One such prisoner, Mohamed al-Qahtani, was held naked in isolation under bright lights for months.
Threatened by dogs, subjected to unbearable noise volumes and otherwise abused, so that he begged to be allowed to kill himself.
Prisoners At Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay.

Kept for three or more years.

Torture reports increasingly being heard. 

None have been charged.

Photo: Scoop/US Department of Defence
Prisoners At Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay.   Kept for three or more years.   Tortured.   None have been charged.
March 11, 2006   New York Times     Hassan M. Fattah
Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare
AMMAN, Jordan — Almost two years later, Ali Shalal Qaissi's wounds are still raw.
There is the mangled hand, an old injury that became infected by the shackles chafing his skin. There is the slight limp, made worse by days tied in uncomfortable positions.
And most of all, there are the nightmares of his nearly six-month ordeal at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004.
Mr. Qaissi, 43, was prisoner 151716 of Cellblock 1A.
The picture of him standing hooded atop a cardboard box, attached to electrical wires with his arms stretched wide in an eerily prophetic pose, became the indelible symbol of the torture at Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad.
"I never wanted to be famous, especially not in this way," he said, as he sat in a squalid office rented by his friends here in Amman. That said, he is now a prisoner advocate who clearly understands the power of the image: it appears on his business card.
At first glance, there is little to connect Mr. Qaissi with the infamous picture of a hooded man except his left hand, which he says was disfigured when an antique rifle exploded in his hands at a wedding several years ago.
A disfigured hand also seems visible in the infamous picture, and features prominently in Mr. Qaissi's outlook on life.
In Abu Ghraib, the hand, with two swollen fingers, one of them partly blown off, and a deep gash in the palm, earned him the nickname Clawman, he said.
A spokesman for the American military in Iraq declined to comment, saying it would violate the Geneva Conventions to disclose the identity of prisoners in any of the Abu Ghraib photographs, just as it would to discuss the reasons behind Mr. Qaissi's detention.
But prison records from the Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after the invasion, made available to reporters by Amnesty International, show that Mr. Qaissi was in American custody at the time.
Beyond that, researchers with both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International say they have interviewed Mr. Qaissi and, along with lawyers suing military contractors in a class-action suit over the abuse, believe that he is the man in the photograph.
Under the government of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Qaissi was a mukhtar, in effect a neighborhood mayor, a role typically given to members of the ruling Baath Party and closely tied to its nebulous security services.
After the fall of the government, he managed a parking lot belonging to a mosque in Baghdad.
He was arrested in October 2003, he said, because he loudly complained to the military, human rights organizations and the news media about soldiers' dumping garbage on a local soccer field.
But some of his comments suggest that he is at least sympathetic toward insurgents who fight American soldiers.
"Resistance is an international right," he said.
March 11, 2006   New York Times     Hassan M. Fattah
Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare
Weeks after complaining about the garbage, he said, he was surrounded by Humvees, hooded, tied up and carted to a nearby base before being transferred to Abu Ghraib.
Then the questioning began.
"They blamed me for attacking U.S. forces," he said, "but I said I was handicapped; how could I fire a rifle?" he said, pointing to his hand.
"Then he asked me, 'Where is Osama bin Laden?'   And I answered, 'Afghanistan.'"
How did he know?   "Because I heard it on TV," he replied.
He said it soon became evident that the goal was to coax him to divulge names of people who might be connected to attacks on American forces.
His hand, then bandaged, was often the focus of threats and inducements, he said, with interrogators offering to fix it or to squash it at different times.
After successive interrogations, he said he was finally given a firm warning: "If you don't speak, next time, we'll send you to a place where even dogs don't live."
Finally, he said, he was taken to a truck, placed face down, restrained and taken to a special section of the prison where he heard shouts and screams.
He was forced to strip off all his clothes, then tied with his hands up high. A guard began writing on his chest and forehead, what someone later read to him as, "Colin Powell."
In all, there were about 100 cells in the cellblock, he said, with prisoners of all ages, from teenagers to old men.
Interrogators were often dressed in civilian clothing, their identities strictly shielded.
The prisoners were sleep deprived, he said, and the punishments they faced ranged from bizarre to lewd.
An elderly man was forced to wear a bra and pose.
A youth was told to hit the other adults.
And groups of men were organized in piles.
There was the dreaded "music party," he said, in which prisoners were placed before loudspeakers.
Mr. Qaissi also said he had been urinated on by a guard.
Then there were the pictures.
"Every soldier seemed to have a camera," he said.
"They used to bring us pictures and threaten to deliver them to our families"
Today, those photographs, turned into montages and slideshows on Mr. Qaissi's computer, are stark reminders of his experiences in the cellblock.
As he scanned through the pictures, each one still instilling shock as it popped on the screen, he would occasionally stop, his voice breaking as he recounted the story behind each photograph.
In one, a young man shudders in fear as a dog menaces him.
"That's Talib," he said.   "He was a young Yemeni, a student of the Beaux-Arts School in Baghdad, and was really shaken."
In another, Pfc. Lynndie R. England, who was convicted last September of conspiracy and maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners, poses in front of a line of naked men, a cigarette in her mouth.
"That's Jalil, Khalil and Abu Khattab," he said.   "They're all brothers, and they're from my neighborhood."
Then there is the picture of Mr. Qaissi himself, standing atop a cardboard box, taken 15 days into his detention.
He said he had only recently been given a blanket after remaining naked for days, and had fashioned the blanket into a kind of poncho.
The guards took him to a heavy box filled with military meal packs, he said, and hooded him.
He was told to stand atop the box as electric wires were attached to either hand.
Then, he claims, they shocked him five times, enough for him to bite his tongue.
March 11, 2006   New York Times     Hassan M. Fattah
Kirk Semple contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article.
Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare
Specialist Sabrina Harman was convicted last May for her role in abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, but she was accused of threatening to electrocute a hooded inmate on a box if he stepped off it, not of shocking him while he was atop it.
After almost six months in Abu Ghraib, Mr. Qaissi said, he was loaded onto a truck, this time without any shackles, but still hooded.
As the truck sped out of the prison, another man removed the hood and announced that they had been freed.
With a thick shock of gray hair and melancholy eyes, Mr. Qaissi is today a self-styled activist for prisoners' rights in Iraq.
Shortly after being released from Abu Ghraib in 2004, he started the Association of Victims of American Occupation Prisons with several other men immortalized in the Abu Ghraib pictures.
