By Steve Hynd
That statement certainly has the same truth function as much of what National Review's Andy McCarthy wrote today as a British court finally forced the revelation of seven redacted paragraphs about the treatment of former Gitmo detainee Binyam Mohammed which the British government had tried hard to withhold - and been threatened over by both the Bush and Obama administrations.
It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.
v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.
vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.
vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews
viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.
ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS [security services] made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.
x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities.
McCarthy describes Mohammed as "an al Qaeda terrorist" who was involved with Jose Padilla in a dirty bomb plot, makes mention of his release by the Obama administration and says that military prosecutors wanted to try him for war crimes. He writes of the disclosure today:
That's it. No water-boarding, no beating, no slapping around. Mohammed was not even stuck in a box with a caterpillar. Just sleep-deprivation (carefully monitored to avoid doing real damage), shackling (not in a stress position), and playing on his fear that he would be taken out of the custody of the U.S. (you know, the torturers) and handed over to some less solicitous country.
To the Brits, the Eurocrats, the American Left, and transnational progressives everywhere, this is somehow "tantamount to torture" because it amounts to "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment." Of course, it's not anywhere close to being torture. I'm sure Marc Thiessen will have strong views on this, but I've talked to a lot of groups around the country on this topic, and I would say that easily two-thirds of Americans would not be offended in the slightest by the sort of treatment to which Binyam Mohammed was subjected if the reason were to induce him to tell us what he knew about al Qaeda and its ongoing plots.
We can't deprive a would-be mass-murderer of sleep? He was trying to deprive us of a lot more than sleep. Over this nonsense � which we had to know would come out anyway � we've let him free to go back to the jihad? A guy who tried to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans? That's how we uphold our "values"? Whose values?
There's so much missing in McCarthy's dishonest characterization of this it's difficult to know where to start. But:
1) Padilla's dirty bomb plot was described by no less than Donald Rumsfield as aspirational rather than actual. "There was not an actual plan", Rummie said.
2) Mohammed's confession that he was trained in an Al Qaeda camp was gained while he was secretly held in a Moroccan prison, after being the subject of illegal rendition by CIA agents. There, his penis and chest were cut up with razor blades to make him admit anything his interrogators wanted him to. A bit worse than caterpillars in a box.
So, not an Al Qaeda would-be mass-murderer at all. Binyam Mohammed's crime was to read a �joke� website article on how to build a nuclear weapon by a U.S. food writer. The article claimed that a nuclear weapon could be made �using a bicycle pump� and with liquid uranium �poured into a bucket and swung round.
In fact, charges against him were dropped by the Bush administration because even then it was obvious that there were believability limits to the kangaroo court system of military tribunals and confessions gained from sliced dicks were beyond those limits. His (military tribunal appointed) defending lawyer, Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley, was sure he had been tortured and the prosecutor, Lt. Col Darrel Vandeveld, resigned in disgust at the unethical ways in which evidence against Mohammed and others had been gathered. Despite all this, the Bush administration continued to hold Binyam Mohammed and others without charge, until the Obama administration finally released them.
With all that in mind, let's revisit the redacted paragraphs and see why "that's it?" isn't a justifiable response.
he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.
Combined with his previous mistreatment, sleep deprivation and threats had made Binyam suicidal and were:
causing him significant mental stress and suffering
That's a significant phrase because "significant stress and suffering" is one of the hallmarks in international law of torture. Unlike John Yoo and Andy McCarthy, the civilized world believes that to be valid even if the stress and suffering are psycological rather than physical. If "two thirds" of Americans believe otherwise then two thirds of Americans need therapy to treat their sociopathic tendencies.Or maybe McCarthy just hangs around with sociopaths to begin with.
Finally, the last redacted paragraph contains another key phrase, and a key admission.
if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities.
"Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is exactly how the UN Convention Against Torture, which the US has signed and ratified and which thus forms part of U.S. federal law, characterizes the definition of the crime of illegal torture - a crime against humanity. The UK government admits that, had it acted in this way, it would have been committing an international crime under the Convention and other statutes. Instead it is just complicit in an attempted U.S. cover-up.
That Convention plainly states:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
And:
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
This is, of course, what McCarthy is keen to protect his Bush administration friends from. And so his untruthful screed.
But no, it's not a case of "Is that all there is?"
Update: More from Emptywheel, who thinks the redacted paragraphs reveal the Bush administration was using torture in advance of the Bybee CYA memo.
No comments:
Post a Comment