Month: September 2006

This is the term used by the CIA to describe one of the "alternative methods" that this president has authorized with respect to military detainees. The CIA’s description is this:

Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

Here’s another description of the technique:

Then there is the method of simply compelling a prisoner to stand there. This can be arranged so that the accused stands only while being interrogated – because that, too, exhausts and breaks a person down. It can be set up in another way – so that the prisoner sits down during interrogation but is forced to stand up between interrogations. (A watch is set over him, and the guards see to it that he doesn’t lean against the wall, and if he goes to sleep and falls over he is given a kick and straightened up.) Sometimes even one day of standing is enough to deprive a person of all his strength and to force him to testify to anything at all.

Here’s another:

"They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don’t sleep. Don’t lie on the floor," one prisoner said through a translator.

The second description is from "The Gulag Archipelago." The third is from Guantanamo Bay. One detainee at Gitmo, closely monitored by the administration, was chained to a chair and not allowed to move even while medics had to pump three bags of saline into him to prevent him from passing out. Others have been forced into "stress positions" as illustrated above, or forced to stand with their wrists manacled to bars or a ceiling so they can never rest; or with their feet or hands manacled to a bolt on the floor so they cannot move at all for long periods of time. You can read several side-by-side comparisons of Bush’s methods and the Soviet techniques documented by Solzhenytsen here.

"My correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith. On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are. A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise," РSam Harris, author of the compelling book, "The End of Faith."

I didn’t agree with all of that book, but am very grateful for it. The position Harris holds in this war is roughly mine: as defenders of the West, we can neither let our guard down against the evil we confront nor the abuse of power in our own governments. The test of this long war will be to fight on both fronts simultaneously. Not easy. But it is the calling of our generation.

Journalists know by now what the Bush administration thinks of them. But aggressive pushback in Washington press coverage is one thing. Jailing Associated Press journalists without charging them for up to five months is, well, positively Cheney-esque. So Bilal Hussein is in the Rumsfeld Archipelago, along with around 14,000 others. Hussein is a lucky photographer. He has the head of the Associated press on his side:

"We want the rule of law to prevail. He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable," said Tom Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer. "We’ve come to the conclusion that this is unacceptable under Iraqi law, or Geneva Conventions, or any military procedure."

If Hussein’s experience were extraordinary or an admitted mistake, it would be one thing. But there are far too many stories of Iraqi journalists being detained without charge by U.S. forces to feel reassured that anything close to justice is prevailing. Iraqi journalists who photograph insurgents are often arrested as insurgents. Who’s to tell one "haji" from another?

Slate’s readers pitch in.

Greg Djerejian wonders how far this president will go to protect his right to torture.

Blue Hill, Maine, dawn.

As the debate on detention policies intensifies, it’s worth reminding ourselves of what the president himself has said about torture. This blog has done us all a favor. Here is one public speech by the president from June 2003:

Today, on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States declares its strong solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.

Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit …

The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. [My italics.]

The reason this speech is important is because it represents the president’s publicly stated position that he not only opposes torture but all "Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment." He even defines torture in exactly the same terms as the U.N., and as I have defined it on this blog on many occasions:

"deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control"

So the president has been very clear in his own definition. He is opposed to torture "in all its forms." 

Now what does president Bush believe should be done when "rogue regimes" violate the ban on "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment. He has also been unequivocal about that. He believes that governments that inflict "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" should be subject to investigation and prosecution for war crimes. He also said the following words at the very beginning of the Iraq war after four American soldiers had been captured:

"I expect them to be treated, the POWs, I expect to be treated humanely, just like we’re treating the prisoners that we have captured humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals."

Let’s be clear here: it is the president’s belief that anyone who sanctions mistreatment of military prisoners under the definition of the U.N. Convention on Torture should be prosecuted as a war criminal.

One simple question: how exactly does that now not apply to him?

(Photo of a "coercive interrogation technique": AP.)

Another leftist, gay, hysterical terror-lover opposes the legalization of torture. Money quote:

Then, adding to the administration’s pain on the issue, [McCain] said: ‘By the way, I forgot to mention this: George Shultz said I could say that he strongly favors our position.’ Mr. Shultz was President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, and his endorsement would add another powerful Republican voice in opposition to Mr. Bush, along with that of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

These liberals. Always siding with the enemy.

My Sunday Times column on the groundswell of conservative opposition to the policies and legacy of the Bush administration.

Six years ago, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a front-page story declaring a new HIV infection crisis among gay men:

San Francisco’s long-feared and often predicted new wave of HIV infection is here. After years of stability – wrought by strong prevention programs, a safer-sex ethic and powerful drugs – city health experts now estimate that the number of new infections by the virus that causes AIDS nearly doubled, to 900, in the past year.

"This is a harbinger of what is going to happen all over the country," warned Tom Coates, director of the University of California at San Francisco AIDS Research Institute. "What happens in the HIV epidemic usually happens here first." … "We are very concerned, and we are very worried,” said San Francisco Department of Public Health epidemiologist Dr. Willi McFarland. "These are sub-Saharan African levels of transmission."

The New York Times ran a front-page story echoing this prediction. Richard Cohen at the Washington Post wrote a column last year, bemoaning an "apparent upsurge" of HIV infection. Well, here’s the latest report from San Francisco, noted by blogger Michael Petrelis:

"The current HIV/AIDS epidemic is characterized by no apparent increases in HIV infection rates over the past five years, and with considerable decreases in some populations. A number of factors may account for these trends. San Francisco’s community-based prevention and treatment responses deserve some credit, bringing our per capita rate of AIDS incidence down from the highest in America to its present rank as number seven."

Gay men in San Francisco are doing something right. And if you relied on the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times or Richard Cohen at the Washington Post, you’d have believed exactly the opposite. I always find it weird when the MSM asks me how you can trust blogs. In many areas, blogs are far more reliable than the MSM.