Financed partly by Arab nongovernmental organizations and private donations, the group's aim is to publicize the cases of prisoners still in custody, and to support prisoners and their families with donations of clothing and food.
Mr. Qaissi has traveled the Arab world with his computer slideshows and presentations, delivering a message that prisoner abuse by Americans and their Iraqi allies continues.
He says that as the public face of his movement, he risks retribution from Shiite militias that have entered the Iraqi police forces and have been implicated in prisoner abuse.
But that has not stopped him.
Last week, he said, he lectured at the American University in Beirut, on Monday he drove to Damascus to talk to students and officials, and in a few weeks he heads to Libya for more of the same.
Despite the cruelty he witnessed, Mr. Qaissi said he harbored no animosity toward America or Americans.
"I forgive the people who did these things to us," he said.
"But I want their help in preventing these sorts of atrocities from continuing."

If torture is good,
and black is white
then day is night
and wrong is right
Are these the truths
for which you fight?
If not, then
pass it on.

Friday, February 17th, 2006
Professor McCoy Exposes the History of CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror
A startling expose of the CIA development of psychological torture from the Cold War to Abu Ghraib.
CIA mercenaries attempted to assassinate McCoy more than 30 years ago.
— Click Here
Preliminary conversation, interview already started:
ALFRED McCOY: 
  Oh, when I was researching that book in the mountains of Laos, hiking from village to village, interviewing Laotian farmers about their opium harvest.
They were telling me that they took it down to the local helicopter pad where Air America helicopters would land, Air America being a subsidiary of the C.I.A., and officers, tribal officers in the C.I.A.’s secret army would buy the opium and fly it off to the C.I.A.’s secret compound, where it would be transformed into heroin and ultimately wound up in South Vietnam.
And while I was doing that research, hiking from village to village, interviewing farmers, we were ambushed by a group of C.I.A. mercenaries.
Fortunately, I had five militiamen from the village with me, and we shot our way out of there, but they came quite close.
Then later on, a C.I.A. operative threatened to murder my interpreter unless I stopped doing that research.   And then when —
AMY GOODMAN:    How did you know they were C.I.A.?
ALFRED McCOY:    Oh, look, in the mountains of Laos, there aren’t that many white guys, okay!   I mean, the mercenaries?   First of all, the C.I.A. ran what was called the “Army Clandestine.”   They had a secret army, and those soldiers that ambushed us were soldiers in the secret army.
That, we knew.
AMY GOODMAN:    The Laotian army?
ALFRED McCOY:    The C.I.A.’s secret army.
AMY GOODMAN:    The Laotian mercenaries?
ALFRED McCOY:    Laotian mercenaries.   That, everybody was clear about that.   Nobody denied that.
They said it was sort of an accident, but, no, it was very clear that it was intentional.
Ultimately, when the book was in press, the head of covert operations for the C.I.A. called up my offices and my publisher in New York and suggested that the publisher suppress the book.
They then got the right to prior review — the publisher compromised.
AMY GOODMAN:    C.I.A. prior review.
ALFRED McCOY:    Prior review of the manuscript, and they issued a 14-page critique.
The publisher’s legal department, HarperCollins’s legal department reviewed the critique, reviewed the manuscript, published the book unchanged, not a word changed.
AMY GOODMAN:    And the contention of that book was that the C.I.A. was complicit in the global drug trade?
ALFRED McCOY:    Right.   In the context of conducting covert operations around the globe, particularly in the Asian opium zone, which stretched from the Golden Triangle of Vietnam and Laos all the way to Afghanistan, that in those mountains far away from home, when the C.I.A. had to mobilize tribal armies, the only allies were warlords.
When the C.I.A. formed an alliance with them, the warlords used this alliance to become drug lords, and the C.I.A. didn't stop them from their involvement in the traffic.
AMY GOODMAN:    Well, as a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, you have not stopped looking at the C.I.A.
Now you've written this new book.   It's called A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror.
Give us a history lesson.
ALFRED McCOY:    Well, if you look at the most famous of photographs from Abu Ghraib, of the Iraqi standing on the box, arms extended with a hood over his head and the fake electrical wires from his arms, okay!   In that photograph you can see the entire 50-year history of C.I.A. torture.
It's very simple.   He's hooded for sensory disorientation, and his arms are extended for self-inflicted pain.
Those are the two very simple fundamental C.I.A. techniques, developed at enormous cost.
From 1950 to 1962, the C.I.A. ran a massive research project, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind, spending over $1 billion a year to crack the code of human consciousness, from both mass persuasion and the use of coercion in individual interrogation.
What they discovered — they tried LSD, they tried mescaline, they tried all kinds of drugs, they tried electroshock, truth serum, sodium pentathol.
None of it worked.
What worked was very simple behavioral findings, outsourced to our leading universities — Harvard, Princeton, Yale and McGill — and the first breakthrough came at McGill.
It's in the book.   [Showing a page of book to Amy Goodman]   And here, you can see the — this is the — if you want show it, you can.   That graphic really shows — that's the seminal C.I.A. experiment done in Canada and McGill University —
AMY GOODMAN:    Describe it.
ALFRED McCOY:    Dr. Donald O. Hebb of McGill University, a brilliant psychologist, had a contract from the Canadian Defense Research Board, which was a partner with the C.I.A. in this research.
He found that he could induce a state of psychosis in an individual within 48 hours.   It didn't take electroshock, truth serum, beating or pain.   All he did was had student volunteers sit in a cubicle with goggles, gloves and headphones, earmuffs, so that they were cut off from their senses.
Within 48 hours, denied sensory stimulation, they would suffer, first hallucinations, then ultimately breakdown.
If you look at many of those photographs, what do they show?   They show people with bags over their head.
If you look at the photographs of the Guantanamo detainees even today, they look exactly like those student volunteers in Dr. Hebb’s original cubicle.
The second major breakthrough that the C.I.A. had came here in New York City at Cornell University Medical Center.
Two eminent neurologists under contract from the C.I.A. studied Soviet K.G.B. torture techniques.
They found that the most effective K.G.B. technique was self-inflicted pain.
You simply make somebody stand for a day or two.   And as they stand — okay, you're not beating them, they have no resentment — you tell them, “You're doing this to yourself.   Cooperate with us, and you can sit down.”
And so, as they stand, what happens is the fluids flow down to the legs, the legs swell, lesions form, they erupt, they suppurate, hallucinations start, the kidneys shut down.
