by Katherine
We have learned, in the past few years, that "battlefield" now means "entire earth"; that treatment that is "abusive and degrading" can still be "humane"; that "enemy combatants" can include little old ladies from Switzerland who give to the wrong charity; and that most "hanging incidents" are examples of "manipulative self-injurious behavior" rather than suicide attempts. Well, it's time for a new vocabulary lesson:
"They hung themselves with fabricated nooses made out of clothes and bed sheets,'' Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris told reporters in a conference call from the U.S. base in southeastern Cuba.
"They have no regard for human life,'' he said. ``Neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us.''
Two of the prisoners were Saudis, one Yemeni. The U.S. government hasn't released their names--waiting, most likely, for someone from their governments to identify the bodies--but naturally is releasing vague, unsourced charges against them:
"One of the detainees was a mid- or high-level al-Qaida operative, Harris said, while another had been captured in Afghanistan and participated in a riot at a prison there. The third belonged to a splinter group." (link)
None had a lawyer, and none has been charged before a military commission.
I don't know who the Yemeni is. Saudi Arabia has identified its two nationals as Manei al-Otaibi and Yasser al-Zahrani according to one source; another source gives the names as Mani bin Shaman bin Turki al Habradi and Yasser Talal Abdullah Yahya al Zahrani.
The Pentagon's list of prisoners includes a man named Yasser Talal Al Zahrani from Yenbo, Saudi Arabia whose prisoner number (ISN) is 93 and whose date of birth is September 22, 1984. The ISNs are assigned chronologically, and I know that prisoners captured in September 2002 have ISNs in the 800s. Based on that DOB and that ISN, he was probably seventeen years old when he was captured. This is his photograph, I think.
The closest match I can find for the other name is prisoner number 588, Mana Shaman Allabardi Al Tabi of al-Qarara, Saudi Arabia, whose date of birth is given as January 1, 1974.
I looked up the ISN numbers so I could find the transcripts of their Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) and/or Annual Review Boards (ARBs) in the documents the Pentagon released. As far as I can tell, nothing's been publicly released for either prisoner.
One thing that does seem to being handled right is the burial:
Former Army Captain James Yee, the onetime Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo, said in an interview yesterday that he had prepared detailed Muslim burial procedures when stationed at the base in 2002 and 2003.
Under the procedures, he said, if the military decides to bury the detainees at the base, the bodies would be washed and put in the ground wrapped in white sheets rather than placed in coffins, according to Muslim tradition.
The military has set aside a section in a base cemetery for Muslim use, Yee added. The base ordered U-shaped concrete covers to go over detainee bodies, making it easier to exhume them in case their remains were later sent to their home nations.
Muslim tradition usually calls for bodies to be buried with 24 hours of death, a timeline that could not be met because the bodies are undergoing autopsies. Harris said the military had obtained a fatwah, or religious ruling, from a "reputable imam" that the 24-hour deadline could be waived when the cause of death is under investigation (link).
Yee, of course, was later arrested on espionage charges; blindfolded, taken to a Navy brig and held in solitary confinement for 76 days (his family did not know where he was for the first 10); charged with and reprimanded for adultery when the espionage charges fell apart; had the adultery charges dismissed on appeal; and received an honorable discharge. (link) As I understand it there's no Muslim chaplain in Guantanamo right now, but I could easily be mistaken about that. Anyway, we're in Yee's debt for thinking ahead. It's entirely predictable that there will be rumors that these aren't really suicides, and outrage if we don't bury the bodies according to Muslim custom. It will still be bad, but it would've been even worse.
I guess what Harris means by an "act of asymmetric warfare" is that this makes us look terrible, and may motivate people to commit acts of terrorism. That is possible. Although there's no evidence that the motivation of these suicides was to inspire attacks (rather than to increase pressure to free the other prisoners, or simply to die), they may have that effect. But if making the world think that the US mistreats prisoners is an act of war against the US, then it looks like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, David Addington and Geoffrey Miller (to name a few) are also "enemy combatants".
[edited to add missing links & fix typos]
"...then it looks like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, David Addington and Geoffrey Miller (to name a few) are also "enemy combatants"."
OK. I guess that is one step beyond treason. Citizens, I suppose, so gonna have to read me some Luttig, to see WTF current consensus on "Padilla Rules" is floating around like a jellyfish in a stagnant sea.
