The Memory Hole and Torture

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

The Memory Hole and Torture

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:34 am

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=12281

The Memory Hole and Torture
Diary Entry by wagelaborer


Improved methods of propaganda no longer make it necessary to physically alter past records. Simply coating the corporate media with the new story is enough. How US torture was turned into a new development.

::::::::

In George Orwell's book, 1984, Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth was to rewrite history. Part of the job was to literally send the old documents down the memory hole to be incinerated. Then he wrote the new history as ordered by the ruling class. No traces of the old history were allowed to be saved.

As it turned out, none of that was necessary. By the time of the actual 1984, Ronald Reagan was President. The United State was supporting "freedom fighters" in Central America and in Afghanistan, sending billions to fund the muhajadeen, and setting up schools in Pakistan, where children were trained with US suppplied textbooks in the ways of jihad. We were officially supporting Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, sending him arms, intelligence, and biological and chemical weapons. But we also sold arms in secret to Iran, although they were officially our enemy.

All of this is now down the memory hole, but only figuratively. Today the documentation isn't burned, you can still find it, but it doesn't matter. The Ministry of Truth, now called the corporate media, simply presents the new truth in an authoritative manner and the proles accept it without question. We are now told that everyone loved Ronald Reagan, and the 2008 election was about who got to be the new Reagan. The Afghan freedom fighters turned into terrorists, but the Central American ones remained heroes, all without historical comment. The madrasses are now bad. We have always been at war with Iran and Iraq.

In 1988, we were shocked, shocked to find out that the US was teaching torture techniques to the Central American heroes using a manual called "Human Resources Exploitation Manual", which was an update of the Kubark manual, used in the 60s to teach torture to military forces from Guatemala to Columbia to Vietnam, where we were shocked, shocked to find out about the Phoenix Program, in which the US and its Vietnamese proxies tortured and killed tens of thousands of prisoners. It has been claimed that not one prisoner survived interrogation in the Phoenix Program. We were shocked when Office of Public Safety was shown to have taught torture to police forces in Central and South America in the 70s. We have periodically been shocked when it turns out that some graduate of the SOA is responsible for a massacre that catches our attention for some reason. Maybe they rape and kill nuns, or accidentally murder an American - something out of the ordinary run of the mill peasant suppression massacre. These forms of torture should be classified as terrorism. Multilated bodies thrown into ditches and dropped from helicopters terrorize the population into submission. US involvement in these mass torture and murder projects have usually been covert, hence the "shock" when information leaks out.

How is the George Bush/Dick Cheney administration different? Using the destruction of 9-11, along with a massive fear mongering propaganda campaign afterwards that told us that we were all afraid of terrorists, they embarked on a new chapter in American history - open imperialism, with blatant disrepect for international law, including illegal invasions, indefinite detentions and the unashamed use of torture by Americans.

Much to their dismay, Americans who were engaged in torture at Abu Ghraib took pictures, enabling more than the usual suspects to find out about real American foreign policy. International outcry forced some sort of response. Those involved who took pictures were tried and convicted. Although evidence surfaced that similar torture techniques were used at Bagram and Guantanamo, no one involved took pictures, and none of them was tried.

Alfred McCoy, who had researched the history of American torture, realized that the accounts of the "bad apples" at Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo, who we were told all spontaneously came up with similar methods of torture, were actually all using methods which had been developed by the CIA in a massive outsourced research project which lasted for years- 1950-1962- and cost about one billion a year, in 1950's dollars. He wrote "The Politics of Torture" to explain US torture history.

The CIA was not trying to find the most painful ways to torture with this research project, although, as I pointed out, horrendous forms of torture were used to terrorize select populations. But the CIA had bigger plans. They wanted to find ways to totally break down and then remake a human. Their goal was mind control. (And, by the way, they researched ways to brainwash an entire society as well as individuals, which seems to be working out pretty well for them.) But I would like to talk about Project Bluebird, which led to Project Artichoke, which became MKULTRA, and had as its goal, "Can we get control of the individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?"

In the post WW2 years, when respect for science was at its peak, the CIA turned to universities and hospitals to do the research, passing out grants to psychologists, psychiatrists and professors to find the best ways to break down a human personality. By the end of the project, 3 of the 100 most eminent phycholgists of the 20th century had been involved in torture research, as well as several presidents of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

Donald Hebb, chair of McGill University's psychology department, wrote a grant proposing a sensory deprivation experiment, in which "slight changes in attitude might be effected". It suceeded beyond expectation, and the CIA began to focus on this cheap, easy way to effect total personality breakdown.

Today, years later, the process has been refined. To quote Alfred McCoy, "Through relentless probing into the esential nature of the human organism to identify its physicological and psychological vulnerbilities, the CIA's "sensory deprivation" has eveolved into a total assault on all senses and sensibilities- auditory, visual, tactile, temporal, temperature, survival, sexual and cultural. Refined through years of practice, the method relies on simple, even banal procedures-isolation, standing, heat and cold, light and dark, noise and silence - for a systematic attack on all human senses."

This what we saw in the Abu Ghraib photos, hooded victims in stress postitions, kept in bright lights with loud music playing at all times, deprived of sleep and food, naked in freezing conditions, forced into sexual humiliation and terrorized with dogs. Psychologists are still used, especially at Guantanamo, to personalize the torture to each person's private hopes and fears.

How did Americans react to the revelations of torture? The people Lincoln referred as those you can fool all of the time, (who are now Fox News viewers)- were fine with it, steeped in fear of Islamic terrorists and helped along by a pro-torture propaganda TV show called 24, where evil doers dastardly deeds were weekly thwarted by the good guys and their torture tools. Sadly, 31 percent of Americans in a recent poll were OK with torture if it would potentially save lives, and 13% are fine with it generally, for a total of 44% approval, up from 36% two years earlier. They had Rumsfield joking about forced standing as a form of torture, saying that he stood at work. Actually, Cornell University researchers found that standing for days was "devastating torture, the legs swelled, the skin erupted in suppurating lesions, the kidneys shut down, hallucinations began." Funny stuff.

What about those of us who are harder to fool? The people here tonight? The propaganda must be much more subtle. If too jarring, people may recall facts which have been consigned to the memory hole. So we have New Yorker author Jane Mayer, on a nationwide publicity tour for her book against torture, smoothly mixing facts with fiction to rewrite history. This is Jane on Democracy Now, a progressive news show.

"I think, to step back, what you need to know is that the CIA had no experience really in interrogating prisoners. They had never really held prisoners before. And so, they really had no idea how to go about getting information out of people. So they turned to an incredibly strange place, which is a secret program inside the military that had studied torture, and it had studied torture in order to teach our own soldiers how to survive it if they were ever taken captive by some kind of completely immoral regime. Because they understood torture, the CIA turned to them and said, "Well, so how do you do it?" And basically they reverse-engineered this program in the most ironic way, and what became a program that was defensive became instead a-it was like a blueprint for torture. It was, you know, a rulebook."

Slick, isn't it? Fox News worthy disinformation, neatly wrapped in a package of anti-torture rhetoric, to make it very easy to swallow without thinking. And Jane Mayer got a lot of corporate media time, unlike Alfred McCoy.

And the Democrats in Congress, bravely speaking against waterboarding-thereby minimizing the rest of the program. The entire torture debate in Congress ignored the horrors of professional torture, while focusing on the ancient practice of waterboarding.

Here is Senator Kennedy at the confirmation hearings of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General, when the senators postured toughly, extracting promises that Mukasey would, in the future, stop the one practice of waterboarding-
"We are supposed to find comfort in the representation by a nominee to the highest law enforcement office in the country that he will, in fact, enforce the laws that we pass in the future? Can our standards really have sunk so low?

Enforcing the law is the job of the attorney general. It is a prerequisite, not a virtue that enhances the nominee's qualifications. Make no mistake about it: Waterboarding is already illegal under United States law".

Strong words, Sen. Kennedy, but actually, all torture is illegal under US law. From the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitution, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the Geneva Convention Treatment of Prisoners of War, to the UN Convention Against Torture, all the expensively researched torture that the US has commissioned, taught and used is illegal. To stop only waterboarding is like having the local police only enforce jaywalking laws, ignoring speeding, drunk driving and running red lights.

Please keep this history in mind when the propaganda machine tries to distract you with token gestures and empty words. Don't just close Guantanamo, close Bagram and all other black sites, close the School of the Americas, obey US and international law.


My main interests are in promoting a better world. As they say, it is possible. If we can feed, clothe and house people with fiat currency, we can do it without it. I am appalled at the carnage done in my name, and I want to stop it.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:17 am

"Worse Than My Darkest Nightmare"
Binyam Mohamed's Statement Upon Being Released From Gitmo, posted at Alternet on February 24, 2009


Binyam Mohamed is an Ethiopian national who was detained in Guantanamo Bay prison. He was captured and transported in the frame of the extraordinary rendition program.

I hope you will understand that after everything I have been through, I am neither physically nor mentally capable of facing the media on the moment of my arrival back to Britain. Please forgive me if I make a simple statement through my lawyer. I hope to be able to do better in days to come, when I am on the road to recovery.

I have been through an experience that I never thought to encounter in my darkest nightmares. Before this ordeal, "torture" was an abstract word to me. I could never have imagined that I would be its victim. It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next, and tortured in medieval ways -- all orchestrated by the United States government.

While I want to recover, and put it all as far in my past as I can, I also know I have an obligation to the people who still remain in those torture chambers. My own despair was greatest when I thought that everyone had abandoned me. I have a duty to make sure that nobody else is forgotten.

I am grateful that, in the end, I was not simply left to my fate. I am grateful to my lawyers and other staff at Reprieve, and to Lt Col Yvonne Bradley, who fought for my freedom. I am grateful to the members of the British Foreign Office who worked for my release. And I want to thank people around Britain who wrote to me in Guantánamo Bay to keep my spirits up, as well as to the members of the media who tried to make sure that the world knew what was going on. I know I would not be home in Britain today, if it were not for everyone's support. Indeed, I might not be alive at all.

I wish I could say that it is all over, but it is not. There are still 241 Muslim prisoners in Guantánamo. Many have long since been cleared even by the U.S. military, yet cannot go anywhere as they face persecution. For example, Ahmed bel Bacha lived here in Britain, and desperately needs a home. Then there are thousands of other prisoners held by the US elsewhere around the world, with no charges, and without access to their families.

And I have to say, more in sadness than in anger, that many have been complicit in my own horrors over the past seven years. For myself, the very worst moment came when I realized in Morocco that the people who were torturing me were receiving questions and materials from British intelligence. I had met with British intelligence in Pakistan. I had been open with them. Yet the very people who I had hoped would come to my rescue, I later realized, had allied themselves with my abusers.

I am not asking for vengeance; only that the truth should be made known, so that nobody in the future should have to endure what I have endured. Thank you.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

<bump>

Postby marmot » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:12 pm

The Ministry of Truth, now called the corporate media...
marmot
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:11 am

http://valtinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03 ... ng-to.html

Torturers Told Binyam: "“We’re going to change your brain"

[Links embedded in original]

David Rose at the British paper The Mail got the scoop that was former Guanatanamo prisoner Binyam Mohamed's "world exclusive" post-release interview. Entitled "How MI5 colluded in my torture: Binyam Mohamed claims British agents fed Moroccan torturers their questions", the article presents a brief biography of Mr. Mohamed's troubled life, including the experience of racial prejudice in the United States (Binyam is Ethiopian-born), abandonment by his father, and later the adoption of his mother's religion, Islam.

But the article's most sensational sections describe his torture by Pakistani, Moroccan, and U.S. officials, who all the while were in collaboration with British intelligence services, who not only were feeding them questions, but also withholding exculpatory evidence as well. The torture was horrendous:

Documents obtained by this newspaper - which were disclosed to Mohamed through a court case he filed in America - show that months after he was taken to Morocco aboard an illegal 'extraordinary rendition' flight by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, MI5 twice gave the CIA details of questions they wanted his interrogators to put to him, together with dossiers of photographs.

At the time, in November 2002, Mohamed was being subject to intense, regular beatings and sessions in which his chief Moroccan torturer, a man he knew as Marwan, slashed his chest and genitals with a scalpel....

... Mohamed also described how he was interrogated by an MI5 officer in Pakistan in May 2002, before his rendition to Morocco....

He said the officer knew he had already been tortured numerous times after his capture the previous month, with methods that included days of sleep deprivation, a mock execution and being beaten while being hung by his wrists for hours on end.

He said this torture in Pakistan made him confess to a plan that was never more than fantasy - to build a 'dirty' radioactive bomb.


Over and over, the article presents evidence of U.S. and British collaboration in the interrogation and torture of Binyam Mohamed. Telegrams are sent back and forth, lines of inquiry are proposed, a "case conference" is held between U.S. and British intelligence at MI5 HQ in London.

The full extent of the collaboration and the torture are partly obscured by the fact that the British High Court reluctantly (and with public protest) have acceded to the demands of the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, to withhold the publication of secret documentation of Mr. Mohamed's torture -- documents already seen by Mohamed's attorneys, but not the public -- because it would supposedly harm U.S.-British intelligence cooperation.