Now, if you look at the other aspect of those photos, you’ll see that they're short-shackled — okay! — that they're long-shackled, that they're made — several of those photos you just showed, one of them with a man with a bag on his arm, his arms are straight in front of him, people are standing with their arms extended, that's self-inflicted pain.
The combination of those two techniques — sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain — is the basis of the C.I.A.'s technique.
AMY GOODMAN:    Who has pioneered this at the C.I.A.?
ALFRED McCOY:    This was done by Technical Services Division.
Most of the in-house research involved drugs and all of the LSD experiments that we heard about for years.
But ultimately they were a negative result.
When you have any large massive research project, you get — you hit dead ends, you hit brick walls, you get negative results.
All the drugs didn’t work.   What did work was this.
AMY GOODMAN:    But when you talk about the ‘everyone knows the LSD experiments,’ I don't think everyone knows.
In fact, I would conjecture that more than 90% of Americans don't know that the C.I.A. was involved with LSD experiments on unwitting Americans.
Can you explain what they did?
ALFRED McCOY:    As a part of this comprehensive survey of human consciousness, the C.I.A. tried every possible techniques.
One of the things that they — at the time that this research started in the 1940s, a Swiss pharmaceutical company developed LSD.
Dr. Hoffman there was the man who developed it.
The C.I.A. bought substantial doses, and they conducted experiments.
One of the most notorious experiments was that Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, inside the agency, spiked the drinks of his co-workers, and one of those co-workers suffered a breakdown, Dr. Frank Olson, and he either was — I don't know whether he was pushed or jumped from a hotel here in New York City —
AMY GOODMAN:    His son has never stopped pursuing this case?
ALFRED McCOY:    Right, his son Eric Olson insists that his father was murdered by the C.I.A.
Eric Olson believes that his father did a tour of Europe, and he visited the ultimate Anglo-American test site, black site near Frankfurt, where they were doing lethal experiments, fatal experiments, on double agents and suspected double agents.
And that his father returned enormously upset by the discovery that this research was actually killing people.
Eric Olson argues his father was killed by the C.I.A., that he was pushed.
AMY GOODMAN:    And didn't they do experiments in brothels in the San Francisco area?
ALFRED McCOY:    They had two kind of party houses.   They had one in the San Francisco Bay Area, another in New York City.
What they did in San Francisco was they had prostitutes who go out to the streets, get individuals, bring them back, give them a drink, and there would be a two-way mirror, and the C.I.A. would photograph these people.
AMY GOODMAN:    So, the C.I.A. were running the brothel.
ALFRED McCOY:    They were running the brothel.   They were running all of these experiments, okay?
They did that on Army soldiers through the Army Chemical Warfare Division.
AMY GOODMAN:    What did they do there?
ALFRED McCOY:    Again, they gave them LSD and other drugs to see what effect they would have.
AMY GOODMAN:    And what did the soldiers think they were getting?
ALFRED McCOY:    They were just told they were participating in an experiment for national defense.
AMY GOODMAN:    Prisoners?
ALFRED McCOY:    No, these were —
AMY GOODMAN:    Right, but also on prisoners, were there experiments?
ALFRED McCOY:    There were some in prisons in the United States and also the Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Kentucky.
The Federal Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Kentucky, had this.
All of this research, all this very elaborate research —
AMY GOODMAN:    On unwitting Americans?
ALFRED McCOY:    Unwitting Americans, produced nothing, okay?
What they found time and time again is that electroshock didn't work, and sodium pentathol didn't work, LSD certainly didn't work.   You scramble the brain.   You got unreliable information.
But what did work was the combination of these two rather boring, rather mundane behavioral techniques: sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain.
In 1963, the C.I.A. codified these results in the so-called KUBARK Counterintelligence Manual.
If you just type the word “KUBARK” into Google, you will get the manual, an actual copy of it, on your computer screen, and you can read the techniques.
— Read the report.   But if you do, read the footnotes, because that's where the behavioral research is.—
Now, this produced a distinctively American form of torture, the first real revolution in the cruel science of pain in centuries, psychological torture.
It's the one that's with us today, and it's proved to be a very resilient, quite adaptable, and an enormously destructive paradigm.
Let’s make one thing clear.   Americans refer to this often times in common parlance as “torture light.”
Psychological to torture, people who are involved in treatment tell us it’s far more destructive, does far more lasting damage to the human psyche than does physical torture.
As Senator McCain said, himself, last year when he was debating his torture prohibition, faced with a choice between being beaten and psychologically tortured, I'd rather be beaten.
Okay!   It does far more lasting damage.
It is far crueler than physical torture.
This is something that we don't realize in this country.
Now, another thing we see is those photographs is the psychological techniques, but the initial research basically developed techniques for attacking universal human sensory receptors: sight, sound, heat, cold, sense of time.
That's why all of the detainees describe being put in dark rooms, being subjected to strobe lights, loud music.
That’s sensory deprivation or sensory assault.
That was sort of the phase one of the C.I.A. research.   But the paradigm has proved to be quite adaptable.
One of the things that Donald Rumsfeld did, right at the start of the war of terror, in late 2002, he appointed General Geoffrey Miller to be chief at Guantanamo.
Because the previous commanders at Guantanamo were too soft on the detainees, and General Miller turned Guantanamo into a de facto behavioral research laboratory, a kind of torture research laboratory.
Under General Miller at Guantanamo, they perfected the C.I.A. torture paradigm.
They added two key techniques.
They went beyond the universal sensory receptors of the original research.
They added to it an attack on cultural sensitivity, particularly Arab male sensitivity to issues of gender and sexual identity.
Then they went further still.
Under General Miller, they created these things called “Biscuit” teams, behavioral science consultation teams, and they actually had qualified military psychologists participating in the ongoing interrogation.
These psychologists would identify individual phobias, like fear of dark or attachment to mother, and by the time we're done, by 2003, under General Miller, Guantanamo had perfected the C.I.A. paradigm.
It had a three-fold total assault on the human psyche: sensory receptors, self-inflicted pain, cultural sensitivity, and individual fears and phobia.
AMY GOODMAN:    And then they sent General Miller to, quote, "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib.
Professor McCoy, we’re going to break for a minute, and then we'll come back.   Professor Alfred McCoy, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.   His latest book is called A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror.
