Covering Up Torture By Coercing Guilty Pleas

According to the New York Times, the Obama Administration may modify the military commission rules to permit require have Gitmo prisoners plead guilty and be executed:

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.

The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.

The proposal, in a draft of legislation that would be submitted to Congress, has not been publicly disclosed. It was circulated to officials under restrictions requiring secrecy. People who have read or been briefed on it said it had been presented to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates by an administration task force on detention.

The proposal would ease what has come to be recognized as the government’s difficult task of prosecuting men who have confessed to terrorism but whose cases present challenges. Much of the evidence against the men accused in the Sept. 11 case, as well as against other detainees, is believed to have come from confessions they gave during intense interrogations at secret C.I.A. prisons. In any proceeding, the reliability of those statements would be challenged, making trials difficult and drawing new political pressure over detainee treatment.

How, you might want to know, does dispensing with a full, albeit difficult trial for prosecutors and avoiding inquiries about extensive torture benefit the detainees? How does it assure that their guilty pleas are knowing, intelligent, and voluntary? Doesn't dispensing with the requirement of any proof after years and years of confinement make the eventual killing of these prisoners even more egregious?

Think about it. The prisoners in Gitmo have been held for about seven years. They have not received a speedy trial. In fact, many haven't received any process at all. And while they've been confined there's been a worldwide uproar over their detention without trial and the conditions of confinement and their being tortured and the potential show trials conducted by military commissions and the utter lack of due process in these show trials and their having no real access to US Courts. These are all obvious problems. And now, added to these problems and not resolving them in any regard, we have the distinct possibility that prisoners will "volunteer" for death by pleading guilty, and we will have no way at all of knowing that they committed the acts for which they will be killed or that their confessions were truthful or even that their guilty pleas are minimally voluntary. Hence, the headline: guilty pleas coerced by torture, long term isolation, and desperation, will cover up the torture and the conditions of confinement. The prisoners, we are told, want to be martyrs, and they will be. The US, we are told, doesn't want to discuss their torture or how they got to Gitmo or what it's been like for them in confinement, and the US won't have to. It's a win-win.

Can someone who is held for seven years without procedural due process, who is tortured, who is in harsh conditions of confinement enter a knowing, voluntary, intelligent guilty plea? Theoretically, I suppose it is possible. But it's going to take a lot more than the accused's answering "yes" to a standard Rule 11 allocution (what you have to say "yes" to to enter a guilty plea in a federal criminal case) to convince me or anyone else who is watching that the plea is voluntary in any conventional sense. That's why in the Military Justice System, you cannot plead guilty to a capital crime. As the Times tells us, "to assure fairness when execution is possible, court-martial prosecutors are required to prove guilt in a trial even against service members who want to plead guilty."

Lawyers who were asked about the administration’s proposed change in recent days said it appeared to be intended for the Sept. 11 case.

“They are trying to give the 9/11 guys what they want: let them plead guilty and get the death penalty and not have to have a trial,” said Maj. David J. R. Frakt of the Air Force, a Guantánamo defense lawyer... snip

Cmdr. Suzanne M. Lachelier, a Navy lawyer for one of the detainees in the Sept. 11 case, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, said of the Obama administration, “They’re encouraging martyrdom.”

The administration has not announced whether it will continue with the Sept. 11 case in the military commissions or charge some of the men in federal court. Officials involved in the process said that lawyers reviewing the case have said that federal-court charges against four of the men might be possible, but that the evidence might be too weak for a federal court case against one of the five, Walid Bin Attash, a veteran jihad fighter who was known as Khallad.

Usually, when "the evidence might be too weak for a federal court case" the prosecution recognizes that it cannot meet its burden of proof and it dismisses the charges. If the prosecution doesn't dismiss the charges, it's up to a jury or a judge to find the accused not guilty. And then? And then the accused goes free. Not so in Gitmo. Evidently in Gitmo, somebody who might be released because the case is "too weak for a federal court case" instead gets to plead guilty and be executed.

