'Bout damn time.

June 25, 2005 8:17 AM

US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan(Forbes) GENEVA (AFX) - Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq... So what happens to us now?
posted by thebestsophist (73 comments total)

I think some therapy for the guilty is in order.
posted by malaprohibita at 8:20 AM on June 25, 2005

malaprohibita: “I think some therapy for the guilty is in order.”

By “therapy” you mean “jail time”, right?
posted by signal at 8:30 AM on June 25, 2005

This is just a guess,.. but how about more ridiculously-unbelievable denial? After all, the hearing isn't going to happen until May, 2006.
posted by odinsdream at 8:47 AM on June 25, 2005

This is a [anonymous] UN leak, remember. It could just be posturing on the part of someone who doesn't like the U.S. Until the U.S. government actually says it themselves, you can't believe it.
posted by gd779 at 9:00 AM on June 25, 2005

Club Gitmo ... A Tropical Delight!

"Defending the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Vice-President Dick Cheney said...""They're very well-treated down there. They're living in the tropics. They're well-fed. They've got everything they could possibly want." [Associated Press | June 25, 2005].

And yes, the insurgency in Iraq is well into the "last throes."
posted by ericb at 9:05 AM on June 25, 2005

By “therapy” you mean “jail time”, right?

In related news...

The World Responds to Iraq
Groups from around the globe gather for hearings on war crimes in Iraq.
posted by ericb at 9:06 AM on June 25, 2005

There is nothing saying whether this admission is in the form of:

1) Some of our soldiers got out of hand and tortured prisoners.
2) We knowingly condoned torture.

#2 would be big, #1 is old news - I'm betting on #1.
posted by Bort at 9:09 AM on June 25, 2005

Supposing the US owns up, I predict 2 things:

1) US top military and civil (Commander in Chiefs, etc.) drop their tough-guy we’re-in-charge war-on-terra stance in favor of “gosh, we didn’t know”, “we were not informed”, “I have no recollection”, etc.

2) MeFi’s own fighting keyboardist unit goes into full “wow, torture, who’d a thunk it, oh well, I had worse stuff go on at my frathouse”-mode.
posted by signal at 9:09 AM on June 25, 2005

"The ambush late Thursday also suggested Iraqi insurgents may have regained a foothold in Fallujah....The terror group al-Qaida in Iraq claimed it carried out the ambush, one of the single deadliest attacks against the Marines — and against women — in this country." [Associated Press | June 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:09 AM on June 25, 2005

The wise policy of painting a huge orange target on the U.S. in order to combat terrorism continues.
posted by devetron at 9:13 AM on June 25, 2005

The number of Insurgents is increasing:

"Continued bloodshed underscores comments from the top American commander in the Persian Gulf, who told lawmakers on Thursday that the Iraqi insurgency has not grown weaker over the past six months.

'I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago,' Gen. John Abizaid said during a contentious Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. 'There’s a lot of work to be done against the insurgency.'

It's like Bush and Cheney have confused 'last throes' with the grand finale of fireworks."
posted by ericb at 9:13 AM on June 25, 2005

One of my clients is a death penalty defense lawyer,he informs
"there is a death penalty for torture under the Geneva
Conventions specifically for torture" So how bad could this be?
posted by hortense at 9:26 AM on June 25, 2005

"They said it was a question of isolated cases, that there was nothing systematic and that the guilty were in the process of being punished."

The US report said that those involved were low-ranking members of the military and that their acts were not approved by their superiors, the member added.

Nothing new here.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:29 AM on June 25, 2005

Ericb: I remind you of the "grand finale of fireworks" that was Iwo Jima.

Much as everyone on Metafilter appears to wish that we'd just hurry up and withdraw already, wars aren't fought on News cycles.
posted by swerdloff at 9:47 AM on June 25, 2005

However this pans out, I'm afraid it's already been diluted by the shameful recantation of my own Dick Durbin. I don't think it's entirely coincidental that the administration chose to disclose this information now.
posted by aladfar at 9:50 AM on June 25, 2005

Much as everyone on Metafilter appears to wish that we'd just hurry up and withdraw already, wars aren't fought on News cycles.

swerdloff, I thought that the war was over ages ago. This is the occupation.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:00 AM on June 25, 2005

The "welcome" ad page you see to before you get to the page has an interesting thought of the day:

"It is wrong to be sorry without ceasing"
-Homer
posted by abcde at 10:02 AM on June 25, 2005

We've gotta get Bolton in there to shut these guys up pronto.
Expect a recess appointment:

Rove also made some news. Until now, White House officials have been noncommittal about whether or not Bush will give John R. Bolton a recess appointment if he's not confirmed by the Senate. Rove made it pretty clear.

"ROVE: John Bolton is going to be the United States ambassador to the United Nations. We will get either an up-or-down vote or he will be the ambassador one way...