[break]
Continue with what you were saying, talking about the Biscuit teams, the use of psychologists in Guantanamo, and then Geoffrey Miller, going from Guantanamo to, quote, “Gitmo-ize” Abu Ghraib.
ALFRED McCOY:    In mid-2003, when the Iraqi resistance erupted, the United States found it had no intelligence assets; it had no way to contain the insurgency.
They — the U.S. military was in a state of panic.   At that moment, they began sweeping across Iraq, rounding up thousands of Iraqi suspects, putting many of them in Abu Ghraib prison.
At that point, in late August 2003, General Miller was sent from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, and he brought his techniques with him.
He brought a CD, and he brought a manual of his techniques.
He gave them to the M.P. officers, the Military Intelligence officers and to General Ricardo Sanchez, the U.S. Commander in Iraq.
In September of 2003, General Sanchez issued orders, detailed orders, for expanded interrogation techniques beyond those allowed in the U.S. Army Field Manual 3452.
If you look at those techniques, what he's ordering, in essence, is a combination of self-inflicted pain, stress positions and sensory disorientation.
If you look at the 1963 C.I.A. KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual, you look at the 1983 C.I.A. Interrogation Training Manual that they used in Honduras for training Honduran officers in torture and interrogation.
Then twenty years later, you look at General Sanchez's 2003 orders.
There's a striking continuity across this forty-year span, in both the general principles, this total assault on the existential platforms of human identity and existence.
The specific techniques, the way of achieving that, through the attack on these sensory receptors.
Camo Nama
One Defense Department specialist recalled seeing pink blotches on detainees' clothing as well as red welts on their bodies.
Marks he learned later were inflicted by soldiers who used detainees as targets and called themselves the High Five Paintball Club.
Friday, February 17th, 2006
Professor McCoy Exposes the History of CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror
A startling expose of the CIA development of psychological torture from the Cold War to Abu Ghraib.
CIA mercenaries attempted to assassinate McCoy more than 30 years ago.
— Click Here
AMY GOODMAN:    Rumsfeld's comment, when asked if it was torture, when people were forced to stand hours on end, that he stands at his desk?
ALFRED McCOY:    Right, he wrote that in one of his memos.
When he was asked to review the Guantanamo techniques in late 2003 or early 2004, he scribbled that marginal note and said:
“I stand at my desk eight hours a day.”
He has a designer standing desk.
“How come we're limiting these techniques of the stress position to just four hours?”
So, in other words, that was a clear signal from the Defense Secretary.
Now, one of the problems beyond the details of these orders is torture is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.
There's an absolute ban on torture for a very good reason.
Torture taps into the deepest recesses, unexplored recesses of human consciousness, where creation and destruction coexist, where the infinite human capacity for kindness and infinite human capacity for cruelty coexist.
It has a powerful perverse appeal.
Once it starts, both the perpetrators and the powerful who order them, let it spread, and it spreads out of control.
So, I think when the Bush administration gave those orders for, basically, techniques tantamount to torture at the start of the war on terror, I think it was probably their intention that these be limited to top al-Qaeda suspects.
But within months, we were torturing hundreds of Afghanis at Bagram near Kabul, and a few months later in 2003, through these techniques, we were torturing literally thousands of Iraqis.
You can see in those photos, beyond the details of the techniques that we've described, you can see how that once it starts, it becomes this Dantesque hell, this kind of play palace of the darkest recesses of human consciousness.
That’s why it’s necessary to maintain an absolute prohibition on torture.
There is no such thing as a little bit of torture.
The whole myth of scientific surgical torture, that torture advocates, academic advocates in this country came up with, that's impossible.
That cannot operate.
It will inevitably spread.
AMY GOODMAN:    And then they sent General Miller to, quote, "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib.
Professor McCoy, we’re going to break for a minute, and then we'll come back.   Professor Alfred McCoy, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.   His latest book is called A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror.
[break]
Continue with what you were saying, talking about the Biscuit teams, the use of psychologists in Guantanamo, and then Geoffrey Miller, going from Guantanamo to, quote, “Gitmo-ize” Abu Ghraib.
AMY GOODMAN:    So when, Professor McCoy, you started seeing these images, the first photos that came out at Abu Ghraib, the pictures we showed of the, you know, hooded man, electrodes coming out of his fingers, standing on the box, your response?
ALFRED McCOY:    Oh, I mean, the reason I wrote this book is when that photo came out in April 2004 on CBS news, at the Times.
William Safire, for example, writing in the New York Times said this was the work of creeps.
Later on, Defense Secretary Schlesinger said that this was just abuse by a few people on the night shift.
There was another phrase: “Recycled hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.”
In other words, this was the bad apple thesis.   We could blame these bad apples.
I looked at those photos, I didn't see individual abuse.   What I saw was two textbook trademark C.I.A. psychological interrogation techniques: self-inflicted pain and sensory disorientation.
AMY GOODMAN:    We read our first headline today.   It was about Maher Arar and the case — the judge has thrown out against him, the Canadian-Syrian man who was sent back to Syria — the U.S. government calls it “extraordinary rendition.”
He was kept in an underground “grave-like” cell, he described, very small.
He was held for almost a year.
As you showed, and I looked at the book, the pictures of the places where prisoners are kept, and in speaking to Maher, he’s described this level of sensory deprivation.
What about the shape and the size and the coffin-like nature of these rooms?
ALFRED McCOY:    The details are often left to the individual interrogators, but the manuals basically describe how you control the process, you control the environment right from the start when you pick somebody up.
So, for example, often times we see in Iraq of people when they're arrested, their arms are behind their back.
They're made to kneel in very uncomfortable positions, and they're hooded right away.
That's one of the things they always specify is the time and conditions of arrest.
You begin to break them down.
You create this artificial environment of control, and then the techniques always vary.
It can be extreme darkness or it can be extreme light; it can be absence of sound or a bombardment of sound.
AMY GOODMAN:    And that bombardment of sound is often joked about.
‘Oh, we played Britney Spears really loud,’ or whatever it is.
I don't know if it was her.   But that's become a joke when soldiers play loud music.
ALFRED McCOY:    That's one of the problems of talking about this topic in the United States.
We regard all of this panoply of psychological techniques as “torture light,” as somehow not really torture.
We're the only country in the world that does that.
The U.N. convention bars — defines torture as the infliction of severe psychological or physical pain.
The U.N. convention which bans torture in 1984 gives equal weight to psychological and physical techniques.