And to think that I was worried that those with weak cases would be "preventively detained" forever and ever. Even that would be better than coerced guilty pleas followed by execution.

Miss Universe Visits Gitmo!

You cannot make this stuff up. I wasn't sure whether I was reading the Onion or the New York Times. Sadly, it was the Times. A very brief excerpt (you need to read the whole thing to understand that the Apocalypse has finally arrived):

... the latest entry on the blog of the reigning Miss Universe, Dayana Mendoza, has a sort of eye-catching dateline: “March 27, 2009, Guantánamo Bay.”

According to the Web site of the U.S.O., which arranged the visit, the Miss Universe Organization made the decision to “deploy Crystle Stewart, Miss U.S.A. 2008, and Dayana Mendoza, Miss Universe 2008, to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to visit troops as part of a U.S.O./Armed Forces Entertainment tour.”

Ms. Mendoza, who competed as Miss Venezuela, has a blog on the pageant’s Web site, and this account of the visit appeared there last Friday, after her deployment:

This week, Guantánamo!!! It was an incredible experience.

We arrived in Gitmo on Friday and stared (sic) going around the town, everybody knew Crystle and I were coming so the first thing we did was attend a big lunch and then we visited one of the bars they have in the base. We talked about Gitmo and what is was like living there. The next days we had a wonderful time, this truly was a memorable trip! We hung out with the guys from the East Coast and they showed us the boat inside and out, how they work and what they do, we took a ride around the land and it was a loooot of fun!

We also met the Military dogs, and they did a very nice demonstration of their skills. All the guys from the Army were amazing with us.

We visited the Detainees camps and we saw the jails, where they shower, how the recreate themselves with movies, classes of art, books. It was very interesting.

"We visited the Detainees camps?" Oh, we didn't get to see waterboarding, or stress positions, and those Military dogs, we didn't get to see them threaten to bite the detainees. No. The dogs showed us how, just by their showing up, grown men quaked in fear.

Yes. Gitmo sure is a loooot of fun!!

Truth And Reconciliation Just Won't Do

The New York Times reports that finally Britain, despite five years of denials, now admits that it was involved in illegal renditions extraditions kidnappings. That's not much of a surprise. Britain is fessing up to two of these. Nobody really thinks that is all there were.

Britain's defense minister made an unusual public apology on Thursday, admitting Britain had taken part in the "rendition" of suspects detained in Iraq after denying it for years.

In a lengthy statement to parliament, Defense Secretary John Hutton confirmed that Britain handed over two suspects captured in Iraq in 2004 to U.S. custody and that they were subsequently transferred to Afghanistan, breaching U.S.-British agreements.

The Ministry of Defense has been repeatedly asked over the past five years about its involvement in rendition, the unlawful transfer of suspects to a third country, and consistently denied it played any role in the U.S.-administered program.

"I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the House by my department on a small number of occasions," Hutton said. "I want to apologize to the House for these errors."

"Inaccurate information" is diplomatic speak for lies. "These errors" is diplomatic speak for five years of continuous lies.

According to the Times, the two men were captured by British troops in Iraq in February 2004 and were flown to Afghanistan, where they remain in U.S. custody. And where, parenthetically, the Obama Administration says that they are not permitted to have access to the US Courts to contest the legality of their detention by filing habeas corpus.

Reprieve says about all of this:

"For years now the British government has been tossing us miserable scraps of information about its involvement in illegal renditions in Pakistan, Diego Garcia and now Afghanistan," said Clara Gutteridge, an investigator with Reprieve, a charity that campaigns for the release of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

"Enough is enough. The British government must come clean and reveal exactly who it has captured, what has been done to them and where they are now," she said. "I'm afraid this is only the tip of the renditions iceberg."

