It was "unacceptable" and "un-American," but was it torture?
"My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture," said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "I don't know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word."
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Rumsfeld confessed he still had not read the March 9 report by Major General Antonio Taguba on "abuse" at the Abu Ghraib prison. Some highlights: "pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape, ... sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."
The same day that Rumsfeld added his contribution to the history of Orwellian statements by high officials, the Senate Armed Services Committee was briefed behind closed doors for the first time not only about Abu Ghraib, but about US military and CIA prisons in Afghanistan.
It learned of the deaths of 25 prisoners and two murders in Iraq; that private contractors were at the center of these lethal incidents; and that no one had been charged in connection with any of them.
The senators were given no details about the private contractors. They might as well have been fitted with hoods.
Many of them, Democratic and Republican, were infuriated that there was no accountability and no punishment. They demanded a special investigation, but the Republican leadership quashed this idea. The senators want Rumsfeld to testify in a public hearing, but he is resisting and the Republican leaders are backing him.
The Bush administration was well aware of the Taguba report, but unfortunately was more concerned about its exposure than showing any responsibility regarding its contents.
General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dispatched on a mission to CBS news to ask it to suppress the story and the horrifying pictures.
For two weeks, CBS's 60 Minutes II show complied -- until it became known that the New Yorker magazine would publish excerpts of the report. Myers was then sent to Sunday morning news programs to explain, but under questioning acknowledged that he too had still not read the report he had tried to censor from the public for weeks.
President George W. Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and other officials, unable to contain the controversy any longer, made apologies and scheduled appearances on Arab television.
There were still no firings. One of their chief talking points was that the "abuse" was an aberration. But Abu Ghraib was a predictable consequence of the Bush administration imperatives and policies.
Bush has created what is in effect a gulag. It stretches from prisons in Afghanistan to Iraq, from Guantanamo to secret CIA prisons around the world. There are perhaps 10,000 people being held in Iraq, 1,000 in Afghanistan and almost 700 in Guantanamo, but no one knows the exact numbers. The law as it applies to them is whatever the US executive branch -- and its hired contractors -- deem necessary.
There has been nothing like this system since the fall of the Soviet Union. The US military embraced the Geneva conventions after World War II, because applying them to prisoners of war protects American soldiers.
But the Bush administration, in an internal fight, trumped its argument by designating those at Guantanamo "enemy combatants." Rumsfeld extended this system -- "a legal black hole" according to Human Rights Watch -- to Afghanistan and then Iraq, openly rejecting the conventions.
Private contractors, according to the Toguba report, gave orders to US soldiers to torture prisoners. Their presence in Iraq is a result of the Bush military strategy of invading with a relatively light force.
The gap has been filled by private contractors, who are not subject to Iraqi law or the US military code of justice. Now there are an estimated 20,000 of these privately contracted workers in Iraq, a larger force than the British army.
It is not surprising that recent events in Iraq center on these contractors: the four killed in Falluja as well as Abu Ghraib's "interrogators." Under the Bush legal doctrine, we create a system beyond law to defend the rule of law against terrorism; we defend democracy by inhibiting democracy. The law is there to constrain "evildoers," however we define them. Who dares doubt our love of freedom?
But the arrogance of virtuous certainty masks the egotism of power. It is the opposite of American pragmatism, which always understands that knowledge is contingent, tentative and imperfect. This is a conflict in the American mind between two claims on democracy: one with a sense of paradox, limits and debate, the other purporting to be omniscient and even messianic, requiring no checks because of its supposed purity, and contemptuous of accountability.
"This is the only one where they took pictures," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocate of Human Rights Watch and a former National Security Council staff member. "This was not considered a debatable topic until people had to stare at the pictures."
Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to US president Bill Clinton and Washington bureau chief of Salon.com.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS