News Article: Do Sen. Stevens and Rep. Young support U.S. torture policies?
Senator Lisa Murkowski opposes psychological & physical torture; views of others are unclear
By: Crystal Hutchins
It’s after midnight in the nation of free choice. You are watching the late-late show and munching a tuna sandwich, decompressing from a stressful day. Even as you contemplate tomorrow’s agenda, your worries are minor, trivial even, in the grand scheme of things; as you read this, a fellow human being is undergoing torture--and it could be sanctioned by your own government.
Where do our Alaskan representatives stand on the issue of U.S. torture policies? After repeated inquiries, we received no response from Congressman Don Young. We are left to wonder if Mr. Young is too busy to contend with a request like this, or if a lack of response says something in and of itself.
Senator Lisa Murkowski states clear opposition in her response to a couple of questions we asked of our representatives. In response to the question “Do you support the U.S. policy of extraordinary rendition?” Murkowski answered, “I believe the United States should adhere to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions when it comes to the treatment of prisoners. The use of torture as an interrogation technique is not only unreliable, but against the Geneva Conventions and U.S. policy.
“Under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, implementing the U.N. Convention against Torture, it is the United States’ policy ‘not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.’”
We also asked, “Do you support the US policy of Psychological torture?”
“The Department of Defense has undertaken a number of investigations into allegations of abuse,” Murkowski responded. “These reviews have led to increased oversight and expanded training for detainee operations. On May 21, 2004, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 356, condemning prisoner abuses, demanding a full investigation, and urging measures to prevent abuses from happening again. In addition, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 reiterates that torture is prohibited by U.S. laws, treaties, and the Constitution, and reaffirmed that no detainee should be subject to torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. I am pleased that the Department of Defense has created the Office of Detainee Affairs to develop policy recommendations for the treatment of detainees and to receive reports from groups like the International Committee of the Red Cross.”
On the other hand, the response from Senator Ted Steven’s camp was a little disconcerting. His press secretary, Courtney Boone gave this official response after repeated inquiry:
“Ted Stevens supports the tenets of the Geneva Convention as it relates to psychological torture and will not comment on extraordinary rendition as it is a classified matter.”
The Bush Administration has developed some flowery language in order to validate bypassing the Geneva Conventions when it comes to suspected terrorists. White House officials refer to the time after 9/11 as the “New Paradigm,” in which extreme measures have been deemed necessary “to protect Americans effectively from a terrorist attack.” Suspected terrorists aren’t considered war prisoners, but rather “illegal enemy combatants,” therefore falling outside the scope of accepted human rights practices.
Extraordinary rendition, the practice of sending suspects to countries where torture is legal, has been used for decades, but kept fairly secretive until recently. It was originally used on a very limited basis until after 9/11, when the New Paradigm kicked it into high gear. In a New Yorker article, “Outsourcing Torture,” Jane Mayer says, “The most common destinations for rendered suspects are Egypt, Morocco, Syria and Jordan, all of which have been cited for human-rights violations by the State Department, and are known to torture suspects.”
An example of this abominable practice is the case of Maher Arar, as reported by Jane Mayer. A Canadian born in Syria, he was placed on the United States Watch List of terrorist suspects, apparently for working with the brother of a suspected terrorist whom he barely knew. He was detained and sent to Syria where he says interrogators beat him, whipped his hands with electric cables, and kept him in a windowless underground cell. He was held for a year before the Canadian Government took up his cause, at which point he was released without charges in October, 2003.
In a report from the State Department in 2002, detainees in Egypt were “stripped and blindfolded; suspended from a ceiling or doorframe with feet just touching the floor; beaten with fists, whips, metal rods or other objects; subjected to electrical shocks, and doused with cold water and sexually assaulted.” Other accounts of Egyptian detainee abuse include a man wrapped head to toe in duct tape when released to U.S. custody, and an Egyptian linked to Al Qaeda who was chained to a toilet for days and urinated on by guards.
