Eric Umansky

What's Going on at Gitmo?

From the WP:

A month-old hunger strike at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has grown to include at least 128 detainees, 18 of whom are forcibly receiving intravenous fluids or nutrition in the prison hospital, military officials and detainee lawyers said yesterday.

The captives are protesting their indefinite imprisonment and what they describe as beatings administered by the prison's Immediate Response Force (IRF)-- squads of military personnel who are dispatched to put down disturbances in detainees' cells. Some have said they will refuse to eat until the military gives them a fair hearing or they die, according to their attorneys.

I have no idea whether the detainees' allegations about beatings by an IRF team are true. But it's worth remembering the case  of  former Gitmo guard Sean Baker who posed as a prisoner during a training session and sustained brain damage after, yes, being beaten by an IRF team. It's also worth remembering that Gitmo is the military's most-scrutinized detention center, so one would expect the treatment there to be better than say at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan.

Gitmo Prosecutors: Tribunals "appear to be rigged"

It's too bad this is going to be buried by the Bolton news... For well over a year, we've heard that the Gitmo tribunals are bordering on show-trials. Turns out, two top Gitmo prosecutors agree:

Instead of "at least a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," Maj. Carr wrote, he found an amateurish attempt "to prosecute fairly low level accused [terrorists] in a process that appears to be rigged. It is difficult to believe that the White House has approved this situation, and I fully expect that one day, soon, someone will be called to answer for what our office has been doing for the last 14 months."

Then the whistleblowing officers--Maj. Carr and Maj. Preston--take it a step further, alleging not only an unfair process but outright lying and cover-up. In an email to superiors, Carr said other prosecutors had failed to tell superiors  "FBI allegations of abuse at Bagram" airbase in Afghanistan, where many of the Gitmo detainees were initially held.  Carr wrote (mysteriously) that his notes   detailing the purported  torture are "now missing from my notebook." (Deleted by others--is what the article implies...)

Obviously, these two officers don't or didn't benefit professionally from making such charges--they're  prosecutors. 

And BTW,  it's not like the  charges of torture come out of mid-air. I'm reminded an FBI memo I flagged a few months ago. The memo is heavily redacted, but it should still ring some bells, particularly this paragraph about the source of reports about  "beatings, strangulation and placement of lit cigarettes in detainees' ears":

XXXX was providing this information to the FBI based on his knowledge that XXXXXXXXXX were engaged in a cover-up of these abuses. He stated that these cover-ups  included...

[That's the last word--the next four paragraphs are deleted.]

In any case, here's what I find most curious--and potentially disturbing--about  today's disclosure  of "rigged" trials: The Pentagon apparently investigated the prosectutors' allegations and found "no evidence of ethical violations, no evidence of any criminal misconduct." Instead a  spokesman for the tribunal attributed the allegations to  "an awful lot of miscommunications."

Right, maybe the prosecutors and whistleblowers just need to talk honestly or perhaps do some trust falls ("Falling!" "Fall on!"). Or, just maybe, everybody implicitly knows what the company line is: Don't kvetch about rigged tribunals. 

 

The Doctors at Gitmo

Jeanne over at Body and Soul notices something the NYT seems to glide by: Doctors helping out the interrogations wasn't some sort of haphazard practice, it was policy.

Should we really close down Gitmo?

From a P.R. perspective shutting down Gitmo is obviously the right move. But what about from a substantive sense? 

I’m not looking to defend the place. And the P.R. angle alone is reason enough to close it down. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves: Shutting Gitmo wouldn’t much more than a symbolic victory.

Symbolism counts for a lot, but it’s not the whole game. And the problem is that while Gitmo has become the symbol and shorthand for the U.S.’s lack of accountability, the focus on it has helped to divert any focus on the larger picture. You ever hear of Diego Garcia and “Camp Justice”? It’s home to just one of the U.S.’s who-knows-how-many secret prisoners for AQ suspects. And then there are the prisoners we don’t hold onto but outsource to such responsible locales as Egypt and Uzbekistan (the latter known for having boiled some political prisoners alive).

Again, I support closing Gitmo—because giving jihadists free advertising seems like a bad idea. But there’s also a perverse possibility: Unless the closing is connected to other changes it U.S. could end up making the U.S. less accountable. After all, if there’s no symbol to focus on then I gotta bet the pressure to improve the overall detention system would dissipate. In other words: no spooky photos, no outrage.

