Men with No Eyes

When reading reports of abuse and torture performed by Americans in Iraq and elsewhere, the initial shock seems to wear off with more reading. One experiences a cool detachment from the reality of the situation; the words become an academic exercise in morality and ethics, rather than the initial soul-retching horror that accompanies the realization that this is being done in our name. Sometimes, though, that patina is shattered by a new revelation or medium experience; I recently experienced 2 such events in close proximity to each other. The first was when I watched Road to Guantanamo, a film that relates the story of 4 Pakistani-born English men, who are captured in Afghanistan and imprisoned in Guantanamo. The second was when I watched the PBS: Frontline documentary The Torture Question. This is an in-depth look at the operations in Abu Gharib and the chain of accountability that authorized it. My renewed loathing for the situation caused me to do some additional research of the subject. The hardest part of the entire scandal to stomach is the repeated defense of the policy. The first is John Yoo's infamous "Bybee Memo" to Alberto Gonzalez, detailing the interrogation methods that do not violate torture bans. Page 2 of this memo creates the definition of "torture": "For an act to be torture, it must ... cause severe pain and suffering, and be the intended to cause severe pain and suffering...the infliction of such pain must be the defendant's precise objective" This ludicrous definition leaves the monstrous loophole that the "precise objective" of torture is obviously not to inflict "severe pain and suffering", but rather to extract actionable intelligence from the victim. Hence, torture is not torture. Yoo's blatant and unapologetic use of Orwellian Double-Think makes him exceedingly dangerous, especially when coupled with his legal expertise and powerful position as Deputy Assistant Attorney General. The second, and more famous, defense of the torture policy comes in the form of the "Rumsfeld Memo", in which Rumsfeld specifically authorizes "counter-resistance techniques" that fall into the generally accepted definition of torture and breach of the Geneva Convention. Appearing near the end of the document (pg 4 and beyond), these include: 1. Use of "Stress positions" (like long time standing) 2. Use of falsified documents 3. Isolation 4. Interrogation in a non-standard interrogation booth (i.e. anywhere you want) 5. Deprivation of light and auditory stimuli (sensory deprivation) 6. Use of hoods during transport and questioning 7. 20-hour interrogations 8. Removal of all "comfort items" 9. Food switching 10. Removal of clothing 11. Forced grooming (shaving Muslim religious beards) 12. Using phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress The most disturbing items here involve allowing prisoners to be "questioned" in any location desired (such as the storage crates referenced in The Torture Question). This allows other, less savory tactics to be used while away from any regulation, or even a casual passer-by. As if the military aspect of the case was not disturbing enough, civilian contractors were also used during interrogations. This unregulated use of contractors is heinous in the sense that there was not even marginal military control over these people, allowing them to behave with almost complete impunity. Many of the military personnel didn't even know who the civilians were, or where they came from. The Guardian, in referencing the military investigation of Abu Gharib, says: "Lawyers for the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability....One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him....The investigation names two US contractors, CACI International Inc and the Titan Corporation, for their involvement in the functioning of Abu Ghraib." A portion of a CACI recruitment letter: Wanted: Interrogator Location: Iraq Job Description: Under moderate supervision, provide intelligence support for interviewing local nationals and determining there threat to coalition forces. Must be able to work with interpreters to gather intelligence information from multiple sources. Must be able to effective interview Local Nationals and complete the interview reports on the findings of the interview. Must be able complete mission in a field environment. Under moderate supervision provides Information Security, and preforms security background investigations on individuals requesting a security clearance. Provides support of contractor background investigative services. Provides investigative services and case control management support. Lots of emphasis on the "moderate supervision"... Eliminating CACI is simply not an option anymore. Why not? Rotten.com has an interesting explanation, which I will shamelessly borrow: "Who wants to fire a company that knows where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is being detained (and how many girls with dangling cigarettes have walked him on a leash)? Not Donald Rumsfeld. Who wants to prosecute a company that almost certainly has information that lawyers for Zacarias Moussaoui and Jose Padilla would give their eyeteeth for? Not John Ashcroft. Who want to cut the power supply to the computers making connections between terrorist financiers and state sponsors? Not George Tenet. The moral of our story? Knowledge is power. And when you're the keeper of America's knowledge, it doesn't hurt to keep your headquarters overseas either." Eh...Seems that CACI is here to stay. The title of this post is an obvious reference to the movie Cool Hand Luke, where the spiritually devoid and seemingly soulless prison guard with the reflective sunglasses carries out the abuses inside the prison with total human detachment. After reviewing the information discussed here and the people involved, the title just seemed to fit.