Gitmo from an interogator's POV

[CBL4]

Eric Saar was in army intelligence. He spent a year in Guantánamo Bay and now has written a book about it.

These quotes of from the Economist review of "Inside the Wire : A Military Intelligence Soldier's Eyewitness Account of Life at Guantanamo"

He attended a PowerPoint briefing by an army lawyer on the Geneva Convention, which George Bush decreed did not apply to the men picked up in Afghanistan, or elsewhere, in the “war on terrorism.� "It was nothing but spin." ...

As a soldier this bothered Mr Saar. If America ignored the Geneva Convention, “what kind of brutality might we be visiting upon ourselves in the future fight?� Mr Saar had also been taught that torture doesn't work and that it produces less reliable information. When he saw torture being used at Guantánamo, he struggled to “reconcile my beliefs as an American, my conscience, and my religious beliefs with my duty as a soldier.�

The struggle was lost during the interrogation of a 21-year-old Saudi. The man was believed to have taken flight training with two of the September 11th hijackers.
...
“I hated myself.� Tears rolled down his cheeks. He went home, and took a shower, but “there wasn't enough hot water in all of Cuba to make me feel clean.�
http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4055075

Here is an Amazon link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200661/qid=1119293016/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-5447301-4984819?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Tony]

He's obviously a democrat/leftist/communist/humanist/satanist who has a political axe to grind and book to sell.

[mr rosewater]

From the article, she unbuttoned her blouse and began rubbing her breasts against him. "Do you like these big American t!ts?" brutal torture

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
He's obviously a democrat/leftist/communist/humanist/satanist who has a political axe to grind and book to sell.

The last part maybe, I'll believe it more if it can be show he tried to file complain or do something about it prior to selling of his book.

Sorry that's just the kind of a-hole I am.

[Tony]

Originally posted by mr rosewater
From the article, she unbuttoned her blouse and began rubbing her breasts against him. "Do you like these big American t!ts?" brutal torture

Since the subject matter concerns a person who was disillusioned, I don't see how the relative brutality of the torture is relevant.

[epepke]

“there wasn't enough hot water in all of Cuba to make me feel clean.�

Must not make obvious joke. Must not make obvious joke. Eeeeeurgh!

[mr rosewater]

its a book Tony, I'm sure it contains a fact or two. Heres one Guantanamo is on the island of Cuba

[Tony]

Thank you for making no sense whatsoever.

[corplinx]

Not every interrogator has the cold nerves to do the job. I'm sorry this guy couldn't make the cut.

[mr rosewater]

I'm having trouble seeing the torture Tony. And its now a book, I wonder when he realized it was some form of mistreatment

[CBL4]

Here is another example of treatment:
Saar also describes the 'snatch teams', known as the Initial Reaction Force (IRF), who remove uncooperative prisoners from their cells. He describes one such snatch where a prisoner's arm was broken. In a training session for an IRF team, one US soldier posing as a prisoner was beaten so badly that he suffered brain damage. It is believed the IRF team had not been told the 'detainee' was a soldier.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0508-03.htm

[WildCat]

Originally posted by CBL4
Here is another example of treatment:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0508-03.htm
They have the same type of teams in every prison in the USA, and probably anywhere else for that matter.

[Mephisto]

" In a training session for an IRF team, one US soldier posing as a prisoner was beaten so badly that he suffered brain damage. It is believed the IRF team had not been told the 'detainee' was a soldier."

:D

The soldier was allowed the chance to register a complaint that would start an investigation, but chose instead to drool in the corner.

Guess, he'd have been better off listening to Christina Aguilera.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by CBL4
Here is another example of treatment:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0508-03.htm

Does this mystery soldier have a name?

[kalen]

Originally posted by corplinx
Does this mystery soldier have a name?

Gggnnnnnhhhhhfff bnnnnaaaahhhhggg.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Originally posted by corplinx
Does this mystery soldier have a name?

His name is Sean Baker. You can read about the story here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml). He suffered a serious head injury as a result of it, and was actually fired because (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/international/09SOLD.html?ei=5007&en=7b9ea044d0f9ee49&ex=1402113600&adxnnl=1&partner=USERLAND&adxnnlx=1119276961-C9Axf3SPMyTUALBYsioTLw) of that disability.

