Read other letters about this article

• Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:07 PM

  Okay casual_observer

  I chose a document at random. It's 06-F-01532 doc 07 from the April 13, 2007 entry at the master DOD website for the document dump (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/).

  I've only made it to page 7 of 10, but I have to present two passages that are disgusting. The document is labeled as a transcription of a background briefing for a number of the analysts in a conference call on July 13, 2005.

  Here is a passage making a hurried admission to what must be the Yoo memos, beginning on page 5, in response to a question from our buddy Shepperd about differences in practices among Iraq, Afganistan and Guantanamo:

  I will tell you, Don - first of all Guantanamo Bay is a separate, closed-loop detention interrogation operation. The connection between any other operation really begins to open up a basket of worms and it does not pertain.

  
  At Guantanamo the rules changed when they had these resistance trained - particularly one high-value - ISN-063 - high-value detainee - that was resistance trained and they were getting nowhere with him. And they thought, and later proved to be fairly accurate, that he had valuable information on the Global War on Terror.

  The Joint Task Force requested additional interrogation techniques from a higher authority, and they went up through the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They did recieve that authority on the 2nd of December 03 (sic, 2002, see below with Craddock) to open up the envelope a little bit with more aggressive techniques.

  /snip/

  However, the authorities to open up the interrogation techniques in response to Guantanamo, and it did not mean it went anywhere else, Guantanamo under the closed crucible of the controls they have down there were approved on the 2nd of December. They were rescinded on the 15th of January. A new set came out on the 16th of January through 16 April, and on the 16th of April another set came down that sort of resolved it all and for the guide for interrogators.

  So, although the purpose of the briefing was to convince the analysts that the interrogations were legal, we see that the definition of legal was changing quite quickly over time, as the various Yoo memos were written and withdrawn.

  Then, on page 6, we get down to actual techniques, with a bonus of the involvement by the President in determining what is appropriate:

  Another example is ego down. And this is the one where we start seeing a different sort of thing, and it gets into possible sexual humiliation. Ego down, that's an approach based on attacking the source's sense of personal worth. Goes through the same process. That NCO, written plan, vets it through the O-5 level, GG14 level, and then conducts the interrogation with translator.

  
  In GTMO, that ego down translated down to telling the detainee that his mother and sister were whores, he was forced to wear women's lingerie, multiple allegations of his homosexuality, he was forced to dance with a male interrogator, he was strip searched for control measures, and he was forced to perform dog tricks on a leash.

  Now, the basic line there - you say that sounds, you know, like I did - that sounds like degrading. Well, we said yes, it could be. The basic line though in the charter for those interrogations was humane treatment. And humane treatment is spelled out by the President. It's a safe, secure environment that provides medical care, food, water, and the basics of that person's security. Not this. Was this person injured, harmed? No. Were they denied any medical care, anything? No. So there was a line there with don't cross the line between inhumane, and that's where it went, Don.

  So there, it wasn't inhumane, because humane means what the President says it means. Any questions?

  —Jim White Read Jim White's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel