Does Bush need to torture detainees?

by Tom Maertens

George Bush is busy selling his fear campaign, virtually monopolizing the airwaves some days.

One of his latest gambits is to push a bill that would override Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, international treaties that the U.S. has signed, and which, according to U.S. law, take precedence over domestic law.

He said repeatedly at a Rose Garden press conference Sept. 15, that his bill was intended to bring legal clarity to the process of interrogating prisoners, and that these interrogations were vital to national security.

The New York Times took a jaundiced view of his campaign: "We’ll find out in November how well the White House’s be-very-afraid campaign has been working with voters. We already know how it’s working in Congress. Stampeded by the fear of looking weak on terrorism, lawmakers are rushing to pass a bill demanded by the president that would have minimal impact on antiterrorist operations but could cause profound damage to justice and the American way."

Part of the reason for this skepticism is that the administration has consistently misrepresented every aspect of the detainee issue. To begin with, it held more than a dozen hostages in secret prisons, without identifying them to the ICRC (Red Cross) as required by U.S. treaty obligations.

Second, nothing the administration has said about detainees in Guantanamo can be taken at face value, starting with the allegation that they are "the worst of the worst."

Here's U.S. News and World Report (5/12/03)on those detainees: "According to [Secretary] Powell, the military is holding one 13-year-old, one 14-year-old, two 15-year-olds, one 16-year-old, an 88-year-old, and a 98-year-old. Powell also questioned why it is taking so long to reach 'a final determination'on the fate of the roughly 660 people from 42 countries being held at the base."

The reality is that many of the detainees there had nothing to do with al Qaeda. In the first instance, there were many young men who were indoctrinated at madrassas in Pakistan who thought they were going to Afghanistan to fight for Islam. They were not so much hardened al Qaeda fighters as misguided Islamists. Additionally, many of the prisoners were turned in for the $5000-$10,000 bounty U.S. forces in Afghanistan were offering for "Taliban" and "al Qaeda." A lot of scores were settled for profit, apparently.

Public Radio International concluded that only about 5% of the detainees held at Gitmo were captured by American forces. Most of the rest were turned over by Northern Alliance and Pakistani forces. PRI reporter Jack Hitt quoted informed sources that conclude only about 8% of the detainees at Gitmo are al Qaeda members, and very few of them significant leaders. It appears there are between one and two dozen al Qaeda foot soldiers at Gitmo.

So is it vital that the CIA be able to torture them for information?

Ron Suskind, in his book, "The One Percent Doctrine" reported that the CIA tortured the notorious abu Zubaydah for no real benefit except erroneous information that sent the government off on multiple wild goose chases. Oh yeah, he is apparently a certifiable multiple-personality type, and each personality gave different answers.

Here's more, from the New Republic blog:

"According to George Bush, Zubaydah was questioned using (the alternative) procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks--a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

First, according to Ron Suskind, Abu Zubaydah didn't clam up because he was "trained to resist interrogation," but because he has the mental capacity of a retarded child. Second, the idea that Abu Zubaydah's interrogation tipped off the U.S. to the existence of Ramzi bin Al Shibh is just an outright lie. A Nexis search for "Ramzi Binalshibh" between September 11, 2001 and March 1, 2002--the U.S. captured Abu Zubaydah in March 2002--turns up 26 hits for The Washington Post alone. Everyone involved in counterterrorism knew who bin Al Shibh was. Now-retired FBI Al Qaeda hunter Dennis Lormel told Congress who Ramzi bin Al Shibh was in February 2002. Abu Zubaydah getting waterboarded and spouting bin Al Shibh's name did not tell us anything we did not already know."

Finally, there is the problem of prisoners dying in U.S. custody, more than 120 in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least 27 of those deaths have been ruled homocide, and more are under investigation. Those abuses and the ones made public at Abu Graib have been enormously damaging to our reputation in the world, and to our credibility in the Muslim world.

Like the rest of George Bush's comments about terrorism and terrorists, don't believe a word you hear until you do the fact check.