"SCARBOROUGH: A recess -- possible recess appointment?

"ROVE: Well, I'm not going to -- we have got plenty of options..."
posted by digaman at 10:02 AM on June 25, 2005

hortense, the Geneva Conventions don't spell out punishments for violations. They certainly don't suggest that anyone torturing prisoners faces the death penalty for doing so.
posted by senor biggles at 10:17 AM on June 25, 2005

It's like Bush and Cheney have confused 'last throes' with the grand finale of fireworks

BTW - not my words or characterization. It is a quote of John Aravosis at AMERICAblog. Hence the quotation marks and hyperlink to the source in the entry title.

WWII can be characterized as conventional warfare. Iraq, like Vietnam, is warfar against guerilla and terrorists forces. Iraq has now become a terrorist training ground (as per the CIA assessment - "The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday."). We have years of conflict ahead of us in Iraq. I agree with Senator Kennedy that it is a quagmire.

The attempts by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield to paint a rosy picture of Iraq (and Gitmo, etc.) are insulting.
posted by ericb at 10:22 AM on June 25, 2005

'UN sources said this is the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities. '

Oooh, aren't we impressed. Not.

Cheney's 'very well treated, in the tropics, well-fed, have everything they could possibly want' does of course make sense in the view that 'they' are like battery hens, or sub-human creatures whose mere presence in Guantanamo is certainty of their culpability in crimes they haven't even been charged for.
posted by funambulist at 10:24 AM on June 25, 2005

warfar warfare
Rumsfield Rumsfeld
posted by ericb at 10:24 AM on June 25, 2005

ericb: “WWII can be characterized as conventional warfare. Iraq, like Vietnam,is warfar against guerilla and terrorists forces. ”

I can see how the resistance could be characterized as a “guerrilla”, but has anybody not on Bush’s staff shown any evidence of “terrorists” in present-day Irak?
posted by signal at 10:26 AM on June 25, 2005

...but has anybody not on Bush’s staff shown any evidence of “terrorists” in present-day Irak?

The CIA's assessment on Wednesday clearly states such. See the above Reuters quote ("The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday.")
posted by ericb at 10:29 AM on June 25, 2005

More ...

"Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s, U.S. officials say. President George W. Bush justified the invasion of Iraq in part by charging that Saddam Hussein was supporting al Qaeda. A U.S. inquiry later found no collaboration between prewar Iraq and the bin Laden network.

But since the invasion, Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has emerged as a key insurgent figure and pledged his allegiance to bin Laden.

While the Afghan war against the Soviets was largely fought on a rural battlefield, the CIA report said Iraq is providing extremists with more comprehensive skills including training in operations devised for populated urban areas.

'You have everything from bombings and assassinations to more or less conventional attacks,' the counterterrorism official said.

'The urban warfare experience, for people facing fairly tight police and military activity at close quarters, should enable them to operate in a wider range of settings.'"
posted by ericb at 10:31 AM on June 25, 2005

...but has anybody not on Bush’s staff shown any evidence of “terrorists” in present-day Irak?

Note the words below of Gen John Abizaid, the senior military commander:

"Iraq has become a magnet for hundreds of young Muslim extremists from around the world. According to US military estimates, foreign fighters represent a small proportion of the insurgents in Iraq - perhaps 1,000 foreigners are active, fewer than 5 per cent of total. But their responsibility for many of the most deadly and well-publicised attacks gives them added psychological and political impact.

Their numbers also appear to be increasing. Gen John Abizaid, the senior military commander responsible for Iraq, told the Senate armed services committee on Thursday that more foreign fighters were entering Iraq than six months ago: 'We've also seen an influx of suicide bombers from North Africa, specifically Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.'" [Financial Times | June 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 10:36 AM on June 25, 2005

Before the war: no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda
After the war: ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
posted by ericb at 10:37 AM on June 25, 2005

"The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday."

Wow Just Like Believing Saddam MAY have WMDs...

... just saying....
posted by Elim at 11:06 AM on June 25, 2005

So what happens to us now?

The floggings will continue until further notice.
posted by crunchland at 11:11 AM on June 25, 2005

US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan

Ummm... no. An anonymous "U.N. source" has told AFX news this.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:14 AM on June 25, 2005

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity...
posted by y2karl at 11:36 AM on June 25, 2005

Note I just used the title of the story. Also, because it's a Forbes article, I think some sort of legitimacy can be assumed.
Satyagraha
posted by thebestsophist at 11:39 AM on June 25, 2005

The US report said that those involved were low-ranking members of the military and that their acts were not approved by their superiors, the member added.

Nothing new here.

It's amazing. The U.S. military cannot or does not or will not govern their own subordinates.