The Mail article states that Miliband lied about whether or not the Obama administration is threatening the British over revealing these secrets, as the Bush administation had. Thus, it is unclear to what extent the Obama administration is cooperating in the British suppression of the documents. The Obama administration is on record as telling BBC that it is grateful that the British are committed to state secrecy. On the other hand, a letter detailing the contents of the redacted documents sent by Mohamed's attorney to President Obama was itself mysteriously redacted. One thing is clear: we don't yet have the full story here.

In the Dark Prison: Brainwashing & Confessions

The worst part of Mohamed's captivity, by his own account, is the five months he spent at the "dark prison" the CIA ran at an undisclosed location near Kabul, Afghanistan. The Obama administration has by executive order closed all CIA prisons except those "used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis." One wonders if five months can be considered "short-term" or "transitory"? Given the torture evidence by Mr. Mohamed, this question is especially apposite.

From Binyam Mohamed's description of the "dark prison":

Kabul's dark prison was just that: a place where inmates spent their days and weeks in total blackness....

'The toilet in the cell was a bucket. Without light, you either find the bucket or you go on your bed,' Mohamed says.

'There were loudspeakers in the cell, pumping out what felt like about 160 watts, a deafening volume, non-stop, 24 hours a day....

'While that was happening, a lot of the time, for hour after hour, they had me shackled....

'The longest was when they chained me for eight days on end, in a position that meant I couldn't stand straight nor sit.

'I couldn't sleep. I had no idea whether it was day or night.

'You got a shower once a week, with your arms chained above you, stripped naked, in the dark, with someone else washing you.

'The water was salty and afterwards you felt dirtier than when you went in. It wasn't a shower for washing: it was for humiliation.'

In Kabul, Mohamed says the food was also contaminated, and he often suffered from sickness and diarrhoea....

'The floor was made of cement dust. Whatever movement you made, the air would be full of cement and I started getting breathing problems.

' My bed was a thin mattress on the floor, surrounded by that dust.'


And what was all this torture for? According to Mr. Mohamed, it was during his stay at the Dark Prison that U.S. interrogators went beyond inducing confessions. They wanted him to finger other individuals, and use him to testify in the military commissions trials they were planning. Later, when Mohamed arrived in Guantanamo in September 2004, interrogators got worried Binyam would testify he only "confessed" or gave information because he was tortured, and tried to conduct "clean" interrogations, so they could say the testimony was uncoerced. They demanded he give his confession "freely". After Obama was elected president and announced Guantanamo would close, Mohamed says his treatment became more brutal.

The entire Mail article goes into much, much more detail, and makes important reading for those trying to understand what kinds of crimes the U.S. and UK governments have committed when they undertook the torturing of individuals in their custody. Andy Worthington has also written an excellent summary and review of Binyam's interview, and furthermore, writes from the standpoint of one who has followed both Mr. Mohamed's case, and that of a myriad of other Guantanamo prisoners for years now.

Andy Worthington's article makes abundantly clear that the torture of prisoners like Binyam Mohamed was not about, or at least not solely about, the collection of information. It was about the manufacture of information, including false confessions and fingering others for prosecution or further torture. In an earlier interview with Binyam Mohamed's attorney, Clive Stafford Smith:

Binyam explained that, between the savage beatings and the razor cuts to his penis, his torturers “would tell me what to say.” He added that even towards the end of his time in Morocco, they were still “training me what to say,” and one of them told him, “We’re going to change your brain.”

This emphasis on brainwashing -- for that is the popular terminology for such an assault on the psyche of a prisoner -- is a key component of the kind of psychological torture that was researched by both the United Kingdom and the United States in the years following World War II. It highlighted the use of isolation, sleep deprivation, fear, stress positions, manipulation of the environment, of food, the use of humiliation and both sensory deprivation and sensory overload upon the prisoner. The idea was to overwhelm the nervous system and make a human being collapse without a blow being made, without scars, without evidence usable in court.

Much to the chagrin of some in the government, I suppose, the Moroccans had some ideas of their own regarding torture, and it included the use of razor blades. According to the Mail account, there are plenty of pictures of Mr. Mohamed's scarred penis in his files. That may be bad news for somebody, if anyone's head is ever going to fall over this monstrosity of a treatment.

Prosecute Those Who Ordered and Operated the Torture Program

But the real criminals sat or still sit in the highest chairs of government. The political will to hold them to account is crippled by the need to save the integrity of the system in the eyes of a scared and cynical populace -- scared by a collapsing economy, and cynical because they too have lost all faith in the integrity of their leaders, and are placing all their hopes now in the charismatic Barack Obama. For his part, Obama has indicated he will be more socially progressive than his predecessor -- he just eliminated the anti-science blockade of funds on stem cell research that Bush had used to hamstring such projects.

But Obama has also indicated that he will go so far on torture and national security reform and no farther. He has no intention of significantly reforming the CIA. He plans to leave a substantial remnant force of up to 50,000 troops or "advisers" in Iraq after a U.S. "withdrawal"... two or more years from now. He is escalating U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, and has taken actions to make prisoners in that theater of operations even less available to review of conditions by any U.S. court than were the prisoners in Guantanamo. All the while, he maintains that the Army Field Manual, with its reliance on isolation, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and fear, along with loose controls on stress positions and drugging of prisoners, is the "gold standard" of U.S. interrogation of "illegal enemy combatants."

The Binyam Mohamed case is one that wakes people up, at least it has in Great Britain. (See Glenn Greenwald's story comparing the U.S. to British coverage of the case.) But damn if I don't know what it will take to unfreeze U.S. society on this topic. Torture remains a little understood and embarrassing subject in U.S. circles. It's dimly recognized that if the lid were totally taken off, much of the establishment leadership in the U.S. would be revealed as culpable, or at least compromised. Hence, mainstream opinion makers are attempting to keep whatever scandals within "reasonable" limits.

Politics can be strange sometimes. The mainstream opinion makers are usually pretty good at what they do, especially the left-wing versions of them. But they don't often have to deal with such incendiary material, and a dedicated coterie of attorneys, bloggers, journalists, and even some politicians and military officers, who don't want to see this issue die before accountability takes place.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:23 am

How MI5 colluded in my torture: Binyam Mohamed claims British agents fed Moroccan torturers their questions - WORLD EXCLUSIVE

By David Rose
Last updated at 5:01 PM on 08th March 2009



MI5 directly colluded in the savage 'medieval' torture in Morocco of Binyam Mohamed, the Guantanamo inmate who was last week released to live in Britain.

The revelation came as Mohamed broke his silence about the full horror of his seven years in detention in a compelling interview with The Mail on Sunday.

Documents obtained by this newspaper - which were disclosed to Mohamed through a court case he filed in America - show that months after he was taken to Morocco aboard an illegal 'extraordinary rendition' flight by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, MI5 twice gave the CIA details of questions they wanted his interrogators to put to him, together with dossiers of photographs.

Image
7-year ordeal: Binyam Mohamed near the home in the English countryside where he is trying to recover

At the time, in November 2002, Mohamed was being subject to intense, regular beatings and sessions in which his chief Moroccan torturer, a man he knew as Marwan, slashed his chest and genitals with a scalpel.

Mohamed, 30, who returned to Britain last month from Guantanamo Bay after seven years detained without charge, said that he reached his lowest ebb the moment he realised that Britain was conniving in his torture.

He said: 'They started bringing British files to the interrogations - not one, but several of them, thick binders, some of them containing sheaves of photos of people who lived in London and places there like mosques.


'It was obvious the British were feeding them questions about people in London.

'When I realised that the British were co-operating with the people who were torturing me, I felt completely naked.

'It was when they started asking the questions supplied by the British that my situation worsened. They sold me out.'

His disclosures suggest that MI5 misled Parliament's spy watchdog, the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Security Service witnesses told an inquiry by the committee in 2007 that it had no idea that Mohamed was subjected to 'extraordinary rendition'.

The revelations will put Foreign Secretary David Miliband under even greater pressure to come clean about British involvement in the rendition and alleged torture of Muslim terror suspects.

Last month his lawyers persuaded the High Court not to allow parts of a judgement that summarised Mohamed's treatment to be published, on the grounds that to do so would jeopardise Britian’s intelligence-sharing relationship with America.

The judges agreed with great reluctance, saying that the suppressed section, which was based on admissions by American officials, amounted to evidence of torture, but contained nothing that could be described as sensitive intelligence.

Mr Milliband maintained that the new administration or President Obama was just as concerned about publication as its predecessor - but later he had to admit in the Commons that in fact he had not checked whether this was so.

According to the documents, MI5 knew Mohamed had not been transferred to any known U.S. base, and did not know his whereabouts, but still fed the CIA questions in the knowledge that while he must be in some 'third country', he was ultimately under CIA control.

The documents also show that MI5 officers held a 'case conference' on Mohamed with their U.S. colleagues at MI5's London headquarters on September 30, 2002, when Mohamed's torture in Morocco had been going on for weeks.

What was said at the conference remains unknown.

As late as February 2003, MI5 received a report from the Americans of what Mohamed said under torture. A copy of the report given to Mohamed has been heavily redacted (blanked out).

David Davis, the former Shadow Home Secretary, demanded that Mr Miliband make a fresh parliamentary statement on the case.

'The Government can no longer continue to claim ignorance,' he said.

'It is also time for an independent judicial inquiry. Only then can we have confidence the British Government will not allow, condone or collude in torture or inhuman treatment in future.'

Speaking at a house in the English countryside where he has been staying since his release, Mohamed also described how he was interrogated by an MI5 officer in Pakistan in May 2002, before his rendition to Morocco.

Image
Mr Mohamed, pictured in an image released by human rights organisation Reprieve, says MI5 allegedly colluded in his torture

He said the officer knew he had already been tortured numerous times after his capture the previous month, with methods that included days of sleep deprivation, a mock execution and being beaten while being hung by his wrists for hours on end.

He said this torture in Pakistan made him confess to a plan that was never more than fantasy - to build a 'dirty' radioactive bomb.

He also revealed the nightmarish physical torture inflicted on him in the CIA's 'dark prison' in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was forced to listen, chained in total blackness, to the same music - a CD by rap artist Eminem, played at ear-splitting volume over and over again, 24 hours a day for a month.

That, he said, was when he came closest to losing his mind: 'It's a miracle my brain is still intact.'

The strongest evidence of British collusion comes in the form of a confidential telegram sent from MI5 to the CIA on November 5, 2002.

Headed 'Request for further Detainee questioning,' the telegram suggests its author was aware of the explosive consequences if details of the torture leaked out.

It said: 'This information has been communicated in confidence to the recipient government and shall not be released without the agreement of the British Government.

'We would be grateful if the following can be passed to Binyam Mohamed.'

The telegram asked that his interrogators show him and ask him questions about a 'photobook recently sent over'.

Large portions of the rest of the telegram, which set out detailed questions, have been redacted, but it added: 'We would be grateful if the following could be put to Binyam Mohamed, in addition to the questioning above.

'Does Mohamed know [two lines redacted]? What was the man's name? How does Mohamed know him? Can Mohamed describe him? Where did they meet?

'Where was the man from? Who facilitated his travel from the UK? Where did this man go? What were his intentions?

'We would appreciate the opportunity to pose further questions, dependent on answers given to the above.'

A further telegram sent by MI5 on November 11 was headed 'update request'.

It too has been heavily redacted but the surviving portion states: 'We note that we have also requested that briefs be put to Binyam Mohamed and would appreciate a guide from you as to the likely timescale for these too.

'We fully appreciate that this can be a long-winded process, but the urgent nature of these enquiries will be obvious to you.'

The Foreign Office refused to comment on the allegations, on the grounds that MI5 officers accused of colluding in Mohamed's torture may face criminal charges.

A spokesman said: 'The Attorney General is considering an allegation of criminal wrongdoing by British personnel.

'In these circumstances it would be wrong to make any comment and because of this we cannot discuss the points you raise.'


Now read the full, exclusive interview

The worst time in Binyam Mohamed's seven-year ordeal in American captivity, worse even than the medieval tortures he endured for 18 months in Morocco, came in the first half of 2004 when he was held for five months at a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.

Kabul's dark prison was just that: a place where inmates spent their days and weeks in total blackness.

Other than during interrogations, which took place away from the cells, the only time the prisoners could see was in the brief moments when the guards used torches when bringing trays of food.

'The toilet in the cell was a bucket. Without light, you either find the bucket or you go on your bed,' Mohamed says.

'There were loudspeakers in the cell, pumping out what felt like about 160 watts, a deafening volume, non-stop, 24 hours a day.

'They played the same CD for a month, The Eminem Show.

'It's got about 20 songs on it and when it was finished it went back to the beginning and started again.

'While that was happening, a lot of the time, for hour after hour, they had me shackled.

'Sometimes it was in a standing position, with my wrists chained to the top of the door frame.

'Sometimes they were chained in the middle, at waist level, and sometimes they were chained at the bottom, on the floor.