He's suing the Army, currently, for quite a bit of money. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/18/MNG18DAM6S1.DTL)

[Art Vandelay]

He attended a PowerPoint briefing by an army lawyer on the Geneva Convention, which George Bush decreed did not apply to the men picked up in Afghanistan, or elsewhere, in the “war on terrorism.� "It was nothing but spin." ...Is that passes for a counterargument these days? If you're going to accuse someone of violating the Geneva Convention, shouldn't you have something more that "it's nothing but spin" to back up that charge?

As a soldier this bothered Mr Saar. If America ignored the Geneva Convention, “what kind of brutality might we be visiting upon ourselves in the future fight?� What, maybe next time they'll hijack five airplanes?
:rolleyes:
The terrorists have already made it clear that they have no intention of following the Geneva Convention. Does this guy seriously think that unilaterally following the Convention is going to make these people say "Gee, what fine fellows these people are"? If they want to be convered by the Geneva Convention, all they have to do is follow it themselves. Why should we afford the enemy what they refuse to afford us?

Nice how he blames us for terrorism, rather than the actual terrorists. "Spin" indeed. If he's going to write such things, he should consider the ass beating he might be "visiting upon himself".

[Art Vandelay]

He attended a PowerPoint briefing by an army lawyer on the Geneva Convention, which George Bush decreed did not apply to the men picked up in Afghanistan, or elsewhere, in the “war on terrorism.� "It was nothing but spin." ...Is that passes for a counterargument these days? If you're going to accuse someone of violating the Geneva Convention, shouldn't you have something more that "it's nothing but spin" to back up that charge?

As a soldier this bothered Mr Saar. If America ignored the Geneva Convention, “what kind of brutality might we be visiting upon ourselves in the future fight?� What, maybe next time they'll hijack five airplanes?
:rolleyes:
The terrorists have already made it clear that they have no intention of following the Geneva Convention. Does this guy seriously think that unilaterally following the Convention is going to make these people say "Gee, what fine fellows these people are"? If they want to be convered by the Geneva Convention, all they have to do is follow it themselves. Why should we afford the enemy what they refuse to afford us?

Nice how he blames us for terrorism, rather than the actual terrorists. If he's going to write such things, he should consider the ass beating he might be "visiting upon himself".

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
If they want to be convered by the Geneva Convention, all they have to do is follow it themselves. Why should we afford the enemy what they refuse to afford us?Maybe because we signed it?

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

[Art Vandelay]

Did you even bother reading what you posted? It clearly does not create any US obligations towards terrorists.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Maybe because we signed it?

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

This post strikes me as quite incomplete. What could you possibly mean by this?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
His name is Sean Baker. You can read about the story here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml). He suffered a serious head injury as a result of it, and was actually fired because (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/international/09SOLD.html?ei=5007&en=7b9ea044d0f9ee49&ex=1402113600&adxnnl=1&partner=USERLAND&adxnnlx=1119276961-C9Axf3SPMyTUALBYsioTLw) of that disability.

He's suing the Army, currently, for quite a bit of money. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/18/MNG18DAM6S1.DTL)

Damn, it sounds like the guy was set up. I wonder who he pissed off and who's being protected?

n.b.; sfgate.com had to throw in a Halliburton reference at the end of their story :rolleyes:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
This post strikes me as quite incomplete. What could you possibly mean by this? The question (from Art) was:

"If they want to be convered by the Geneva Convention, all they have to do is follow it themselves. Why should we afford the enemy what they refuse to afford us?"The US has signed the Convention, and it is saying:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.In other words, we have signed a convention saying that we will grant the same protections (as specified in the Convention) even to parties that haven't signed it.

How was that not an appropriate answer to his question?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The question (from Art) was:

[b]The US has signed the Convention, and it is saying:

In other words, we have signed a convention saying that we will grant the same protections (as specified in the Convention) even to parties that haven't signed it.

How was that not an appropriate answer to his question?

I read it as saying that we will grant the same protections to other parties that have signed it, even if one of the other parties in the conflict hasn't.

In other words, if Russia was allied with Afghanistan, then we would give Geneva protections to Russian soldiers even though their Afghan allies don't qualify.

"mutual relations."

I though perhaps you might be arguing that, for instance, an Australian Taliban captured in Afghanistan should be considered an agent of Australia rather than a mercenary in the service of a non-signatory Party, but hadn't been complete.