The U.S. Army: Where being the manager(s) or ranking officer(s) doesn't involve responsibility!
posted by juiceCake at 11:44 AM on June 25, 2005

Elim, your either with us, or against us.
posted by stbalbach at 11:46 AM on June 25, 2005

In the future, we'll all have our own robot armies and our own private Guantanamo in the backgarden, and then we'll issue apologies to our neighbours, but we'll deny we have any political responsibility. The US government is just leading the way with this experiment. It's like cutting edge performance art, so ahead of its times, one day you'll all understand it, too...
posted by funambulist at 11:56 AM on June 25, 2005

Depends who "us" is doesn't it?
posted by Elim at 11:57 AM on June 25, 2005

From AFX News ? Is that supposed to be some Standard of objectivity ? After all AFX News Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Agence France-Presse (AFP).

France has not been and is not now very forthcoming about their involvement in the Oil For Food scandal, and it seems they (the French) would have much preferred to maintain the Oil For Food trough as it was under Saddam and Kofi.
The French press has taken every opportunity to lambaste the US with any "anonymous" or unsubstantiated claim they can find.
I don't always agree with the current Administration, but I rarely if ever agree with the French.
posted by garficher at 12:17 PM on June 25, 2005

...but I rarely if ever agree with the French.

Yeah, what do they know and who do they think they are, anyway? Gitmo? Never heard of it!
posted by jaronson at 12:30 PM on June 25, 2005

i love hearing about france. those french are all the time making trouble.
posted by nola at 12:48 PM on June 25, 2005

So what happens to us now?

Dunno, but at this point a suitcase nuke detonated on Pennsylvania Avenue would surprise me not at all.
posted by alumshubby at 12:55 PM on June 25, 2005

You know, the French could be guilty as hell in the Oil for Food program and it would not matter a whit. There is an absolute difference in scale at work.
posted by absalom at 1:12 PM on June 25, 2005

absalom: Especially if its found that British and American based oil companies with the government's knowledge that profited.
posted by Elim at 1:27 PM on June 25, 2005

Hasn't it already been revealed that US companies were doing business with Iraq during the embargo? It was discussed on MeFi last month, I think...
posted by Jon-o at 1:35 PM on June 25, 2005

Where, exactly, does this loathing of the French come from?

Is it their laudable healthcare, vacation time, or free education?

Is it that they value philosophy and intellectualism? Place a greater emphasis on love, food, and family, and less on money then Americans do?

Are they atheist, communist monsters?

Seriously, what gives.

(I hope it's something more profound then that they might dare to disagree with us?)
posted by cytherea at 2:18 PM on June 25, 2005

Does it get any more profound than daring to disagree with us?????
posted by leftcoastbob at 2:30 PM on June 25, 2005

I think its a jealousy of their choice of cheeses...
posted by Elim at 2:36 PM on June 25, 2005

The French press has taken every opportunity to lambaste the US with any "anonymous" or unsubstantiated claim they can find.

Rather the other way around actually...
posted by elgilito at 3:49 PM on June 25, 2005

Grave violations of the Geneva Convention may be considered war crimes. The commission of a war crime which results in the death of the victim is punishable by death. The death penalty is not specifically provided for by the Geneva Convention but that's how you get there.
posted by Carbolic at 3:52 PM on June 25, 2005

GENEVA (AFX) - Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

That's weaker than a no-homework excuse! "A UN source" said "Washington" acknowledged something? BFHD.
posted by alumshubby at 4:08 PM on June 25, 2005

Why we hate the French. And he doesn't even mention the hairy armpits on their chicks, the rude waiters or the silly accent.
posted by JParker at 4:19 PM on June 25, 2005

Good waiters aren't rude to everyone only loudmouthed heiffers with the brains of shellfish. The same ones that go home and kick up a cliche' over it
posted by nervousfritz at 4:25 PM on June 25, 2005

Carbolic, it's how you get there if you're American. I don't think any other Western countries have the death penalty on their books for any crimes, even war crimes. It's certainly the case in Europe and Canada.

Anyway, the point is moot as no one is going to be charged, convicted, sentenced to death, and actually executed, in the USA or anywhere else.
posted by senor biggles at 4:49 PM on June 25, 2005

JParker, the contributors to that blog seem to be searching for excuses to hate--reasons after the fact. Most Americans could care less about most of the things listed, if they are aware of them at all.

I was interesting in what causes such intense dislike in the first place. Is it that the French, in the American perception, do not share our childish fear of femininity, or is just that we always hated Eastasia?
posted by cytherea at 4:51 PM on June 25, 2005

The French attitudes and personal attributes are not really the issue, only the lack of objectivity from AFX and the lame "sources".
The same lack of objectivity I've noticed in the John Birch Society, and Liberal or Conservative pundits and raconteurs.