'The longest was when they chained me for eight days on end, in a position that meant I couldn't stand straight nor sit.

'I couldn't sleep. I had no idea whether it was day or night.

'You got a shower once a week, with your arms chained above you, stripped naked, in the dark, with someone else washing you.

'The water was salty and afterwards you felt dirtier than when you went in. It wasn't a shower for washing: it was for humiliation.'

In Kabul, Mohamed says the food was also contaminated, and he often suffered from sickness and diarrhoea.

'The weight just dropped off me,' he said.

'The floor was made of cement dust. Whatever movement you made, the air would be full of cement and I started getting breathing problems.

' My bed was a thin mattress on the floor, surrounded by that dust.'


'I said I had met Osama Bin Laden 30 times'

Much later, when Mohamed was being held at Guantanamo Bay, he and a fellow inmate discussed the time both had spent at the dark prison.

'They had just opened Oscar Block, a new Guantanamo punishment wing, and he'd been in it.

'I was worried - I wanted to know what it was like. He told me, "Binyam, it's not even a twentieth as bad as Kabul.

"'A hundred nights in Oscar Block is the equivalent of one night in the dark prison".

'In Kabul I lost my head. It felt like it was never going to end and that I had ceased to exist.'

Mohamed, 30, spoke to The Mail on Sunday at the house in the English countryside where he has been staying since he was flown to Britain from Guantanamo at the end of last month.

After years of abuse and confinement and a hunger strike he began at the end of last year, he has been trying to build up his strength with simple home cooking and rambles in the open air.

He revealed new details about MI5's alleged collusion in his torture, speaking for the first time about being interrogated in Pakistan by an MI5 officer who knew he had already been tortured numerous times after his capture, and how torture made him confess to a fantastical plot that never was - to build and detonate a 'dirty' radioactive bomb in New York.

He disclosed details of confidential MI5 telegrams to the American Central Intelligence Agency that show that at the very time he was being subjected to nightmarish tortures in Morocco, where his chest and penis were repeatedly slashed with a razor, MI5 was not only supplying his interrogators with background information but making specific requests about what they wanted him to be asked.

Mohamed was given these and other documents as part of an American court case, and made a verbatim record.

Other sources have confirmed his record is accurate. He has made it available to The Mail on Sunday.

Since photos were taken of him emerging from the aircraft that brought him from Guantanamo, Mohamed has trimmed his beard and cut his hair.

Wearing a sports shirt, tracksuit and a Muslim prayer cap, he looks spruce and relaxed.

But when he slips off his jacket, it is evident his frame is still skeletal.

Yet his eyes are bright and he speaks with animation, sometimes smiling ruefully when he recalls the more bizarre aspects of his ordeal.

He seems straightforward and makes no attempt to hide the chain of events that had led to his capture - including the training he received in an Afghan camp.

Much of what he says can be corroborated from other sources.

But while the British and American governments persist in imposing secrecy over a lot of what happened to him, other parts must be taken on trust.

Mohamed says most of his physical injuries have healed. But when he is asked about their psychological consequences, his voice falters.

'Mentally right now, the result of my experience is that I feel emotionally dead.

'You could do anything to me and I wouldn't feel it any more.'

His lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, from the human rights group Reprieve, has arranged therapy for him through London's Helen Bamber Foundation, a world-renowned centre that cares for victims of torture.

Still fearful for his safety, Mohamed asked us to ensure he could not be recognised from the photograph published here.

'The British co-operated... they sold me out'

His odyssey began in 1992, when he was just 14.

His father was a senior executive with the state-owned Ethiopian Airlines and following the ousting of the dictator Haile Mengistu, many of his colleagues were being arrested by the new government.

He decided to flee, uprooting Mohamed and his elder brother and sister from the home in Addis Ababa where they had spent their childhood. He left behind his wife, Mohamed's mother.

For almost two years, Mohamed, his siblings and his father lived in a suburb of Washington DC.


However, Mohamed says he became a victim of racist bullying at his school.

'I didn't like the U.S. at all. It just didn't feel right for me to be there and I wanted to get out.'

The family had no connections in Britain, but because Mohamed spoke good English, his father decided to see if he could settle in London.

They arrived in the spring of 1994, travelling on their Ethiopian passports, which had not yet expired.

For about a week, Mohamed says, they stayed in a hotel. Then, although he was not quite 16, his father returned to America, leaving him vulnerable, without guidance or support.

Mohamed remained in regular phone contact with his family, but he had to fend for himself.

Before he left, Mohamed's father told him to go to Social Services.

At first they suggested foster care, but when he turned 16 they helped him claim state benefits while he stayed in a Notting Hill hostel and, eventually, a housing association flat.

Meanwhile he applied for asylum and was given leave to remain.

He enrolled at Paddington Green sixth-form college and passed an A-level in electronic engineering, and then began a BTEC course at City of Westminster College.

At first he stayed out of trouble. But in the summer of 1996 some friends persuaded him to try cannabis at Notting Hill Carnival.

'About two weeks later I smoked my first joint. It started from there.'

By 1998, Mohamed was regularly 'chasing the dragon' to smoke heroin and sometimes crack cocaine.

'Often I didn't even bother to go to college. I was surrounded by people who were doing the same thing.

'I was also drinking a lot. Finally, I dropped out.'

The following year, Mohamed says, he tried hard to stop using drugs.

Part of the answer turned out to be kick-boxing, and if he was searching for a father figure, he seems to have found it in his kick-boxing instructor, of whom he still speaks reverentially.

He says: 'I had to get fit again, and I started using my money to buy food again, not heroin.'

Although his mother was a Muslim, he had never practised any religion.



'I wanted to protect civilians, not kill them'

However, he lived in an area with thousands of Muslims and several mosques. There he began to find a more spiritual solution to his efforts to get clean.

He says: 'I went to the mosque to see if there was something happening there that would help.'

Image
Detainees wearing orange jumpsuits at a holding bay at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay

In the middle of 2000, he was offered a job as a mosque janitor and began to spend as much time there as he could, often staying the night - largely in order to avoid his old drug-abusing friends who still clustered around his apartment.

Mohamed says that someone at the mosque told him about the radical American civil rights leader Malcolm X, saying he had come to understand his religion properly when he went on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Mohamed, he suggested, should go to see the 'pure' form of Islam being practised in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

How much did he know about what the Taliban stood for?

'Minus one,' Mohamed says. 'I really had no idea what it was.'

He had saved some money and flew to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, in May 2001.

As an asylum-seeker, he couldn't apply for a new Ethiopian passport and had been unable to obtain a British travel document.

Instead, he borrowed a genuine British passport from a friend and substituted his own photograph.

After a week in Islamabad, Mohamed crossed the Afghan border by truck. It was, he says, easy: 'No one looked at my documents. I just kept down.'

Later, after the attacks of 9/11, the Americans who led the 'war on terror' assumed that because the Taliban had given refuge to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the two were interchangeable, and that anyone who had the least involvement with the Taliban was a fully-fledged terrorist, bent - as former U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said when he opened the Guantanamo prison in January 2002 - on 'killing millions of ordinary Americans'.

Mohamed insists that this was not the way he saw the world at all.

Back in London he had been moved and appalled by watching TV news stories about the plight of civilians caught in Russia's second war against Chechnya, where thousands, mainly Muslims, had been killed and tortured.

'To me, the Chechens were the freedom fighters and the Russians were the oppressors,' Mohamed says.

'It was the sight of the women and the kids being killed: innocent lives being lost for no reason.

'I wanted to go there to do what I could - not for fighting, but as an aid and rescue worker.'

At a guest house in Jalalabad, the first town in which he stayed in Afghanistan, he found people who had links with the Chechen resistance.

'I was told that the Russians don't separate between aid workers and those doing the fighting, and that if I wanted to go to Chechnya, I needed basic training.

'I was so young, I didn't question it. I didn't expect to fire a gun except in training, let alone kill someone.'

Mohamed adds: 'I would never have taken up arms against British or American soldiers, let alone attacked civilians.

I wanted to protect civilians, not kill them.'

'They carried out a mock execution on me'

He underwent a 45-day boot camp course. Much of the time, Mohamed says, was spent sitting around doing nothing.

He even abandoned the course halfway through for a few days, before being persuaded that if he wanted to go to Chechnya he had to finish it.

He says he learnt nothing that could be construed as terrorist training: there were no lessons on bomb-making, for example.

Image
Demonstrators protest over Guantanamo outside the White House in Washington. Mohamed was the first to be released from Guantanamo after President Obama pledged to close it down

Afterwards, Mohamed went to Kabul, where he contracted malaria. While he was recovering in hospital, news broke of 9/11.

It was evident the West was likely to attack Afghanistan, and Mohamed's immediate impulse was to leave.

'All I wanted to do was to get back to London, to the country that I thought of as home, to continue my education and find a job; to get back to my life, minus the drugs.'

As the U.S.-led coalition advanced, Mohamed became swept up in the tide of refugees.

He fled from city to city and in 2002 managed to cross into Pakistan and made his way to Karachi.

He booked a flight to London for April 3, but officials saw that his passport looked wrong and sent him packing.

Six days later, using the same document, he tried again. This time the Pakistanis detained him - and this was the start of almost seven years of incarceration without trial, interrogation and torture.

Two weeks after being detained, having been held in Landi prison, he met an American who called himself 'Chuck' and said he worked for the FBI.

Mohamed says: 'I told him I wanted a lawyer. He told me, "The law's changed. There are no lawyers.

"'Either you're going to answer me the easy way or I get the information I need another way."'

Senior U.S. officials in Washington say that in these early months after 9/11, American intelligence agencies were 'obsessed' with the possibility that Al Qaeda might have acquired nuclear fissile material.

'Every interrogator would ask questions about it,' one former CIA officer says. Thus it was that Mohamed unwittingly contributed to his fate.

As The Mail on Sunday revealed last month, his interrogation began to turn nasty after he mentioned that while he was in Pakistan he had seen a website with spoof instructions for building a nuclear device - instructions that included advice to refine bomb-grade uranium by whirling a bucket round one's head.

'I mentioned the website to Chuck,' Mohamed says.

'It was obviously a joke: it never crossed my mind that anyone would take it seriously.

'But that's when he started getting all excited.

'Towards the end of April he began telling me about this A-bomb I was supposed to be building, and he started on about Osama Bin Laden and his top lieutenants, showing me pictures and making out I must have known them.

'He started asking me about operations and what type I had been trained for.'

As the interrogations became more serious, the treatment meted out in the time between them brutally worsened.

Mohamed says: 'For at least ten days I was deprived of sleep.

'Sometimes the Pakistanis chained me from the top of the gate to the cell by my wrists from the end of one interrogation to the start of the next for about 22 hours.

'If I shouted, sometimes I would be allowed to use a toilet. Other times, they wouldn't let me go and I would p*** myself.

'They had a thick wooden stick, like a kind of paddle, which they used to beat me while I was chained.

'They'd beat me for a few minutes, then stop, then start again. They also carried out a mock execution.

'A guard put a gun to my head and said he was going to pull the trigger. They were saying, "This is what the Americans want us to do."'

Details of the abuse Mohamed underwent in Pakistan are contained in the 'redacted' section of the British High Court judgment on his case that Foreign Secretary David Miliband is refusing to release, claiming that to do so would damage the intelligence-sharing relationship with America.

As the court has made clear in the open section of its judgment, when an MI5 officer known as 'John' went to interrogate Mohamed on May 17, 2002, he was made fully aware of what had been happening.

'John was a white male, 30, with short black hair and a goatee,' Mohamed says.

'He was about 5ft 10in and stocky.

'There was another guy with him, about the same size with a full, dark beard. I don't know if he was British or American.

'The Americans had already been threatening to send me somewhere where I would be tortured far worse, like Jordan or Egypt.

'I was given a cup of tea and asked for one sugar. The other guy told me, "You'll need more than one sugar where you're going."

'They asked me about the A-bomb website and I told them it was a joke.

'They wanted to know everything about my life in the UK and I gave them all the information I had.

'Later I realised that was part of my undoing: I told them the area I lived in had 10,000 Moroccans and was known as Little Morocco.

'The feedback I got later from the Americans was that because the Brits told them I had lived in a Moroccan area, they thought Moroccans would be more likely to make me talk.

'At the same time, they thought I must know something about what Moroccans were up to in London.'

Mohamed says that a Moroccan interrogator who would deal with him later was even more specific.

'He told me, "Do you know who sent you here? The British sent you here."'

The materials seen by The Mail on Sunday confirm much of his account.

One MI5 memo from this period, disclosed to Mohamed via the American courts, suggests the British saw themselves as central to his interrogation.

It said: 'We believe that our knowledge of the UK scene may provide contextual background useful during any continuing interview process.

'This may enable individual officers to identify any inconsistencies during discussions.

'This will place the detainee under more direct pressure and would seem to be the most effective way of obtaining intelligence on Mohammed's [sic] activities/plans concerning the UK.'

Regarding the 'dirty bomb', MI5 could see the 'inconsistencies' in Mohamed's account. John dutifully recorded that he claimed the website was a joke.