[aerocontrols]

You are quoting from the 3rd Geneva Convention. Allow me to quote the entire paragraph:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

So, if Al Qaeda or The Taliban accepts and applies the provisions of the Geneva Convention, then we are bound by it in our relations with them. The first test is do they wear insignia and carry ID cards. They do not.


(edit to change erronious '1st' to correct '3rd')

[Bjorn]

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.According to HRW (the article is from a conflict in India/Kashmir) The obligation to comply with Common Article 3 is absolute and independent of the obligation of the other parties.

.....

It cannot excuse itself from complying with Common Article 3 on the grounds that the militants are violating Common Article 3http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kashmir/1996/India-06.htm

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Bjorn
According to HRW (the article is from a conflict in India/Kashmir) http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kashmir/1996/India-06.htm


Instead of reading HRW's opinion of a different conflict, why don't you read the 3rd Convention?

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

This war is not occuring in the territory of a High Contracting Party.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
This war is not occuring in the territory of a High Contracting Party.

Even so, aren't you supposed to be the civilised guys, fighting against the forces of barbarism? Doesn't the attitude, "they do it; so why shouldn't we?" remove any claims to moral authority?

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Is that passes for a counterargument these days?I quote one sentence out of 200 page book and you imply that Saar said nothing else. I am sorry but it is against forum rules to quote the entire book.

The reason I think this book is important is because it tells what torturing did to one American who was nearby. Clearly this is anecdotal but it may give some people some cause for thought.

In addition, the fact that Sean Baker is brain damaged makes it very likely we have done the same or worse to the detainees. Note, in order to comply with the Bush administration desires, I very carefully did not say prisoners because a different word would imply that these were human beings with rights. That would be a very bad thing to imply.

CBL

[CBL4]

I think the basic difference between me and the people like Bush is our background. I was raised in a country that boasts of being a bastion of freedom and fairness. We pride ourselves in guaranteeing rights for all accused. We brag at how well we treated POWs in direct comparison to our enemies.

Our laws were designed to protect everyone but sometimes things slipped through the cracks. We apologized and vowed to better. We alway try to make sure we stay on the moral high ground. We are willing to accept the short term costs in order to keep improving ourselves and the world. We always strive to be the best. It never occurred to compare ourselve to tyrants because that would be silly. We want to be the leader of downtrodden and prevent injustice.

With this upbringing, I cannot fathom the actions of the US. I guess if you were raised differently, they would be acceptable. I am proud that my country would never stand for it.

CBL

[merphie]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The question (from Art) was:

[b]The US has signed the Convention, and it is saying:

In other words, we have signed a convention saying that we will grant the same protections (as specified in the Convention) even to parties that haven't signed it.

How was that not an appropriate answer to his question?

In time of war few people follow it. However I think it should be updated to include terrorism. Clearly the rules of war have changed.

[merphie]

Originally posted by CBL4
I think the basic difference between me and the people like Bush is our background. I was raised in a country that boasts of being a bastion of freedom and fairness. We pride ourselves in guaranteeing rights for all accused. We brag at how well we treated POWs in direct comparison to our enemies.

Our laws were designed to protect everyone but sometimes things slipped through the cracks. We apologized and vowed to better. We alway try to make sure we stay on the moral high ground. We are willing to accept the short term costs in order to keep improving ourselves and the world. We always strive to be the best. It never occurred to compare ourselve to tyrants because that would be silly. We want to be the leader of downtrodden and prevent injustice.

With this upbringing, I cannot fathom the actions of the US. I guess if you were raised differently, they would be acceptable. I am proud that my country would never stand for it.

CBL

now add the reality that the US government does what it wants too. Torture has always been around during war. Vietnam and others. They were sloppy this time and it got out.

[Bjorn]

F&%#ed up. Move on.:(

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Instead of reading HRW's opinion of a different conflict, why don't you read the 3rd Convention?

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:As far as I know, article 2 and 3 are common for the four conventions.

Article 2 in full:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. Isn't this exactly the same as the Human Rights Watch commented like this:

The obligation to comply with Common Article 3 is absolute and independent of the obligation of the other parties.

.....

It cannot excuse itself from complying with Common Article 3 on the grounds that the militants are violating Common Article 3Originally posted by aerocontrols
This war is not occuring in the territory of a High Contracting Party.I thought Afghanistan signed in 1956?