Enough really is enough. The US too needs to come clean. And having a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in which those who have committed these illegal acts, tell their stories and eventually receive immunity is just unacceptable. It is not how the US should tell the story of its extensive human rights violations. There need to be a criminal investigations. And there need to be prosecutions. And there needs to be an end of secrecy about crimes.

Anything less, after all of the lying and all of the illegal acts, and all of the contorted, disingenuous legal mumbo jumbo, falls far, far short.

Close Gitmo!

Tell President-elect Obama to close Gitmo on 1/20/09. Here's a petition. You know what to do.

Gitmo On The Platte: The Police State Lives In Denver

Just in case you thought that exercising your Constitutional Right to assemble in Denver, engage in non-violent protest and perhaps participate in civil disobedience at the Democratic National Convention was going to be easy and humane, the NY Times informs in an article entitled, "Grim Warehouse Set To Process Convention Arrests," that is not be the case. The Government has set up a mini-Gitmo to handle pesky protesters who get arrested in Denver. And they're telling you about it now, so you'll reconsider your plans. And maybe stay home.

Individuals arrested at the Democratic National Convention will be processed at an industrial warehouse with chain-link cells topped by razor wire, a facility some have compared to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. /snip

The Denver sheriff's office, which operates city and county jails, insists anyone taken to the center will be there only a few hours while they're fingerprinted, issued a court date and released after posting bail. Others will be transferred to facilities designed for longer detentions.

''Of course if the numbers are overwhelming, that's all going to be out the door,'' said Capt. Frank Gale, a sheriff's spokesman. ''If we're inundated with a bunch of civil unrest, it doesn't matter how well we prepare. If we get severe numbers it's going to take us forever'' to process those in custody. /snip A sign [at the facility] read: ''Electric stun devices used here.''

Gale said each cell will be about 20-by-20 feet. He refused to say how many people could be processed there. /snip

ACLU-Colorado legal director Mark Silverstein said city officials told him detained protesters will be taken by bus to the facility, about 2 miles northeast of downtown. Those who are unable or refuse to post bail will be taken to a downtown city jail to await a court date.

Silverstein said warehouse cells won't have running water, bathrooms or telephones. Gale said deputies will escort anyone needing those services.

Great. A mini-Gitmo on the Platte. 20 x 20 cells with an unknown number of people in them, for an unknown period of time, without food, water or toilets. And the idea that if there are too many people, whatever planning there was would be overwhelmed. And then those incarcerated would be stuck.

You'll pardon me, but it reminds me of this 1964 event when there were too many protesters and too few cells:

The Natchez occurrence included the arrest of plaintiffs while engaged in a civil rights march without a parade permit on one of the principal streets of Natchez, and their subsequent detention at the city auditorium for several hours. The arrests took place on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, October 2, 3, and 4, 1964 under the same circumstances. /snip The remaining arrestees were removed to the Parchman State Penitentiary on commercial buses, three busloads on Saturday, two on Sunday and one on Monday. /snip

One facet of this special treatment was that each person was compelled to take a laxative upon admission to maximum security. He applied this procedure to the arrestees who testified. Another tactic then employed in this section of the prison was that male prisoners were deprived of their clothing and issued underwear as their sole wearing apparel while confined. This tactic was doubly imposed on the male arrestees. They were stripped of their clothing and left naked for varying periods of time, some for as long as 36 hours. None were issued underwear. Some were allowed to claim and wear their own underwear; one was allowed to wear the top to his underwear but not his shorts.

As to the female arrestees who testified, they were compelled to take the laxative. They were deprived of their coats and other outer garments, stockings and shoes, but were allowed to wear their dresses and undergarments.

All arrestees were confined in cells designed to accommodate two persons, having two bunk beds, one lavatory, and one commode. They were not given mattresses, pillows or cover. The temperature ranged from 60~ to 70~. From four to eight persons were placed in each of the cells. They slept on the bare steel beds or on the floor. They huddled together for warmth.