We alone as a society somehow exempt all of these psychological techniques.
That dates back, of course, to the way we ratified the convention in the first place.
Back in the early 1990s, when the United States was emerging from the Cold War, and we began this process of, if you will, disarming ourselves and getting beyond all of these techniques, trying to sort of bring ourselves in line with rest of the international community, when we sent that — when President Clinton sent the U.N. Anti-Torture Convention to the U.S. Congress for ratification in 1994, he included four detailed paragraphs of reservation that had, in fact, been drafted by the Reagan administration.
He adopted them without so much as changing a semicolon.
When you read those detailed paragraphs of reservation, what you realize is that the United States Congress ratified the treaty, but basically we outlawed only physical torture.
Those photographs of reservation are carefully written to avoid one word in the 26 printed pages of the U.N. convention.
That word is "mental."
Basically, we exempted psychological torture.
Now, another problem for the United States, as well, was when the U.S. Army re-wrote the Army Field Manual in 1992.
The same period, while, although let’s say the civil authorities were sort of skirting the law by exempting psychological techniques, the U.S. Army re-wrote their field manual with the intention of strictly observing the letter and the spirit of the U.N. Anti-Torture Convention and other similar treaties.
So what happened is that when the Defense Department gave orders for extreme techniques, when General Sanchez gave orders for his techniques beyond the Army Field Manual, what that meant is when the soldiers were actually investigated, they had committed crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
They would be prosecuted, and they’re all being sent to jail.
AMY GOODMAN:    Professor McCoy, you wrote a piece, “Why the McCain Torture Ban Won't Work: The Bush Legacy of Legalized Torture.”
ALFRED McCOY:    Right.   Most Americans think that it's over, that in last year, December 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act 2005, which in the language of Senator McCain, who was the original author of that amendment to the defense appropriation, the author of that act, it bars all inhumane or cruel treatment, and most people think that’s it, that it’s over.
Actually, what has happened is the Bush administration fought that amendment tooth and nail; they fought it with loopholes.   Vice President Cheney went to Senator McCain and asked for a specific exemption for the C.I.A. McCain refused.   The National Security Advisor went to McCain and asked for certain kinds of exemptions for the C.I.A.   He refused.
So then they started amending it.   Basically what happened is, through the process, they introduced loopholes.
Look, at the start of the war on terror, the Bush administration ordered torture.
President Bush said right on September 11, 2001, when he addressed the nation, “I don't care what the international lawyers say.   We’re going to kick some ass.”
Those were his words, and then it was up to his legal advisors in the White House and the Justice Department to translate his otherwise unlawful orders into legal directives.
They did it by crafting three very controversial legal principles:
One, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, could override laws and treaties.
Two, that there was a possible defense for C.I.A. interrogators who engage in torture, and the defenses were of two kinds.
First of all, they played around with the word "severe," that torture is the infliction of severe pain.
That's when Jay Bybee, who was Assistant Attorney General, wrote that memo in which he said, “’severe’ means equivalent to organ failure,” in other words, right up to the point of death.
The other thing was that they came up with the idea of intentionality.
If a C.I.A. interrogator tortured, but the aim was information, not pain, then he could say that he was not guilty.
The third principle, which was crafted by John Yoo, was Guantanamo is not part of the United States; it is exempt from the writ of U.S. courts.
Now, in the process of ratifying — sorry, passing the McCain torture — the torture prohibition, McCain’s ban on inhumane treatment, the White House has cleverly twisted the legislation to re-establish these three key principles.
In his signing statement on December 30, President Bush said —
AMY GOODMAN:    This was the statement that he signed as he signed the McCain so-called ban on torture?
ALFRED McCOY:    Right, he emailed it at 8:00 at night from his ranch in Crawford on December 30th, that he was signing this legislation into law.
He said, “I reserve the right, as Commander-in-Chief and as head of the unitary executive, to do what I need to do to defend America.”
Okay, that was the first thing.
The next thing that happened is that McCain, as a compromise, inserted into the legislation a provision that if a C.I.A. operative engages in inhumane treatment or torture but believes that he or she was following a lawful order, then that's a defense.
So they got the second principle, defense for C.I.A. torturers.
The third principle was — is that the White House had Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina amend McCain’s amendment by inserting language into it, saying that for the purposes of this act, the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay is not on U.S. territory, and last month —
AMY GOODMAN:    Ten seconds.
ALFRED McCOY:   
So, and then in the last month, the Bush administration has gone to federal courts and said, “Drop all of your habeas corpus suits from Guantanamo.”
There are 160 of them.
They've gone to the Supreme Court and said, “Drop your Guantanamo case.”
They have, in fact, used that law to quash legal oversight of their actions.
AMY GOODMAN:    We have to leave it there.   I want to thank you very much, Professor Al McCoy, for speaking with us, professor of history at University of Wisconsin, Madison, his book A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War On Terror.

AMY GOODMAN:    We're joined on the phone right now from London by Clive Stafford Smith, a British-born human rights lawyer who represents 40 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, many of whom passed through the Bagram Air Base.   He is legal director of the charity, Reprieve.   He joins us on the phone from London.   Can you tell us what you know of Bagram?
Lips sewn shut
as torture
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH:    Yes, and, of course, a lot of it is laid out in the New York Times, but there are some things that are considerably worse than represented there.   For example, there is an area of Bagram that is not open to the Red Cross, as one of our clients, Mamdou Habib said.
The most frightening moment he had in Bagram was when the Red Cross came and he didn’t get to see them.   And there’s a cellar area in Bagram, a dark — a place that’s kept perpetually dark, which is where a number of prisoners are kept away from the Red Cross itself.
And, of course, if you think about being a prisoner in those circumstances, your natural assumption is if the military doesn't want the Red Cross to know you exist, then your fate is probably not going to be a very pleasant one, and naturally a number of those people have been moved off and rendered to other countries, where they have been abused.
Some of them we’ve caught up with again in Guantanamo, but many haven't.   They’ve disappeared.
AMY GOODMAN:    We're also joined in our studio by Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights.   Does the Center represent people at Bagram?
MICHAEL RATNER:    Well, like Clive, the Center has many of the similar clients who have been through Bagram on their way to Guantanamo.   Moazzam Begg is another one whose story has just come out, how he was taken to Bagram, beaten, etc., and then went to Guantanamo.
We are in contact with people who have family members, who have people in Guantanamo, and as Clive said, a lot of this has been known for a couple — more than two or three years.