I actually would like...them...all...treated indefinitely by "KSM Rules".
(Usual caveat for SS (Bush admin variation) and FBI purpose...just another meaningless ineffective rant from the comfort of home. I don't mean it, no sirs.)
Godwin! No more comments here!
Posted by: bob mcmanus | June 11, 2006 at 02:10 PM
Intentional title typo?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | June 11, 2006 at 02:13 PM
oh, two more things:
1. the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy absolutely sucks at her job:
2. The NY Times article on this, by James Risen and Tim Golden, has some details I'd not read before on force feeding in "restraint chairs":
Posted by: Katherine | June 11, 2006 at 02:15 PM
not an intentional typo.
wow, that's embarrassing. I'll fix it.
Posted by: Katherine | June 11, 2006 at 02:17 PM
Katherine,
Let me play the naif for a bit here and ask what exactly is wrong with force feeding someone trying to starve himself to death?
Posted by: Andrew Reeves | June 11, 2006 at 02:24 PM
Avedon Carol:
Pass it on.Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 11, 2006 at 02:24 PM
Andrew: Let me play the naif for a bit here and ask what exactly is wrong with force feeding someone trying to starve himself to death?
When force feeding is a form of torture, I think allowing someone to die of starvation would be kinder:
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 11, 2006 at 02:27 PM
Andrew--
In general, Hil would be the person to ask about this, not me. Medical ethicists tend to say: a competent patient can refuse medical treatment, giving treatment to a patient who refuses it is assault. Even if that means letting them starve to death.
As far as the Times story, though, that issue isn't even relevant. What's new here is that the allegations that they are force feeding prisoners in the restraint chairs well before it becomes medically necessary to do so to keep them alive.
When the Times first reported both those things, the military specifically denied that:
Force feeding is very painful, and these chairs are supposed to be especially bad. You can read the rest of that Times article or this Post article if you want the gory details.
Posted by: Katherine | June 11, 2006 at 02:37 PM
slight OT, but the title of this post sounds like it could be the name of a Flaming Lips song.
Posted by: cleek | June 11, 2006 at 02:53 PM
Katherine: yes: normally, competent patients are allowed to refuse medical treatment, even if it's needed to save their lives. (Think: chemotherapy.) Here's the AMA's take on the issue:
Posted by: hilzoy | June 11, 2006 at 03:05 PM
So this is right-wing America's version of freedom and liberty.
Looking more like fascism, everyday.
Posted by: SomeOtherDude | June 11, 2006 at 03:07 PM
And K: thanks for posting on it. I was going to write about it this morning, but was talked into going to an annual herb and heirloom vegetable plant sale instead.
The "act of warfare" comment floored me. How on earth do these people claim to know individual detainees' state of mind? And on what possible ground could one discount 'desperation' as a motivation, given that the detainees have no information about when, if ever, they will be released, and no contact with or information about the outside world?
Posted by: hilzoy | June 11, 2006 at 03:14 PM
Hunger strikers usually have demands that, if met, could end the strike. Hunger strikes are political acts, when they are not acts of personal desperation. But, as with the suicide notes, which are being kept from us, the military has refused all along even to acknowledge that there are demands, much less deigned to relay them to the public.
Thank you, Katherine, for helping to counter the U.S. government's efforts to place these men in the realm of Unpersons -- to give them names, and some small measure of the dignity they were denied in the last years of their lives.
No charges, no trial, no evidence, no information, no communication. Land of the free, eh?
Americans: Are you brave enough to stand up for basic human rights and the rule of law? To demand an end to torture and endless, lawless, detention?
Posted by: Nell | June 11, 2006 at 03:21 PM
How on earth do these people claim to know individual detainees' state of mind? And on what possible ground could one discount 'desperation' as a motivation, given that the detainees have no information about when, if ever, they will be released, and no contact with or information about the outside world?
Never mind that, how on Christ's good earth does hanging oneself count as a f***ing act of war in the first place?
Posted by: Anarch | June 11, 2006 at 03:32 PM
Well, considering we've been witness to the semantic parsing over "imminent", the reclassification of the war from WMD prevention to humanitarian, the classification of prisoners brought in by warlords as "captured on the field of battle by US forces", I find it absolutely no surprise to see this latest gambit.
