Our Discourse On Torture

Matt Taibbi strikes again. This time he examines the rhetoric coming from the pro torture crowd. I honestly have had the same experiences tht he refers to where if you are against torture and for the rule of law, pro torturists then accuse you of treason or of not giving a shit about what happens to our soldiers when our enemy tortures and or murders them. This happens almost daily on cable news where assholes like Frank Gaffney will invariably bring up Daniel Pearl and how he was brutally killed as some kind of pushback on why we should allow detainees to be torture. It makes no logical sense as an argument and like Taibbi I have to wonder if the people who spout this kind of bullshit even believe what they are really and truly saying about the people they disagree with.

It’s the same thing with this torture business. There are a lot of people in this country who genuinely believe that torture opponents are “not upset” about things like 9/11 or the beheading of American hostages. The idea that “no one complains when Americans are murdered” is crazy — of course we “complained,” and of course we’d all like to round up those machete-wielding monsters and shoot them into space — but these people really believe this, they really believe that torture opponents are secretly unimpressed/untroubled by Islamic terrorism, at least as compared to American “enhanced interrogation.” For them to believe that, they must really believe that such people are traitors, nursing a secret agenda (an agenda perhaps unknown even to themselves, their America-hatred being ingrained so deep) against their own country. Which is really an amazing thing for large numbers of Americans to believe about another large group of Americans, when you think about it.

The reason it’s possible is that it’s been drilled into their heads to instinctively perceive opposition to their point of view as support for their enemies. They’ve lost the ability to distinguish between real, honest-to-God enemies (al Qaeda, Kim Jong-Il) and people they simply disagree with or dislike (Boston liberals, the French, gays, the ACLU, etc).

If you give a Yankee fan shit about Joba Chamberlain’s fist pumps, his first answer is going to be to wonder why you’re not also complaining about Jonathan Papelbon’s screaming — because he assumes everyone who disagrees with a Yankee is a Red Sox fan. The same sort of thing is at work here. You bring up the subject of torture as an American citizen, concerned about what allowing torture would do to us as a society, how it would change us, and these people answer the issue by wondering why we’re not also complaining about the terrorists on 9/11 or in Fallujah. Because the thinking here is that everyone who disagrees with the torture position is in some degree or another in league with a real murderous enemy.

They don’t understand that this is not a question of taking different sides in a war; this is two groups of Americans having a disagreement about how best to deal with a foreign enemy both of these groups of Americans despise, fear and revile equally. My group, the anti-torture group, believes that what should make us superior to terrorists is respect for law and due process and civilization, and that when we give in and use these tactics, we forfeit that superiority and actually confer a kind of victory to the al Qaedas of the world, people who should never be allowed any kind of victory in any arena. We furthermore think that the war on terror doesn’t get won with force alone, that it’s a conflict that ultimately has to be won politically, by winning a propaganda battle against these assholes, and we can’t win that battle so easily if people in the Middle East see us openly embrace these tactics.

Whether or not you agree with that is up to you — we could be wrong, after all — but when you respond to these arguments by asserting that people like me didn’t “complain” when Americans were tortured and murdered, what you’re really doing is calling me a traitor. And while it may be more interesting and exciting for you to think like that, in reality it’s just nuts. Seriously. Trust us on this one. So think it over and ask yourself again if it really makes sense to say that torture opponents like me didn’t “complain” when Americans get their heads chopped off. Ask yourself if you really mean that, before you say it. And then get back to me.

Seriously

What Does "Return To The Battlefield" Really Mean? Updated

Update: Right on time Seton Hall releases a rebuttal of the new report that 61 detainees returned to the battlefield

Watching Morning Joe yesterday (thankfully Scarborough is at an undisclcosed location hiding out probably due to the article about the US torturing people) I was interested in one particular segment where they discussed a report by the Department of Defense that 11% of detainees released from GITMO had "returned to the battlefield". I remember a while back when a previous report had made similar claims and how they had to be walked back. To satisfy my curiosity I did a little digging and found this explanation of what "returning to the battlefield" really means published by the Seton Hall University School of Law. It explains why this allegation is overblown and wildly exagerated and why we should always be skeptical of our media folks who report this kind of stuff uncritically.

From the Seton Hall report:

• only twenty-one (21)—or four percent (4%)—of 516 Combatant Status Review
Tribunal unclassified summaries of the evidence alleged that a detainee had ever been on any battlefield;
• only twenty-four (24)—or five percent (5%)—of unclassified summaries alleged that a detainee had been captured by United States forces;
• and exactly one (1) of 516 unclassified summaries alleged that a detainee was captured by United States forces on a battlefield.

Kinda hard to return to the battlefield if you were never there to begin with I would think.

Just as the Government’s claims that the Guantánamo detainees “were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces,” do not comport with the Department of Defense’s own data, neither do its claims that former detainees have “returned to the fight.” The Department of Defense has publicly insisted that “just short of thirty” former Guantánamo detainees have “returned” to the battlefield, where they have been re-captured or killed, but to date the Department has described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists, and has identified only seven (7) of these individuals by name. According to the data provided by the Department of Defense:

• at least eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals alleged by the Government to have“returned to the fight” are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government’s detention policies;

• ten (10) of the individuals have neither been re-captured nor killed by anyone;
• and of the five (5) individuals who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed, the names of two (2) do not appear on the list of individuals who have at any time been detained at Guantánamo, and the remaining three (3) include one (1) individual who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) who is not listed among former Guantánamo detainees but who, after his death, has been alleged to have been detained under a different name.

