the fact that even foreign governments with no stake in the matter have weighed in on the fact that Khadr should have been treated as a child soldier. It’s truly shameful.

For those of you that view Khadr as a murderer, and might point to the fact that a US soldier lost his life, I would recommend you do some reading regarding child soldiers, the indoctrination, physical, and mental abuse that they are subjected to that turns them into ‘soldiers’. What child in a situation in which they have no control, in which their own life might be threatened if they do not comply, has the ability to resist? That is not a situation in which any child should ever be placed, and that is precisely why international laws exist to protect them.

In a recent report released by the Pew Center on the States, America now has the largest prison population in its history, and the largest per capita incarceration rates worldwide.

The steadily growing inmate population “is saddling cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime,” the report said.
(more…)

First, just to draw attention to it, Lydia Polgreen focuses on recent events in Darfur in today’s edition of the New York Times. Unfortunately, and as one might expect, the news isn’t good.

That out of the way, the Canadian military has resumed the transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities. In a statement made by Lt.-Col. Grant Dame, the military will be “exercising discretion” during each transfer to ensure that prisoners are not placed in situations where they will be abused.

The reasoning behind this is that it is not the responsibility of the Canadian military to maintain facilities that house prisoners, nor to provide oversight regarding their treatment. That, according to the Canadian military, is the responsibility of the Afghan government. We are in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban and aid in reconstruction efforts, not to act as jailers – a rather convenient position to be in.

The Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan, Ron Hoffmann, has claimed that since allegations first arose that detainees being transferred from Canadian custody to Afghan authorities faced abuse, there have been considerable improvements made. But as Amnesty International’s Alex Neve has pointed out…

“To think that somehow that’s all been remedied almost overnight, such that we can get back to situation normal, defies belief and is simply not something that should have happened”.

This has all taken place, of course, only weeks after Federal Court Justice Anne Mactavish…

“…expressed “serious concerns” over how effective Canadian efforts have been to ensure the safety of their prisoners and what safeguards have been put in place.”

First, it should not be overlooked that the United States continues to maintain a detention facility at Bagram Airbase, which has been traditionally used to house those ultimately destined for the US facility at Guantanamo and Black Sites, such as Ethiopian prisons known for their use of harsh interrogation methods where the CIA and FBI have been active of late. Given our position on the transfer of prisoners, how are we to know that they won’t ultimately end up in the hands of the Americans and shuttled off to foreign locales to be interrogated?

Further to this, simply because Afghan authorities have claimed that they have made efforts to purge their own system of abusive practices, the War On Terror has set a very solid precedent with regards to the interrogation of those viewed as individuals of opportunity. It is therefore completely naïve to think that the use of harsh techniques will stop. If anything, this entire affair has only provided a valuable lesson to those within the Afghan infrastructure that such undertakings should be conducted in venues that will not afford foreign media the opportunity to gain access to those that have been abused in recognized facilities.

The reality here is that as long as such practices go underground, so to speak, we can rest easy believing that our military is not complicit in the ultimate abuse of prisoners. Unfortunately, and no matter your position on the matter, the reality remains that the transfer of prisoners to those that do employ such practices is in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, and if we are willing to ignore that fact, then not only will we continue to be complicit, but also guilty of the violation of international law. And that; like it or not, completely debases those ‘noble attributes’ provided us by our government with regards to our participation in Afghanistan.

Much of the world is simply asleep if it believes that the use of harsh interrogation methods has been suspended by the likes of the United States and others. While they might claim that such practices have stopped, the truth is that they have more than likely just learned from past mistakes and become far more skilled at the art of continuing such practices in ways that are extremely difficult to uncover.

For a variety of different reasons, musicians sometimes do not allow their work to be used in commercials, films, and so forth. In such matters they obviously have a say. Interestingly, when it comes to the use of music for other purposes, they don’t. For example…

“Music has been used in American military prisons and on bases to induce sleep deprivation, “prolong capture shock,” disorient detainees during interrogations—and also drown out screams. Based on a leaked interrogation log, news reports, and the accounts of soldiers and detainees, here are some of the songs that guards and interrogators chose.

Fuck Your God – Decide
Die MF Die – Dope
Take Your Best Shot – Dope
White America – Eminem
Kim – Eminem
Barney Theme Song – Barney
Bodies – Drowning Pool
Enter Sandman – Metallica
Babylon – David Gray
Born In The USA – Bruce Springsteen
Shoot To Thrill – AC/DC
Hells Bells – AC/DC
Stayin Alive – The Bee Gees
All Eyes On Me – Tupac
Dirrty – Christina Aguilera
America – Neil Diamond
Bulls On Parade – Rage Against The Machine
American Pie – Don McLean
Click Click Boom – Saliva
Cold – Matchbox 20
Swan Dive – Hed P.E.
Rasperry Baret – Prince”

Given the political views of, for example, Rage Against The Machine, the use of their music for such purposes must indeed be troubling. What’s even more troubling is the fact that the morons playing Born In The USA have no clue that it’s a song that is actually highly critical of the United States. In fact, so is American Pie. It just goes to show the level of intelligence involved.