That's what tends to happen when the planning is overwhelmed, the authorities make other arrangements. And they make them without consultation from representatives of those who've been arrested. They do what they want to do how they want to do it.

The purpose for telling you this now, of reminding me about this now, just before the convention?

It's called a "chilling effect." You'll be hesitant to exercise your rights, to protest, to be arrested, to engage in any sort non-violent civil disobedience that might result in arrest, authorities think, if you believe that your arrest will be extremely unpleasant, hours upon hours of confinement without running water, without bathrooms, without contact with those outside.

If large numbers of protesters mean that the Government's planning is "all going to be out the door" if large numbers of people are arrested, leave aside what a "large number" might mean in this case, who do you think is going to be taking those arrested to the bathroom? Who do you think is going to make sure those arrested have food and water? Who do you think is going to make sure that those arrested receive adequate medical attention if they need it while in confinement? I think you know the answer.

The question is whether this makes one shrivel, or whether it makes one more steadfast. Either way, the story from Denver is just plain appalling.

The Trailer For The Gitmo Joke Show

Today the US Government tried unsuccessfully to move the Gitmo death penalty show trial of five "enemy combatants" toward a "trial" by arraigning the accused. Unfortunately for the US, today's proceedings were a complete and utter joke show. And a complete embarrassment. And they were the previews of the upcoming Gitmo Joke Show "trial"

Reuters reports:

The accused al Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks stood in a U.S. military court on Thursday, sang a chant of praise to Allah and said he would welcome the death penalty.

"This is what I wish, to be martyred," Pakistani captive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the highest-ranking al Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, told the Guantanamo war crimes court.

/snip
As the judge questioned him about whether he was satisfied with the U.S. military lawyer appointed to defend him, Mohammed stood and began to sing in Arabic, cheerfully pausing to translate his own words into English.

"My shield is Allah most high," he said, adding that his religion forbade him from accepting a lawyer from the United States and that he wanted to act as his own attorney.

Isn't that just a super beginning to the arraignment before a death penalty "trial"? A "trial" that is supposed to lead to convictions and not acquittals? A "trial" that is supposed to result in five executions? But that's not all. Not by a long shot.

[Mohammed] criticized the United States for fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, waging what he called "a crusader war," and enacting "evil laws" including those authorizing same-sex marriages. /snip

The judge, Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann, tried to persuade the men to accept their military lawyers, but all refused.

Aziz Ali said he had barely been allowed to meet with his lawyer anyway and described him as "a signboard" hung up so the government could say, 'Hey, we give these people lawyers."'

"All this is just a stage play," he said.

But that wasn't the only part of the stage play arraignment that raised issues of fairness and propriety. Oh no. It's never that simple.

Binalshibh, whom the lawyers said was receiving psychotropic medication, wore leg chains bolted to the floor but the rest of the accused were unshackled in the courtroom.

A security officer cut the audio feed to the spectators' section when he described the reason for the medicine, and again when another defendant discussed his capture.

Binalshibh said he had sought martyrdom since trying and failing to get a U.S. visa "for 9/11" but that his life was in God's hands and that "America and the whole world cannot extend my life by one day or make it one day earlier."

Last year Mohammend allegedly told a review panel that the idea of hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings was his idea and that he oversaw the implementation of the plan.

Today he said

"They mistranslated my words and put many words in my mouth," he said in broken English learned as an engineering student in North Carolina.

He called the trial "an inquisition" and added, "All of this has been taken under torturing. You know that very well."

The New York Times provided further details of the arraignment. Mohammed made it entirely clear at today's arraignment that he wanted to be killed:

He told the court he wanted the Americans to put him to death.

“This is what I want,” he told a military judge here in his first appearance to answer charges for the terrorism attacks. “I’m looking to be martyr for long time.” /snip

He said his American lawyers were agents of the Bush administration’s “crusade war against Islamic world,” he chanted in Arabic (and then translated for himself), and he made it plain that he wanted to rally the other four accused men to his approach.

