home

Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated

The Washington Post reports a new scandal emerging about Guantanamo Bay. A soon-to-be released military report of investigations into the abuse claims of detainees will confirm that female interrogators sexually humiliated and abused them.

A wide-ranging Pentagon investigation, which has not yet been released, generally confirms the detainees' allegations, according to a senior Defense Department official familiar with the report. While isolated accounts of such tactics have emerged in recent weeks, the new allegations and the findings of the Pentagon investigation indicate that sexually oriented tactics may have been part of the fabric of Guantanamo interrogations, especially in 2003.

The inquiry uncovered numerous instances in which female interrogators, using dye, pretended to spread menstrual blood on Muslim men, the official said. Separately, in court papers and public statements, three detainees say that women smeared them with blood.

According to one official,

...the fake blood was used on Muslim men before they intended to pray, because some Muslims believe that "if a woman touches him prior to prayer, then he's dirty and can't pray." Muslim men also believe that contact with women other than their wives diminishes religious purity.

The investigation is being led by Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III. Several detainnes have made similar charges:

In a yet-to-be-published book, former Army translator Erik Saar said he saw a female interrogator smear red dye on a Saudi man's face, telling him it was blood. Saar's account was first reported by the Associated Press last month. And Mamdouh Habib, an Australian man released from Guantanamo Bay last month, said he was strapped down while a woman told him she was "menstruating" on his face.

One lawyer, Marc Falkoff, said in an interview that when a Yemeni client told him a few weeks ago about an incident involving menstrual blood, "I almost didn't even write it down." He said: "It seemed crazy, like something out of a horror movie or a John Waters film. Now it doesn't seem ludicrous at all."

....Detainee lawyers likened the tactics to Nazis shaving the beards of orthodox Jews or artists dunking a crucifix in urine to shock Christians. "They're exploiting religious beliefs to break them down, to destroy them," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents several dozen detainees. "What they're doing, it reminds me of a pornographic Web site -- it's like the fantasy of all these S&M clubs."

Falkoff said some of his clients have also been threatened with rape by male interrogators.

