I'm finally reemerging from under a mountain of blue books and term papers, and I learned that I completely missed the Office of the Inspector General's release of their report last week. It was 4 years in the making and basically details their investigation into interrogation tactics at Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Iraq as reported to them by interviewed FBI agents. The report details a ghoul's list of tactics: short shackling, extreme temperatures, loud music, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, isolation, and bright lights/darkness, not to mention humiliation and threats to harm.
This list contains only those tactics FBI agents personally observed. This is slightly misleading (particularly the frequency of observations); specifically it does not imply that the agents did not have strong reason to believe that harsher tactics were not used (more frequently). This is so, since it was FBI policy, a policy implemented after FBI agents made higher ups aware of abuse, that agents should leave an interrogation scene in which tactics used were contrary to FBI practices. The rule states, “"If a co-interrogator is in compliance with the rules of his or her agency, but is not in compliance with FBI rules, FBI personnel may not participate in the interrogation and must remove themselves from the situation" (p.364). That is, the commencement of torture (by DOD and CIA agents) signals an FBI agent's departure from the scene. There is no reason to doubt that had FBI agents remained on the scene the frequency of the claims of abuse would have been significantly higher.
The report is significant, firstly, because of the source of its information. FBI agents have little reason to fabricate or exaggerate claims. Secondly, it rounds out the picture we have the Bush administration's interrogation policy. These weren't isolated incidents used only on 2 or 3 detainees but rather a systematic approach to information gathering. Thirdly, the FBI was brought in initially for their expertise in interrogation. As the report points out, their view is that rapport building is the most effective means to information gathering, and the complaints FBI agents repeatedly made charged that coercive tactics are ineffective (not to mention unusable or undermining at trial). This highlights two other essential vices of the Bush administration, namely, its contempt for knowledge and expertise and its impatience.
Independent of those concerns is one about our press. I generally keep up with the news, but as I noted above I was swamped last week and completely missed the reportage on the OIG report. But, how is it that a concerned citizen who turns away for but a few days can miss a significant piece of news such as this? I only chanced upon the story due to some link on some blog buried beneath the headlines. Examining our major paper's websites this week would have not given me an inkling of the story at all. Assuming this will not change, the threshold for being an informed citizen is now far above the level most citizens can maintain. This is obviously a problem, particularly when we have an otherwise unaccountable government.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Torture, Inc.
Posted by MT Nguyen at 3:35 PM
Labels: guantanamo, torture
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 Comments:
This is particularly true when the press is a willing participant in a mis-information campaign as was the case with Miller and the Times and many others regarding Iraq, s similar scene involving Iran, and so forth.
A news blackout is back enough but when coupled with a fake news blitz, it is even worse.
Many folks *still* think Saddam was involved with 9/11...
The global concentration of ownership of media is a huge issue and may be a key part of many other, seemingly more important, issues.
Glenn Greenwald has a nice summary of Scott McClellan's criticism of the alleged liberal media. Go here.
It's a sad and instructive day when a presidential press secretary criticizes the press for being soft.
Greenwald's scathing piece (and its pair of updates) are hard hitting. Thanks for that.
The use of the press as the outreach arm of the Bully Pulpit is dangerous and distressing but it is not the most worrisome piece of that particular pie for me.
I am worried that the entirety of mainstream media - print ands broadcast relentlessly demean governments, governing, and the efficacy of government in general.
Murdoch reaches most of the world at this point whit his sleazy spew of right wing propaganda and salacious celebrity scandal. There are others like Viacom, CanWest, GE, Disney, and others all playing catch up.
There is a not-so-subtle steady drumbeat of comments, pieces, articles, editorials and all that advance these points in a myriad ways every day:
* If government can do it private industry can do it better and cheaper
* all politicians are either crooks or camera hounds - often both
* all taxes are bad
* all elected officials are self serving
* fewer regulations is always better
It's devastating and there is plenty more to add to the list.
TV viewers and magazine or newspaper readers live is a corrosive soup that denies the great benefit government has had for many aspects of daily life for average people. The dyspeptic drivel focuses on the foibles and failings of public servants whenever possible and never ever talks about the virtues of public service.
Bit by bit, day by day, people are being mis-educated - brainwashed if you will - so that they despise or at least are put off by government.
"Ah who pays attention to that stuff? They're all a bunch of crooks anyway!" is the sort of statement one hears all too often today and it is getting worse.
The excitement about the primary candidates and races has reversed the trend for the moment but there has been a multi-decade long decline in political engagement.
The more the public buys the narrative about stoopid pols, the sex scandals, and so on the lower the amount of interest in the topic will be.
Which leaves the oligarchy exactly where it wants to be...
Driving with nobody paying any attention how they are doing or where they are going.
You make an excellent point. I've wondered recently how our government functions when the executive has staggeringly low approval ratings and congress possesses worse. Your point helps to explain the possibility. Disapproval is said in many ways, and really what the low poll numbers suggest is a passive indifference and contempt rather than an active desire for change. Part of the explanation is also that Bush's actions have been designed so as to minimize the effects on powerful voting blocks. Engage in a costly war with no end? No problem, for I won't ask anything from you and moreover I'll lower your taxes! Violate international law? No problem, we'll do it offshore and you won't even have to think about it. Over 4000 soldiers killed and 10's of thousands wounded? No problem, we'll prevent coverage of the coffins. There's been more outrage and despair about rising gas prices than any of the above. My point is not to heap on the criticism, rather to make the point that few will start focusing on the good of government until they experience that good being taken away from them.
Post a Comment