By PLS
When the FBI questioned interrogation procedures at Guantanamo, the military knew it had to respond and authorized an investigation.
The report of that investigation, headed by Air Force General Randall Schmidt, was released on July 14, at which time the General testified before the Senate Armed Service Committee.
Someone’s definitely been hurt when a Department of Defense news release (the one for the Schmidt report, dated July 14) has a headline like this:
Alleged Guantanamo Abuse Did Not Rise to Level of Inhumane
Language in a DoD press release is minutely crafted by military public affairs officers. After that it’s nitpickingly approved at a very high level. We would do well to take every word seriously. So let’s examine it.
“Inhumane” describes any action causing mental, emotional or physical pain, but the double negative “not inhumane” is not quite the same as “humane” pure and simple. It’s a very clever verbal weasel.
Consider the difference in import had the Pentagon spinners been able to report:
Guantanamo Detainee Treatment Considered Appropriate and Humane
But the Department of Defense couldn’t claim that, because there were witnesses to some very unsavory treatment.
Men subjected to lap dances and sexual touching or stripped in front of women and forced to wear bras and panties? Men chained tightly to the floor for endless, supposedly painless hours–until publicity forced an end to it? Sleep deprivation, which can alter personality, or unceasing loud horrible music, ditto? And so on.
From previous Bush II Administration documents we know that, according to Pentagon definitions, torment isn’t torture unless it’s life-threatening or organ-damaging. Is the Pentagon also asserting that humiliation and degradation aren’t inhumane? Is Schmidt trying to get away with defining torture as not including mental and emotional pain as well as physical pain?
And as for that “short-shackling,” Gen. Schmit testified, “It was not considered to be overly abusive. There was no injury. There was no pain involved in this.”
This is a ludicrous claim. If there were no physical pain or extreme discomfort (which is the same as pain), the victim would feel no pressure to confess. The procedure would be futile.
Which leads us to that phrase of great compassion: “not overly abusive.” We are intended to be reassured, I think. But Schmit is actually saying that not-overly-abusive treatment or “torture lite” is ok, because it is “not inhumane.”
Not inhumane indeed!
But Southern Command Chief General Bantz Craddock blithely agrees. He assured the Senate Armed Forces Committee that the Guantanamo staff are doing “fine work” and “their adherence to the highest standards of humane treatment of the detainees under their charge is lauded by all who visit the facility.”
Well, not by the FBI. That’s why the Schmidt report was prepared.
Not by the International Red Cross, either.
As I wrote in “The Guantanamo Hilton" last week, what's needed is a report based on a wholly independent, unannounced visit with access to every inch of the facilities and confidential access to all personnel.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s latest attempt to whitewash procedures at Guantanamo and Abu Graib has produced a lovely little confession, which is also embedded in this press release.
Schmidt told the Senate committee that
DoD’s interrogation goals can sometimes conflict with those of the FBI; that’s why FBI agents might construe something as inappropriate that, in reality, is allowed within DoD guidelines.FBI agents are seeking evidence that will stand up in a court of law.. “The (FBI) agents on the ground obviously wanted to develop rapport and develop evidence through non-coercive means” because evidence obtained through coersion [sic] is generally not admissible in court....
The Defense Department, however, is seeking actionable intelligence to thwart future terrorist attacks and to use in fighting terrorists.
Note that Schmidt does not assert that the FBI's non-coercive approach fails to obtain the evidence needed to bring criminals to justice.
But DoD, for ever shifting reasons, continues to defend the use of “coercive means.” In short, torture "is allowed within DoD guidelines."
I'm so glad we've got that straight.
The Schmidt Report, concedes the press release, is the 12th major review of detainee operations, which suggests to me that problems persist uncorrected (or merely tweaked) report after report, but Virginia Senator John Warner is satisfied.
In my judgement, the Department has performed credibly in investigating alleagotions of abuse and failure to follow professional standards and the law and regulation in these instances.What is wrong with the Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee? One purpose of civilian control of the military is to prevent the misuse of noble ends to justify short-sighted, illegal or disproportionate means.
Means such as torture, broadly, narrowly or however redefined.