PDA

View Full Version : Don't forget Afghanistan....




skunk
Jun 23, 2004, 04:07 AM
US tortured Afghanistan detainees

Duncan Campbell and Suzanne Goldenberg
Wednesday June 23, 2004
The Guardian

Detainees held in Afghanistan by US troops have been routinely tortured and humiliated as part of the interrogation process in the same way as those in Iraq, a Guardian investigation has found.

Five detainees have died in custody, three of them in suspicious circumstances, and survivors have told stories of beatings, strippings, hoodings and sleep deprivation.

The nature of the alleged abuse indicates that what happened at Abu Ghraib was part of a pattern of interrogation that has been common practice since the invasion of Afghanistan.

"The abuses in Afghanistan were no less egregious than at Abu Ghraib, but because there were no photographs - at least to our present knowledge - they have not received enough attention," Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic member of the Senate subcommittee on foreign operations, told the Guardian.

"Prisoners in Afghanistan were subjected to cruel and degrading treatment, and some died from it. These abuses were part of a wider pattern stemming from a White House attitude that 'anything goes' in the war against terrorism, even if it crosses the line of illegality."

Syed Nabi Siddiqi, a former police officer, said he had been beaten and stripped. "They took off my uniform. I showed them my identity card from the government of President Karsai. Then they asked me which of those animals - they made the noise of goats, sheep, dogs, cows - have you had sexual activities with?"

A second detainee, Noor Aghah, said he had been forced to drink bottle after bottle of water during his interrogation.

Another prisoner, Wazir Muhammad, was held for nearly two years, firstly in Afghanistan and then in Guantánamo Bay. "At the end of my time in Guantánamo, I had to sign a paper saying I had been captured in battle which was not true," he said. "I was stopped when I was in my taxi with four passengers. But they told me I would have to spend the rest of my life in Guantánamo if I did not sign it, so I did."

Parts of an investigation into allegations of abuse in custody by Brigadier General Chuck Jacoby are to be made public next month by the head of the US forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General David Barno.

Gen Barno said: "I will tell you without hesitation that intelligence procedures have got to be done in accordance with the appropriate standards ... all our forces will treat every detainee here with dignity and respect."

Bagram and the network of US detention centres around Afghanistan have largely avoided scrutiny, yet, according to the coalition forces last week, more than 2,000 people have been detained there since the war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1245236,00.html



Chip NoVaMac
Jun 23, 2004, 07:41 AM
You know, this has been one of the sore points for me in the "war on terrorism". The administration and the media can't seem to get Iraq off their minds. But Afghanistan was the first theater for the 'war on terrorism" and those men and women are being forgotten. This is not to justify the torture of the detainees. Just a disappointment that we are not hearing more.

Desertrat
Jun 23, 2004, 08:55 AM
Stipulating that the taxi-driver's story is true: His deal was wrong. False accusations (proably due to possible communications problems) are wrong. Beatings are wrong. And there's a limit to how much humiliation anybody should endure.

Where there is a rational concern that a person has information which would in actuality help prevent further deaths, or uncover the location of a dangerous person, I can see some amount of harsh treatment--but stopping short of torture. Again, "rational concern", not, "He might know something, maybe."

I have difficulty with equating sleep-deprivation with the true torture of beatings. Or, from another story, forcing somebody to stand for four hours being equated with true torture.

I realize the moral aspects of not descending to the level of our enemies.

At the same time, it's sorta hard to get all that exercized about the level of torture we've allegedly perpetrated. As a society, we find foul language amusing; rudeness and discourtesy are commonplace. Our government supports irresponsibility for consequences of one's actions. Professors teach situational ethics.

Why is anybody surprised?

'Rat

Chip NoVaMac
Jun 23, 2004, 09:18 AM
Stipulating that the taxi-driver's story is true: His deal was wrong. False accusations (proably due to possible communications problems) are wrong. Beatings are wrong. And there's a limit to how much humiliation anybody should endure.

Where there is a rational concern that a person has information which would in actuality help prevent further deaths, or uncover the location of a dangerous person, I can see some amount of harsh treatment--but stopping short of torture. Again, "rational concern", not, "He might know something, maybe."

I have difficulty with equating sleep-deprivation with the true torture of beatings. Or, from another story, forcing somebody to stand for four hours being equated with true torture.

I realize the moral aspects of not descending to the level of our enemies.

At the same time, it's sorta hard to get all that exercized about the level of torture we've allegedly perpetrated. As a society, we find foul language amusing; rudeness and discourtesy are commonplace. Our government supports irresponsibility for consequences of one's actions. Professors teach situational ethics.

Why is anybody surprised?

'Rat

It gets to a point of where we are willing to give up our "liberty" or "freedom" for our "safety"?

Desertrat
Jun 23, 2004, 06:04 PM
Chip, that's already been decided. Of course we'll trade liberty for security. That was shown by the poll results after the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. Over half the respondents agreed that they'd make the tradeoff.

"Security" of whatever sort is the unending goal of most Americans. Doubt me? Just take note of how many TV ads, one way or another, focus on or hint at the idea that involvement with the product will make life more secure. Health, finance...

Why else would we tolerate the indignities of air travel?

'Rat

blackfox
Jun 23, 2004, 06:16 PM
'Rat,
Well of course the concerns for security tie into the basic instinct for self-preservation which of course is one of the most basic needs/drives of humanity. This instinctual drive tends to trump the more evolved intellectual/ideological ideals such as the concept of Liberty etc.

Where, however, is the realization of the Muslim/Iraqi/Afghani need for that same sense of Security with reference to nearly two centuries of Western intervention ranging from creating countries/drawing boundries to the imposition of western versions of morality and ideology to the bombing of various countries? Do they not have the right to define their security on their own terms (not ours)? Security can also be tied into the right to self-determination too, of course...

I realize, of course, that our need for security and their need for it may not reconcile well, as well as the fact that we may be too far gone in some ways to forgive and forget...

Just some ramblings...

skunk
Jun 23, 2004, 06:18 PM
Chip, that's already been decided. Of course we'll trade liberty for security.
Your government will also trade 20,000 dead foreign civilians for security. Therefore, Liberty=20,000 dead foreigners. Q.E.D. Interesting equation. :)