But MI5 concluded that Mohamed and another prisoner being interrogated were 'lying to protect themselves' and 'evidently holding back'.

Day after day, MI5 kept the Americans supplied with questions and information.

Mohamed says: 'John told me that if I co-operated he'd tell the Americans to be more lenient with my treatment.'

In a further confidential memo John wrote: 'I told Mohammed [sic] that he had an opportunity to help us and help himself.

'The U.S. authorities will be deciding what to do with him and this would depend to a very large degree on his co-operation - I said that I could not and would not negotiate up-front, but if he persuaded me he was co-operating fully then (and only then) I would explore what could be done for him with my U.S. colleagues.'

Evidently, John felt he wasn't co-operating enough.

His memo concluded: 'While he appeared happy to answer any questions, he was holding back a great deal of information on who and what he knew in the UK and in Afghanistan.'

Mohamed was flown - trussed, gagged, blindfolded and wearing a giant nappy - from Islamabad to Rabat in Morocco on July 21, 2002.

He gave this date to Stafford Smith four years ago, it has since been confirmed by the CIA aircraft's flight logs.

Mohamed would not leave again for 18 months, for most of which he was horribly tortured.

Shuddering, he says the details of what he endured in Morocco are such that he cannot bring himself to relate them again.

But in 2005, when he first met Stafford Smith in Guantanamo, he dictated a detailed diary, which described the abuse that began at the beginning of September 2002.

He had, he said, already endured beatings at the hands of an interrogator named Marwan.

Now, he went on, 'they cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor's scalpel. I was totally naked. I was afraid to ask Marwan what would happen because it would show fear.

'I tried to put on a brave face. But maybe I was going to be raped. Maybe they'd electrocute me. Maybe castrate me.

'They took the scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Maybe an inch. Then they cut my left chest.

'One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction.

'I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming.

'I remember Marwan seemed to smoke half a cigarette, throw it down, and start another. They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours.

'There was blood all over. They cut all over my private parts.

'One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists.'

This, Mohamed says, was repeated many times over the next 15 months.

Even after this treatment started, the documents disclosed to Mohamed for the U.S. court case reveal that MI5 was colluding with his tormentors.

In late September, one document reveals: 'The Service received a report from the U.S. of an interview of Mr Mohamed.

'On September 30, MI5 held a case conference about him with their American colleagues at MI5s London headquarters.

Weeks later, on November 5, came the strongest evidence to emerge of British collusion in Mohamed's illegal 'rendition' and torture, in the form of a telegram from MI5 to the CIA.

Headed 'Request for further Detainee questioning', it stated: 'This information has been communicated in confidence to the recipient government and shall not be released without the agreement of the British government.

'We would be grateful if the following can be passed to Binyam Mohamed.'

It went on to ask that his interrogators show him and ask him questions about a 'photobook recently sent over'.

Large portions of the telegram, which set out detailed questions, have been redacted, but it added: 'We would be grateful if the following could be put to Binyam Mohamed, in addition to the questioning above.

'Does Mohamed know [two lines redacted]? What was the man's name? How does Mohamed know him? Can Mohamed describe him? Where did they meet? Where was the man from?

'Who facilitated his travel from the UK? Where did this man go? What were his intentions?

'We would appreciate the opportunity to pose further questions, dependent on answers given to the above.'

A further telegram sent by MI5 on November 11 was headed 'update request'.

It, too, has been heavily redacted but the surviving portion states: 'We note that we have also requested that briefs be put to Binyam Mohamed and would appreciate a guide from you as to the likely timescale for these too.

'We fully appreciate that this can be a long-winded process, but the urgent nature of these enquiries will be obvious to you.'

Mohamed remembers very clearly the moment when MI5's questions were first channelled by his Moroccan interrogators.

He says: 'They started bringing British files to the interrogations - thick binders, some of them containing sheaves of photos of people who lived in London and places there like mosques.

'It was obvious the British were feeding them questions about people in London.

'When I realised that the British were co-operating with the people torturing me, I felt completely naked.

'It was when they started asking the questions supplied by the British that my situation worsened. They sold me out.'

Under this torture, Mohamed's confessions became ever more elaborate.

'They had fed me enough through their questions for me to make up what they wanted to hear. I confessed to it all.

'There was the plot to build a dirty nuclear bomb, and another to blow up apartments in New York with their gas pipes.'

This - supposedly the brainchild of the 9/11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - always sounded improbable: it was never quite clear how gas pipes might become weapons.

'I said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had given me a false passport after I was stopped the first time in Karachi and that I had met Osama Bin Laden 30 times. None of it was true.

'The British could have stopped the torture because they knew I had tried to use the same passport at Karachi both times.

'That should have told them that what I was saying under torture wasn't true. But so far as I know, they did nothing.'

Mohamed was finally 'rendered' by the CIA again in January 2004 and taken to Afghanistan. He says the agents he met there responded with horror.

'When I got to Kabul a female agent started taking close-up pictures of my genitals. She was shocked.

'When they removed my diaper she could see blood was still oozing from the cuts on my penis.

'For the first two weeks they had me on antibiotics and they took pictures of my genitals every day.

'They told me, "This is not for us. It's for Washington." They wanted to be sure it was healing.'

Then came his ordeal in the dark prison. Mohamed says the thrust of his interrogations had changed.

Since he madehis fantastical confession, the Americans wanted him to become a prosecution witness in their system of special military commissions, against Al Qaeda bigwigs he had never met.

He reached Guantanamo in September 2004.

There, the interrogations continued but there had been another shift.

He says: 'They said they were worried I would tell the court that I had only confessed through torture. They said now they needed me to say it freely.

'We called them the clean team, they wanted to say they had got this stuff from a clean interrogation.'

After Mohamed had spent more than four years at Guantanamo, Barack Obama became U.S. President and announced the camp's impending closure and an end to the military commissions.

But according to Mohamed, there was little sign of an improvement.

'Since the election it's got harsher. The guards would say, yes, this place is going to close down, but it was like they wanted to take their last revenge.'

The feared Emergency Reaction Force, a SWAT team used to punish inmates in their cells, is being used more often, he says.

Mohamed recalls an occasion when it was deployed against him.

The reason was that he was refusing to give his fingerprints which, despite all the torture, had unaccountably not been taken before: he says he feared they might use them to frame him.

'They nearly broke my back. The guy on top was twisting me one way, the guys on my legs the other.

'They marched me out of the cell to the fingerprint room, still cuffed. I clenched my fists behind me so they couldn't take prints, so they tried to take them by force.

'The guy at my head sticks his fingers up my nose and wrenches my head back, jerking it around by the nostrils.

'Then he put his fingers in my eyes. It felt as if he was trying to gouge them out.

Another guy was punching my ribs and another was squeezing my testicles. Finally I couldn't take it any more. I let them take the prints.'

Last October, before the election, all charges against him were dropped, even the Americans had come to realise there was no 'dirty bomb' plot.

Yet to Mohamed, it seemed he was no closer to release - hence his decision, on December 29 last year, to go on hunger strike.

Release, when it finally came last month, took him by surprise. It is, he admits, still difficult to accept.

'I kept being told, you'll be free in ten days, and they would pass, and then I'd be told another ten days, and still it wasn't for real.'

As for the future, he is determined to stay in Britain, despite MI5's alleged collusion with his torturers.

'It's the only place I can call home,' he says. 'I want to live a normal life, to find a wife, get married, have a family, a job.

'Meanwhile, I'll do whatever I can to get the other innocent prisoners out of Guantanamo.'



* The Mail on Sunday has made no payment to Binyam Mohamed. We will be making a donation to the Helen Bamber Foundation.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

contageous

Postby hava1 » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:48 am

Last month his lawyers persuaded the High Court not to allow parts of a judgement that summarised Mohamed's treatment to be published, on the grounds that to do so would jeopardise Britian’s intelligence-sharing relationship with America.


seems like a plague. we keep hearing that like a sinister echo all over. is that some new legal concept - the rule of "lets not upset the americans"?










American Dream wrote:How MI5 colluded in my torture: Binyam Mohamed claims British agents fed Moroccan torturers their questions - WORLD EXCLUSIVE

By David Rose
Last updated at 5:01 PM on 08th March 2009



MI5 directly colluded in the savage 'medieval' torture in Morocco of Binyam Mohamed, the Guantanamo inmate who was last week released to live in Britain.

The revelation came as Mohamed broke his silence about the full horror of his seven years in detention in a compelling interview with The Mail on Sunday.

Documents obtained by this newspaper - which were disclosed to Mohamed through a court case he filed in America - show that months after he was taken to Morocco aboard an illegal 'extraordinary rendition' flight by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, MI5 twice gave the CIA details of questions they wanted his interrogators to put to him, together with dossiers of photographs.

Image
7-year ordeal: Binyam Mohamed near the home in the English countryside where he is trying to recover

At the time, in November 2002, Mohamed was being subject to intense, regular beatings and sessions in which his chief Moroccan torturer, a man he knew as Marwan, slashed his chest and genitals with a scalpel.

Mohamed, 30, who returned to Britain last month from Guantanamo Bay after seven years detained without charge, said that he reached his lowest ebb the moment he realised that Britain was conniving in his torture.

He said: 'They started bringing British files to the interrogations - not one, but several of them, thick binders, some of them containing sheaves of photos of people who lived in London and places there like mosques.


'It was obvious the British were feeding them questions about people in London.

'When I realised that the British were co-operating with the people who were torturing me, I felt completely naked.

'It was when they started asking the questions supplied by the British that my situation worsened. They sold me out.'

His disclosures suggest that MI5 misled Parliament's spy watchdog, the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Security Service witnesses told an inquiry by the committee in 2007 that it had no idea that Mohamed was subjected to 'extraordinary rendition'.

The revelations will put Foreign Secretary David Miliband under even greater pressure to come clean about British involvement in the rendition and alleged torture of Muslim terror suspects.

Last month his lawyers persuaded the High Court not to allow parts of a judgement that summarised Mohamed's treatment to be published, on the grounds that to do so would jeopardise Britian’s intelligence-sharing relationship with America.

The judges agreed with great reluctance, saying that the suppressed section, which was based on admissions by American officials, amounted to evidence of torture, but contained nothing that could be described as sensitive intelligence.

Mr Milliband maintained that the new administration or President Obama was just as concerned about publication as its predecessor - but later he had to admit in the Commons that in fact he had not checked whether this was so.

According to the documents, MI5 knew Mohamed had not been transferred to any known U.S. base, and did not know his whereabouts, but still fed the CIA questions in the knowledge that while he must be in some 'third country', he was ultimately under CIA control.

The documents also show that MI5 officers held a 'case conference' on Mohamed with their U.S. colleagues at MI5's London headquarters on September 30, 2002, when Mohamed's torture in Morocco had been going on for weeks.

What was said at the conference remains unknown.

As late as February 2003, MI5 received a report from the Americans of what Mohamed said under torture. A copy of the report given to Mohamed has been heavily redacted (blanked out).

David Davis, the former Shadow Home Secretary, demanded that Mr Miliband make a fresh parliamentary statement on the case.

'The Government can no longer continue to claim ignorance,' he said.

'It is also time for an independent judicial inquiry. Only then can we have confidence the British Government will not allow, condone or collude in torture or inhuman treatment in future.'

Speaking at a house in the English countryside where he has been staying since his release, Mohamed also described how he was interrogated by an MI5 officer in Pakistan in May 2002, before his rendition to Morocco.

Image
Mr Mohamed, pictured in an image released by human rights organisation Reprieve, says MI5 allegedly colluded in his torture

He said the officer knew he had already been tortured numerous times after his capture the previous month, with methods that included days of sleep deprivation, a mock execution and being beaten while being hung by his wrists for hours on end.

He said this torture in Pakistan made him confess to a plan that was never more than fantasy - to build a 'dirty' radioactive bomb.

He also revealed the nightmarish physical torture inflicted on him in the CIA's 'dark prison' in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was forced to listen, chained in total blackness, to the same music - a CD by rap artist Eminem, played at ear-splitting volume over and over again, 24 hours a day for a month.

That, he said, was when he came closest to losing his mind: 'It's a miracle my brain is still intact.'

The strongest evidence of British collusion comes in the form of a confidential telegram sent from MI5 to the CIA on November 5, 2002.

Headed 'Request for further Detainee questioning,' the telegram suggests its author was aware of the explosive consequences if details of the torture leaked out.

It said: 'This information has been communicated in confidence to the recipient government and shall not be released without the agreement of the British Government.

'We would be grateful if the following can be passed to Binyam Mohamed.'

The telegram asked that his interrogators show him and ask him questions about a 'photobook recently sent over'.

Large portions of the rest of the telegram, which set out detailed questions, have been redacted, but it added: 'We would be grateful if the following could be put to Binyam Mohamed, in addition to the questioning above.

'Does Mohamed know [two lines redacted]? What was the man's name? How does Mohamed know him? Can Mohamed describe him? Where did they meet?

'Where was the man from? Who facilitated his travel from the UK? Where did this man go? What were his intentions?