He was, he cheerfully told the court, unable to accept lawyers untrained in Islamic law, and he asked for the chance for all five men facing terrorism, conspiracy and other charges here in the Sept. 11 case to meet to plan a joint defense. /snip

The request for the meeting, like most from the defense, was rejected by the stern military judge, Col. Ralph H. Kohlmann.

Let's review today's arraignment. The five accused, each of whom faces the death penalty, have refused US appointed lawyers, claiming in part that providing lawyers is just part of the show and that accepting them is against their religion. Apparently, they want to represent themselves. Some of them apparently wish to be martyred. They would like to plan a joint defense, but they will not be allowed to. At least one of the accused is apparently psychotic and/or receiving psychotropic medication and was shackled to the floor in court. One of the accused has argued that statements attributed to him were false and the result of torture. Spectators were prevented from hearing parts of the proceeding by a security officer who twice cut off the audio of the proceeding.

If this is how the arraignment ran, you can only imagine what the "trial" will be like.

Meanwhile, prosecutors want to start the trial on September 15, a date the defense says was chosen to influence the U.S. presidential election in November. It's not clear how conducting this farce and mockery of justice will influence the presidential election.

One thing is clear. If today is any indicator, the "trial" is sure to emit a terrible stink. And it is sure to be a colossal, worldwide embarrassment to the US. It's hard to imagine any proceeding that could less fair or bring more criticism from those concerned about fairness and human rights and justice. In sum, the joke show is just beginning and the entire world is watching while the US thoroughly and perhaps irredeemably embarrasses itself.

Torture: "The Twentieth Hijacker's" Case

cross posted from docuDharma

AP reports that charges have been dropped against the alleged "Twentieth Hijacker", Mohammed al-Qahtani:

The Pentagon has dropped charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was alleged to have been the so-called "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks, his U.S. military defense lawyer said Monday.

Mohammed al-Qahtani was one of six men charged by the military in February with murder and war crimes for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks. Authorities say al-Qahtani missed out on taking part in the attacks because he was denied entry to the U.S. by an immigration agent.

But in reviewing the case, the convening authority for military commissions, Susan Crawford, decided to dismiss the charges against al-Qahtani and proceed with the arraignment for the other five, said Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, the Saudi's military lawyer.

The charges were dropped without prejudice, meaning that they could be reinstated. al-Qahtani was to face the death penalty, along with five others, in trials before Military Commissions at Guantanamo.

Why were the charges dropped? Because al-Qahtani had been tortured. Of course, Crawford did not say. And his lawyer couldn't comment yet.

Officials previously said al-Qahtani had been subjected to a harsh interrogation authorized by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. /snip

U.S. authorities have acknowledged that Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding by CIA interrogators and that al-Qahtani was treated harshly at Guantanamo.

Al-Qahtani last fall recanted a confession he said he made after he was tortured and humiliated at Guantanamo.

The alleged torture, which he detailed in a written statement, included being beaten, restrained for long periods in uncomfortable positions, threatened with dogs, exposed to loud music and freezing temperatures and stripped nude in front of female personnel.

There's lots of information about exactly how al-Qahtani was tortured. In fact, there's a partial log (pdf format) of his interrogation at Guantanamo in Fall, 2002.

In his book, Torture Team, Philip Sands describes al-Qahtani's treatment in Guantanamo in greater detail:

By the time his interrogators started using "enhanced techniques" to extract information from him, al-Qahtani had been kept in isolation for three months in a cell permanently flooded with light. An official memo shows that he "was talking to nonexistent people, reporting hearing voices, [and] crouching in a corner of the cell covered with a sheet for hours on end". He was abused, exposed to extreme cold and deprived of sleep for a further 54 days of torture and questioning. What useful testimony could be extracted from a man in this state?