< Guantanamo Reality Show | National ID Card Bill Passes House >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#1)
    by john horse on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:24:56 AM EST
    What these female interrogators did at Guantanamo had less to do with sex than with religion. They tried to violate Muslim taboos against sex and contact with women. Other reports included a guard ripping pages of the Koran in front of a detainee and throwing those pages into a commode. Forcing detainees to wear shorts so that they were not properly attired for prayer. I'm sure all of these reports are being widely circulated throughout Islamic countries to show that Bush's statement that we are not engaged in a war against Islam is a lie. Like in Abu Ghraib, these interrogators did not suddenly come up with these techniques on their own. In a democracy, those responsible should be held to account, no matter how much rank or power they have. When we will start investigating the higher-ups?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:44:18 AM EST
    I'm not as adverse to the Psychological aspect of Interrogation. This is the military in a waragainst an enmy committed to destroying our way of life- not the police and jaywalkers. There are many stories floating around of questionable veracity, in particular the one about ripping out the pages of the Koran and flushing them. The interrogators will employ some pretty outlandish tactics all directed toward getting the prisoner to open up. Particularly at Gitmo, anything out of the norm planned would have to be agreed upon by the supporting Psychoanalysts as the goal is to make the prisoner more compliant and talkative, not fill them with rage and increase their hostility. Lest we forget, these people are representatives of a movement that wishes us all dead. The military has an obligation to get as much useful info out these guys as they can, and we have as a society agreed that the old ways of the blowtorches and pulled fingernails do not have a place in the society we are trying to build. We are up against an enemy who does not share our convictions for humanity, and think our principles are our primary weakness. I'm not too concerned, here.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:06:51 AM EST
    Wasn't this reported ten days ago on another post? I'll say it again. This isn't a US court case about a guy robbing a QuickiMart. They don't have the right to remain silence, and we do have the right to question them. This isn't torture. It is a way to get them off balance and soften their resolve to not cooperate using psychology rather than cattle prods.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:11:30 AM EST
    Two words: Geneva Conventions. We continue to violate our own agreements and our true core values in this manner. Two other words that occur to me in this regard: depravity and perversion. We have become a rogue nation. Jim can make all the explanations and excuses that he wants for our nation's sanctioned behavior, but none of it changes the way the rest of the world perceives our actions. What profiteth a man to gain the world and lose his soul. I think that applies to women as well.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:30:46 AM EST
    Lynne Stewart comments: "I don't believe in anarchist violence but in directed violence," Stewart stated. "That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions and accompanied by popular support." The September 11 terrorist attacks on America were an "armed struggle" like Hiroshima and Dresden, she stated for that article, noting that such conflicts inevitably cause civilian casualties. "I have a lot of trouble figuring out why that is wrong, especially when people are placed in a position of having no other way," she said. If Ms. Stewart would like to direct violence against "the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions and accompanied by popular support," I respectfully suggest she's going to be fighting unsuccessfully. What a collosal waste of time and energy.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:31:21 AM EST
    et al BTW - It seems that my previous moniker causes TL problems due to spam, etc. Given that net g is now a $10B industry, I can see why. Anyway, I am now PPJ, but otherwise the sweet lovable person you have always known.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:34:15 AM EST
    CA - I think the GC forbids torture. Embarassing the prisoner isn't torture. And spare me the "it will our soldiers if thet are captured" nonsense.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:38:05 AM EST
    Some perspective would be nice- we aren't feeding people into paper shredders until the talk or burning them with irons- we are studiously trying to push the right set of buttons in the most humane way possible to get mass murdering terrorists bent on our destruction to talk. We signed the Geneva Convention with other nations to ensure the proper treatment of our prisoners in the event of a conflict with one of the other signees, not as a limiting agreement to what we may or may not do to protect our country and its people. I have yet to see any compliance statements or RedCross reports from Al Qaeda and Zarqawi's minions as to their compliance.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:51:06 AM EST
    I'm not condoning what appears to have been going on, but there is something seriously wrong with a religion/culture that holds that a woman is responsible for being raped and can be charged with adultery (and then stoned to death for that offense) if she is raoed while simultaneously believing that the man who rapes her is made impure by seeing scantily clad female interrogators or having them rub up against him.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:58:24 AM EST
    Jim and gary used to love Rush's frat parties. A couple of points. 1. This may well be within GC definition of unacceptable techniques. 2. Is there any proof that these techniques actually yield useful information. 3. How many innocent detainees have these techniques been used against 4. It doesn't matter whether aQ obeys the GC or not, we are still bound to do so. 5. It has become clear that during this war many innocent Iraqis have been tortured and mistreated, in Iraq and at Gitmo. How's that helping the whole hearts and minds thing? 6. The apologists are just as guilty of torture as the actual soldiers since it is their acceptance and in many cases vocal support of these techniques that has allowed them to continue since the decision not to stop is, in essence, a political one.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:00:16 AM EST
    Posted by: Gerry Owen on February 11, 2005 07:38 AM Some perspective would be nice It sure would. We don't even know if these people are part of a terrorist organization, if they upset someone who had the ear of the americans, or were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time. But, hey, let's "embarass" them anyway, shall we? Would those approving of these tactics also have no problem with making a Jehovah's Witness get a blood transfusion (or make them think they got one)? How about making a Christian pledge their soul to Satan? How about making a homophobe think that they were being infected with AIDS? Or think they were getting sexual stimulation from a member of their own sex? I cannot believe that we have gotten to the point as a nation where we purportedly have roughly half the population sanctioning this type of behavior. Maybe when they come for you and yours, your attitude will be a little different...

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:01:18 AM EST
    justpaul, no one is saying that all their practices are acceptable. But what does that point have to do with the morality of our actions. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. Secondly, is the practices you described supported by all of Islamic clerics, a few, or what?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:24:04 AM EST
    I heard they even showed them naked pictures of Ann Coulter, so that every time they thought of sex, they would get violently ill.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:43:05 AM EST
    paradocs - Sorry, embarassing someone is not the same, or deliberatly confusing them, etc. as humilation. There is a degree of difference. But while we argue, the fact is we have the small matter of these folks not being POW's under Article 4.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:46:33 AM EST
    You didn't read Article 5, did you? They are POWs until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. dubya and/or rummy can't do so by executive fiat.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:57:22 AM EST
    "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:" Does this apply? Afganistan under the Taliban was not a contracting party. And you skillfully ignored the entire "unlawful combatant" issue.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:05:55 AM EST
    DISCLAIMER: I AM AGAINST TORTURE SD - I'll ask again. Can you, or anyone, provide any information proving that torture doesn't yield useful information? Come on, there must be something out there. BTW - Sure wish I could have gone to some of those Frat parties, but I was too busy working. No Pell Grants in those days. You ever bussed tables, been a waiter or tended bar? (:Tom:) writes "Or think they were getting sexual stimulation from a member of their own sex?" Uh, how would you do that? I mean you are either aroused or you are not. Same for pledging souls. ricky1756 - Heart be still.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#20)
    by DonS on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:06:32 AM EST
    This admistration went way overboard in the name of "security". Their arrogance is their guide. Those not concerned with the wider implications of such draconian, arrogant behavior will never be able to see this. In fact they will applaude it. It is for the rest of us to advocate for the future in which the US sees itself as part of the community of nations, not THE ONLY nation of concern.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:13:36 AM EST
    Hello!!! This goes on in American prisons across this country every day!! I've been at Rikers Island for 24 years and it makes Abu Gharib look like Disneyland!! It's just that it's not "in your face" stuff you see everyday. There's nothing that happened there or at Gitmo that I don't see every single day at Rikers. That's why alot of the public could care less about tortur, we see it and participate in it every day. Our mantra is "the ends justify the means". You do what you have to do. It makes Gitmo and Abu Gharib look like play time!!!

