U.S. Official: “We Tortured” Gitmo Detainee
A U.S. official told the Washington Post that at least one suspect held at Guantanamo Bay was tortured. The official making the statement is someone who knows what she is talking about: Susan J. Crawford is the top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay prisoners to trial.
“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” she told the Post in her first interview about the case. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.
Her statement came after years in which President Bush and other top U.S. government officials said the U.S. did not torture.
Lest conservatives accuse Crawford of being a radical liberal: she served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense.
She explained that the techniques used did not in themselves constitute torture. Rather, it was the combination of several techniques and the aggressive manner in which those techniques were applied that clearly crossed the line between enhanced interrogation techniques and torture.
“The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge” to call it torture, she said.
Crawford explained: “For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators. Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister.”
At one point, the suspect was ‘threatened with a military working dog named Zeus.’ Later he was “forced to wear a woman’s bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation” and “was told that his mother and sister were whores.” His interrogators put him on a leash on yet another occasion, walking him around his cell and forcing him to perform all kinds of ‘tricks.’
Crawford confirms what many of us suspected for years; torture was applied in Guantanamo Bay. This prison has done such terrible damage to America’s reputation that it is hard to imagine another president doing something worse. Gitmo is truly a black page in America’s history.
Is al-]Qahtani a terrorist? Did he conspire to take innocent lives? Did he take up arms on the side of the Islamofascists in Afghanistan? Yes to all. Crawford affirms all of this. Given his knowledge of 9/11, all interrogation techniques had to be on the table.
For Crawford and others to render judgment years later is interesting but ultimately important only insofar as the new viewpoints shape future events. Should another 9/11-type attack take place, who really thinks the line that we should not cross is the one that Crawford has drawn in her own mind?
Not buying it. Wore panties on his head? Only saw interrogators? Cry me a river. Call me when they start pulling out fingernails or make the first cut in his neck with a machete.
So he experienced heart problems. We know that he was hale and healthy when he was taken into custody? We gave him a full battery of tests did we? I doubt it. Yet it’s instantly our fault that a man with murder in his heart and a plan to carry it out gets your sympathy and we your condemnation? I don’t know, Michael. You’re a much clearer thinker than that, even on a hot-button issue like this.
The hand-wringing we’ll see on this story is dangerous, honestly. It diminishes the real torture that’s happening out there on a daily basis and degrades our ability a superior civilization to actually effect positive change anywhere. But at least it makes us feel good as individuals which these days is way more important.
Hmmm. Here’s a terrorist who’s had a bit more than a “medical impact” on many lives. But he’s still a human being. Were his captors acting out of productive strategy … and if so, what good has come of it? And could they have produced more good by other means? Or were they mainly unleashing their anger on him?
I support our troops, I really do. And I support the war and even detaining POWs. But abusers don’t rank much higher than terrorists in my book. I know a former army interrogator personally and he says abusive tactics rarely if ever result in reliable information. What did these guys think they were doing?
I disapprove of torture. Absolutely, categorically. And yet, I suspect that many people will publicly profess their outrage about torture, but would not report it if they saw this man being abused. The military has long stated that it doesn’t think torture is effective. I agree with them. I think several of our intelligence people commented about how effective they were in getting information out of captured Nazis and Japanese officers because they treated them decently. I believe that we are much better served by remembering that.
At the same time, remember that we didn’t weep over the execution of Nazi and Japanese leaders for war crimes. We should have tried Mohammed al-Qhatani like any other combatant. If convicted, we should have asked for his last meal selection, and marched him to the gallows, and stretched his neck. Just as we did with German and Japanese war criminals. But torture? No, I don’t think so.
Having said that, I am not sure I am entirely comfortable with a show trial to prosecute the administration. That is likely to be counter-productive. Also, while I agree with Crawford’s decision and her reasoning. That is much more nuanced than many people want to consider. I think the individual acts really don’t qualify as torture. Embarrassing, yes. Unpleasant, yes. But please - let’s not equate it to beating him, thumb screws, the rack, breaking on the wheel, electric shocks, removing finger nails and toe nails with pliers, etc - there is a long and gruesome list at various human rights sites. Having the case tossed is a reasonable solution - it puts the administration on notice that they have to treat prisoners decently. But to act as if Mr. al-Qhatani was brutalized in a way comparable to the psychological and physical pain inflicted on the people killed by his compatriots on September 11 attacks is specious. As I say, I think he deserved a trial, and if convicted, a quick date with the hangman. I would not vote to convict Rumsfeld, Bush, or anyone else of torture in this case. They went too far, but Crawford is correct - it was the sum of what was done to the prisoner which crossed the line, but the intent seems to have been to aggressively question a suspect, not to brutalize him. That distinction is, I think, important.
I think the individual acts really don’t qualify as torture….Crawford is correct - it was the sum of what was done to the prisoner which crossed the line
Funny, I thought “torture” was explicitly individual acts meeting the statutory definitions. I’ve seen worse than what Crawford describes imposed on fraternity pledges–all while staying inside of campus hazing rules.