And there are the additional details from from this October, 2006 MSNBC story:

Mohammed al-Qahtani, detainee No. 063, was forced to wear a bra. He had a thong placed on his head. He was massaged by a female interrogator who straddled him like a lap dancer. He was told that his mother and sisters were whores. He was told that other detainees knew he was gay. He was forced to dance with a male interrogator. He was strip-searched in front of women. He was led on a leash and forced to perform dog tricks. He was doused with water. He was prevented from praying. He was forced to watch as an interrogator squatted over his Koran.

That much is known. These details were among the findings of the U.S. Army’s investigation of al-Qahtani's aggressive interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

According to the MSNBC article:

In interviews with MSNBC.com — the first time they have spoken publicly — former senior law enforcement agents described their attempts to stop the abusive interrogations. The agents of the Pentagon's Criminal Investigation Task Force, working to build legal cases against suspected terrorists, said they objected to coercive tactics used by a separate team of intelligence interrogators soon after Guantanamo's prison camp opened in early 2002. They ultimately carried their battle up to the office of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who approved the more aggressive techniques to be used on al-Qahtani and others.

Although they believed the abusive techniques were probably illegal, the Pentagon cops said their objection was practical. They argued that abusive interrogations were not likely to produce truthful information, either for preventing more al-Qaida attacks or prosecuting terrorists.

And they described their disappointment when military prosecutors told them not to worry about making a criminal case against al-Qahtani, the suspected "20th hijacker" of Sept. 11, because what had been done to him would prevent him from ever being put on trial.

So today's announcement isn't something that's completely new. US authorities have known for quite some time that a trial of al-Qahtani would be a trial in which the details of his torture would have to be established and considered. And now the other foot has dropped. al-Qahtani was tortured, and to prevent complete public disclosure of what was done to him and by whom, to veil what happened, the charges against him have been dropped:

Authorities have said they plan to broadcast the trials to military bases in the United States so relatives of the victims of the attacks can see the proceedings. source

A trial about torture isn't exactly what the Government has in mind. It would prefer something that appeared more just, something that would be better from a public relations standpoint.

More Lies About Torture In Guantanamo

This Is What Torture Looks Like

How gullible are we? How much nonsense will we consider truthful? How many lies and contradictions and just plain nonsense about torture do we need to be told before we say, "Basta ya! Enough already!" The photo clearly depicts the torture of detainees prisoners at Guantanamo: stress positions and sensory deprivation. But today the WaPo reports that Bushco says its activities don't really cross the line and aren't quite torture.

The Bush administration allowed CIA interrogators to use tactics that were "quite distressing, uncomfortable, even frightening," as long as they did not cause enough severe and lasting pain to constitute illegal torture, a senior Justice Department official said last week.

In testimony before a House subcommittee, Steven G. Bradbury, the acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, spelled out how the administration regulated the CIA's use of rough tactics and offered new details of how simulated drowning was used to compel disclosures by prisoners suspected of being al-Qaeda members.

The method was not, he said, like the "water torture" used during the Spanish Inquisition and by autocratic governments into the 20th century, but was subject to "strict time limits, safeguards, restrictions." He added, "The only thing in common is, I think, the use of water."

Bradbury indicated that no water entered the lungs of the three prisoners who were subjected to the practice, lending credence to previous accounts that the noses and mouths of CIA captives were covered in cloth or cellophane. Cellophane could pose a serious asphyxiation risk, torture experts said.

So here we go again. It's "simulated" drowning, rather than asphyxiation. It's regulated. It's limited. Right. Naturally, these assertions called for a harsh response:

Martin S. Lederman, a former Office of Legal Counsel official who teaches law at Georgetown University, called Bradbury's testimony "chilling." In an online posting, Lederman said that "to say that this is not severe physical suffering -- is not torture -- is absurd. And to invoke the defense that what the Spanish Inquisition did was worse and that we use a more benign, non-torture form of waterboarding . . . is obscene."