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:27:54 AM EST
    "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:" Does this apply? Afganistan under the Taliban was not a contracting party. And you skillfully ignored the entire "unlawful combatant" issue.
    The United States is a signatory and duly ratified the conventions. They apply to us and how we behave at all times. The Yoo and Gonzalez "failed state" doctrine was created out of the ether, with no basis in the language of the conventions or international law. If a competent tribunal has not made a determination then the prisoner is a POW. You scrupulously ignore the competent tribunal requirement.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:28:21 AM EST
    paradocs - Atticle 5 "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. Article 17: "Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status. Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth." You just assume there is doubt. If there is no doubt that they do not meet any of the criteria, then they are not POW's.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#24)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:37:27 AM EST
    PPJ people have responded. you choose to ignore it or find it unconvincing (not surprising). The other side of the coin is, if it is known to work you should be able to post references. Your common sense doesn't count.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:51:31 AM EST
    PPJ writes: "Or think they were getting sexual stimulation from a member of their own sex?" Uh, how would you do that? I mean you are either aroused or you are not. Same for pledging souls. I would guess that you might get them aroused by whatever means you wish while they are hooded, and at the climactic (cough) moment whip off the hood and have someone of the same sex close to the aroused area. As for pledging souls, I would also guess that you could pretend to draw some of their blood to sign something. Not being intimately familiar with occult pagan superstition I'm not too sure about the methodology involved... Both of these digressions miss the point I was making: would it be okay to "embarass" those of the Christian faith in the same manner as these Muslims are being "embarassed"? I am reminded of the scene in 1984 where Winston Smith is being "embarassed" by some hungry rats just beyond reach of his face until he starts singing whatever tune the Party wants him to sing. there was no torture there, either - just a potential for torture that was unrealized once the detainee began toeing the party line. Would that sort of behavior be acceptable in these circumstances? For anyone who gets caught up in the dragnet regardless of their guilt (or lack thereof)? [snark]Plus - thanks for the visual of a naked AnnThraxx Coulterbeast. Right before lunch too. There goes my appetite... and I wonder what kind of material the lens could be made of - any earthly substance I can think of would be shattered upon that sort of exposure.[/snark]

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    I can, go on and on about this, but one word sums it all up "normal"

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    All the guilty people from 9/11 are dead, they died in the plane crashes. America is wrong for taking wholesale revenge on thousands of Arabs whose only crime is impotent hatred of the US.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    It is disgusting to see american soldiers torturing prisonners. Americans were supposed to show what civilization is. What a shame ! :-(

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    "It is disgusting to see american soldiers torturing prisonners. Americans were supposed to show what civilization is. What a shame !" Spend a few days at gitmo or get your head lopped off by Zarqawi's goons. Which would you choose? I'll take our version of civilization even as poorly as you all present it here any day over the alternative presented by our enemies!