I mean, the people who were hung and tortured and killed.
The underground prison has been known, and what’s really incredibly frustrating — you feel like Sisyphus, rolling the stone up the hill, when you think about finally getting some rights for people and visits to Guantanamo, and then what happens is the administration really goes and continues its illegality in other prisons around the world.
So what it really says is that, yes, the struggle is around one prison like Guantanamo, but we have to really root out completely what this administration is doing around the world.
AMY GOODMAN:    Now, can you, though, explain?   I mean, it sounds like the reason Bagram is growing is because of all of the international outcry around Guantanamo, but also Guantanamo's legal relationship with the United States on a U.S. air base in Cuba.
Can you explain the legality of Afghanistan, where Bagram is and Guantanamo, these two detention camps?
MICHAEL RATNER:    Both Clive and I were in the early case about Guantanamo, in which the U.S. tried to say Guantanamo was like Bagram, that there were no legal rights there.
You couldn't go to court for people in Guantanamo.   They had no constitutional rights, and the U.S. said it could do what it wanted to people at Guantanamo.
We won a big case in the Supreme Court, the Rasul case in June of 2004, that opened the courts to people at Guantanamo and opened them so people like Clive and Center lawyers could go to Guantanamo.
Even with that, those set of rights, the administration, in the Graham-Levin Bill and the Detainee Treatment Act, is trying to eliminate even those rights we won in the Supreme Court.
But as far as Bagram is concerned, the legal position of the administration is similar to what it was about Guantanamo.   There are no legal rights, but they have the additional argument, that they would make, that because it’s not on a U.S. permanent military base like the one in Cuba, that there’s even fewer rights.
I don't think they're correct.   I think that any person detained anywhere in the world has a right to go into a court, has a right to be visited by an attorney, but the administration's view is whatever Guantanamo rights are, the rights at Bagram are nil, absolutely none, and so what they did, according to the Times report, was a few months after we won the Rasul case, they said they stopped sending people to Guantanamo and started to send them to other places — Bagram is the one that we know the most about at this point — because the administration's view is that no court, no lawyer, no one, has any right to visit anyone in Guantanamo — anyone in Bagram, and that nobody —and that the people at Bagram have no legal rights at all.
An extraordinary statement in today’s world.
AMY GOODMAN:    Clive Stafford Smith, your response, and also what is the role, if any, of Britain in Bagram?
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH:    My response is that I think, as Michael and I and many others have said for a long time, Guantanamo is something of a distraction.
That people — if you think people have been badly treated in Guantanamo, you should see what’s happened to them in other places, and what’s of real concern, arising out of the New York Times article, is this: The Times mentioned one flight.
It was actually September 19, 2004 where ten people were brought to Guantanamo.
I represent a couple of those.
Of those ten, all of them are extraordinary cases where people were taken and abused horribly in other places.
Plywood shacks that reeked of urine and excrement
Prisoner boxes
Humans kept in cages by US
"Worse" Than Guantanamo: U.S. Expands Secretive Prison Inside Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan
U.S. holding 500 at the base in wire cages at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul in Afghanistan.
Detained for three years, never charged with any crimes, none have access to lawyers.
They are barred from hearing the allegations against them.
— Click Here
One of my clients is Binyam Mohammed.   He was rendered to Morocco.   We’ve got the flight logs.   We know the very names of the soldiers who were on the flight, and he was taken there, and he was tortured for 18 months, a razor blade taken to his penis, for goodness sake, and now the U.S. military is putting him on trial in Guantanamo.   Hassin bin Attash, a 17 year-old juvenile who was taken to Jordan and tortured there for 16 months.   There is a series of these people.
Waterboard
Now, what that prompts is this question, that the people who have been most mistreated in Guantanamo were mistreated elsewhere, and then the administration took a very small number of them to Guantanamo, but the vast majority of them are either in Bagram or in these secret prisons around the world.   And most recently, we heard of Poland.   We’ve heard of Morocco.   We’ve heard of various places.
What I'm afraid is the truth is that the most shocking abuses have yet to come to light, that these people are in Bagram and have yet to talk to anybody, and what the administration is doing is hiding these ghastly secrets.
The question is: What are they going to do about that?   What are they going to do when it becomes necessary at some point for these prisoners to be given lawyers?   There’s a lot of horror stories, and the administration is just not going to want those horror stories to come out.
So where are these prisoners going to be sent?   Are they going to vanish forever?
And unfortunately, the U.S. administration has shown that it is willing to send people to Egypt, where they may disappear, to Morocco, where they get razor blades taken to them, and we’ve got to find out the names of these people first, because the government won't tell us, and then we’ve got to prevent them from being rendered to some country where they effectively die after a bit of torture.
AMY GOODMAN:    Clive Stafford Smith, I wanted to ask you about a piece that appeared in a paper in your country in the Guardian by Suzanne Goldenberg and James Meek.   It says, “New evidence has emerged that U.S. forces in Afghanistan engaged in widespread Abu Ghraib-style abuse, taking trophy photographs of detainees and carrying out rape and sexual humiliation.
Documents obtained by the Guardian contain evidence that such abuse took place in the main detention center at Bagram, near the capital, Kabul, as well at a smaller U.S. installation near the southern city of Kandahar.   A thousand pages of evidence from U.S. Army investigations released to the ACLU after a long battle, made available to the Guardian.”
And then inside, it says, “The latest allegations from Afghanistan fit a pattern of claims of brutal treatment made by former Guantanamo Bay prisoners and Afghans held by the U.S.
In December, the U.S. said eight prisoners had died in custody in Afghanistan,” and this is according to you, “A Palestinian says he was sodomized by American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Painting by
former prisoner
Another former prisoner of U.S. forces, a Jordanian, describes a form of torture which involved being hung in a cage from a rope for days.
Hussein Abdelkader Youssef Mustafa, a Palestinian living in Jordan, told Clive Stafford Smith he was sodomized by U.S. soldiers during detention at Bagram in 2002.
He said: ‘They forcibly rammed a stick up my rectum — excruciatingly painful.   Only when the pain became overwhelming did I think I would ever scream, but I could not stop screaming when this happened.’”
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH:    Yeah, you know, Hussein Mustafa, I met with him in Jordan, and he was an incredibly credible person.
