7 ms·

Doctors participated in torture of suspects after 9/11, taskforce finds

111 points by gruseom 13y ago

bediger4000 13y ago
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.
- andrewcooke 13y ago
  This is also a punishment worse than the crime no, no it's not. [edit: to clarify, my reading of "this" is to "pull their licenses"; apparently everyone else is reading it otherwise....]
  - gknoy 13y ago
    I am pretty sure that torturing someone is worse than someone suspected of being part of a terrorist organization. Suspected is the key word, as is "part of". We don't deliberately torture convicted murderers: we kill them in a way which we (correctly or not) believe to be humane. We shouldn't be torturing suspected (or convicted!) terrorists either.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  This is also a punishment worse than the crime, by the way. What do you mean?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    He means that what the torturers/enablers of torture did is worse than the crimes the detainees are alleged to have committed.
- baddox 13y ago
  > 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 13y ago
    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.
    - pstuart 13y ago
      Which is supported by the administrations' insistence on calling it "enhanced interrogation". Newspeak FTW.
    - baddox 13y ago
      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?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        To clarify, are you actually asking why should they, or why do they?
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        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.
mullingitover 13y ago
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.
- darkchasma 13y ago
  I agree that this is what should happen, though I suspect that you'll be disappointed in the result.
- baddox 13y ago
  "Required." Unfortunately, pieces of paper can't project physical power.
  - ceph_ 13y ago
    Money would like to have a word with you.
    - baddox 13y ago
      Money can't project physical power.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
GuerraEarth 13y ago
"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.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Are we all turned to geese? no, unfortunately we're humans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
  - pyre 13y ago
    I don't buy that the Milgram experiment can be used to explain everything. A better explanation is probably that there is a lot of implied "or else..." when you're being asked to follow orders in a national security context.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      Milgram experiment clearly shows relative weights with which we perceive two alternatives : 1. a negative effect on ourselves vs. 2. a negative effect on somebody else. In the experiment the 1. was practically non-existent, zero - some researcher telling you what to do, no real authority, no any chance of bad consequences, while 2. - electric shock, heart attack - hard to beat, yet people still chosen 2. Now, in the torture situation we have the alternative 1. with reasonable perception of potential bad consequnces much higher than in the experiment, ie. pretty seriously sounding very plausible "or else..." from real authority while 2. is significantly lower because it is just terrorist, bad guy, and who will be tortured anyway. People making choice 2. when difference was higher (in the experiment) necessarily and obviously means that they would make such choice when difference is less, like in this case of torture.
- baddox 13y ago
  Snowden is not old enough to be a US President.
PeterisP 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    > 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 13y ago
      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_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_li... "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.
lukejduncan 13y ago
If true, could doctors loose their medical license for participating in something like this?
- freehunter 13y ago
  More than that, they could be tried as war criminals.
  - jeremyjh 13y ago
    No, you have to be on the losing side of a war to be a war criminal.
    - theorique 13y ago
      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 13y ago
        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 13y ago
frank_boyd 13y ago
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.
thetrb 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    I'm not a citizen but a greencard holder, so I have very little power to change anything (not allowed to vote in elections).
jbellis 13y ago
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.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- arjie 13y ago
  Force-feeding can be fairly painful. The International Red Cross also considers participating in force feeding to be a gross violation of medical ethics. Here is a document detailing what force-feeding is: http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/201358152317954140.html http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/201358152317954... It is not a pleasant thing.
- neves 13y ago
  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.
neves 13y ago
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 13y ago
I wonder how clicking this article, and others like it, gets you tagged with the relevant authorities.

111 points by gruseom 13y ago

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.

andrewcooke 13y ago
This is also a punishment worse than the crime no, no it's not. [edit: to clarify, my reading of "this" is to "pull their licenses"; apparently everyone else is reading it otherwise....]
- gknoy 13y ago
  I am pretty sure that torturing someone is worse than someone suspected of being part of a terrorist organization. Suspected is the key word, as is "part of". We don't deliberately torture convicted murderers: we kill them in a way which we (correctly or not) believe to be humane. We shouldn't be torturing suspected (or convicted!) terrorists either.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
CamperBob2 13y ago
This is also a punishment worse than the crime, by the way. What do you mean?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  He means that what the torturers/enablers of torture did is worse than the crimes the detainees are alleged to have committed.
baddox 13y ago
> 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 13y ago
  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.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    Which is supported by the administrations' insistence on calling it "enhanced interrogation". Newspeak FTW.
  - baddox 13y ago
    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?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      To clarify, are you actually asking why should they, or why do they?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      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.

mullingitover 13y ago

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.

darkchasma 13y ago
I agree that this is what should happen, though I suspect that you'll be disappointed in the result.
baddox 13y ago
"Required." Unfortunately, pieces of paper can't project physical power.
- ceph_ 13y ago
  Money would like to have a word with you.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Money can't project physical power.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

GuerraEarth 13y ago

"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.

VladRussian2 13y ago
>Are we all turned to geese? no, unfortunately we're humans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
- pyre 13y ago
  I don't buy that the Milgram experiment can be used to explain everything. A better explanation is probably that there is a lot of implied "or else..." when you're being asked to follow orders in a national security context.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    Milgram experiment clearly shows relative weights with which we perceive two alternatives : 1. a negative effect on ourselves vs. 2. a negative effect on somebody else. In the experiment the 1. was practically non-existent, zero - some researcher telling you what to do, no real authority, no any chance of bad consequences, while 2. - electric shock, heart attack - hard to beat, yet people still chosen 2. Now, in the torture situation we have the alternative 1. with reasonable perception of potential bad consequnces much higher than in the experiment, ie. pretty seriously sounding very plausible "or else..." from real authority while 2. is significantly lower because it is just terrorist, bad guy, and who will be tortured anyway. People making choice 2. when difference was higher (in the experiment) necessarily and obviously means that they would make such choice when difference is less, like in this case of torture.
baddox 13y ago
Snowden is not old enough to be a US President.

PeterisP 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  > 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 13y ago
    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_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_li... "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.

lukejduncan 13y ago

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

freehunter 13y ago
More than that, they could be tried as war criminals.
- jeremyjh 13y ago
  No, you have to be on the losing side of a war to be a war criminal.
  - theorique 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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 13y ago

frank_boyd 13y ago

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.

thetrb 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  I'm not a citizen but a greencard holder, so I have very little power to change anything (not allowed to vote in elections).

jbellis 13y ago

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.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
arjie 13y ago
Force-feeding can be fairly painful. The International Red Cross also considers participating in force feeding to be a gross violation of medical ethics. Here is a document detailing what force-feeding is: http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/201358152317954140.html http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/201358152317954... It is not a pleasant thing.
neves 13y ago
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.

neves 13y ago

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 13y ago

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