'We would appreciate the opportunity to pose further questions, dependent on answers given to the above.'

A further telegram sent by MI5 on November 11 was headed 'update request'.

It too has been heavily redacted but the surviving portion states: 'We note that we have also requested that briefs be put to Binyam Mohamed and would appreciate a guide from you as to the likely timescale for these too.

'We fully appreciate that this can be a long-winded process, but the urgent nature of these enquiries will be obvious to you.'

The Foreign Office refused to comment on the allegations, on the grounds that MI5 officers accused of colluding in Mohamed's torture may face criminal charges.

A spokesman said: 'The Attorney General is considering an allegation of criminal wrongdoing by British personnel.

'In these circumstances it would be wrong to make any comment and because of this we cannot discuss the points you raise.'


Now read the full, exclusive interview

The worst time in Binyam Mohamed's seven-year ordeal in American captivity, worse even than the medieval tortures he endured for 18 months in Morocco, came in the first half of 2004 when he was held for five months at a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.

Kabul's dark prison was just that: a place where inmates spent their days and weeks in total blackness.

Other than during interrogations, which took place away from the cells, the only time the prisoners could see was in the brief moments when the guards used torches when bringing trays of food.

'The toilet in the cell was a bucket. Without light, you either find the bucket or you go on your bed,' Mohamed says.

'There were loudspeakers in the cell, pumping out what felt like about 160 watts, a deafening volume, non-stop, 24 hours a day.

'They played the same CD for a month, The Eminem Show.

'It's got about 20 songs on it and when it was finished it went back to the beginning and started again.

'While that was happening, a lot of the time, for hour after hour, they had me shackled.

'Sometimes it was in a standing position, with my wrists chained to the top of the door frame.

'Sometimes they were chained in the middle, at waist level, and sometimes they were chained at the bottom, on the floor.

'The longest was when they chained me for eight days on end, in a position that meant I couldn't stand straight nor sit.

'I couldn't sleep. I had no idea whether it was day or night.

'You got a shower once a week, with your arms chained above you, stripped naked, in the dark, with someone else washing you.

'The water was salty and afterwards you felt dirtier than when you went in. It wasn't a shower for washing: it was for humiliation.'

In Kabul, Mohamed says the food was also contaminated, and he often suffered from sickness and diarrhoea.

'The weight just dropped off me,' he said.

'The floor was made of cement dust. Whatever movement you made, the air would be full of cement and I started getting breathing problems.

' My bed was a thin mattress on the floor, surrounded by that dust.'


'I said I had met Osama Bin Laden 30 times'

Much later, when Mohamed was being held at Guantanamo Bay, he and a fellow inmate discussed the time both had spent at the dark prison.

'They had just opened Oscar Block, a new Guantanamo punishment wing, and he'd been in it.

'I was worried - I wanted to know what it was like. He told me, "Binyam, it's not even a twentieth as bad as Kabul.

"'A hundred nights in Oscar Block is the equivalent of one night in the dark prison".

'In Kabul I lost my head. It felt like it was never going to end and that I had ceased to exist.'

Mohamed, 30, spoke to The Mail on Sunday at the house in the English countryside where he has been staying since he was flown to Britain from Guantanamo at the end of last month.

After years of abuse and confinement and a hunger strike he began at the end of last year, he has been trying to build up his strength with simple home cooking and rambles in the open air.

He revealed new details about MI5's alleged collusion in his torture, speaking for the first time about being interrogated in Pakistan by an MI5 officer who knew he had already been tortured numerous times after his capture, and how torture made him confess to a fantastical plot that never was - to build and detonate a 'dirty' radioactive bomb in New York.

He disclosed details of confidential MI5 telegrams to the American Central Intelligence Agency that show that at the very time he was being subjected to nightmarish tortures in Morocco, where his chest and penis were repeatedly slashed with a razor, MI5 was not only supplying his interrogators with background information but making specific requests about what they wanted him to be asked.

Mohamed was given these and other documents as part of an American court case, and made a verbatim record.

Other sources have confirmed his record is accurate. He has made it available to The Mail on Sunday.

Since photos were taken of him emerging from the aircraft that brought him from Guantanamo, Mohamed has trimmed his beard and cut his hair.

Wearing a sports shirt, tracksuit and a Muslim prayer cap, he looks spruce and relaxed.

But when he slips off his jacket, it is evident his frame is still skeletal.

Yet his eyes are bright and he speaks with animation, sometimes smiling ruefully when he recalls the more bizarre aspects of his ordeal.

He seems straightforward and makes no attempt to hide the chain of events that had led to his capture - including the training he received in an Afghan camp.

Much of what he says can be corroborated from other sources.

But while the British and American governments persist in imposing secrecy over a lot of what happened to him, other parts must be taken on trust.

Mohamed says most of his physical injuries have healed. But when he is asked about their psychological consequences, his voice falters.

'Mentally right now, the result of my experience is that I feel emotionally dead.

'You could do anything to me and I wouldn't feel it any more.'

His lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, from the human rights group Reprieve, has arranged therapy for him through London's Helen Bamber Foundation, a world-renowned centre that cares for victims of torture.

Still fearful for his safety, Mohamed asked us to ensure he could not be recognised from the photograph published here.

'The British co-operated... they sold me out'

His odyssey began in 1992, when he was just 14.

His father was a senior executive with the state-owned Ethiopian Airlines and following the ousting of the dictator Haile Mengistu, many of his colleagues were being arrested by the new government.

He decided to flee, uprooting Mohamed and his elder brother and sister from the home in Addis Ababa where they had spent their childhood. He left behind his wife, Mohamed's mother.

For almost two years, Mohamed, his siblings and his father lived in a suburb of Washington DC.


However, Mohamed says he became a victim of racist bullying at his school.

'I didn't like the U.S. at all. It just didn't feel right for me to be there and I wanted to get out.'

The family had no connections in Britain, but because Mohamed spoke good English, his father decided to see if he could settle in London.

They arrived in the spring of 1994, travelling on their Ethiopian passports, which had not yet expired.

For about a week, Mohamed says, they stayed in a hotel. Then, although he was not quite 16, his father returned to America, leaving him vulnerable, without guidance or support.

Mohamed remained in regular phone contact with his family, but he had to fend for himself.

Before he left, Mohamed's father told him to go to Social Services.

At first they suggested foster care, but when he turned 16 they helped him claim state benefits while he stayed in a Notting Hill hostel and, eventually, a housing association flat.

Meanwhile he applied for asylum and was given leave to remain.

He enrolled at Paddington Green sixth-form college and passed an A-level in electronic engineering, and then began a BTEC course at City of Westminster College.

At first he stayed out of trouble. But in the summer of 1996 some friends persuaded him to try cannabis at Notting Hill Carnival.

'About two weeks later I smoked my first joint. It started from there.'

By 1998, Mohamed was regularly 'chasing the dragon' to smoke heroin and sometimes crack cocaine.

'Often I didn't even bother to go to college. I was surrounded by people who were doing the same thing.

'I was also drinking a lot. Finally, I dropped out.'

The following year, Mohamed says, he tried hard to stop using drugs.

Part of the answer turned out to be kick-boxing, and if he was searching for a father figure, he seems to have found it in his kick-boxing instructor, of whom he still speaks reverentially.

He says: 'I had to get fit again, and I started using my money to buy food again, not heroin.'

Although his mother was a Muslim, he had never practised any religion.



'I wanted to protect civilians, not kill them'

However, he lived in an area with thousands of Muslims and several mosques. There he began to find a more spiritual solution to his efforts to get clean.

He says: 'I went to the mosque to see if there was something happening there that would help.'

Image
Detainees wearing orange jumpsuits at a holding bay at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay

In the middle of 2000, he was offered a job as a mosque janitor and began to spend as much time there as he could, often staying the night - largely in order to avoid his old drug-abusing friends who still clustered around his apartment.

Mohamed says that someone at the mosque told him about the radical American civil rights leader Malcolm X, saying he had come to understand his religion properly when he went on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Mohamed, he suggested, should go to see the 'pure' form of Islam being practised in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

How much did he know about what the Taliban stood for?

'Minus one,' Mohamed says. 'I really had no idea what it was.'

He had saved some money and flew to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, in May 2001.

As an asylum-seeker, he couldn't apply for a new Ethiopian passport and had been unable to obtain a British travel document.

Instead, he borrowed a genuine British passport from a friend and substituted his own photograph.

After a week in Islamabad, Mohamed crossed the Afghan border by truck. It was, he says, easy: 'No one looked at my documents. I just kept down.'

Later, after the attacks of 9/11, the Americans who led the 'war on terror' assumed that because the Taliban had given refuge to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the two were interchangeable, and that anyone who had the least involvement with the Taliban was a fully-fledged terrorist, bent - as former U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said when he opened the Guantanamo prison in January 2002 - on 'killing millions of ordinary Americans'.

Mohamed insists that this was not the way he saw the world at all.

Back in London he had been moved and appalled by watching TV news stories about the plight of civilians caught in Russia's second war against Chechnya, where thousands, mainly Muslims, had been killed and tortured.

'To me, the Chechens were the freedom fighters and the Russians were the oppressors,' Mohamed says.

'It was the sight of the women and the kids being killed: innocent lives being lost for no reason.

'I wanted to go there to do what I could - not for fighting, but as an aid and rescue worker.'

At a guest house in Jalalabad, the first town in which he stayed in Afghanistan, he found people who had links with the Chechen resistance.

'I was told that the Russians don't separate between aid workers and those doing the fighting, and that if I wanted to go to Chechnya, I needed basic training.

'I was so young, I didn't question it. I didn't expect to fire a gun except in training, let alone kill someone.'

Mohamed adds: 'I would never have taken up arms against British or American soldiers, let alone attacked civilians.

I wanted to protect civilians, not kill them.'

'They carried out a mock execution on me'

He underwent a 45-day boot camp course. Much of the time, Mohamed says, was spent sitting around doing nothing.

He even abandoned the course halfway through for a few days, before being persuaded that if he wanted to go to Chechnya he had to finish it.

He says he learnt nothing that could be construed as terrorist training: there were no lessons on bomb-making, for example.

Image
Demonstrators protest over Guantanamo outside the White House in Washington. Mohamed was the first to be released from Guantanamo after President Obama pledged to close it down

Afterwards, Mohamed went to Kabul, where he contracted malaria. While he was recovering in hospital, news broke of 9/11.

It was evident the West was likely to attack Afghanistan, and Mohamed's immediate impulse was to leave.

'All I wanted to do was to get back to London, to the country that I thought of as home, to continue my education and find a job; to get back to my life, minus the drugs.'

As the U.S.-led coalition advanced, Mohamed became swept up in the tide of refugees.

He fled from city to city and in 2002 managed to cross into Pakistan and made his way to Karachi.

He booked a flight to London for April 3, but officials saw that his passport looked wrong and sent him packing.

Six days later, using the same document, he tried again. This time the Pakistanis detained him - and this was the start of almost seven years of incarceration without trial, interrogation and torture.

Two weeks after being detained, having been held in Landi prison, he met an American who called himself 'Chuck' and said he worked for the FBI.

Mohamed says: 'I told him I wanted a lawyer. He told me, "The law's changed. There are no lawyers.

"'Either you're going to answer me the easy way or I get the information I need another way."'

Senior U.S. officials in Washington say that in these early months after 9/11, American intelligence agencies were 'obsessed' with the possibility that Al Qaeda might have acquired nuclear fissile material.

'Every interrogator would ask questions about it,' one former CIA officer says. Thus it was that Mohamed unwittingly contributed to his fate.

As The Mail on Sunday revealed last month, his interrogation began to turn nasty after he mentioned that while he was in Pakistan he had seen a website with spoof instructions for building a nuclear device - instructions that included advice to refine bomb-grade uranium by whirling a bucket round one's head.

'I mentioned the website to Chuck,' Mohamed says.

'It was obviously a joke: it never crossed my mind that anyone would take it seriously.

'But that's when he started getting all excited.

'Towards the end of April he began telling me about this A-bomb I was supposed to be building, and he started on about Osama Bin Laden and his top lieutenants, showing me pictures and making out I must have known them.

'He started asking me about operations and what type I had been trained for.'

As the interrogations became more serious, the treatment meted out in the time between them brutally worsened.

Mohamed says: 'For at least ten days I was deprived of sleep.

'Sometimes the Pakistanis chained me from the top of the gate to the cell by my wrists from the end of one interrogation to the start of the next for about 22 hours.

'If I shouted, sometimes I would be allowed to use a toilet. Other times, they wouldn't let me go and I would p*** myself.

'They had a thick wooden stick, like a kind of paddle, which they used to beat me while I was chained.

'They'd beat me for a few minutes, then stop, then start again. They also carried out a mock execution.

'A guard put a gun to my head and said he was going to pull the trigger. They were saying, "This is what the Americans want us to do."'

Details of the abuse Mohamed underwent in Pakistan are contained in the 'redacted' section of the British High Court judgment on his case that Foreign Secretary David Miliband is refusing to release, claiming that to do so would damage the intelligence-sharing relationship with America.