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    Why does that give us the right to torture prisoners? Torture is wrong. No other way around it.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    (:Tom:) - Somehow I don't think 99.999% of the population could become sexually aroused while being held prisoner with a sack over your head. And since you admitedly don't know what you are talking about, why bring the subject up? And yes, embarassment would be fine for Christian terrorists. SD - I have raised the issue one time before, and DA made a response, but no links, etc. My guess is that all we have is someone scowling darkly and saying, "Torture doesn't work." Fine. Show me. satchel - How about those who planned, financed and otherwise aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorists on the airplanes? Should we just ignore them?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    I don't agree it is torture, and I don't think too many people think it is as either. Explain this to the legal laymen of the world: "The Yoo and Gonzalez "failed state" doctrine was created out of the ether, with no basis in the language of the conventions or international law." When Article 3 states: "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,..." Seems to lay out the parameters an scope rather clearly. And can someone show me where supranational terrorists are considered legitimate combatants in the first place? I do not think they do. What Geneva signatory are they represented by?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    PPj, So we captured Osama right? And Al Quaida is completely destroyed right? And there are no more members of the Taliban in Afganistan. Or am I mistaken?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    Gerry, If I read your statement correctly, because they are not concidered legitimate combatants we can treat them as we please? Even if they are not protected by the Geneva Convention, how is this moral? How is this appropriate? I thought we were supposed to be better than this.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    Posted by PPJ (aka Jim) at February 11, 2005 12:37 PM (:Tom:) - Somehow I don't think 99.999% of the population could become sexually aroused while being held prisoner with a sack over your head. I'm really glad that your thoughts do not factor in very many reality-based discussions. I would think that anything is possible in these type of circumstances. And that someone who has been in detention for a long time could become excited about just about anything new. Sadly (cough) I have no experience in the area of unlawful detention of random foreigners who do not share my pagan occult superstitions. And since you admitedly don't know what you are talking about, why bring the subject up? I didn't bring the subject up - I was responding to one of your statements. I bow to your superior experience in the areas of "embarassment", "frat hazing", and "abuse". And I'm sorry that my wild-a$$ speculation is so much less valid than yours. Quite possibly I would be considered less of a human being in your eyes as well? Probably nothing that a few years in Gitmo with no access to due process or any of those "privileges" that Americans assume they are entitled to would convince me of the error of my ways...

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:36:35 PM EST
    I guess I view all this as evidence that the feds were using their heads for a change. I think it's pretty clever - fake menstrual blood, provocative clothing, etc., etc. No fingernails being pulled out, no one being put feet first through a paper shredder, no electrodes on the gonads, just smart police work to break some recalcitrant perps.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:44:57 PM EST
    PPJ I think we have a bunch of sadists saying it does work. Show me! I think the never ending search for a legal loop hole misses the main point that these conventions were drafted since torture of human beings is abhorent and, in my view, immoral and for the most part ineffective. Calling them POWs or whatever does not change that basic fact. In addition we know that many Iraqis who are innocent have been tortured. I dont care what label you afix them, its wrong.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    How about those who planned, financed and otherwise aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorists on the airplanes? Should we just ignore them? I don’t think there was much behind the 20(?) men who crashed the planes on 9/11. Any small group of relatively competent people could have pulled off the 9/11 attacks, the element of surprise, and the pilots’ lack of understanding that the hijackers were suicidal, made the attacks possible. There’s no doubt that Osama bin Laden had peripheral knowledge of the attacks, and might have indirectly supplied the funding for them, but the ‘planning’ and ‘abetting’ were self-contained in the group who committed the acts. Is Osama bin Laden directly responsible for every event on which his henchmen spend his money?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    (last post was mine, sorry for the lack of ID)

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    In my reading of the Geneva Convention, I don't see where both parties have to be signatories for the rules to apply. It seems to say that if you signed, then you're bound by the rules, independent of what the other side does. Correct me if I'm wrong

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    Don't know about you, but mind games such as the ones allegedly done in Guantánamo, are laughable compared to Uday's Woodchippers. What are you all belly aching. So what if our prisioners got their sensibilities a little bruised. Unlike our enemies, we do not throw our prisioners to hungry lions.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    PPj - You keep saying "not torture" like a good little errand-boy,and then ask us to prove IT(torture?)"dosnt work" - you sound like a true believer - in torture,amongst other things.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:46:08 PM EST
    Soccerdad, Jondee- You all are sure quick to make the jump to calling Jim and I torturers and sadists. Projection issues? I really have a problem with labelling hurting someone's feelings torture, while apparently you all don't. I will leave it at that. "If I read your statement correctly, because they are not concidered legitimate combatants we can treat them as we please?" Technically, YES. However, we are a just and moral nation (hence this debate) and we are trying to find the most humane way to get these guys to talk. As recently as the Second World War they would have been shot. By privates. No tribunal or NY lefty Lawyer.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:48:27 PM EST
    All the "torture" and antics applied to the prisoners and still no capture of Osama. The US has given credit to the Pakistani government for nearly every high level AQ capture and we still have no clue where Zarqawi is. Uday and Saddam were given up by people looking for the reward money. Does torture work? From what I am seeing it has not won me over as an effective resource. Of course the argument will be that "we don't know what has been accomplished as it is classified" but a very easy litmus test is where are Osama and Zarqawi???