He is a dignified older gentleman, about now 50 years old, and he wanted to talk about what had happened to him, but he really didn’t want to talk about that sexual stuff, and in the end, you know, I said to him:
“Look, you don’t have to, but it’s very important if things happened, that the story get out, so they don't happen to other people.”
And in the end he did, and it was in front of half a dozen people who were just transfixed as he described how four soldiers took him, one on each shoulder, one bent down his head and then the fourth of them took this broomstick and shoved it up his rectum.
Now there was no one in that room — and they were from a variety of places — who didn't believe that what this man was saying was true, but I am afraid, I’ve got to tell you, that that’s far from the worst that’s happened.
When you talk about Bagram, when you talk about Kandahar, those aren’t the worst places the U.S. has run in Afghanistan.  
The dark prison, sometimes called “Salt Pit,” in Kabul itself, which is separate from Bagram, has been far worse than that, and I can tell you stories from there that just make your skin crawl.
AMY GOODMAN:    Well, why don't you tell us something about this place?
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH:    I'll tell you some of the ones, for example, that Binyam Mohammed told me.
He was the man who had the razor blade taken to him.
He was then taken, and again, we can prove it.   We’ve got the flight logs.   He was taken on January 25, 2004, to Kabul, where he was put in this dark prison for five months, and he was shackled.
You just get this vision of the Middle Ages, where he’s shackled on the wall with his hands up, so he can't quite sit down.   It’s totally dark in that place.
When the U. S. says that people are being treated nicely in Bagram, you’ve got to be kidding me.
It’s the middle of winter, and they're freezing to death, and this man was in this cell, no heating, absolutely freezing, no clothing, except for his shorts, totally dark for 24 hours a day with this howling noise around him.
They began with Eminem music, interestingly enough; they played him Eminem music for 24 hours a day for 20 days.
Seems to me Eminem ought to be suing them for royalties over that, but then it got worse and they started doing these screeching noises, and this is going on 24 hours a day, and in the mean time they would bring him out very briefly just to beat him, and this is to try to get this man to confess to stories that they now want him to repeat in military commissions in Guantanamo, and they want to say, “Oh, everything's nice now.”
What he went through, he said, was far worse than the physical torture, this psychological torture that some pervert was running in the dark prison in Kabul was worse to him, and he still suffers from it day in, day out, because of what it has done to his mind, and this is the — what we have to remember is there is someone out there who is thinking this stuff up and who is then saying that we need to do it, and this isn’t some lowly guard who loses control and does something terrible that’s physical.
I mean, that’s awful.
But you’ve got someone out there who is thinking through how we’re going to torture these people with this excruciating noise and these other things, and they're doing this very, very consciously, and the story has a long way before it’s going to be out fully.
"Worse" Than Guantanamo: U.S. Expands Secretive Prison Inside Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan
U.S. holding 500 at the base in wire cages at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul in Afghanistan.
Detained for three years, never charged with any crimes, none have access to lawyers.
They are barred from hearing the allegations against them.
— Click Here
AMY GOODMAN:    So, Michael Ratner, what oversight is there?
MICHAEL RATNER:    As Clive is saying, there isn't, and I think, you know, we’re putting this huge effort into closing down Guantanamo, which is crucial, obviously, to do.   It will be a major victory, but what we’re running is these so-called “black sites,” torture chambers all around the world, and there isn’t any oversight.   Our Congress is just sitting on its hands, not doing anything.   The most they ask is they say, “Give us a report on black sites.”   Even that isn’t getting through.   We have nothing.
This country is running torture chambers around the world right now, and Clive's stories, our clients’ stories, are incredibly dramatic, and his point about the psychological torture is crucial.
It’s what Clive is saying, people have thought about this, but this is something that has been U.S. policy for 40 years of how to really deal with people, not just physically, but with psychological torture, and one of your former guests, I think Al McCoy, had this on in A Question of Torture, saying, this is what really affects people.
Physically, yes, hurts them, but the psychological marks of torture, and when you see the pictures from Bagram to Guantanamo, you know that this is stuff that is not just chance or random.   This is going by the book.
AMY GOODMAN:    I wanted to talk about this article in the New Yorker that Jane Mayer had written about Colonel Louie Morgan Banks, a senior Army psychologist who played a significant advisory role in interrogations at Guantanamo Bay.
Asked to provide details of his consulting work, he said, quote:
“I just don't remember any particular cases.   I just consulted generally on what approaches to take.   It was about what human behavior in captivity is like.”
Banks has a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Southern Mississippi.   A biographical statement for an American Psychological Association Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security, which Banks serves on, mentions that he, quote, “provides technical support and consultation to all Army psychologists providing interrogation support.”
It also notes that starting in November of 2001, Banks was detailed to Afghanistan where he spent four months at Bagram Air Field, quote, “supporting combat operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.”
MICHAEL RATNER:    What’s remarkable about Banks is he also consulted on Guantanamo.
So here you have this guy who is a psychologist, consulting really on how to break people through psychological — psychological torture is what I would call it, and then he goes from Guantanamo to Bagram.
This is not chance.
This is not a few bad apples.
This is high-level military people working with our military, our C.I.A., in how to break people through torture.
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH:    When you're talking “break people,” and I think that’s a very important word.   You know, people bang on about whether it’s torture or whether it’s coercion.   Well our highest officials have said that the purpose of all of this is to, quote, “break” somebody, and we get people to confess to stuff that’s absolute drivel.
You take, for example, Binyam Mohammed, again.   You have a razor blade taken to you, you have the psychological stuff, you’re going to say anything.
They got Binyam Mohammed to confess that he had dinner with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramsey bin al-Shaid, Abu Zubaydah, Sheikh al-Libbi, and Jose Padilla all together on April 3, 2002, in Pakistan.
Quite apart from anything else, two of them, Abu Zubaydah and Sheikh al-Libbi were in U.S. custody at the time when he confessed to that and at the time that he was meant to be having dinner.
This is a guy that didn’t speak Arabic who was meant to be hobnobbing with half of al-Qaeda.
You get this total drivel out of this breaking of people, and yet, for some reason, the people who are designing Guantanamo think we should carry on breaking them, as did the Spanish Inquisition.
It’s very odd.
MICHAEL RATNER:    That’s correct.   I mean, it’s — they break them; they get drivel; they get false stories, and so what’s going on?
What’s going on, I think, in part, is an attempt to terrorize people, terrorize the Muslim world and say, “You come into U.S. hands, and we will terrorize you.”
And that’s what they’re doing.