Consider renditions. Suspects have repeatedly been tortured when shipped to other countries. Now, I’m just guessing here, but let’s say Gitmo was shut down. I imagine some of the prisoners would simply be released. Others would (finally) face military tribunals and presumably be shipped to brigs. And what the prisoners whom the U.S. is sure are guilty but doesn't  have the goods on?  Well, I bet we would find somewhere to, ahem, host them.   

In other words, apart from the symbolism, what would closing down Gitmo achieve? Would it the secret system of prisons any less...secret? Would it afford detainees access to anything approaching due process? Would it mean fewer of them get tortured?

Koran abuse response: the U.S.'s missed opportunity

Though the Pentagon's press conference on Koran abuse glided over some details--or more precisely, the general giving the briefing refused to give some details. But he still gave the most complete picture yet of what happened: There were about a half dozen cases of confirmed  (but still vague) Koran abuse, none involving a toilet.

I wouldn't be surprise me if that's the extent of the abuse (which is to say there wasn't that much of it). If you actually look at the ACLU documents,  most (not all, but most) of the detainees acknowledge that they didn't see the Koran dissed, they just heard about it. It was largely a  game of Gitmo telephone.

Next, let’s turn to what former Gitmo translator Erik Saar has said. Saar wrote Inside the Wire and has been deeply critical of the practices at the prison. Here’s what he told Mother Jones recently:

MJ: Was it a well-run facility?

ES: It was a horribly run facility. There were so many grey areas as to what was right and what was wrong. The MPs and guards didn't even know whether they were allowed to handle the Koran when they were inspecting it, or if they were supposed to call a Muslim linguist to come and do that.

But he also said desecration wasn’t policy:

MJ: Do you think there was a general disrespect of Islam at
Guantanamo?

ES: No. I can't say that in general. There were pockets of
Guantanamo Bay that I would say disrespected the religion.

Next, recall that that in 2003 the Red Cross told the military about complaints from prisoners. In response, the military wrote up a policy mandating respect for the Koran and how to do it. After that, complaints stopped. As a Red Cross spokesman put it: "The U.S. government took corrective measures and those allegations have not resurfaced.”

OK, so here’s the picture that’s come into view (at least so far): It was not policy to diss the Koran. But nor were soldiers given instructions to respect it or given cultural training in how to properly handle (or not handle) the holy book. In response, a few guards and interrogators appear to have freelanced. Once the military received complaints about that via the Red Cross, it did promulgate a policy detailing proper Koran treatment, and the complaints stopped.

Now that’s not an ideal way for the military to have acted. Why wasn’t there a Koran policy at the start? And presumably detainees complained directly to officers about Koran treatment. Why did the military only act after the Red Cross complained?

But overall it’s looks to me that was happened was that the military not perfectly, but honorably. And that in a way is what gets me. Instead of me sitting here and trying to put it all together, why can’t the Pentagon try a little transparency? It would actually be to the military’s benefit to just come out with the details and say what happened. Instead we get reflexive dissembling and ass-covering, such as Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita insisting last week, “We’ve not seen specific, credible allegations.” That was a lie, and a counter-productive one. Hide the truth and--as in this case--people end up envisioning something worse than it. 

P.S. Let’s be fair to Larry: No bureaucrat is going to come out and take a chance with honesty. DiRita was just doing his job. If the military is going to try transparency, that’s a policy decision and it’s going to come from the top. Or not at all.

 

Gitmo Tribunal Transcripts

In response to a FOIA, the AP got about 2,000 pages worth of them. The ensuing story doesn't really go into depth and there's no real headline-making material. Still, it's quite a glimpse:

Most of the detainees proclaim their innocence, including one older prisoner who tells the tribunal he's too crippled to have been an enemy combatant.

"How could I be an enemy combatant if I was not able to stand up?" he asks, describing how he hasn't been able to walk for more than 15 years. A witness testifies that the man had a stroke years ago and barely left his house except to visit the doctor.

The United States accused him of being a member of the Hizb-I-Islamic group that authorities said were planning rocket attacks against U.S. forces. Troops also allegedly found weapons.

The prisoner admits there was an AK-47, a BB gun and an antique rifle that didn't fire, but he says it's common for villagers to have weapons for protection.

One nomad says he was looking for his lost goats when he and his brother were captured. U.S. officials say they were captured near an explosive device. Much of Afghanistan is heavily mined.

"How do you move from place to place?" asked the tribunal member. "What do you use for transport? Do you have a vehicle?"

"A camel," the prisoner says. "I am not against America."