See.. I can even use one of their words without causing me to drool.
posted by garficher at 4:58 PM on June 25, 2005

Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq

Oh, good. Because the fucking photos of thumbs-ups over corpses, leashes, and naked pyramids from about six months ago were so ambiguous.

The Pope's religion, after tonight's movie.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:38 PM on June 25, 2005

ericb writes "'Defending the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Vice-President Dick Cheney said...'They're very well-treated down there. They're living in the tropics. They're well-fed. They've got everything they could possibly want.'"

Someone so fucking callous deserves no sympathy from anyone. Let's see the SOB spend a week in Gitmo, and then I might have some respect for him.
posted by clevershark at 7:15 PM on June 25, 2005

Merci beaucoup to cytherea & elgilito.

JParker you miserable ingrate, you should be thanking France you are not singing "God Save the Queen" before the big cricket match in your hometown.
posted by Francophone at 8:32 PM on June 25, 2005

So what happens to us now?

Prosecution and imprisonment of your highest officials, one hopes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:43 PM on June 25, 2005

Gonzales thought about the death penalty. (as he wrote the memos)
billmons dream
posted by hortense at 8:44 PM on June 25, 2005

cytherea writes "Where, exactly, does this loathing of the French come from?"

From a desire by certain Americans to take the media's eye off their war crimes, mostly.
posted by clevershark at 10:14 PM on June 25, 2005

osama must be so proud.
posted by quonsar at 10:32 PM on June 25, 2005

Where, exactly, does this loathing of the French come from?

Well, the French gov isn't so good towards funding their scientific comminity... though I doubt that's why the there's so much animosity.

It's probably the language snobbery, then.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 11:22 PM on June 25, 2005

Where, exactly, does this loathing of the French come from?

It is rooted in a US sense of cultural inferiority and exacerbated by a French sense of cultural superiority. It begins with self-loathing.
posted by pracowity at 12:39 AM on June 26, 2005

It begins with self-loathing.

I wonder if it might partially be war guilt.

e.g. US was neutral in WW2 until Pearl Harbor, and Nazi Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way round.

So, to get over a sense of shame that they should have fought earlier, accuse someone else of the thing you feel ashamed of. Hence the whole "the French are cowards who didn't fight Hitler" meme. (Whereas of course the French took more military casualties (plus a whole load of civilians) than the Americans did - and that's more as a raw number, not per capita).
posted by Infinite Jest at 1:11 AM on June 26, 2005

stbalbach said, "your either with us, or against us."

Actually, kibitzing from the sidelines and not directly getting involved is a viable option. War is after all just another sporting event with opposing teams. The only difference is the participants are foolish enough to throw bullets and bombs at one another rather than footballs, and the score is decided on how many are still standing when the whistle blows.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:28 AM on June 26, 2005

Is there a word or term for when you're trying to stop something, but the attempt creates the very thing you're trying to stop? Kind of like self-fullfilling prophesy, but not exactly. Maybe a german word?

I think there should be. I would be using it all the time in these threads.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:20 PM on June 26, 2005

Where, exactly, does this loathing of the French come from?
I asked Metafilter that very question not too long ago.
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:54 PM on June 26, 2005

hortense: If you bother to read the article you linked to, you'll see that what may lead to the death penalty for war criminals is not the Geneva Conventions, but the 1996 War Crimes Act, a law passed by the US Congress.
The only international treaty I'm aware of that actually spells out punishments for war criminals is the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court...and, as you may be aware of, the US isn't part of that one. (Paradoxically, US war criminals may come to wish it did, as the ICC can't impose the death penalty)
posted by Skeptic at 4:34 PM on June 26, 2005

oh right, I see the difference.
...the1996 War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," : from the article linked to above.
posted by hortense at 7:26 PM on June 26, 2005

Francophone, only self-denial, and not France, prevents Americans from truly appreciating the sporting elegance that is cricket.
posted by the cydonian at 4:22 AM on June 27, 2005

Yeah, who trusts those pinkos at Forbes anyway.

Everytime I hear someone labaste the French I think of Death Race 2000.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:11 PM on June 27, 2005

1. AFP is not "France". It is French, but it's a highly respected international news agency. It has as much validity as AP and perhaps more then UPI.

2. America and France dislike each other because they are the two most arrogant nations in the West. In France, America sees what it would be like if it were the less powerful nation, and in America, France sees what France would be if it were more powerful. Those who point to France's opposition to the Iraq war as a sign of their moderation obviously have forgotten Algeria-- and those that point the US's cultural hegemony have forgotten that France has been quite open about its (failing) quest for same.
posted by chaz at 12:34 PM on June 27, 2005

How we're interfering in the Gitmo court cases, none of which have gone to trial in a US Court
posted by amberglow at 1:58 PM on June 27, 2005