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#45)
    by john horse on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:15:03 PM EST
    So based on some of the comments: We have the right to sexually humiliate these detainees as much as we want. Why? Because Afghanistan under the Taliban are not technically signatories to the Geneva Convention. We can do so for as long as we want. Why? Because we are at war. When will the war be over? When we say it is. This is a system that the Marquis de Sade would have loved. Oh yeah, I forgot. Technically we are a just and moral nation.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:19:10 PM EST
    jondee - Nope. I am just tired of hearing "torture doesn't work." with absolutely no back up. Okay fine. Now show me some information that it doesn't work. We will then have the following arguments against torture. 1. It is an immoral thing to do. 2. It is against the GC and ICAT. (Only important if the people in question are covered.) 3. From a practical view, it yields nothing. So why risk retaliation? Dearest No Name - Denial is a wonderful position, and it works well right up until the time when reality hits you smack dab in the face. (:Tom:) And sadly you have absolutely no common sense if you think being in prison with a bag over your head wouldn't negate "sexual arousal." The GC's were written around war between two nation states. And no, you are the one who brought up the methods, not I. And yes, you are a test to my liberal beliefs. SD - Are you blind? Are you incapable of reading the dislcaimer? I think you just say what you want, whether it is true or not. And, for the most part ineffective? Doesn't that mean partially effective? If it would save American lives, would you use it?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#47)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:37:30 PM EST
    However, we are a just and moral nation (hence this debate) and we are trying to find the most humane way to get these guys to talk. Unadulturated BS. 37, possibly more, have been killed during torture since the war in Afghanistan. Of course you like to discuss these cases in todays post in isolation because some of the actions may be borderline. However, this is just a sampling of an overall policy in which people have been tortured and killed all the while those in charge have looked for justifications and loopholes to do this. There are memos etc but no one cares. PPJ where the documentation that it works.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#48)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:41:29 PM EST
    PPJ your disclaimer is BS because your definition of torture is BS. Pretty clever trick. you have yet to recognize a case of torture as far as i can remember.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:31:21 PM EST
    That was me above. The Conventions are very clear. We are bound by them regardless of whether the other side is. Captured people are assumed to be POWs or civilians. A nebulous, category such as unlawful combatant is to be determined by independent tribunal, not the military type tribunals convened by the capturing side. There really is so reasonable argument for any treatment of the detainees except as civilians, pows, or submission to independent tribunal for other status.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#50)
    by john horse on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:43:32 PM EST
    This stuff is not just against the Geneva Conventions. Amendment VIII of the US Constituion "no cruel and unusual punishment..." Then there was this from a Middle East philosopher over 2,000 years ago who wrote "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you" Sometimes those who profess a set of beliefs are not necessarily the same group of people as those who practice those beliefs.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:09:35 PM EST
    This is my third and last attempt for the night: linked text

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:16:20 PM EST
    from the article linked finally: Article 1 of the convention states: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat [unable to fight] by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. The way I read this people who are detained and thus no longer able to fight are entitled to be protected from "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Jim, I think the menstrual blood treatment at Gitmo is a violation, what do you think?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 12:14:06 AM EST
    Here's an interesting overview of the Geneva Conventions and the arguments about lawful and unlawful combatants from our neighbors to the north: [botched link deleted.]

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 12:16:11 AM EST
    Posted by: PPJ (aka Jim) on February 11, 2005 07:34 AM CA - I think the GC forbids torture. Embarassing the prisoner isn't torture. And spare me the "it will our soldiers if thet are captured" nonsense.
    Uh, you might actually want to read the Third Geneva Convention, a treaty which the United States signed and duly ratified. Then read Article VI of the Constitution. link The Fourth Geneva Convention (civilians - "protected persons") has identical language.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#55)
    by john horse on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:06:03 AM EST
    ca, re: "I suspect that most care as little about these matters as many germans cared about Jews in 1941." According to the Washington Post article, "Detainee lawyers likened the tactics to Nazis shaving the beards of orthodox Jews or artists dunking a crucifix in urine to shock Christians. "They're exploiting religious beliefs to break them down, to destroy them," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents several dozen detainees. "What they're doing, it reminds me of a pornographic Web site -- it's like the fantasy of all these S&M clubs."