"Hanging gestures" at Gitmo

The Gitmo translator's book has gotten a bunch of attention for its claims of Potemkin interrogations and the  dumb sexual tactics of some interrogators. And I heard before about attempted prisoner suicides at the base. But what I didn't know--and what the military has kept  hush-hush--is that the attempts seem to be really damn common. Here's a excerpt from the translator's book:

The International Committee of the Red Cross broke its customary public silence in October 2003, pushed to do so, it said, by a spate of suicide attempts. "One cannot keep these detainees in this pattern, this situation, indefinitely," a senior official said. By then, the official number of suicide attempts was 32, though I knew it was actually far higher. The military kept the number low by labeling most attempted suicides as "manipulative self-injurious behavior" or "self-harm" incidents, a practice that became more frequent as time went on. In January 2005, the Pentagon disclosed that 350 "self-harm" incidents had occurred in 2003, including 120 "hanging gestures."

According to CNN, the military has of earlier this year logged all of 34  "suicide attempts" since the base opened. Afterall, what are a few hundred  "hanging gestures" among friends. And let's keep in mind, that Gitmo has never held more than about 600 detainees in total.

P.S. That CNN report also mentions the number of "self-injurious incidents" declining recently. That makes sense given that detainees have reason for hope now since many others have been sent home. What it doesn't mean is that the problem has gone away or that the U.S. doesn't have some obligation to be honest about the numbers, whatever they are.

Command Cover-up

Slate buddy Phil Carter is one of the few who's flagged the Army report released, ahem, Friday afternoon that somehow cleared top officers of any responsibility in the prisoner torture/abuse scandal. As Phil points out, the issue isn't whether commanders ordered  the abuse:

In the Army's leadership schools for officers and sergeants, the doctrinal manual preaches quite a different result from the outcome of this investigation. Bottom line: commanders (and NCOs) are responsible for everything their unit(s) do or fail to do, period. A commander, especially a general officer, is not just responsible for those things he/she ordered, but for those things that he/she knew about — or should have known about.

Phil then goes on to quote from the Fay report, which  pegged top officers (but  didn't have any power beyond simple naming-and-shaming):

I find that LTG Sanchez, and his DCG, MG Wojdakowski, failed to ensure proper staff oversight of detention and interrogation operations.

That's  Sanchez, as in Ricardo Sanchez known for such roles as the  top commander in Iraq. To put in simpler terms, let's turn to USAT from back in August:  "PANEL: TOP OFFICIALS PLAYED ROLE IN ABUSE." That's actually a reference to another report--the independent panel headed by former Defense secretary James Schlesinger-- which didn't limit its finger pointing to commanders Iraq. From USAT

Schlesinger, who was named by Rumsfeld to head the panel, said commanders in Iraq bore responsibility for failing to enforce discipline. The responsibility goes up the chain of command "all the way to Washington," he said at a Pentagon news conference.

"These failures of leadership helped to set the conditions which allowed for the abusive practices to take place," said Tillie Fowler, a former Republican congresswoman from Florida who was on the commission.

Back to Phil's insight: 

Despite these [the reports']  findings, none of the officers responsible for facilitating these abuses will face criminal charges. Or, put another way, the Army IG has wholly disregarded the record evidence before him to arrive at an arbitrary and capricious decision that the senior Army leaders involved should face no legal consequences for their actions. What kind of message does that send to our junior military leaders? What kind of message does that send to the world?

That strikes me as absolutely right--and important. And call me naive (or strident, or boring), but I'm surprised this hasn't been flagged much elsewhere--certainly not in the papers. This report is just another in a stream; it's the Army's official investigation official investigation. And means Sanchez and others are home free.

So the largest military-based scandal of at least of the year and perhaps  the decade--one that generated reams and reams of coverage--has now been swept under the rug. It's yesterday's news as is the empty promise  to hold officers accountable. Which reminds me:

"We will find the truth; we will fully investigate. The world will see the investigation and justice will be served." - President Bush, May 5, 2004.

Buried in the latest Gitmo stories

1) There was an "attempt cover up the abuses." That's the  NYT paraphrasing an agent's comments in the FBI memo.  The Times mentions it in passing and doesn't return.

2) "June 24" : That's the date an agent sent the chief of the FBI  a memo  describing "strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings and unauthorized interrogations."  That's two months after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

This  Newsweek piece seems to have some relevance again, eh?

Dept. of Black is White

"W.House Expects Probe of Iraq, Guantanamo Abuses" -Reuters:

"If there is abuse that occurs, we expect it to be investigated fully and people to be held accountable, and measures taken to make sure that it doesn't happen again," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

He said the Defense Department was investigating "a number of allegations that have been made," and added: "We expect them to get to the bottom of it."

Number of independent or wideranging torture  investigations:  zero.