Just a reminder: Torture is still "legal" in this land of liberty and supported by this freedom-loving White House. And, like General Francisco Franco, habeas corpus is still dead. You wouldn't know it from reading mainstream papers and watching the networks. Like every serious issue covered by the national media, once the initial debate or amendment or ruling is over, or has siphoned valuable time away from celebrity squabbles and shark attacks, the issue drifts into the ether as if the problem has suddenly been solved, only to return like an infection that has grown chronic.
Case in point is this story from the Associated Press, one that confirms all your worst fears about lack of oversight at Guantanamo Bay:
An Army officer who investigated possible abuse at Guantanamo Bay after some guards purportedly bragged about beating detainees found no evidence they mistreated the prisoners — although he did not interview any of the alleged victims, the U.S. military said Wednesday.
Justice served. The U.S. military investigated allegations of detainee abuse but failed to speak with those who were alleged to have been abused.
Col. Richard Bassett, the chief investigator, recommended no disciplinary action against the Navy guards named by Marine Sgt. Heather Cerveny, who had said that during a conversation in September they described beating detainees as common practice.
In an affidavit filed to the Pentagon's inspector general, Cerveny — a member of a detainee's legal defense team — said a group of more than five men who identified themselves as guards had recounted hitting prisoners. The conversation allegedly took place at a bar inside the base.
"The evidence did not support any of the allegations of mistreatment or harassment," the Miami-based Southern Command, which oversees Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in southeastern Cuba, said in a statement.
Insufficient evidence. But not how one normally thinks of that term. Rather, in this case, it is the act of evidence gathering itself that is insufficient. A purposeful smothering of truth. It is corrupt. Shameful. Even cowardly. If these people want to support a system of torture and cruel and inhumane treatment (and I'd like to think that the majority of U.S. troops are not on board with this), then they should at least have the guts not to hide behind a kangaroo court of their peers. Can there be anything less honorable than such an act? Yet this is the very code of ethics that filters down from the high command in the White House: Just don't get caught.
Investigators conducted 20 interviews with "suspects and witnesses," the Southern Command said. Bassett did not interview any detainees, said Jose Ruiz, a Miami-based command spokesman.
"He talked to all the parties he felt he needed to get information about the allegations that were made," Ruiz said by telephone from Miami.
Sounds a lot like the technique George W. Bush employed in his internal investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's name, doesn't it? But wait. In Bush's world, which is Kafka's world as much as it's Orwell's, the job is never complete until those seeking truth and justice are punished for their humanitarian hubris.
Bassett's findings were approved by Adm. James Stavridis, the head of the Southern Command.
The investigation began on Oct. 13 and was expanded ten days later to include a similar allegation from a civilian employee who recounted a conversation between a female guard and a male interrogator, according to the statement. Following Bassett's recommendations, Stavridis said a "letter of counseling" should be sent to the female guard who allegedly initiated a "fictitious account" of detainee abuse.
Bassett also accused Cerveny of filing a false statement during a brief meeting with her at the Marine base at Camp Pendleton, Calif., her boss, Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, said last week.
Meanwhile, here's a rundown on what's missing from this article:
- A quote from Cerveny (though there is a photo of her at the top left of the page, which, positioned right below the headline "Military: No Gitmo guard abuse evident," at a glance, gives the impression that Cerveny might be one of the accused rather than being the courageous soldier who in fact brought these base and cowardly acts to light).
- Not just a mention that detainees weren't interviewed during the investigation but some context: the thoughts of a legal scholar, former military personnel, an ex-Guantanamo detainee - people who have legitimate insight into this case who weren't involved in its prosecution.
- The number of human beings still being held at Guantanamo without ever having been charged with a crime; the number of those who were held for years but have since been released after unimaginable psychological and physical abuse. Just one or two lines, that's all I'm asking here. This absence of context is irresponsible. When you see a Darfur article (and we surely don't see enough), you would be hard-pressed not to find in it somewhere a general line that gives you background information (e.g., over 200,000 - though the number is probably more than double that - people have been killed and over 2.5 million displaced since the conflict began). But when it comes to people being held illegally, with no recourse, who are tortured and beaten and dispirited to the point of preferring death than to take one more day in this purgatorial hell, then they're not worth citing in context to a story about alleged detainee abuse?
I rest my case.
Military: No Gitmo guard abuse evident, by Michael Melia
Associated Press
Investigating Detainee Abuse in Kafka's World
Posted by: MediaBloodhound | February 09, 2007 at 02:27 AM