Thus, the data provided by the Department of Defense indicates that every public statement made by Department of Defense officials regarding the number of detainees who have been released and thereafter killed or re-captured on the battlefield was false.

Reread that last line. It was all bullshit. They released the report seemingly just to justify continuing to keep GITMO open and continuing to detain the prisoners there indefinitely. I mean what is more scary than the thought that you let some one go who you had in the first place and for that genorosity they come back later and kill men and women who are courageously serving our country. But what does "return to the battlefield" even mean in this context. Are they weilding guns and suicide vests trying to kill as many Americans as possible? The study delved into that issue as well.

More importantly, the majority of the individuals identified by the Department of Defense as recidivists appear to be miscategorized. Eight (8) of them are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government’s detention policies, and ten (10) have neither been re-captured nor killed. Of the five (5) who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed, two (2) are not listed as ever having been detained at Guantánamo, and the other three (3) include one (1) who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) who is not listed among former Guantánamo detainees but who, since his death, has beenalleged to have been detained under a different name.

There appears to be a single individual who is alleged to have both been detained in Guantánamo and later killed or captured on some battlefield.

snip

A. The Department of Defense’s Definition of “Anti-Coalition Activity” is Over-Inclusive.

The July 2007 news release contains a preamble followed by brief descriptions of the Government’s bases for asserting that each of seven identified “recidivists” has “returned to the fight.”

The preamble, in relevant part, reads as follows:

Former Guantánamo Detainees who have returned to the fight:

Our reports indicate that at least 30 former GTMO detainees have taken part in anti‐coalition militant activities after leaving U.S. detention. Some have subsequently been killed in combat in Afghanistan.

…Although the US Government does not generally track ex‐GTMO detainees after repatriation or resettlement, we are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti‐US propaganda or other activities through intelligence gathering and media reports. (Examples: Mehsud suicide bombing in Pakistan; Tipton Three and the Road to Guantánamo; Uighurs in Albania).The following seven former detainees are a few examples of the 30; each returned to combat against the US and its allies after being released from Guantánamo.

With this preamble, interestingly, the Department of Defense abandons its oft-repeated allegation that at least thirty (30) former detainees have “returned to the battlefield” in favor of the far less sensational allegation that “at least 30 former GTMO detainees have taken part in anti-coalition militant activities after leaving U.S. detention.”

snip

The Department of Defense’s retreat from “return to the battlefield” is signaled, in particular, by the Department’s assertion that it is “aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti-US propaganda or other activities[.]”12

Although the “anti-US propaganda” to which the news release refers is not militant by even the most extended meaning of the term, the Department of Defense apparently designates it as such, and is consequently able to sweep distinctly non-combatant activity under its new definition of “militant activities.”

As a result, the Uighurs in Albania and “The Tipton Three,”—who, upon release from
Guantánamo, have publicly criticized the way they were treated at the hands of the United States—are deemed to have participated in “anti-coalition militant activities” despite having neither “returned to a battlefield” nor committed any hostile acts whatsoever. “The Tipton Three” have been living in their native England since their release. The Uighurs remained in an Albanian refugee camp until relatively recently; they now have been resettled in apartments in Tirana—except for one, who lives with his sister in Sweden and has applied for permanent refugee status. Despite having been neither re-captured nor killed, these eight (8) individuals are swept under the banner of former Guantánamo detainees who have “returned to the fight.”

Even as the Department of Defense attempts to qualify its public statements that thirty former Guantánamo detainees have “returned to the fight,” and to widen its lens far beyond the battlefield, it still reaches at most fifteen (15) individuals—only half its stated total of Guantánamo recidivists.

snip

Summary of Problems with the Individual Identifications

Extending to the Government the benefit of the doubt as to ambiguous cases, the list of possible Guantánamo recidivists who could have been captured or killed on the battlefield consists of two individuals: Mohammed Ismail and Mullah Shazada. If an apartment complex in Russia falls within the definition of “battlefield,” then as of June 2007—after the Department of Defense had already cited thirty (30) as the total number of recidivists—an additional individual, Ruslan Odizhev, can be added to the list. Thus, at most—of the approximately 445 detainees who have been released from Guantánamo51—three (3) detainees, or less than one percent (1%), have subsequently returned to the battlefield to be captured or killed. Two (2) other detainees (Abdul Rahman Noor and Mohammed Nayim Farouq), while not re-captured or killed, are claimed to be engaged in military activities, although the information provided by the Government in this regard cannot be cross-checked.

So instead of 30 enemy combatants returning to the battlefield, the truth is best case scenario there were only 3. Now there are still problems with 3 detainees after being released returning to the battlefield, numbers matter. There is a reason that the DOD said 30 and not 3 and its because they knew that no one would care if they released such a low number. Similarly now the 61 figure is of course getting a lot of attention. But we have to wonder how many of those 61 simply wrote another op ed or participated in a documentary to be included in that inflated figure. There are legitimate reasons to worry about what might happen when we close GITMO and I believe that is why President Elect Barack Obama is taking a measured approach. But it is now obvious that the DOD is obviously just using fear tactics to turn public opinion against closing GITMO and we shouldn't allow their fear mongering to work.