Weapons of Mass Discussion: ACLU Releases "Torture" Documents

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

ACLU Releases "Torture" Documents

By Matt for the TIB Network:

According to the ACLU, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is accusing the Department of Defense (DOD) of authorizing what it (the FBI) calls “torture” citing a December 2003 FBI email and a June 2004 report to the Director of the FBI that “raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.” Furthermore, the FBI claims that the DOD interrogators impersonated FBI agents so as to leave the FBI “holding the bag.”

The documents were released due to a court order in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and other organizations.

The ACLU is asserting that President Bush issued an Executive Order (EO) authorizing “inhumane interrogation methods” against prisoners in Iraq.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero: "These documents raise grave questions about where the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately rests. Top government officials can no longer hide from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers."

According to an FBI email, the President’s EO allowed sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and “sensory deprivation” through the use of hoods, etc.” The ACLU wants the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an EO and to release it if it exists.

Another email describes the incident wherein DOD interrogators allegedly impersonated FBI agents while using “torture techniques” on a prisoner.

The June 2004 report to the Director of the FBI is heavily redacted. The legible portions includes an account of observations to the FBI’s Sacramento Field Office by an FBI agent who had witnessed “numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilians,” including “strangulation, beatings, [and] placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings.”

Matt’s Chat

Take a deep breath folks. I’m going to walk you through all this to the best of my ability.

Let’s start with that last bit, shall we. Compare and contrast this:

“strangulation, beatings, [and] placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings.”

…with this:

the President’s EO allowed sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and “sensory deprivation” through the use of hoods, etc.”

At worst, we have some rogue DOD folks who are carrying out their own agenda. The President’s EO, if it exists, hasn’t been alleged to allow the actions included in the report. If said actions did occur, those who carried out those actions should be prosecuted. If the EO authorized such activities, which it doesn’t appear to do, then the FBI, the ACLU, and the Democrats have something to complain about. If the EO authorizes what has been stated above, that is not torture. Here are the Dictionary.com definitions of torture:

1.

a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. [emphasis in original but italicized]

3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

None of the “authorized” methods can be defined as torture.
Let’s turn our eyes to the “impersonating FBI” allegation. Why would the DOD do this? The ACLU would have us believe that this was a misdirection technique in case the story managed to get out. Question: why would the DOD let the FBI know they were doing this? Another question: why didn’t the FBI do something about it at the time?

To borrow a phrase from our friends in the fever swamp, I question the timing of this. Democrats are looking for something…anything…to attack the President with. If they don’t find something, they have allies in various government agencies that will leak things to the media to help them. Note that the ACLU lawsuit doesn’t mention the FBI, yet the FBI’s information is all that has been released. The only agency specifically mentioned is the DOD.

People with a lot more knowledge than me are going to have to wade through all this material. I’m willing to take a skeptical view of both the administration/government and the ACLU’s claims at this time.