Torture victim Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen who was born in Egypt, was apprehended in Pakistan where he was investigating schools. The intent of his trip was to decide if he would move his family there. Eventually flown to Egypt, Habib claims he was beaten with blunt instruments and threatened to be raped by specially trained dogs if he did not confess to belonging to Al Qaeda. He also contends that he spent time in water torture chambers. One of the chambers held water up to his chin and he was forced to stand on tip-toe for hours. Another chamber contained water that covered his ankles and was in sight of an electrical switch, which his captors claimed would electrocute him unless he confessed. Between Pakistan, Islamabad, Egypt, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, he was held for three years and finally released without charges.
Psychological torture is another disturbing practice seeing widespread use. According to a comprehensive study released by the Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), entitled “Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by U.S. Forces,” the most common types of psychological torture include sensory deprivation, isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, cultural and sexual humiliation, the use of military working dogs to instill fear, mock executions, and the threat of violence or death toward detainees or their loved ones. The report is based on “evidence now available from witness accounts, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, official investigations, leaked reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, media reports and inquiries by Physicians for Human Rights.”
Psychological torture may be even worse than physical torture because of the long-term effects. The PHR study cites some of the more severe long-term symptoms as memory impairment, depression, vegetative symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder. At the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in 2004, up to one quarter of 500 detainees were kept in isolation. PHR sources claim that some detainees “suffer from incoherent speech, disorientation, hallucination, irritability, delusions and paranoia.”
Experts in the field of interrogation, like ex-F.B.I. agent Dan Coleman, say information obtained during torture is often useless. He says there is no value in trying to talk to someone who’s been deprived of his clothes. “He’s going to be ashamed, and humiliated, and cold. He’ll tell you anything you want to hear to get his clothes back.” There are many cases of false confessions recanted.
Involuntary confessions are also not valid in court. Former C.I.A. counterterrorism expert, Michael Scheuer, says once a detainee’s rights have been violated, “you absolutely can’t” reinstate him into the court system. “You can’t kill him either. All we’ve done is create a nightmare.”
Senators John McCain (R-AZ), John Warner (R-VA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have worked for approval on legislation that would prohibit cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The legislation has been introduced in the form of amendments to the $442 billion defense bill for 2006. But is the new legislation working? Of foremost concern is the fact that it doesn’t apply to the C.I..A.
As recently as September 18, 2005, The New York Times reported that as many as 200 prisoners (more than a third) at Guantanamo Bay prison camp are on a hunger strike. According to the lawyers who represent them, they are protesting conditions and prolonged confinement without trial. Recent past hunger strikes have also come to light in the wake of the current strike. Although a six-member prisoners’ grievance committee had been established for a former strike, it was quickly ended, eventually resulting in the current strike. Several of the hunger strike cases are so severe that the prisoners are being hospitalized and force fed through IV and nose tubes.
Senator Stevens was part of a group who went to Guantanamo Bay prison in 2002. He reported, “There is no torture or abuse, the facilities are humane and detainees are being treated well.” In light of recent reports that prisoners are starving themselves to the point of being hospitalized and force fed to protest their treatment, this is difficult to believe. It’s likely that a couple of hours touring the facilities could only give so much insight to the actual conditions.
In a press release following his visit to Guantanamo Bay, Stevens said, “The difficult task in this war against terrorism will be how to deal with detainees and people like them in the future. They are terrorists, they have abandoned humanity and declared war upon peaceful people. They have been trained to kill and have proved they are merciless.”
Should we, too, abandon humanity? Our soldiers are also trained to kill, and are, apparently, trained in torture techniques that result in long-term psychological harm which, one might argue, is a fate worse than death. As a modern nation we have the responsibility to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the enemy. Perhaps the more important question, though, is what past actions have made us the target of such terrorist organizations? And do we want to continue on in the direction we are going?
Contact Crystal Hutchins at .