Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Rude Pundit - The OPR Torture Memos Report: What Is Enhanced Interrogation Technique Number 12?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:05 AM
Original message
The Rude Pundit - The OPR Torture Memos Report: What Is Enhanced Interrogation Technique Number 12?
Pages 35 and 36 of the July 29, 2009 report by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, regarding the torture memos used by the Bush administration to create a legal framework for, you know, torture, contains a list of interrogation techniques that were approved for use on Abu Zubaydah, also known as "the evillest man who ever lived (until the next one comes along)." We've known about these. They include waterboarding and walling. There's also sleep deprivation, described as "The subject is prevented from sleeping, not to exceed 11 days at a time."

Lest you think Zubaydah was being let off easy by being forced awake for 11 days, there's this footnote: "As initially proposed, sleep deprivation was to be induced by shackling the subject in a standing position with his feet chained to a ring in the floor and his arms attached to a bar at head level, with very little room for movement." In other words, sleep deprivation through crucifixion pose. So you know all those Wizard of Id cartoons you never laughed at? It was like that, with the arms a bit lower and still not funny.

There's 11 proposed techniques described. Then, at the bottom of page 36, there is a twelfth. Number 12 has been redacted. An ominous black box of authority covers it. If, as seems, the techniques are listed by increasing severity, from "attention grasp" to waterboarding, what comes next?

Number 12 seems to be the subject of discussion later, on page 54. John Yoo, in a rare moment of restraint, says to the OPR, "I had actually thought that we prohibited waterboarding. I didn't recollect that we had actually said that you could do it." Except, you know, they did it. Then the report says that the Office of Legal Counsel "told the CIA that approval of the remaining techniques could take longer if (redacted) were part of the EIT program. (CIA Legal Counsel John) Rizzo remembered Yoo asking how important the technique was to the CIA because it would 'take longer' to complete the memorandum if it were included." So John Yoo didn't tell the CIA, "No, you can't (fill in the blank with your favorite torture here - let's go with "put electrodes on his testicles")." What he said was, "If you want to put electrodes on his testicles, it's gonna take us a little more time to come up with bullshit justification for it."

The report as a whole is fascinating stuff, like reading the heavily redacted Federalist Papers of the damned. On page 57, lawyers discuss things like whether or not Abu Zubaydah is allergic to certain insects. Then Deputy Attorney General Patrick Philbin gets worried about how indefinite the description of "severe pain" was: "He said he thought the clinical terminology of the statute was 'imprudent' to use in this context and that it did not provide 'useful, concrete guidance concerning what amounts to "severe pain."' Philbin said this was a practical concern and turned on the fact that there is no readily identifiable level of pain that precedes medical events such as organ failure." Again, the discussion was not whether or not to do it. It was on how best to hide it. This was where Yoo said, "They want it in there." The "they" presumably being the White House and/or the CIA who wanted to cover asses.

Yes, much of the parade of horrors that Yoo, Jay Bybee, and, it seems, Jennifer Koester helped give the veneer of honorable behavior is well-known. And Yoo revels in being as much of a dick as possible about this. When he said, blithely, "Sure," to the question of whether the president had the legal authority to order the massacre of a village of resisters, one merely has to ask, "And how would Americans feel if the Mexican president believed he had the authority to send his troops to kill everyone in Laredo?" Twee academic Yoo seems to have gotten caught up in his moment of finally being able to play the cowboy and not that poor, pantsed nerd whose tiny dick gets laughed at by the cheerleaders.

But the Rude Pundit keeps coming back to number 12. On page 84 of the report, the CIA Counter Terrorism Center says they believe that Abu Zubaydah was "still withholding information," even though he had been through the EIT program. "Senior CIA officials reportedly made the decision to resume the use of the waterboard," the report says. That's followed by a redacted part of the sentence. But whatever else was done, it allowed interrogators to agree after "that the subject was being truthful."

Number 12 must have been a hell of a thing. We should be proud as Americans to have constructed such a well thought-out system of forced confessions and brutality in our name.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R +12
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. I am so proud of America...
There's no evil we will not resort to, in the name of national security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. Republican America
I do not consent to such treatment and know of no Liberal that does...Only Republicans are so low as to accept torture as normal operating procedure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. I could show you, but then I'd have to resect your bowel
Even if you sign the waiver, I don't have that kind of time today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. My guess would be psychotropic drugs explicitely banned under the CAT
The kind the CIA developed by Dr. Cameron for use in the '50s MK-ULTRA and Artichoke programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Allegations of forced drugs administration have been raised repeatedly.
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 11:39 AM by leveymg
The two that come immediately to mind are the "dirty bomb" suspects: Jose Padilla and Binyam Mohamed. You can look up the prohibition in the CAT - I'm sure it's in there.

On edit: Here's an article on the subject - #
t r u t h o u t | The Real Roots of the CIA's Rendition and Black ...
Feb 17, 2010 ... In January 2004, Binyam Mohamed was flown to a CIA "black" site in ... bomb" so-called plot with Binyam Mohamed, was forced to take LSD or ...
http://www.truthout.org/the-real-roots-cias-rendition-black-sites-program56956 - Cached

Further edit - Here's the WIKI for CAT. Administration of mind-altering substances also a violation of the federal Torture Act:

UN Convention Against Torture
Main article: UN Convention Against Torture

The United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which originated in the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the President Ronald Reagan on April 18, 1988. Ratification by the Senate took place on October 27, 1990.

* Restricting the definition of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" to "the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution".3
* Restricting acts of torture to the following list: "(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality."4


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Source?
I meant your source for the allegations implied when you used the name "Dr. Cameron" and then said "for use in the '50s MK-ULTRA and Artichoke programs". When you name a person you probably should give a credible source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. There was a law suit against CIA, Dr. Ewen Cameron. Gov't of Canada also formally apologized
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 11:52 AM by leveymg
for the "research" carried out for the CIA by Dr. Cameron at McGill University. Several books and many articles on the subject. Citations in a long Wiki: Ewen Cameron
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is like reading the Office of the Inquisition stuff all over again
The Inquisition had very definite parameters for just how much torture to inflict on some apostate, and whether breaking bones was worse than simple dislocation of joints. Learned disquisitions went on for page after tiresome and revolting page about the proper and allowable techniques that God would use to persuade a recalcitrant Jew of the error of his ways.

And now we have a latter day Inquisition, chasing goals every bit as chimerical as forced religious conversion. Somebody got tombstoned yesterday for using the term storm troopers, but what should our military and intelligence people be called when you read these reports? Remember, too, that these aren't written by hostile or even disinterested third parties; this is what they wrote to each other, people all presumably in on every detail.

Ain't that America somethin' to see?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
8. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
10. Here's the Red Cross report where they talk about all the torture/abuse methods
used on Abu Zubaydah.

http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf

Beatings & kickings, threats of rape, death, HIV infection, restricting food, as well as the others named in the recently released memos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC