
Doctors participated in torture of suspects after 9/11, taskforce finds - gruseom
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/cia-doctors-torture-suspected-terrorists-9-11
======
PeterisP
It is a war crime.

Does your superior officer make a direct order to do it? That's no excuse
whatsoever, you're still guilty.

Is it required for national security? Still no excuse, the ends don't justify
the means. If 'terrorists would win' otherwise, well, then they'd 'win' but
not indemnify you.

Has your nation passed laws making it explicitly legal? Still no excuse, it's
still illegal and you can and should be prosecuted for that.

If the current world order is unwilling to pursue it in practice, then our
children and grandchildren will do it - there's no statute of limitations, and
people involved in these USA actions can expect the same "retirement" as the
elderly Nazis who were prosecuted in recent years.

~~~
mhurron
War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for
victors to humiliate the vanquished.

Victors don't have war crimes leveled against them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for
> victors to humiliate the vanquished.

That's not true; for instance, the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Fomer Yugoslavia (ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side of the
various wars in the breakup of Yugoslavia.

That's actually rather the _point_ of international war crimes tribunals not
exclusively associated with the victors of a particular conflict or their
allies, both conflict-specific ones like ICTY and standing ones like the
International Criminal Court.

Its true that the development of institutions which allow war crimes to be
prosecuted, in at least some cases, as something other than victor's justice
is a development of the last couple of decades.

~~~
acqq
You're wrong re: "(ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side" read
for example
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm)

Croatia had military support from US: "In March 1994, the Washington Agreement
was signed,[39] ending the Croat–Bosniak War, and providing Croatia with US
military advisors from Military Professional Resources Incorporated
(MPRI).[40]"

and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012."

Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks, for which Al
Quaeda warriors fought in Bosnia:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_li...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_links)

"There were over 1,000 people in the country who belonged to what we then
called Mujahideen freedom fighters. We now know that that was al-Qaida."

Knowing how such links started in Afghanistan before, it's actually not so
surprising: US support whoever they like, if that's in accord with US goals.
If they support somebody, then they are called "freedom fighters." They are
"terrorists" when they fight directly against US. Are you surprised that
almost 20 years ago media were biased just like they are now, and if you
weren't an expert you probably got very distorted picture, including the
picture of ICTY work?

In short, I'm with the skeptical view of mhurron.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You're wrong re: "(ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side"

No, I'm not.

> Croatia had military support from US:

And several Croats (29, including Bosnian Croats) were indicted by ICTY.

> and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012."

Yes, and so? They had charges against them. That they were acquitted on appeal
is not evidence that the ICTY did not indict them (they also weren't the only
Croats indicted by the ICTY.)

> Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks

And the ICTY indicted and convicted several Bosniaks.

You'd probably also point out that the US and NATO intervened on behalf of the
Kosovo Albanians, but the ICTY _also_ prosecuted, and in some cases convicted,
Kosovo Albanians.

And ICTY wasn't set up or consituted solely by the US and US allies.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia)

~~~
acqq
If you believe such courts aren't biased, do tell me if anybody from the US
chain of command was ever prosecuted in any international court for anything?
It will never happen as long as the US remain what it is.

Now that you also mention Albanians at the same court, I checked
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia)

"The list contains 161 names. 94 of them are Serbs, 29 are Croats, 9 are
Albanians, 9 are Bosniaks, 2 are Macedonians and 2 are Montenegrins."

I can count only one Albanian sentenced of mentioned 9, others are acquitted
or withdrawn. You should also check the list for other acquitted (e.g. of the
Croats you mention), it was easiest for me to check Albanians as there are
only 9 of them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If you believe such courts aren't biased

I don't recall arguing that such courts aren't biased. All courts are biased,
because all courts are made up of people, and all people are biased.

That being said, more Serbs being indicted and convicted by the ICTY doesn't
mean the court is biased. It could be a result of more Serbian war crimes.

~~~
acqq
We started from "War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They
are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished." Your counterargument was
ICTY. I claim that it's a disputable argument.

And that moreover, it's U.S. that's effectively victorious and untouchable
since very long ago.

~~~
dragonwriter
At most you can claim that the US was one of the of several participants on
the winning side of several of those conflicts (and, in each conflict, a
fairly late joiner.)

And in each of the consituent conflicts, members of the same side the US was
one were prosecuted by the court, and several of those were convicted.

The "way for the victors to humiliate the vanquished" argument really doesn't
hold up in the case of the ICTY.

It holds up even _less_ well with with the ICC.

------
mullingitover
These really qualify as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions, and the
United States is obligated under the treaty to pursue charges against the
torturers, along with everyone up the chain of command. Other countries are
also obligated to pursue these torturers. It will be interesting to see if any
of them are ever brought to justice.

~~~
baddox
"Required." Unfortunately, pieces of paper can't project physical power.

~~~
ceph_
Money would like to have a word with you.

~~~
baddox
Money can't project physical power.

------
bediger4000
This is truly outrageous, in at least 2 ways: (1) that a modern government
would ask its citizens to do this and (2) that the citizens who are doctors
would go along.

Name names: get the state boards to pull their licenses, because that's what
these torturers deserve.

This is also a punishment worse than the crime, by the way.

~~~
baddox
> that a modern government would ask its citizens to do this

Why do you think that a "modern" government would be any better in this
department than "old" governments? Is there any evidence to support this, or
do people just like to think that _these days_ things are better?

~~~
potatolicious
I read 'old' as 'middle ages old'. There was a time when torture was openly
acknowledged as acceptable practice. At least nowadays it's widely recognized
as a Bad Thing, even if governments are willing to engage in it under the
radar.

~~~
baddox
I question whether torture is widely recognized as a bad thing. I'm pretty
sure I have seen US politicians openly acknowledge that we should torture for
national security matters. But even if we assume that, the question remains:
why should people believe that torture is less widespread than it was in the
Middle Ages?

~~~
dragonwriter
The Convention Against Torture exists, and most extent countries (including
the US) have ratified it, which seems to represent a fairly wide recognition
that torture is a bad thing, even if politicians often will assert exceptions
of convenience as to why the general rule should not apply to specific
situations.

------
thetrb
These kind of news are so embarrassing for anyone living in the United States.
It's a tragedy that there's not a bigger outrage about torturing people.

I'm getting closer and closer to expatriating because of the policies of the
US government. And please don't tell me that all developed countries are
participating in torture as this is just not true.

~~~
sp332
Please, don't leave this mess behind! At least as a citizen you have some
little power, I think you should use it instead of throwing it away.

~~~
thetrb
I'm not a citizen but a greencard holder, so I have very little power to
change anything (not allowed to vote in elections).

------
GuerraEarth
"Medical professionals were in effect told that their ethical mantra "first do
no harm" did not apply, because they were not treating people who were ill."

Who among adult reasoning men or women would believe this premise? Are we all
turned to geese?

 _Snowden for President_ would be a fine thing.

~~~
baddox
Snowden is not old enough to be a US President.

~~~
theorique
Also, he's not a US citizen.

(Edit: error on my part. His passport was revoked, which is what I was citing,
but apparently he remains a citizen.)

~~~
gknoy
Born in North Carolina. His passport has been revoked, but he is still a
citizen.

~~~
theorique
Oh, I thought his citizenship was revoked, not just his passport.

~~~
dllthomas
That cannot happen.

------
jbellis
The story doesn't actually deliver what the headline promises; I saw "present
when waterboarding was taking place" and "force-feeding of prisoners on hunger
strike" but neither is a case of a doctor actually torturing someone.

I'm sure someone will jump down my throat for playing semantics, but most of
the comments to date are reacting to the headline claiming torture-by-doctor
rather than the actual findings.

~~~
neves
No. You are wrong. The doctors are present to oversee the torturing. They
aren't there to take care of the tortured ones. They are there to tell how
much someone can be tortured and not die. They are there to allow the maximum
physical pain in the tortured ones. They are torturers too.

------
frank_boyd
If an administration can get away with launching illegal wars that are also
based on plain lies, then this is will most probably be treated as a non-
event.

------
lukejduncan
If true, could doctors loose their medical license for participating in
something like this?

~~~
freehunter
More than that, they could be tried as war criminals.

~~~
jeremyjh
No, you have to be on the losing side of a war to be a war criminal.

~~~
theorique
Your comment may be intended ironically, but it's more or less true.

Some lower-level staff may get hung out to dry (e.g. Abu Ghraib) but if you
were a senior-level commander or official, why would you finger one of your
peers, when he probably has similar dirt on you? Better that everyone keeps
his mouth shut.

~~~
jlgreco
As another example: Henry Wirz was tried, convicted, and executed for running
Camp Sumter (the POW camp near Andersonville, Georgia). As far as I know,
nobody was ever tried for what happened at Elmira Prison. Elmira Prison had a
25% mortality rate, Camp Sumter had a mortality rate of 29%. Guess which one
was run by the victors.

However merely being on the losing side isn't sufficient; you have to be on
the _conquered_ side. The US was by _reasonable_ accounts on the losing side
of the Vietnam War, but war crime trials were never held for the people that
really deserved it because although the US lost, they were no conquered.
Saddam was on the losing side of the Gulf War, but he did not see trial for
his crimes until he was well and truly conquered many years later.

~~~
theorique
Good distinction between _losing_ and _conquered_.

The Vietnam war was not a war of survival for the US, nor did it take place in
US territory. Psychologically, it was certainly a blow, but in the chess game
of geopolitical strategy, it was more on the level of losing a knight or
bishop, certainly not losing a queen or the entire game.

------
neves
It always happens. For torture to be effective, doctors must be present.
Brazil had a lot of doctors participating of the torture during its militar
dictadorship. The most famous was Almicar Lobo:
[http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Lobo](http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Lobo)

------
hansjorg
I wonder how clicking this article, and others like it, gets you tagged with
the relevant authorities.