I'm absolutely stunned at anyone - anyone - who can support this regime.
But then, I don't understand a lot, I guess.
Posted by: Hal | June 11, 2006 at 03:40 PM
Anarch, try Googling "life of brian suicide squad".
I didn't much care for that movie.
Posted by: ral | June 11, 2006 at 05:45 PM
Anarch, try Googling "life of brian suicide squad".
I not only own it, I watch it every Easter.
Posted by: Anarch | June 11, 2006 at 05:49 PM
I had a sneaky suspicion you might know the reference.
So is it absurd? Stupid?
What I find surprising is that even if Adm. Harris believes what he says, how could he be foolish enough to say it to a reporter?
Posted by: ral | June 11, 2006 at 05:55 PM
Why wouldn't he say it to a reporter?
Has there been a wave of outrage, of condemnation, in response to what he said, from the public, the pundits, or powerful politicians? No.
Is he going to lose anything - his job, his rank, any sleep at night? No.
Harris risks nothing. Hell: this is George Bush's America; he might get a medal.
Posted by: CaseyL | June 11, 2006 at 07:59 PM
Katherine, you're back! Would you please consider joining Bloggers Against Torture?
Posted by: elendil | June 11, 2006 at 08:24 PM
I'm going to predict here that someone in the administration will declare that supporting opposition to the US' activities in the Middle East cannot be rational, so force-feeding is entirely appropriate.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | June 11, 2006 at 09:04 PM
Thank you, Katherine. You are the reason I started to read this blog, even though your posts have often left me heartsick, I appreciate the rigor of your research and have sought it out eagerly. This one, though, is especially heartrending. I wish I were at an heirloom plant sale.
Posted by: grackel | June 11, 2006 at 10:41 PM
I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us.
I believe Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris is absolutely f**king bats**t insane.
Posted by: Ugh | June 12, 2006 at 08:28 AM
I listened to the BBD coverage on this (referenced above by Katharine) on the drive back home from Austin and my wife got extremely annoyed at my shouting at the radio.
"PR move !?!?" I kept yelling. Graffy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, must be freaking moron. What pathetic spin these guys are putting out. Is this is the kind of output you get from partisan hacks? If so, that's a good argument against packing govt positions with loyal buffoons.
Posted by: heet | June 12, 2006 at 10:45 AM
K, might you consider updating or writing a follow-on post on the revelation that one of these prisoners was slated for release but hadn't been informed? I felt even more sick about this whole thing when I heard that bit of news. I wonder whether he was the AQ operative, the prison rioter, or the splinter group member?
Posted by: vanessa | June 12, 2006 at 11:17 AM
Whatever It Is, I'm Against It has a compelling take on Ms. Graffy's "public diplomacy": The more totalitarian the system, the louder any act of defiance seems.
Posted by: Nell | June 12, 2006 at 11:51 AM
History shows us that it's possible for hunger strikes and suicide to be powerful political statements by prisoners. The example of such people as Bobby Sands shows that.
But Bobby Sands was, in part, protesting against being treated as an ordinary, common, criminal; is any prisoner in Camp X-Ray being treated that well?
Posted by: Dave Bell | June 12, 2006 at 12:01 PM
All sarcasm aside, it's a pretty clear trajectory. An important component of modern warfare is psyops. The purpose of psyops is demoralizing the opponent, cheering the friendlies, and convincing everyone that you're the good guys. Anything that cheers the opponents, demoralizes the friendlies, or causes anyone to question whether you're the good guy is, thus, a setback. And someone who deliberately does something that will set you back is trying to stop you, obviously. If you're fighting a war and they're trying to stop you, clearly they're fighting you and it's an act of war.
It's one of the most orwellian twists I've seen yet, but if you allow for the individual rhetorical and logical steps, there's no real objecting to the conclusion.
Posted by: Jeff Eaton | June 12, 2006 at 12:16 PM
"Katherine: yes: normally, competent patients are allowed to refuse medical treatment, even if it's needed to save their lives. (Think: chemotherapy.)"