As the court has made clear in the open section of its judgment, when an MI5 officer known as 'John' went to interrogate Mohamed on May 17, 2002, he was made fully aware of what had been happening.

'John was a white male, 30, with short black hair and a goatee,' Mohamed says.

'He was about 5ft 10in and stocky.

'There was another guy with him, about the same size with a full, dark beard. I don't know if he was British or American.

'The Americans had already been threatening to send me somewhere where I would be tortured far worse, like Jordan or Egypt.

'I was given a cup of tea and asked for one sugar. The other guy told me, "You'll need more than one sugar where you're going."

'They asked me about the A-bomb website and I told them it was a joke.

'They wanted to know everything about my life in the UK and I gave them all the information I had.

'Later I realised that was part of my undoing: I told them the area I lived in had 10,000 Moroccans and was known as Little Morocco.

'The feedback I got later from the Americans was that because the Brits told them I had lived in a Moroccan area, they thought Moroccans would be more likely to make me talk.

'At the same time, they thought I must know something about what Moroccans were up to in London.'

Mohamed says that a Moroccan interrogator who would deal with him later was even more specific.

'He told me, "Do you know who sent you here? The British sent you here."'

The materials seen by The Mail on Sunday confirm much of his account.

One MI5 memo from this period, disclosed to Mohamed via the American courts, suggests the British saw themselves as central to his interrogation.

It said: 'We believe that our knowledge of the UK scene may provide contextual background useful during any continuing interview process.

'This may enable individual officers to identify any inconsistencies during discussions.

'This will place the detainee under more direct pressure and would seem to be the most effective way of obtaining intelligence on Mohammed's [sic] activities/plans concerning the UK.'

Regarding the 'dirty bomb', MI5 could see the 'inconsistencies' in Mohamed's account. John dutifully recorded that he claimed the website was a joke.

But MI5 concluded that Mohamed and another prisoner being interrogated were 'lying to protect themselves' and 'evidently holding back'.

Day after day, MI5 kept the Americans supplied with questions and information.

Mohamed says: 'John told me that if I co-operated he'd tell the Americans to be more lenient with my treatment.'

In a further confidential memo John wrote: 'I told Mohammed [sic] that he had an opportunity to help us and help himself.

'The U.S. authorities will be deciding what to do with him and this would depend to a very large degree on his co-operation - I said that I could not and would not negotiate up-front, but if he persuaded me he was co-operating fully then (and only then) I would explore what could be done for him with my U.S. colleagues.'

Evidently, John felt he wasn't co-operating enough.

His memo concluded: 'While he appeared happy to answer any questions, he was holding back a great deal of information on who and what he knew in the UK and in Afghanistan.'

Mohamed was flown - trussed, gagged, blindfolded and wearing a giant nappy - from Islamabad to Rabat in Morocco on July 21, 2002.

He gave this date to Stafford Smith four years ago, it has since been confirmed by the CIA aircraft's flight logs.

Mohamed would not leave again for 18 months, for most of which he was horribly tortured.

Shuddering, he says the details of what he endured in Morocco are such that he cannot bring himself to relate them again.

But in 2005, when he first met Stafford Smith in Guantanamo, he dictated a detailed diary, which described the abuse that began at the beginning of September 2002.

He had, he said, already endured beatings at the hands of an interrogator named Marwan.

Now, he went on, 'they cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor's scalpel. I was totally naked. I was afraid to ask Marwan what would happen because it would show fear.

'I tried to put on a brave face. But maybe I was going to be raped. Maybe they'd electrocute me. Maybe castrate me.

'They took the scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Maybe an inch. Then they cut my left chest.

'One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction.

'I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming.

'I remember Marwan seemed to smoke half a cigarette, throw it down, and start another. They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours.

'There was blood all over. They cut all over my private parts.

'One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists.'

This, Mohamed says, was repeated many times over the next 15 months.

Even after this treatment started, the documents disclosed to Mohamed for the U.S. court case reveal that MI5 was colluding with his tormentors.

In late September, one document reveals: 'The Service received a report from the U.S. of an interview of Mr Mohamed.

'On September 30, MI5 held a case conference about him with their American colleagues at MI5s London headquarters.

Weeks later, on November 5, came the strongest evidence to emerge of British collusion in Mohamed's illegal 'rendition' and torture, in the form of a telegram from MI5 to the CIA.

Headed 'Request for further Detainee questioning', it stated: 'This information has been communicated in confidence to the recipient government and shall not be released without the agreement of the British government.

'We would be grateful if the following can be passed to Binyam Mohamed.'

It went on to ask that his interrogators show him and ask him questions about a 'photobook recently sent over'.

Large portions of the telegram, which set out detailed questions, have been redacted, but it added: 'We would be grateful if the following could be put to Binyam Mohamed, in addition to the questioning above.

'Does Mohamed know [two lines redacted]? What was the man's name? How does Mohamed know him? Can Mohamed describe him? Where did they meet? Where was the man from?

'Who facilitated his travel from the UK? Where did this man go? What were his intentions?

'We would appreciate the opportunity to pose further questions, dependent on answers given to the above.'

A further telegram sent by MI5 on November 11 was headed 'update request'.

It, too, has been heavily redacted but the surviving portion states: 'We note that we have also requested that briefs be put to Binyam Mohamed and would appreciate a guide from you as to the likely timescale for these too.

'We fully appreciate that this can be a long-winded process, but the urgent nature of these enquiries will be obvious to you.'

Mohamed remembers very clearly the moment when MI5's questions were first channelled by his Moroccan interrogators.

He says: 'They started bringing British files to the interrogations - thick binders, some of them containing sheaves of photos of people who lived in London and places there like mosques.

'It was obvious the British were feeding them questions about people in London.

'When I realised that the British were co-operating with the people torturing me, I felt completely naked.

'It was when they started asking the questions supplied by the British that my situation worsened. They sold me out.'

Under this torture, Mohamed's confessions became ever more elaborate.

'They had fed me enough through their questions for me to make up what they wanted to hear. I confessed to it all.

'There was the plot to build a dirty nuclear bomb, and another to blow up apartments in New York with their gas pipes.'

This - supposedly the brainchild of the 9/11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - always sounded improbable: it was never quite clear how gas pipes might become weapons.

'I said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had given me a false passport after I was stopped the first time in Karachi and that I had met Osama Bin Laden 30 times. None of it was true.

'The British could have stopped the torture because they knew I had tried to use the same passport at Karachi both times.

'That should have told them that what I was saying under torture wasn't true. But so far as I know, they did nothing.'

Mohamed was finally 'rendered' by the CIA again in January 2004 and taken to Afghanistan. He says the agents he met there responded with horror.

'When I got to Kabul a female agent started taking close-up pictures of my genitals. She was shocked.

'When they removed my diaper she could see blood was still oozing from the cuts on my penis.

'For the first two weeks they had me on antibiotics and they took pictures of my genitals every day.

'They told me, "This is not for us. It's for Washington." They wanted to be sure it was healing.'

Then came his ordeal in the dark prison. Mohamed says the thrust of his interrogations had changed.

Since he madehis fantastical confession, the Americans wanted him to become a prosecution witness in their system of special military commissions, against Al Qaeda bigwigs he had never met.

He reached Guantanamo in September 2004.

There, the interrogations continued but there had been another shift.

He says: 'They said they were worried I would tell the court that I had only confessed through torture. They said now they needed me to say it freely.

'We called them the clean team, they wanted to say they had got this stuff from a clean interrogation.'

After Mohamed had spent more than four years at Guantanamo, Barack Obama became U.S. President and announced the camp's impending closure and an end to the military commissions.

But according to Mohamed, there was little sign of an improvement.

'Since the election it's got harsher. The guards would say, yes, this place is going to close down, but it was like they wanted to take their last revenge.'

The feared Emergency Reaction Force, a SWAT team used to punish inmates in their cells, is being used more often, he says.

Mohamed recalls an occasion when it was deployed against him.

The reason was that he was refusing to give his fingerprints which, despite all the torture, had unaccountably not been taken before: he says he feared they might use them to frame him.

'They nearly broke my back. The guy on top was twisting me one way, the guys on my legs the other.

'They marched me out of the cell to the fingerprint room, still cuffed. I clenched my fists behind me so they couldn't take prints, so they tried to take them by force.

'The guy at my head sticks his fingers up my nose and wrenches my head back, jerking it around by the nostrils.

'Then he put his fingers in my eyes. It felt as if he was trying to gouge them out.

Another guy was punching my ribs and another was squeezing my testicles. Finally I couldn't take it any more. I let them take the prints.'

Last October, before the election, all charges against him were dropped, even the Americans had come to realise there was no 'dirty bomb' plot.

Yet to Mohamed, it seemed he was no closer to release - hence his decision, on December 29 last year, to go on hunger strike.

Release, when it finally came last month, took him by surprise. It is, he admits, still difficult to accept.

'I kept being told, you'll be free in ten days, and they would pass, and then I'd be told another ten days, and still it wasn't for real.'

As for the future, he is determined to stay in Britain, despite MI5's alleged collusion with his torturers.

'It's the only place I can call home,' he says. 'I want to live a normal life, to find a wife, get married, have a family, a job.

'Meanwhile, I'll do whatever I can to get the other innocent prisoners out of Guantanamo.'



* The Mail on Sunday has made no payment to Binyam Mohamed. We will be making a donation to the Helen Bamber Foundation.
hava1
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:07 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:41 am

Ice Water and Sweatboxes
The long and sadistic history behind the CIA's torture techniques.
By Darius Rejali



In the 20th century, there were two main traditions of clean torture—the kind that doesn't leave marks, as modern torturers prefer. The first is French modern, a combination of water- and electro-torture. The second is Anglo-Saxon modern, a classic list of sleep deprivation, positional and restraint tortures, extremes of temperature, noise, and beatings.

All the techniques in the accounts of torture by the International Committee of the Red Cross, as reported Monday, collected from 14 detainees held in CIA custody, fit a long historical pattern of Anglo-Saxon modern. The ICRC report apparently includes details of CIA practices unknown until now, details that point to practices with names, histories, and political influences. In torture, hell is always in the details.

The ice-water cure. "On a daily basis during the first two weeks I was made to lie on a plastic sheet placed on the floor which would then be lifted at the edges. Cold water was then poured onto my body with buckets. ... I would be kept wrapped inside the sheet with the cold water for several minutes. I would then be taken for interrogation," detainee Walid bin Attash told the Red Cross.

In the 1920s, the Chicago police used to extract confessions from prisoners by chilling them in freezing water baths. This was called the "ice-water cure." That's not its first use. During World War I, American military prisons subjected conscientious objectors to ice-water showers and baths until they fainted. The technique appeared in some British penal colonies as well; occasionally in Soviet interrogation in the 1930s; and more commonly in fascist Spain, Vichy France, and Gestapo-occupied Belgium. The Allies also used it against people they regarded as war criminals and terrorists. Between 1940 and 1948, British interrogators used "cold-water showers" as part of a brutal interrogation regimen in a clandestine London prison for German POWs accused of war crimes. French Paras also used cold showers occasionally in Algeria in the 1950s. In the 1970s, Greek, Chilean, Israeli, and Syrian interrogators made prisoners stand under cold showers or in cold pools for long periods. And American soldiers in Vietnam called it the "old cold-water-hot-water treatment" in the 1960s.

Cold cell. Abu Zubaydah, another detainee, says, "I woke up, naked, strapped to a bed, in a very white room. … [T]he cell and room were air-conditioned and were very cold." There, he was shackled to a chair for two to three weeks. "Cold cell" is one of six known authorized CIA interrogation techniques.

Since the 1960s, torturers have adapted air vents to put "the air in a state of war with me," in the words of one prisoner. In the first recorded case in 1961, guards at Parchman, Mississippi's state penitentiary, blasted civil rights detainees with a fire hose and then turned "the air-conditioning system on full blast" for three days. In 1965, detainees in Aden reported that British guards kept them "undressed in very cold cells with air conditioners and fans running at full speed." In other countries, interrogators have forced prisoners to stand or squat for long periods in front of blasting air-conditioning units or fans, as in South Vietnam (1970s), Singapore (1970s), the Philippines (1976), Taiwan (1980), South Africa (1980s), and Israel (1991 to present).

In a scene eerily similar to the CIA interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, South Vietnamese torturers held Vhuen Van Tai, the highest-ranking Viet Cong officer captured, in a windowless white room outfitted with heavy-duty air conditioners for four years. Frank Snepp, a CIA interrogator who interviewed him in 1972 in the room regularly, described Tai as "thoroughly chilled."

Water-boarding. Abu Zubaydah says that after he was strapped to a bed, "[a] black cloth was then placed over my face and the interrogators used a mineral water bottle to pour water on the cloth so that I could not breathe." If the contents of the mineral-water bottle were carbonated, this would be a well-known Mexican police technique (tehuancanzo), documented since the 1980s. The Mexican signature mark is to mix in a little chili pepper before forcing the water down the nasal passage.