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH:    Don’t you think though, Michael — I tell you, I think there’s a slightly bigger danger here, which is the people who are doing this abuse believe the stuff they get.
This is what’s frightening to me, that we end up making decisions based on this nonsense.
MICHAEL RATNER:    You know, it’s true.   They do believe it.
I think, when you talk to your clients or we talk to ours, the people who are interrogating them actually believe what they're telling them, even though it’s utterly and complete drivel.
AMY GOODMAN:    We’re going to have to leave it there.   Joining us next is Maher Arar.   He is a Canadian citizen who was — well, the U.S. government calls it “extraordinary rendition,” others call it “kidnapped” — when he was transiting through Kennedy Airport from a family vacation to Canada and sent to Syria, was tortured there and held for almost a year.   We have been speaking with Clive Stafford Smith, a British human rights lawyer.   Michael Ratner will stay with us, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Tuesday, March 14th, 2006
U.S.-Run Prisons

Listen to Segment         Download audio whole show mp3
Watch 128k stream        Watch 256k stream

MICHAEL RATNER:    Thank you for having me, Amy
AMY GOODMAN:    What Moazzam said, what he experienced himself at Bagram, the torture, seeing others killed, can you talk about it?
MICHAEL RATNER:   You know, we focused on Guantanamo for a long time, always understanding that that’s where we could get access to after we won in the Supreme Court, etc.   But in the end, we recognized that what the U.S. was doing at prisons other than Guantanamo — Bagram, other C.I.A. dark places — was probably much worse, much worse than what we’ve seen in Guantanamo.   And, of course, in that compelling interview with Moazzam, he really affirms what we have seen some details of over the last couple of years.   We actually knew of the case, I think, that he's addressing in December 2002, about two people being hung from the ceiling, and only as things have been revealed has there been even any investigation of that.
But the key thing, I think, that came out of Moazzam's testimony is what happened at Bagram was routine.   Hanging people from the ceiling, depriving them of sleep and beating them was absolutely routine at Bagram.   And yet, today as we sit here, little or nothing has been done about it.   In two of the murders that we know about, 27 people were implicated.   Only a few of those were ever tried.   The longest person did five months, and at none of those trials did evidence come in that should have about how this went up the chain of command and not simply down to the lowest guys who actually were involved in the alleged murders.
AMY GOODMAN:    People are trying to get information about Guantanamo.   We just read the piece about Associated Press trying to get information.   Then there's the news from Guantanamo that human rights lawyers are asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to suspend the military tribunal of a Canadian citizen who’s been held at the base since he was 15.   Lawyers said Omar Khadr is the first person in modern world history to face a military commission for alleged crimes committed as a child.
MICHAEL RATNER:    Well, it’s remarkable.   I mean, we have been going to the Inter-American Commission.   They’ve been issuing orders against the United States for four years now, since Guantanamo has been set up.   The United States insists that it can use military commissions, that it can use them even if it’s in regular combat situations.   That case is going to be argued, not Khadr’s, but a similar case, in the Supreme Court very soon.   Guantanamo still represents, I think, in this world and in the Muslim world, something that is completely outside the law, that is iconic, really, in the world for everything the United States is doing wrong in the war on terror, and we’re still not getting the full information.   We are still litigating all the time against the government to get this.
AMY GOODMAN:    You are calling for the impeachment of President Bush?
MICHAEL RATNER:    That’s correct.   We have written a book called Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, and it lays out four articles of impeachment against Bush.
AMY GOODMAN:    Can you explain how that compares to what Senator Russell Feingold has done? And we’re going to play this in a minute, and that is calling for the censure of President Bush, also an extremely rare move.
MICHAEL RATNER:    Well, censure is a very rare move.   It’s a much less drastic remedy than impeachment.   It simply is the Senate saying, as Feingold's resolution says, “We hereby censure George W. Bush for using illegal electronic surveillance.”   It doesn't have any consequences, other than condemning the President on that basis.   And so, it’s a much lesser form, and at the Center, while we support or think that it’s important that they go forward with that, that’s really not sufficient.   Our view is that won't stop illegal warrantless wiretapping, which is going on as we speak, and it will leave the President in office to continue doing what he is doing, whether it’s at Guantanamo or in Iraq or with warrantless wiretapping.
What is amazing about, though, I think, the censure resolution by Feingold, which is, as I said, just saying, “You’re a bad guy, President, on this one issue, wiretapping,” is that even on that issue, he's not getting the support he should.   Even the Democrats are fleeing from the statement that the President unauthorized or illegally is electronically surveilling Americans.   That’s remarkable to me.   It’s an open-and-shut case.   Legal sand is being thrown in our face by the administration, but there's no issue.   The President broke the law; it’s a criminal law, he broke it.   How can people even run from a censure resolution? It’s only happened — censure resolutions have only occurred a couple of times in our history.   One actually passed in the 1830s.   They attempted it against Clinton.   It didn't happen.   But at the Center, we don't believe that’s sufficient.   But even that, as I said, Democrats are running from.
Unspeakable grief and horror
                        ...and the circus of deception continues...
— 2017
— 2016
— 2015
— 2014
— 2013
— 2012
— 2011
— 2010
— 2009
— 2008
— 2007
— 2006
— 2005
— 2004
— 2003
Circus of Torture   2003 — now
He says, "You are quite mad, Kewe"
And of course I am.
Why, I don't believe any of it — not the bloody body, not the bloody mind, not even the bloody Universe, or is it bloody multiverse.
"It's all illusion," I say.   "Don't you know, my lad, my lassie.   The game!   The game, me girl, me boy!   Takes on interest, don't you know.   T'is me sport, till doest find a better!"
Pssssst — but all this stuff is happening down here
Let's change it!
To say hello:     hello[the at marker]TheWE.cc
For Kewe's spiritual and metaphysical pages — click here
 
 
CIA Obama the acting president
Every facial movement, gesture of the hand, word enunciated by the 44th president turns out to be a complete charade
The CIA — Obama — Illuminati
A long-term strategic CIA plan to recruit promising candidates
and steer these individuals and their families into positions of influence and power
Behavior modification
Phenomenological — structures of consciousness — programs
US policy has even less regard for human rights both abroad and at home
       Afghanistan — Western Terror States: Canada, US, UK, France, Germany, Italy       
       Photos of Afghanistan people being killed and injured by NATO     
 
 
 Kewe Archives kewe archives       kewe archives TheWE.cc