Bradbury is arguing that there is some magical, bright line between "quite distressing, uncomfortable, even frightening" conduct and torture, and that Bushco in its infinite wisdom and sensitivity knows just where that line is and that it always manages to stop before it crosses the line and actually tortures. This is, of course, arrant nonsense. If this were even close to being true, we'd be watching the videotapes of the 24,000 interrogations conducted at Gitmo and nodding our heads in agreement at how benign they were.

And, of course, Bradbury's, and the WaPo's attention to "waterboarding", continues to make that activity the focus of inquiry when, in fact, that is just one of the many forms of torture the administration uses at Guantanamo and in "black sites" in other countries that are completely unacceptable in a civilized world.

But enough of the imprecision. Slate has compiled a list of the techniques the US uses on detainees prisoners in Guantanamo as well as the documents that discuss the "authority" for doing these things. Which brings us back to the photo above.

"Stress positions", like the ones in the photo, kneeling on the ground for long periods of time in awkward positions, were approved by Donald Rumsfeld in a 2002 Memorandum. Wrote the ever compassionate Donald R on the first page of the memo, "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" This technique was also discussed in the CIA's KUBARK manual. And FM 34-52 recognizes that it is physical torture to force "an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time." So what's going on in the photo? Are we being told that this is ok because it didn't go on for long? The person in orange is just sitting down for a second or two?

And what's that on the person in orange's head and hands and eyes? The photo also documents the use of "sensory deprivation." Salon writes:

...sensory deprivation. The benign-sounding form of psychological coercion has been considered effective for most of the life of the (CIA) /snip
The technique has already been employed during the "war on terror," and, Salon has learned, was apparently used on 14 high-value detainees now held at Guantánamo Bay.

A former top CIA official predicted to Salon that sensory deprivation would remain available to the agency as an interrogation tool in the future. "I'd be surprised if [sensory deprivation] came out of the toolbox," said A.B. Krongard, who was the No. 3 official at the CIA until late 2004. Alfred McCoy, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who has written extensively about the history of CIA interrogation, agrees with Krongard that the CIA will continue to employ sensory deprivation. "Of course they will," predicted McCoy. "It is embedded in the doctrine." For the CIA to stop using sensory deprivation, McCoy says, "The leopard would have to change his spots." And he warned that a practice that may sound innocuous to some was sharpened by the agency over the years into a horrifying torture technique.

Sensory deprivation, as CIA research and other agency interrogation materials demonstrate, is a remarkably simple concept. It can be inflicted by immobilizing individuals in small, soundproof rooms and fitting them with blacked-out goggles and earmuffs. "The first thing that happens is extraordinary hallucinations akin to mescaline," explained McCoy. "I mean extreme hallucinations" of sight and sound. It is followed, in some cases within just two days, by what McCoy called a "breakdown akin to psychosis." /snip

Just like waterboarding, Massimino said, extreme sensory deprivation techniques "push people beyond the brink of what they can bear, physically and mentally. Once you understand that, the veneer of acceptability -- the myth that 'it's not torture, it's just harsh' -- completely falls apart." But compared to the outcry over physical torture, she described a "deafening silence" about techniques like sensory deprivation.

Severe sensory deprivation clearly violates the Geneva Conventions and would be illegal under the Military Commissions Act's ban on "severe or serious mental pain and suffering." In fact, some subjects never fully recover. Put another way, sensory deprivation is torture.

How, you might wonder, can Bradbury speak before a House Subcommittee and make the statements he made and miraculously not be confronted with the widely available photos of stress positions and sensory deprivation? Why, you might wonder, does Bushco's defense of torture go on and on and on, and it's dutifully reported by the Traditional Media, and yet nothing happens to stop the torture? And how, given what it is doing in Guantanamo and in the "black sites," can the US not be considered a pariah, a rogue among civilized nations?

Are we ever going to stop the torture and prosecute those who perpetrated it?