Water-boarding is not a technical term in torture, and reports have described several different water tortures under this name. The ICRC report puts to rest which kind the CIA used. It turns out to be the traditional "water cure," an antique Dutch technique invented in the East Indies in the 17th century. It migrated here after American troops returned from the Philippine insurgency in the early 20th century. By the 1930s, the water cure was favored by the Southern police. Interrogators tie or hold down a victim on his back. Then they pour water down his nostrils "so as to strangle him, thus causing pain and horror for the purpose of forcing a confession." Sometimes torturers cover the face with a napkin, making it difficult for the prisoner to breathe, as the ICRC report describes.

Sweatboxes and coubarils. Abu Zubaydah says, "Two black wooden boxes were brought into the room outside my cell. One was tall, slightly higher than me and narrow. … The other was shorter, perhaps only [3 feet 6 inches] in height." The large box, which Abu Zubaydah says he was held in for up to two hours, is a classic sweatbox. Sweatboxes are old, and they came into modern torture from traditional Asian penal practices. If you've seen Bridge on the River Kwai, you know the Japanese used them in POW camps in World War II. They are still common in East Asia. The Chinese used them during the Korean War, and Chinese prisoners today relate accounts of squeeze cells (xiaohao, literally "small number"), dark cells (heiwu), and extremely hot or cold cells. In Vietnam, they are dubbed variously "dark cells," "tiger cages," or "connex boxes," which are metal and heat up rapidly in the tropical sun.

Abu Zubaydah was also placed into the smaller box, in which he was forced to crouch for hours, until "the stress on my legs held in this position meant my wounds both in the leg and stomach became very painful." This smaller type of box was once called a coubaril. Coubarils often bent the body in an uncomfortable position. They were standard in French penal colonies in New Guinea in the 19th century, where some prisoners were held in them for 16 days at a stretch.

Both kinds of boxes entered American prison and military practice in the 19th century. They were a standard part of naval discipline, and the word sweatbox comes from the Civil War era. In the 1970s, prisoners described sweatboxes in South Vietnam, Iran (tabout, or "coffin"), Israel, and Turkey ("tortoise cell"). In the last three decades, prisoners have reported the use of sweatboxes in Brazil (cofrinho), Honduras (cajones), and Paraguay (guardia). And after 2002, Iraqi prisoners held in U.S. detention centers describe "cells so small that they could neither stand nor lie down," as well as a box known as "the coffin" at the U.S. detention center at Qaim near Syria.

Standing cells. Walid Bin Attash says, "I was put in a cell measuring approximately [3 feet 6 inches-by-6 feet 6 inches]. I was kept in a standing position, feet flat on the floor, but with my arms above my head and fixed with handcuffs and a chain to a metal bar running across the width of the cell." Over the last century, many prisons had built-in, tall, narrow, coffin-size cells, in which prisoners were forced to stand for hours, their hands chained to the ceiling. In the early 20th century, the women's prison in Gainesville, Texas, had a standing cell in the dining room so that prisoners could smell the food.

High-cuffing. Detainees routinely describe having their hands cuffed high above their heads while they stand with their feet on the ground. This is less damaging than full suspension by the wrists, which causes permanent nerve damage in 15 minutes to an average-size man. High-cuffing increases the time prisoners may be suspended, elongates the pain, and delays permanent injury. It is a restraint torture, as opposed to a positional torture, which requires prisoners to assume a normal human position (standing or sitting), but for a prolonged period of time.

High-cuffing is an old slave punishment of the Americas, once called "hanging from the rafters." John Brown, a free slave, said of it, "Some tie them up in a very uneasy posture, where they must stand all night, and they will then work them hard all day." American military prisons adopted the practice in World War I. High-cuffing was the standard prescribed military punishment for desertion, insubordination, and conscientious objection. Prisoners were handcuffed to their cell door eight to nine hours a day, in one case for up to 50 days. They described high-cuffing as excruciatingly painful, and the American public, otherwise unsympathetic with these prisoners, found the practice appalling, sparking a newspaper debate over "manacling" in November 1918. A month later, the War Department rescinded high-cuffing as a mode of punishment.

Towels, collars, and plywood. Sometimes torturers come up with something entirely new. "Also," says Abu Zubaydah, "on a daily basis during the first two weeks a collar was looped around my neck and then used to slam me against the walls of the interrogation room. It was also placed around my neck when being taken out of my cell for interrogation and was used to lead me along the corridor. It was also used to slam me against the walls of the corridor during such movements."

This is a novel approach to beating someone in a way that leaves few marks. For 30 years, I've studied a long and remorseless two centuries of torture around the world, and I can find only one instance of an account resembling the collars and plywood technique described in the ICRC report. It's American. During World War I, conscientious objectors in military prisons report that their guards dragged them like animals with a rope around the neck, across rough floors, slamming them into walls. This one, as far as I can tell, is entirely homegrown.




Darius Rejali is a professor of political science and the author of Torture and Democracy, the winner of the 2007 Human Rights Best Book Award of the American Political Science Association.


Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2213959/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:54 am

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar20 ... -m19.shtml

Torture and the American ruling class
19 March 2009



On Sunday, the New York Review of Books published an article based upon substantial citations from a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross on the treatment of prisoners held by the US Central Intelligence Agency. The still-secret report—from the international organization tasked with monitoring compliance with the Geneva Conventions—concluded that the treatment of detainees "constituted torture" and "cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment."

The conclusions that flow from the Red Cross report are unequivocal: Officials in the US government are guilty of war crimes. The report is prima facie evidence—if more evidence were needed—for the immediate arrest and prosecution of top officials of the former Bush administration, including Bush himself. (See "Red Cross: US tortured terror suspects")
The ICRC report is based on interviews with 14 prisoners who were transferred to Guantánamo Bay from the network of CIA-run secret prisons in 2006. Shortly before their transfer, the Bush administration for the first time formally acknowledged the existence of these prisons, where individuals were systematically tortured over a period of several years and held outside of any legal framework.

While the photo images of Abu Ghraib have been burned into the consciousness of the world's population, we have only verbal descriptions of the treatment inflicted on the individuals held by the CIA.

The ICRC report's table of contents amounts to a catalog of torture techniques, all of them employed by US personnel: Continuous Solitary Confinement and Incommunicado Detention, Suffocation by water, Prolonged Stress Standing, Beatings by use of a collar, Beating and kicking, Confinement in a box, Prolonged nudity, Sleep deprivation and use of loud music, Exposure to cold temperature/cold water, Prolonged use of handcuffs and shackles, Threats, Forced shaving, Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged planner of the September 11 attacks, reported to the Red Cross physical beatings and other forms of torture. At one secret location—which Mohammed said he thought was in Poland—he was interrogated by CIA officials who informed him that they had received the "green light from Washington" to give him "a hard time."
"I was never threatened with death," he said. "In fact I was told that they would not allow me to die, but that I would be brought to the ‘verge of death and back again'" (italics in original). Mohammed, whose treatment was typical, was subject to waterboarding on five occasions and was shackled in a standing position for up to a month at a time.

These actions were authorized at the highest levels of the Bush administration. When the CIA captured one of the first prisoners, Abu Zubaydah, in 2002, his detention and interrogation were closely supervised by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Zubaydah's detention was seen as an opportunity to experiment with "enhanced interrogation techniques."

The Justice Department was tasked with creating a pseudo-legal rationale for the torture, and top lawyers for the White House participated in the drafting of memoranda picking apart the definition of torture to allow for virtually anything. The US did not have to follow the Geneva Conventions, they argued. The president, as commander-in-chief, had the constitutional authority to order torture and violate all manner of constitutional rights. The use of torture became in some ways a model for the construction of a legal theory of presidential dictatorship.

Those who ordered this policy were well aware that they were engaged in criminal activity. In December 2007, the Bush administration was forced to acknowledge that the CIA had destroyed videotaped interrogation of two prisoners—Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. This month, however, the CIA admitted that the number of tapes destroyed was much higher—92 interrogation videos in all. The CIA's destruction of these tapes contravened explicit judicial orders.

In 2006, the Bush administration, with the complicity of the Democratic Party, passed the Military Commissions Act, authorizing police-state tribunals for the tortured prisoners and modifying the War Crimes Act to protect the torturers.

Outside the CIA gulag, torture was carried out in the prisons of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in Guantánamo Bay. In the United States, the government imprisoned US citizen Jose Padilla in a US military brig, subjecting him to three-and-a-half years of near solitary confinement and abuse, including sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures, and prolonged shackling.

None of those who carried out these illegal and unconstitutional actions have been prosecuted. According to recent reports, a probe into the destruction of the video evidence of CIA torture is unlikely to result in any prosecutions—only the latest in a long series of cover-ups and whitewashes.

From the beginning, the Democratic Party has played the role of accomplice. Leading Democratic Party officials were informed of the torture program as well as the destruction of evidence. Along with the mass media, the Democratic Party has worked systematically to ignore revelations of the crimes, or, when this has not been possible, to bury them quickly. Everything has been done to keep the American people in the dark about what exactly has taken place. This cover-up continues today. The revelations regarding the ICRC report have once again received scant attention in the media.

Far from bringing those responsible to account, the Obama administration has pledged to "look forward" rather than rehash old controversies. It has backed immunity for those who penned the torture memos and has taken up the "state secrets" argument to quash lawsuits into the use of extraordinary rendition and domestic spying.

The essential elements of policy are preserved. Most recently, Obama decided to cease using the term "enemy combatant," while maintaining the ability of the government to hold prisoners in the "war on terror" indefinitely, without charge. The Wall Street Journal notes approvingly in an editorial on Wednesday that Obama "lambasts his predecessor, then makes cosmetic changes that leave the substance of Bush policy intact." Among the policies preserved, the Journal cites "interrogation, surveillance, rendition, state secrets, now detention."

The continuity of the policy and the complete lack of any accountability demonstrate that what is involved is not simply the actions of one individual or one administration, but tendencies deeply rooted in the decay of American capitalism.

The erosion of fundamental democratic rights has closely paralleled the extreme growth of inequality and the explosion of militarist violence. As he continues Bush's policies on detention and torture, Obama has also continued the multi-trillion-dollar handouts to the banks and the prosecution of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The anti-democratic measures of the US government will ultimately be directed at any opposition that emerges to these policies of the financial elite.

The resort to the most blatantly criminal and barbaric practices is symptomatic of a ruling class that has completely outlived itself, a dead weight upon the future development of mankind.

Joe Kishore
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:07 pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... efer=home#

CACI Must Face Suit Alleging Torture at Abu Ghraib
By Cary O’Reilly


March 19 (Bloomberg) -- CACI International Inc., the provider of intelligence-gathering services for the U.S. government, must face a lawsuit by four former detainees who say they were tortured at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee in Alexandria, Virginia, denied the company’s motion to dismiss the detainees’ claims, which allege violations of U.S. law including torture, war crimes and civil conspiracy.

The suit alleges that the CACI employees participated in physical and mental abuse of the detainees, destroyed documents, videos and other evidence, and prevented the reporting of the torture to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other agencies. CACI had claimed the actions of its contract interrogators at Abu Ghraib were beyond judicial review.

“The court holds that plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable because civil tort claims against private actors for damages do not interfere with the separation of powers” provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Lee said in his order issued late yesterday.

Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid, Sa’ad Hamza Hantoosh Al-Zuba’e and Salah Hasan Usaif Jasim Al- Ejaili are Iraqi citizens who were held at Abu Ghraib before being released between 2004 and 2008 without being charged.

Bill Koegel, the lawyer representing CACI, said he is reviewing the decision with the company.

CACI fell $1.97, or 5 percent, to $37.71 on the New York Stock Exchange. The shares have declined 16 percent this year.

Electric Shocks

According to the complaint, interrogators employed by CACI committed acts of abuse including food deprivation, beatings, electric shocks, sensory deprivation, extreme temperatures, death threats, oxygen deprivation, shooting prisoners in the head with taser guns, breaking bones and mock executions.

The suit is the latest by detainees alleging abuse by CACI employees at the prison in Salah ad Din province, north of Baghdad. About 250 former prisoners sued the Arlington, Virginia-based company in 2007, claiming they were abused at the prison.

In 2004, photos showing U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were published around the world, prompting an international outcry.

“The court’s ruling is another step toward ensuring that this litigation will contribute to the true history of Abu Ghraib,” Susan Burke, a lawyer for the men, said in a statement today. “These innocent men were senselessly tortured by a U.S. company that profited from their misery.”

The case is Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology Inc., 1:08cv827, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria.)
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:43 pm

http://valtinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04 ... s-ban.html

Federal Judge Rules Against Obama's Ban on Habeas at Bagram

Charlie Savage at The New York Times is reporting that a federal judge at the D.C. Federal District Court has ruled that some prisoners at Bagram prison in Afghanistan "have a right to challenge their imprisonment, dealing a blow to government efforts to detain terrorism suspects for extended periods without court oversight." (H/T Moon of Alabama)

The ruling only applies to prisoners captured outside Afghanistan, but it deals a blow to the Obama administration's intent to keep Bagram as a site for detention for "terrorism suspects" caught outside Iraq or Afghanistan. As befits a regular gulag-style prison, Obama's administration, like his predecessor, refuses to give an account of who among the presumed many hundreds is imprisoned there. They claim that the ruling will only affect about a dozen prisoners, but how can they be believed?

