« Antitdote to Fritz |
Main
| Suicidal Man May Get Death Penalty »
January 27, 2005
More Perfectly Legitimate, Non Fascist Interrogation Techniques
Stories from the front lines of our "drive to spread freedom and human rights."
Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.
A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon (news - web sites) review for a planned book that details ways the U.S. military used women as part of tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics to get terror suspects to talk.
A.P.
... every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth.
George W. Bush - Second Inaugural
One female civilian contractor used a special outfit that included a miniskirt, thong underwear and a bra during late-night interrogations with prisoners, mostly Muslim men who consider it taboo to have close contact with women who aren't their wives.
Beginning in April 2003, "there hung a short skirt and thong underwear on the hook on the back of the door" of one interrogation team's office, he writes. "Later I learned that this outfit was used for interrogations by one of the female civilian contractors ... on a team which conducted interrogations in the middle of the night on Saudi men who were refusing to talk."
Some Guantanamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by "prostitutes."
In another case, Saar describes a female military interrogator questioning an uncooperative 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Hani Hanjour received pilot instruction for three months in 1996 and in December 1997 at a flight school in Scottsdale, Ariz.
"His female interrogator decided that she needed to turn up the heat," Saar writes, saying she repeatedly asked the detainee who had sent him to Arizona, telling him he could "cooperate" or "have no hope whatsoever of ever leaving this place or talking to a lawyer.'"
The man closed his eyes and began to pray, Saar writes.
The female interrogator wanted to "break him," Saar adds, describing how she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.
The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts.
The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.
Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with women other than a man's wife or family, and with any menstruating women, who are considered unclean.
"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," says the draft, stamped "Secret."
The interrogator used ink from a red pen to fool the detainee, Saar writes.
"She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee," he says. "As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred.
"She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward" — so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle.
"He began to cry like a baby," the draft says, noting the interrogator left saying, "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."
A.P.
Posted by ahecht at January 27, 2005 1:51 PM
Previous Comments
I've read Anne Applebaum's piece in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html).
Torture doesn't work. Fine.
However, in the article above no one had their legs broken. No one had their genitals burned. No one had acid splashed in their faces. No one was beaten black and blue. No one lost fingers or finger nails. That kind of thing doesn't work, is against every treaty the United States has ever signed (whether those treaties apply to unlawful combatants), and is ugly and un-American anyway.
In this instance, interrogators merely used the terrorists' hateful bigotry against women as a psychological ploy against them. I have no problem with using psychological tricks that take into account cultural and religious mores to put pressure on terrorists to make them talk.
Posted by:
Fritz at January 27, 2005 2:32 PM
"I have no problem with using psychological tricks that take into account cultural and religious mores to put pressure on terrorists to make them talk."
Gosh, me neither - let's chase John Ashcroft around DC with a naked statue.
Posted by: WSH at January 27, 2005 3:36 PM
Don't you mean "alleged terrorists?"
How do you feel about Mormons? Catholics? Hateful bigotry against women takes many forms, mon ami.
As WSH points out, I'm sure you'd be find if American Catholic soldiers were being held down and forced to watch abortions, eh? I mean, hell, it's not like anyone's legs are being broken.
Another question: Has there ever been an "unlawful combatant" on our side, or is that a term reserved exclusively for our enemies? You're one of those people who thinks there's a "civilized" way to conduct a war, aren't you? And the civilized way is, of course, our way. Anyone else's tactics are "unlawful."
Posted by:
Anthony at January 27, 2005 4:01 PM
Well, yes, of course there have been unlawful combatants on our side. There are the bunch of folks who were tourturing people at Abu Ghraib who are rightly going to prison. The May Lai massacre in Vietnam obviously falls under the heading "unlawful." I'm sure you can find plenty of instances from WWI and WWII of soldiers and commanders who went beyond what was allowable under the United States Military Code of Justice. Despite the protests of many conservatives, I wanted a Court Martial for the Marine who killed the unarmed, wounded Iraqi in the mosque (To prove his innocence if nothing else).
"As WSH points out, I'm sure you'd be fine if American Catholic soldiers were being held down and forced to watch abortions, eh? I mean, hell, it's not like anyone's legs are being broken."
Well, there is a baby being killed, isn't there? I think infanticide is pretty bad, is it not?
Posted by:
Fritz at January 28, 2005 8:42 AM
Mr. Jonathan Keith Idema, recently convicted of a whole host of bad things in Kabul, is the perfect example of an unlawful combatant who is also an American citizen.
The perpetrators of May Lai in Vietnam were not "unlawful combatants" by the strict definition (they were legitimate soldiers wearing legitimate uniforms) but they clearly opperated outside legitimate bounds and were rightly punished.
Just war theory, accordint to St. Thomas: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/304001.htm
Of course, I'll have to admit that the current Vatican doesn't think the United States has met all three conditions for a just war. I think they are wrong.
Posted by:
Fritz at January 28, 2005 8:54 AM
Whoa whoa.. a baby being killed? Now you're editorializing. That's just a Catholic belief, like the Muslim belief that men should not have physical contact with women who are not their wives. It's just a persuasion technique that "takes into account cultural and religious mores."
Posted by:
Anthony at January 28, 2005 10:12 AM
Anyone who can condone this is sick. What this is doing is cutting someone off from their link with god. This is psychologically destroying. Can you imagine being forced too betray your ethical and religious beliefs, leaving you believing that you are now damned forever? That is what we are doing to these people. This is psychological torture. This is as psychologically cripling as killing someone's family, these poor men will not recover from this. I am ashamed to say that I am an American when I read this, because I would like to believe that I live ina civilized country where we do not pull this shit. I am sadly wrong in that false belief, when our government does something like this to anyone, especially potentionally innocent people, then I am just sick to my stomach. I can only hope that whatever god is out there takes pity on those who are so cruel and callous to commit these horrifying acts.
Posted by: Paul at February 14, 2005 6:29 PM
