Attack of the Flying Robots: New Mafia Tools

You are in a remote place with majestic mountains inhabited by people with strong family and community values. Religious faith is very important to the community. You are poor by international standards but rich in family and community traditions. Multi-generational struggles to preserve your traditions are a part of life. People come and go from the sprawling compound that you make your home, some of them are involved in the armed struggle.

One day, with no warning, what you come to learn are two flying robots appear from no where to fire three screaming rockets at two homes and a school. The aftermath is enough to make a seasoned soldier vomit as women and children, clothes blown away, lie in taters, limbs strewn, innards splattered about.

You come to learn that the flying robots, drones, were sent from a nation far away that has a history of trying to control the affairs and natural resources of the region. Those controlling the drones sit in sterile, air conditioned buildings thousands of miles away. To you it seems like horrible science fiction come to life.

You also come to learn that the justification given for the horror you've experienced was to kill an aged man in ill-health named Jalaluddin Haqqani. Uncle Haqqani had an extended family including several "wives" to whom he was committed to care for.

Those killed included one of the several wives of Haqqani, his sister-in-law, a sister, two nieces, eight grandchildren and a male relative. A son-in-law of Haqqani was wounded.

Uncle Haqqani is well known for being a leader in the struggle dating back to the 1980s when he was an ally of the people who sent the flying robots, the Americans. Haqqani was not present when the drones wreaked their terror. Many surviors believe this was not a mistake. They believe the Americans knew Haqqani was not present and were punishing him for not cooperating, sending a message, conducting remote interrogation. The message is clear: "Give us information we are seeking or more of your family will die."

Uncle Haqqani isn't a perfect man. He has had to do things and order others to do horrible things in the struggle to preserve our heritage against the exploitation of foreigners. I wish the invaders would go away and leave us alone.

Sources:

Reuters, U.S. drones kill 23 in missile attack in Pakistan
, Haji Mujtaba, September 8, 2008.

Torture is Not About Interrogation

Some proponents of torture prefer to call it harsh or enhanced interrogation. Some of these proponents actually believe that torture is inextricably linked to getting information. They're either not insiders or are hiding the truth about torture.

Proponents of torture who are insiders know that torture is not necessarily about extracting "actionable intelligence." Torture is part of psychological warfare.

This becomes evident when we hear people say, "we shouldn't let our enemies know what we define to be torture." Assume, for the sake of argument, that "our enemies" don't know far more about what "our government" is thinking and doing than most Americans know. Then, this "keep them guessing" argument falls squarely in the realm of psychological warefare. The "secret" bombings of Cambodia were not a secret to the North Vietnamese; the secret was foisted on the American public by the government. Similarly, the torture used by the US during Reagan's dirty wars in Central America was not a secret to the people resisting US-supported oligarchies. Furthermore, the torture wasn't about "getting information." It was about a small wealthy minority suppressing the desires of a majority of the people (that is, suppressing 'democracy').

Tens of thousands of people were "tortured and killed" in Central America by US trained death squads often acting on US intelligence (the method was openly used in Iraq: See the Salvadoran Option). Why "tortured and killed"? Because, we all know it's bad enough to die for a cause, but if you want to suppress dissent, let it be known that there is something worse than death... to be raped, to have acid poured on you, to be forced to watch this done to a friend, your wife, your child. Fear of being tortured will make you think three times before getting involved in a social cause, no matter how just.

Torture isn't about a few errant sickos. US use of torture to suppress popular opinion operates at the highest levels.

In January 2006, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld our $54.6 million jury verdict against Generals Jose Guillermo Garcia and Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, two former Ministers of Defense who oversaw the worst period of human rights abuses in El Salvador's history. [and with whom the US worked closely][1]

Two architects of the torture/death squads in Central America, John Negroponte and James Steele, were both sent to Iraq. Soon thereafter we begin hearing stories of death squads and the Salvadoran Option being used in Iraq. Coincidence?

In a second case, a brigadier-general in the Iraqi interior ministry related that his brother had been detained during a raid on May 14 [2005], in a working class Sunni suburb in Baghdad’s west. His body was found the next day bearing signs of torture. Witnesses told the general that the abductors “came in white police Toyota Land Cruisers, wore police commando uniforms, flak vests and helmets” and were armed with 9mm Glock pistols.

Glock sidearms are used by many US law enforcement agencies and have been supplied to Iraqi security forces by the US military. [2]

The same stories were told countless times during Ronald Reagan's dirty war in El Slavador. (See video of one example below).

That's the dirty secret. Torture is about sending a message to anyone who seeks to challenge US imperial rule, "Step out of line and you might be tortured." Interrogation is just a cover that the establishment media helps disseminate.

So, the debate on torture shouldn't be about whether torture produces good information or not. It shouldn't be about the ticking time bomb scenario. The debate shouldn't be about whether the use of harsh interrogation (torture) by the US will justify our "enemy's" use of torture US soldiers (though it's a logical argument). The debate needs to center on the US use of torture to suppress legitimate popular movements that challenge US foreign expansion (like the use of US military force to secure America's "vital oil interests" despite the inconvenient fact that the oil does not belong to the US). I like cheap gasoline, but torturing people for it just ain't right.


Testimony of El Salvadoran Torture Victim who Survived

Sources:

1. Center for Justice and Accountability.

2. Journalist killed after investigating US-backed death squads in Iraq, James Cogan, July 1, 2005.

Photo: El Salvador death squad victims, tortured and killed.

Trust the Government

Associated Press writer PAMELA HESS reports that at least one of the CIA torture tapes showed the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, a detainee taken by the CIA in 2002. She continues to report that,

Zubaydah, under harsh questioning, told CIA interrogators about alleged 9/11 accomplice Ramzi Binalshibh.

Then she reports that,

The two men's confessions also led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the U.S. government said was the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

We're supposed to believe the U.S. government?

Sources:

Associated Press, Democrats want probe of tape, Pamela Hess, December 7, 2007 (A day that will live in infamy).

Desire to Hold Detainees Motivates Torture

The US military in Iraq has rules. For example, there were apparently rules against having non-trained interrogators conduct interrogations. So, according to pfc. Evan Knappenberger...

We didn’t call them interrogations. The terminology had to be changed, as is the case with many things we do in the military that we’re not really allowed to do. If you change the name, you can – you are allowed to do it but, because it’s not – it’s the same action, a different name. We call them tactical questionings.

Another set of military rules determines how to handle detainees. In a response to a question from DemocracyNow's Amy Goodman about who's in the room during a "tactical questioning" session, Knappenberger describes his experience:

Well, I can’t really go into specifics, but typically there would be one or two soldiers. At times it would be nobody more than two junior enlisted soldiers, and an Iraqi interpreter, and the suspect.

When asked about the kinds of questions asked he replied by describing the 24-hour rule:

the rule was we could hold these guys for 24 hours without doing any paperwork on them. And at the end of that 24 hours, if we had enough on them,... we’d keep them in. Otherwise we had to release them.

Basically, it's a rule that keeps one-day detentions secret by having no paper work. But, Knappenbergers' next statement that is even more troubling:

The problem then became getting something out of them to keep them.

Hmmm.... Imagine young, junior enlisted soldiers, who likely feel angry about their situation, trying to "get something" on a detainee to "justify" holding them longer. It's a formula for abusive treatment, that is, torture.

Take Action:

If you feel a responsibility to bring this flawed situation to someone's attention, you might consider contacting the US Department of Defense.