Distributed Mind

Some of us have known for some time that the United States considers torture (and similar techniques - called "stress and duress" evidently - that do not technically qualify as torture under current definitions) acceptable practice. They have practiced some of the milder forms of these kinds of practices in Guantanomo Bay and elsewhere for some time. Although I can not find a citation, I seem to recall reading in 2001 admissions by officials in the U. S. (I unfortunately do not recall what was said on the record and what was from anonymous sources - which I admit I am usually wary of) that such practices were taking place, whether practiced by U. S. forces (in the case of "stress and duress") or on deported persons by other nations with U. S. knowledge (in the case of torture).

One well known practice the U. S. has engaged in is to "render" prisoners to countries that are known to practice torture. Many persons have implied or stated on an anonymous basis that the reason for this practice is for the purpose of getting information out of the suspects. The Washington Post reported on the practice of rendition and other abuses in December 2002. The most well known case was that of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, former MathWorks employee, who was deported from the United States while on a layover in New York on his way back to Canada. He was sent to Syria, his birthplace, onstead of Canada; in Syria he was detained for several months, and he claims he was tortured. Arar has recounted his experiences, and even the Washington Post reported on his story. And there have been many other less known examples.

Human Rights Watch has written up a timeline of allegations about detainee abuse (though as I said, I seem to recall allegations from even earlier).

Thus U. S. has made it clear on many occasions that the Geneva Convention is considered to be an obstacle to be avoided. Their insistence on prisoners not being prisoners of war was entirely about that issue. And in February of 2002 one official, Prosper, went on record as saying that the Geneva Conventions were outdated.

I do not know or claim to know the state of affairs in Iraqi prisons. Based on past indicators one would expect to see a pattern of abuse. I am open-minded, however, as to the real state, and would like to see more documentation. However, it will be no schock if there is a pattern, as the U. S. has already made it clear that they will do whatever is necessary in their opinion to extract information from prisoners - even ones that may be innocent, and even regardless of their citizenship. (I should note that I do not think the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld would mean anything. These practices could have been stopped by persons other than Rumsfeld - and especially by the President himself.)

I have to admit I have not been as vocal on this issue as I suppose I should have been (or intended to be). As defense, all I can say is it is a difficult subject to broach. Most persons don't like hearing about such things. And much of the documentation is hazy. And, as we have seen as a result of the reports about abuses in Iraq, some persons seem to find this acceptable. You can count me as going on record saying, I do not.