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 08:00:56 AM EST
    Conscious Angel, Part I, Art. 4 of the Convention goes on to define who is and isn't a POW. Those that we hold in Guantanamo are certainly not members of a regular uniformed army. Thus, Sects 1&3 do not apply Sec 2 allows POW status for Militia Members, conceivably AlQaida Members. However Subsection B clearly states that such POW designation can be confered ONLY IF "That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" and Subsection D "That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war". AlQaida Members clearly: 1. Don't carry neither fixed nor distinctive signs of their militia 2. Conduct their operations in accordance to civilized laws and customs of war... or would you call the slicing of necks, of civilians with butter knives IN ACCORDANCE TO the customs of war. As such, the fall under the category of saboteurs. If it weren't for the opeational intelligence that they carry in their infected heads, they would have been shot on the spot.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#57)
    by john horse on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    Boquisucio, Read CA's link. According to it, "under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them...Even if they are found to be "unlawful combatants" they still have rights under international humanitarian law – to humane treatment, to a fair trial if charged with a crime, and not to be tortured." Whats wrong with having an independent judge determine their status? Sounds fair to me.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    CA - Article 5 - clearly says: "Should any doubt arise.." Now most of us reading that would automatically know that the writers meant exactly that. Evidently you choose to be obtuse, because you want everyone to be under the GC. This is clearly a qualifier statement. 1. If there are doubts, they get a tribunal. 2. If there are no doubts as to their status they do not. And they are not covered. Life gets tedious, doesn't it. SD - One more time. As I said to jondee: "Okay fine. Now show me some information that it doesn't work. We will then have the following arguments against torture. 1. It is an immoral thing to do. 2. It is against the GC and ICAT. (Only important if the people in question are covered.) 3. From a practical view, it yields nothing. So why risk retaliation?" John Horse - Interesting argument, but I don't believe these folks have the same rights as citizens.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#59)
    by soccerdad on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    PPJ - as I've said before show me some evidence that it can- oh i forgot you just pontificate out your butt while holding other people to tests and standards you yourself will not follow - as usual the biggest hypocrite here. I guess you can't find any

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#60)
    by soccerdad on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:09:41 PM EST
    Read this article, although not definitive it strongly suggests that it does not work and is opposed by the FBI

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:36:30 PM EST
    SD - You are the person making the claim that torture doesn't work. Don't expect me to do the work that the claimer should do. Interesting article, doesn't really do much but rehash a lot of points. It does have (at least) one comment that suggests that torture does work. "The U.S. began rendering terror suspects to other countries, but the most common destination remained Egypt. The partnership between the American and the Egyptian intelligence services was extraordinarily close: the Americans could give the Egyptian interrogators questions they wanted put to the detainees in the morning, Scheuer said, and get answers by the evening. The Americans asked to question suspects directly themselves, but, Scheuer said, the Egyptians refused. “We were never in the same room at the same time.” But even here, oustide of a belief that the Egyptians must be torturers, we have no evidence.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#62)
    by soccerdad on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:01:56 PM EST
    No PPJ I don't expect you to back up your words. Pontificating out your ass is your speciality

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:21:26 PM EST
    from article 5 and with regard to treatment of saboteurs: Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    Article 5 The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:28:50 PM EST
    The context and meaning of the phrase "should any doubt arise" in Article 5 refers specifically as to whether any doubt arises in the matter of whether a belligerent, or one believed to have committed belligerent acts, is a member of a military or paramilitary force as enumerated in Section 4. Those groups being specifically entitled to the protection of the Conventions. In that context, if there is doubt, Article 5 directs that the "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    Once entitled to the protection of the convention, the following from Article is in force: the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time ... c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; Now who is being obtuse?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Sexually Humiliated (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 12:32:03 PM EST
    PPJ: Now most of us reading that would automatically know that the writers meant exactly that. Yes indeed: the obvious interpretation is that if there is doubt that the detainees qualify under Article 4, they must still be treated as if they were PoWs, until a competent tribunal is formed to show that they are not PoWs. Bush & Co failed to do this: instead, they took the labored interpretation that because they didn't doubt the detainees weren't PoWs, they didn't have to have competent tribunals. Three years later, when large numbers of the the detainees have had to be released because they weren't guilty of anything in particular, we see that there was excellent reason why Bush & Co should have obeyed the law, rather than thinking they could flout it with impunity.