How does that work in a prison setting? If a patient had TB for instance, I presume they could force treatment (you can't keep him away from the guards enough for even solitary to be enough.) This would presumably be a safety concern and wouldn't apply to huger strikes. But I think the refusal of medical treatment isn't as strong from a prisoner as it is from an outside citizen--is this a fully fleshed out area?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | June 12, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Jeff: It's one of the most orwellian twists I've seen yet, but if you allow for the individual rhetorical and logical steps, there's no real objecting to the conclusion.
Oh, yes. Further, it lays the blame for the US being "perceived" as the bad guy on the victims. Why, if not for the victims in Guantanamo Bay complaining about their treatment (and a bunch of do-gooders carrying their complaints to the outside world) no one would see anything wrong with the US having hundreds of people kidnapped and locking them up indefinitely without due process!
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 12, 2006 at 12:30 PM
It's one of the most orwellian twists I've seen yet, but if you allow for the individual rhetorical and logical steps, there's no real objecting to the conclusion.
I got the basic drift, sure, but it requires a totalizing view of warfare and politics that beggars both Sherman and Lenin...
Posted by: Anarch | June 12, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Geez, I stubbed my toe as walked to the computer this morning.
My bad, usually, but I now consider it a broadside in the context of war against the Bush regime.
If McManus stubbed his toe at the same time in Texas, the authorities may have a conspiracy on their hands.
I'd look into it if I possessed any authority.
Posted by: John Thullen | June 12, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Seb: ". But I think the refusal of medical treatment isn't as strong from a prisoner as it is from an outside citizen--is this a fully fleshed out area?"
Basically, yes. Fundamentally, incarceration is supposed not to change the basics of medical ethics, except in that it's harder to use prisoners as experimental subjects, since their free consent is thought to be harder to come by in a fundamentally coercive environment. (A good thing, I think. The potential for abusing authority to get prisoners to enroll in research is obvious, and it's normally possible to find other subjects.)
As you say, some diseases threaten people besides the prisoners. In prisons and in the outside world, this is one justification for treating people without their consent, as well as for things like quarantine, which abrogate people's normal rights for the sake of public health. But in the case of medical problems, like starvation, that pose no public health risk, it's hard to see why prisoners should be treated differently. Especially if the reports that feeding tubes are being used in needlessly painful and humiliating ways are true.
Posted by: hilzoy | June 12, 2006 at 12:54 PM
Splinter group, vaness. Manie ibn Shaman Al-Utaibi.
He was going to be imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, I think, but usually that's not for an indefinite period.
I may not get to a follow up tonight. This is a nice commentary.
Their relatives are saying it can't possibly be suicide:
You can't really blame their parents for not wanting to or allowing themselves to believe that. Of course all kinds of demagogues will be saying the same thing knowing that it's false.
The latest is that this was an attempt to influence the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Surprising, touching faith in the judiciary for prisoners who never filed habeas claims, I must say.
Posted by: Katherine | June 12, 2006 at 08:29 PM
The NY Times has more from the father of Yasser ibn Talal Al-Zahrani:
Further in the article, a possible explanation for the (apparently coordinated) suicides:
Also, BBC News reports that the US State Deptartment has distanced itself from the remarks made yesterday by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Colleen Graffy, in which she labeled the suicides a 'PR stunt'.
No word on whether State stands behind Rear Adm. Harry Harris' 'asymmetrical warfare' comments.
Posted by: matttbastard | June 12, 2006 at 08:47 PM
So maybe it was a PR move after all (not like this) designed to draw attention to the various inhumanities (prepetrated by both sides as usual in the manner so fair and balanced) we have come to expect from those detainers who will not allow the detainees the slightest hand in the script (even the wash-boarding illustrates that the very air the detainees breath is at the whim of their detainers, yes?) and their audience (us) who have the challenge of defending the detainer's view that this action (apparently not in the script, like starvation) must not be tolerated as it imperils those of us in the free world.
It is a tall order.
Posted by: calmo | June 13, 2006 at 12:35 PM
And after their long hiatus, the good folks at fafblog explain everything for us. For as Giblets points out: "a noose is just a suicide bomb with a very small blast radius, people!"
Posted by: Anarch | June 14, 2006 at 11:21 AM
I more or less commented here, while discussing Rumsfeld's tossing out of all reporters from Guantanamo, which doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this thread.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 14, 2006 at 07:44 PM