As the NYT puts it (link added):

The administration had sought to preserve Bagram as a haven where it could detain terrorism suspects beyond the reach of American courts, telling Judge Bates in February that it agreed with the Bush administration’s view that courts had no jurisdiction over detainees there.

Judge Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001, was not persuaded. He said transferring captured terrorism suspects to the prison inside Afghanistan and claiming they were beyond the jurisdiction of American courts “resurrects the same specter of limitless executive power the Supreme Court sought to guard against” in its 2008 ruling that Guantánamo prisoners have a right to habeas corpus.


The three prisoners, who, pending the probable government appeal of the decision, won their right to petition a civilian court for their release via the right of habeas corpus, have been locked up in the "spartan" Bagram prison for over six years without a trial. All were captured or apprehended outside Afghanistan and then rendered to Bagram, from which reports of torture and prisoner deaths have emanated for years now.

Bagram prison was also identified as the site where ghost prisoner Aafia Siddiqui was held.

Judge Bates, applying the six-part test the Supreme Court described in its Boumediene ruling last year, called his ruling "narrow." A former Bush administration associate counsel said the decision "gravely undermined" the U.S. in its ability to detain "enemy combatants" in the "war on terror."

But I think the defendants' attorneys said it best:

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the four Bagram detainees, praised Judge Bates’s decision as “a very good day for the Constitution and the rule of law.”

Ms. Foster said that the Bagram ruling meant that changes to the Bush detention policies would go beyond merely closing Guantánamo and extend “to any place where the United States seeks to hold individuals in a legal black hole.”
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:45 pm

Secret Report Reveals Role of Medical Personnel in Torture at CIA Black Sites
By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
Posted on April 6, 2009

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.al ... rg/135407/

Medical professionals working for the CIA played a central role in the "ill-treatment" of terror suspects in U.S. custody overseas, according to a previously confidential report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The 2007 report describes interviews with 14 "high value detainees" who were transferred to Guantanamo Bay in September 2006, revealing the full extent of complicity and participation by medical personnel in a wide and grisly range of torture methods inflicted upon them. Listed in the table of contents of the 41-page report, these methods included "suffocation by water," "prolonged stress standing," "beatings by use of a collar," "beating and kicking," "confinement in a box," "prolonged nudity," and more.

The ICRC report describes "three principal roles" played by medical professionals in the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. "Firstly, there was a direct role in monitoring the ongoing ill-treatment which, in some instances, involved the health personnel directly participating while certain methods were used."

Secondly, there was a role in performing a medical check just prior to, and just after,each transfer. Finally, there was the provision of healthcare, to treat both the direct consequences of ill-treatment detailed in previous sections, and to treat any natural ailments that arose during the prolonged periods of detention.

According to the report, which was obtained by journalist Mark Danner -- who first published excerpts last month and has now published its full contents on the website of the New York Review of Books -- certain methods required more active participation by medical professions. For example, in subjecting prisoners to "suffocation by water," "it was alleged that health personnel actively monitored a detainee's oxygen saturation using what, from the description of the detainee of a device placed over the finger, appeared to be a pulse oxymeter."

"Mr. Khaled Shaik Mohammed alleged that on several occasions the suffocation method was stopped on the intervention of a health person who was present in the room each time this procedure was used."

KSM, one of the few prisoners who the U.S. government has actually acknowledged having waterboarding, described his experience to ICRC staff.

I would be strapped to a special bed, which can be rotated into a vertical position. A cloth would be placed over my face. Water was then poured onto the cloth by one of the guards so that I could not breathe. This obviously could only be done for one or two minutes at a time. The cloth was then removed and the bed was put into a vertical position. The whole process was then repeated during about 1 hour.
Abu Zubaydah, whose torture has also been widely documented, described it as follows:

I was put on what looked like a hospital bed, and strapped down very tightly with belts. A black cloth was then placed over my face and the interrogators used a mineral water bottle to pour water on the cloth so that I could not breathe. After a few minutes the cloth was removed and the bed was rotated into an upright position. The pressure of the straps on my wounds caused severe pain. I vomited. The bed was then again lowered to a horizontal position and the same torture carried out with the black cloth over my face and water poured on from a bottle. On this occasion my head was in a more backward, downwards position and the water was poured on for a longer time. I struggled without success to breathe. I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine when under stress.

The conclusion by the ICRC was that the interrogation of prisoners at U.S. "black sites" certainly "constituted torture." But additionally, "the alleged participation of health personnel in the interrogation process and, either directly or indirectly, in the infliction of ill-treatment constituted a gross breach of medical ethics and, in some cases, amounted to participation in torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

Indeed, the presence of medical professionals seemed itself to augment the psychological torture. "One detainee,who did not wish his name to be transmitted to the authorities, alleged that a health person threatened that medical care would be conditional upon cooperation with the interrogators." Another recalled being told: "I look after your body only because we need you for information."
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)


Postby American Dream » Sun May 03, 2009 9:38 pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 5574.story
From the Los Angeles Times

U.S. has a 45-year history of torture

The difference between American involvement in South American atrocities in 1964 and 'enhanced interrogation' now is that some modern-day officials appear proud of themselves.
By A.J. Langguth

May 3, 2009

As President Obama grapples with accusations of torture by U.S. agents, I suggest he consult the former Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle.

I first contacted Daschle in 1975, when he was an aide to Sen. James Abourezk of South Dakota, who was leading a somewhat lonely campaign against CIA abuses.

At the time, I was researching a book on the United States' role in the spread of military dictatorships throughout Latin America. Daschle arranged for me to inspect the senator's files, and I spent an evening reading accounts of U.S. complicity in torture. The stories came from Iran, Taiwan, Greece and, for the preceding 10 years, from Brazil and the rest of the continent's Southern Cone.

Despite my past reporting from South Vietnam, I had been naive enough to be at first surprised and then appalled by the degree to which our country had helped to overthrow elected governments in Latin America.

Our interference, which went on for decades, was not limited to one political party. The meddling in Brazil began in earnest during the early 1960s under a Democratic administration. At that time, Washington's alarm over Cuba was much like the more recent panic after 9/11. The Kennedy White House was determined to prevent another communist regime in the hemisphere, and Robert Kennedy, as attorney general, was taking a strong interest in several anti-communist approaches, including the Office of Public Safety.

When OPS was launched under President Eisenhower, its mission sounded benign enough -- to increase the professionalism of the police of Asia, Africa and, particularly, Latin America. But its genial director, Byron Engle, was a CIA agent, and his program was part of a wider effort to identify receptive recruits among local populations.

Although Engle wanted to avoid having his unit exposed as a CIA front, in the public mind the separation was quickly blurred. Dan Mitrione, for example, a police advisor murdered by Uruguay's left-wing Tupamaros for his role in torture in that country, was widely assumed to be a CIA agent.

When Brazil seemed to tilt leftward after President Joao Goulart assumed power in 1961, the Kennedy administration grew increasingly troubled. Robert Kennedy traveled to Brazil to tell Goulart he should dismiss two of his Cabinet members, and the office of Lincoln Gordon, John Kennedy's ambassador to Brazil, became the hub for CIA efforts to destabilize Goulart's government.

On March 31, 1964, encouraged by U.S. military attache Vernon Walters, Brazilian Gen. Humberto Castelo Branco rose up against Goulart. Rather than set off a civil war, Goulart chose exile in Montevideo.

Ambassador Gordon returned to a jubilant Washington, where he ran into Robert Kennedy, who was still grieving for his brother, assassinated the previous November. "Well, he got what was coming to him," Kennedy said of Goulart. "Too bad he didn't follow the advice we gave him when we were down there."

The Brazilian people did not deserve what they got. The military cracked down harshly on labor unions, newspapers and student associations. The newly efficient police, drawing on training provided by the U.S., began routinely torturing political prisoners and even opened a torture school on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro to teach police sergeants how to inflict the maximum pain without killing their victims.

One torture victim was Fernando Gabeira, a young reporter for Jornal do Brasil who was recruited by a resistance movement and later arrested for his role in the 1969 kidnapping of Charles Burke Elbrick, the U.S. ambassador. (Elbrick was released after four days.) In custody, Gabeira later told me, he was tortured with electric shocks to his testicles; a fellow prisoner had his testicles nailed to a table. Still others were beaten bloody or waterboarded. When Gabeira's captors said anything at all, they sometimes boasted about having been trained in the United States.

During the first seven years after Castelo Branco's coup, the OPS trained 100,000 Brazilian police, including 600 who were brought to the United States. Their instruction varied. Some OPS lecturers denounced torture as inhumane and ineffectual. Others conveyed a different message. Le Van An, a student from the South Vietnamese police, later described what his instructors told him: "Despite the fact that brutal interrogation is strongly criticized by moralists," they said, "its importance must not be denied if we want to have order and security in daily life."

Brazil's political prisoners never doubted that Americans were involved in the torture that proliferated in their country. On their release, they reported that they frequently had heard English-speaking men around them, foreigners who left the room while the actual torture took place. As the years passed, those torture victims say, the men with American accents became less careful and sometimes stayed on during interrogations.

One student dissident, Angela Camargo Seixas, described to me how she was beaten and had electric wires inserted into her vagina after her arrest. During her interrogations, she found that her hatred was directed less toward her countrymen than toward the North Americans. She vowed never to forgive the United States for training and equipping the Brazilian police.

Flavio Tavares Freitas, a journalist and Christian nationalist, shared that sense of outrage. When he had wires jammed in his ears, between his teeth and into his anus, he saw that the small gray generator producing the shocks had on its side the red, white and blue shield of the USAID.

Still another student leader, Jean Marc Von der Weid, told of having his penis wrapped in wires and connected to a battery-operated field telephone. Von der Weid, who had been in Brazil's marine reserve, said he recognized the telephone as one supplied by the United States through its military assistance program.

Victims often said that their one moment of hope came when a medical doctor appeared in their cell. Now surely the torment would end. Then they found that he was only there to guarantee that they could survive another round of shocks.

CIA Director Richard Helms once tried to rebut accusations against his agency by asserting that the nation must take it on faith that the CIA was made up of "honorable men." That was before Sen. Frank Church's 1975 Senate hearings brought to light CIA behavior that was deeply dishonorable.

Before Brazil restored civilian government in 1985, Abourezk had managed to shut down a Texas training base notorious for teaching subversive techniques, including the making of bombs. When OPS came under attack during another flurry of bad publicity, the CIA did not fight to save it, and its funding was cut off.

Looking back, what has changed since 1975? A Brazilian truth and reconciliation commission was convened, and it documented 339 cases of government-sanctioned political assassinations. In 2002, a former labor leader and political prisoner, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, was elected president of Brazil. He's serving his second term.

Fernando Gabeira went home to publish a book about kidnapping the American ambassador and his ordeal in prison. The book became a bestseller throughout Brazil, and Gabeira was elected to the national legislature. In an election last October, he came within 1.4 percentage points of becoming the mayor of Rio de Janeiro.

But in our country, there's been a disheartening development: In 1975, U.S. officials still felt they had to deny condoning torture. Now many of them seem to be defending torture, even boasting about it.



A.J. Langguth is the author of "Hidden Terrors: The Truth About U.S. Police Operations in Latin America."


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 5574.story
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby myriadsmallcreature » Sun May 03, 2009 9:54 pm

My guess is that they are not at all the same people who went in. If you know what I mean.

I think they are all Manchurian candidates who have won their elections.

It's an ugly business.

Amazing how Castro et al took over Cuba, nationalized the industries, etc., but the U.S. was allowed to have a base there because they had a lease.

:)

"Careful, Fidel, don't light that cigar."

Alas, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The man must be an incredible tactical genius to fend off all those assassination attempts while leaders were discarded by CIA around the world.

My guess is that any number of Navy Seals could have jumped into the beach in Miami, swum the 90+ miles, and slit his throat without breaking a sweat.

Eyes Wide Shut.
myriadsmallcreature
 

Postby lightningBugout » Sun May 03, 2009 10:04 pm

myriadsmallcreature wrote:My guess is that they are not at all the same people who went in. If you know what I mean.

I think they are all Manchurian candidates who have won their elections.

It's an ugly business.

Amazing how Castro et al took over Cuba, nationalized the industries, etc., but the U.S. was allowed to have a base there because they had a lease.

:)

"Careful, Fidel, don't light that cigar."

Alas, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The man must be an incredible tactical genius to fend off all those assassination attempts while leaders were discarded by CIA around the world.

My guess is that any number of Navy Seals could have jumped into the beach in Miami, swum the 90+ miles, and slit his throat without breaking a sweat.

Eyes Wide Shut.


Actually I knew two cuban dissidents (great fucking guys - and they seriously loved baseball) who told me it was a very common idea among their friends in cuba that Castro had been in bed with the CIA all along. Makes a hell of alot of sense to me.
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests