Beyond torture: the future of interrogation

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay: two names that have become synonymous in many people's minds with torture and abuse of human rights by American interrogators. When Barack Obama entered the White House in January 2009, he set out to erase the stain such practices have left on America's image. The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group established later that year has as one of its stated aims to interrogate without brute force and to employ "scientifically proven" techniques - though without saying what these might be.

It seems like a noble goal, but on closer inspection it raises a host of questions. Can science validate interrogation techniques - and if so, how? What is the effect on the human mind of coercive interrogation that stops short of physical torture? And, crucially, are there any interrogation techniques that can be shown to be both effective and humane?

In the past, the US military used a set of 19 approved interrogation methods laid down in the Army Field Manual 2-22.3, which explicitly prohibits threats or coercion. Following the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, the George W. Bush administration decided that this should change. So, after legal consultations, new ways to apply pressure on people under interrogation were drawn up. For several years they remained secret, but more recently we have acquired a pretty good idea of the techniques interrogators used at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the US base at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

Take, for example, the treatment log of Mohamed al-Kahtani, made public in March 2006. This revealed that for weeks on end he faced a daily routine of just 4 hours of interrupted sleep, prolonged stress positions, blaring music, extremes of temperature, and various humiliations - including being treated like a dog, and a mock birthday party at which he was shown puppet shows of himself engaging in sexual acts with Osama bin Laden.

The technique known as waterboarding, in which the subject experiences the sensation that they are drowning, was also common. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has claimed responsibility for planning the 9/11 attacks, was subjected to waterboarding more than 180 times in March 2003 alone.

Do any or all of these amount to torture? The 1984 UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is somewhat vague. It differentiates between torture - "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" - and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" (CIDT). This distinction may reflect the notion that inserting needles under someone's fingernails or pulling out their teeth is in some way worse than, say, blindfolding and hooding, forced nudity, isolation, humiliation, forced stress positions, or deprivation of sleep or light.

Yet the UN convention is clear: both torture and CIDT are illegal. And maybe the distinction is unimportant anyway, as there appears to be little to choose between them in terms of the long-term ill-effects they cause to their victims.

Continue reading

@'New Scientist'

Mos Dub from Max (Jaydiodread)Tannone

HERE

Moritz Von Oswald (Rhythm & Sound) Live @ Placa del Rei, Barcelona Feat. Tikiman - 14-10-2008

    

Ikonika

International Paul Haig Day II

Includes exclusive mix from the man himself!

Well it is that time of the year again...

JC from the 'TheVinyl Villian' blog started this day last year after he was dealt a DMCA takedown notice for posting a track by Paul Haig. A track that was owned by him and had been given to the blog as a way of promoting his then new album.

You should of course know who Paul Haig is but if you don't then please visit all the blogs taking part today (there is a list over at the 'The Vinyl Villian' and by the end you should have built a good little introductory collection of mpfrees. Like Franz Ferdinand? Well a massive debt is owed to the man above...)

Anyway on to the DMCA process...well the problem is that I don't know where to begin... as the wiki article states:

"The DMCA has been criticized for making it too easy for copyright owners to encourage website owners to take down allegedly infringing content and links which may in fact not be infringing. When website owners receive a takedown notice it is in their interest not to challenge it, even if it is not clear if infringement is taking place, because if the potentially infringing content is taken down the website will not be held liable."

This blog has received three infringment notices in it's 4,500 post history, two of which were for links to 'the internet archive', which are legal downloads. I did write to blogger at the time pointing this out and never heard back but interestingly if you check up 'Exile On Moan Street' at 'Chilling Effects' there is only one one DMCA notice listed...and yes I was (probably) guilty that time!

Google themselves have said:

"that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims. "

This matters as this recent article at 'The Guardian' points out blogs are disappearing after only one DMCA notice! Blogger has never satisfactorily said under what circumstances they do delete blogs, but from what I can gather it seems to be after five notices usually.

There has also been cases like Sire Records having their official 'Youtoob' channel deleted for infringing copyright!!!

Bloggers, in the main are trying to point you to artists and songs that they like and want you to know and I am convinced this can only help the artists in question become better known...and do not get me started on Lily Allen biting the hand that fed her!

So it is with thanks to Paul Haig for getting bloggers on his side that I leave you with the first single from his first band from 1979 to his most recent song...

...and don't forget to visit 'The Vinyl Villian' for updates of other blog's posts throughout the day...

Josef K - Chance Meeting/Romance

Paul Haig - Trip Out The Rider (Mix 2)

(Remember that home taping is skill in music!)

Collateral Murder

 WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.
Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

Trentemøller - Sycamore Feeling

Massacre in woods that brought war to Moscow's metro

Movsar Dakaev, 17, photographed on the garlic-picking expedition in the woods between Chechnya and Ingushetia that led to his death. Photograph: Memorial

When the shooting started Adlan Mutsaev and his friends were in the woods picking garlic. They had arrived in the forest earlier that day, together with a group of neighbours travelling in a battered coach. The plan had been straightforward: stuff their sacks, enjoy the countryside, and then head back home to the Chechen town of Achkoi-Martan.

Without warning, Russian commandos hiding behind a hillock opened fire.Adlan, 16, was with his brother Arbi, 19, and their friends Shamil Kataev, 19, and Movsar Tataev, 19. Shamil and Movsar were both wounded. Adlan was shot in the leg, but managed to hobble into a ditch. He hid. Arbi also attempted to flee, but men in camouflage fatigues caught up with him.

According to the human rights group Memorial, Arbi was forced to drag his two wounded and bleeding friends across the snow. Shamil begged for his life. But the solders were impervious. They placed a blindfold over Arbi's eyes. And then they opened fire: executing Shamil and Movsar on the spot. At least two other garlic pickers suffered the same fate: Ramzan Susaev, 40, and Movsar Dakaev, 17. According to his relatives, Dakaev had pleaded to be allowed on the trip with the others. Wearing a bright green fleece, he took a photo of himself in the woods with his mobile phone. It shows him proudly posing against a craggy backdrop of cliffs and trees covered in snow. A little over 48 hours later his body was discovered.

The misfortune of the four garlic pickers was to have unwittingly strayed into a "counter-insurgency operation" conducted by Russian forces in the densely wooded border between Chechnya and Ingushetia. The soldiers, apparently looking for militant rebels who are waging their own violent campaign against the Russian state, came across the unarmed group, brutally killing them amid the picturesque massif of low hills.

Normally this atrocity on a cold day in February would have raised barely a ripple of attention had it not been for the terrible events in Moscow this week. In a video address on Thursday, Chechnya's chief insurgent leader, Doku Umarov, said Monday's suicide attacks on the Russian capital's metro were in revenge for the killings of the garlic pickers near the Ingush village of Arshaty. He claimed federal security service (FSB) commandos had used knives to mutilate their bodies of the dead boys.

Forty people died and more than 70 were injured when two suicide attackers from the North Caucasus set off their devices at stations outside the headquarters of the FSB and Park Kultury.

Russia's counter-terrorism committee yesterday named the Park Kultury bomber as Dzhanet Abdurakhmanova, saying she was also known as Dzhanet Abdullayeva. Born in 1992, she came from Dagestan. Kommersant newspaper published a photo of her dressed in a black Muslim headscarf holding a pistol. It named the second bomber as 20-year-old Markha Ustarkhanova from Chechnya, describing her as the widow of a militant leader killed last October.

Linked or not, human rights groups say it is undeniable that the brutal actions of Russia's security forces have fuelled the insurgency raging across the North Caucasus region of Russia and the ethnic republics of Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya and Kabardino-Balkaria. This largely invisible war has now reached the Kremlin's doorstep.

"People are abducted. People are killed. There are no guarantees of security," Magomed Mutsolgov, a human rights activist, told the Guardian yesterday, speaking from Nazran, Ingushetia's chief town. Law enforcement and security agencies have committed dozens of summary and arbitrary detentions, acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as extra-judicial executions, rights groups say.

Typically, armed personnel wearing masks encircle a village or district in a "sweep operation". They force their way into homes, beat residents and damage property. Suspected militants are taken away. Many never return. Others are simply shot, and fake weapons planted on them, rights groups allege, citing interviews with victims and relatives.

According to Mutsolgov, the Kremlin's counter-terrorism methods have proved entirely counter-productive: "Violence produces more violence. It drives people to the militant underground."

The nature of the armed conflict in the North Caucasus has also mutated. From 1994 to 1996 Boris Yeltsin fought a war against mainly secular Chechen separatists who wanted – like the newly independent Georgians over the mountains – their own constitution and state. In 1999-2004 president Vladimir Putin fought a second Chechen war. The aim was to crush Chechen separatism.

Now, however, the Kremlin is battling another kind of enemy. The new generation of insurgents have an explicitly Islamist goal: to create a radical pan-Caucasian emirate with sharia law, a bit like Afghanistan under the Taliban. In February Umarov vowed to "liberate" not only the North Caucasus and Krasnodar Krai but Astrakhan – on the Caspian Sea -and the Volga region as well.

The rebels' tactics have also grown more fanatical. Umarov has seemingly revived the suicide squads used by his assassinated predecessor Shamil Basaev. Last summer a suicide truck bomber blew up Nazran's police station. Another bomber succeeded in ramming the car of Ingushetia's president, Yunus-Bek Yevkurov. Monday's attack in Moscow was the first in the capital for six years.

Increasingly, the rebels are also exploiting a new weapon: the web. On 2 March special forces launched a massive operation in Ekashevo, a suburb on the outskirts of Nazran. There they killed Said Buryatsky, a Siberian-born convert whose jihadist messages on YouTube had attracted a following among disaffected Muslims. Under fire from Russian artillery, Buryatksy recorded a final message for his global disciples.

Yesterday Russian forces had sealed off Ekashevo. But video footage obtained by Memorial shows a picture of devastation: pulverised houses, wrecked cars and alleyways strewn with bricks. After the battle Russian forces displayed a haul of weapons seized from the rebels – together with a blown-off human hand.

Human rights groups are critical of both sides. They accuse the rebels and government of failing to respect human life. Timur Akiev, the head of Memorial's Nazran office, said: "The government's methods have led to a radicalisation of the underground. The rebels now have only one goal: to beat Russia at any price. The rebels and the security forces behave in the same way towards each other. The civilian population is caught in the middle."

Like its imperial tsarist predecessors, who subdued the Caucasus in a sustained and savage campaign of tree-felling and village-burning, today's Russian leadership has little understanding of the region or its habits, Akiev suggested.

He also condemned Monday's bombings. "I don't understand how you can kill Russian civilians in revenge for the killing of Chechen civilians. It's absurd. The people who died in the metro had nothing to do with the conflict."

The Kremlin's response to the metro bombings has been, predictably, vengeful. Vladimir Putin has called for those responsible to be "scraped from the sewers". Dmitry Medvedev, the president, visited Kizlyar on Thursday, a day after twin suicide bombers killed 12 people and injured 28 others.

Security forces should "get more cruel", he recommended. "Quite a lot has been achieved in fighting terrorism lately," Medvedev said. "We have twisted the heads off the most odious bandits. But that, by all accounts, is not enough. We will track them down and punish all of them. We must deal sharp dagger blows to the terrorists, and destroy them and their lairs."

Before Monday's Moscow bombings, Medvedev had taken a few tentatively creative steps in the region, including appointing a new federal envoy. But the key problems remain. There are numerous socio-economic factors driving the insurgency: poverty, unemployment (running unofficially at around 75% in Ingushetia), police brutality, and corruption.

Back in Achkoi-Martan, it took relatives two days to discover what had happened to their loved ones. After hiding for 48 hours in a hole, fed by a spring, Adlan Mutaev crawled out of the forest. Local people discovered him alive on the edge of the wood. His brother Arbi was released by Russian commandos after two days. Human rights workers from Memorial arrived on 14 February, interviewing dozens of witnesses and taking photographs of corpses heaped up in the snow.

Those of Shamil Kataev revealed that he had been shot in the temple from close range. Someone had stolen his mobile phone and passport, as well as a letter from the head of Achkoi-Martin, granting the garlic pickers permission to be in the area. The body of Movsar Tataev was covered in gunshot wounds. In addition there were knife wounds to his spine and groin. Ramzan Susaev had been shot in the chest. His brother eventually found his body lying in the forest.

Unusually, Ingushetia's president Yevkurov quickly acknowledged that several innocent civilians had been killed in February's special operation. He added, however, that security forces had succeeded in killing 18 rebels, and said that the operation had served to increase the stability of the region. Both Chechnya and Ingushetia's rulers have paid the families of the dead teenage boys compensation.

Luke Harding @'The Guardian'

Photo of Movsar Dakaev NOT from 'The Guardian'

In Afghanistan, an unending cycle of drugs and death

U.S. led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it

 

"Tied up, gagged and killed" was how NATO described the “gruesome discovery” of three women’s bodies during a night raid in eastern Afghanistan in which several alleged militants were shot dead on Feb. 12.

 Hours later they revised the number of women “bound and gagged” to two and announced an enquiry. For more than a month they said nothing more on the matter.

 The implication was clear: The dead militants were probably also guilty of the cold-blooded slaughter of helpless women prisoners. NATO said their intelligence had “confirmed militant activity”. As if to reinforce the point, coalition spokesman Brigadier General Eric Tremblay, a Canadian, talked in that second press release of “criminals and terrorists who do not care about the life of civilians”.

 Only that’s not what happened, at all.

 The militants weren’t militants, they were loyal government officials.  The women, according to dozens of interviews with witnesses at the scene, were killed by the raiders. Two of them were pregnant, one was engaged to be married.

 The only way I found out NATO had lied -- deliberately or otherwise -- was because I went to the scene of the raid, in Paktia province, and spent three days interviewing the survivors. In Afghanistan that is quite unusual.

 NATO is rarely called to account. Their version of events, usually originating from the soldiers involved, is rarely seriously challenged.

 This particular raid, in the early hours of Feb 12, piqued my interest. I contacted some of the relatives by phone, established it was probably safe enough to visit, and I finally made it to the scene almost a month after unidentified gunmen stormed the remnants of an all-night family party.

It’s not the first time I’ve found NATO lying, but this is perhaps the most harrowing instance, and every time I go through the same gamut of emotions. I am shocked and appalled that brave men in uniform misrepresent events. Then I feel naïve.

 There are a handful of truly fearless reporters in Afghanistan constantly trying to break the military’s monopoly on access to the front. But far too many of our colleagues accept the spin-laden press releases churned out of the Kabul headquarters. Suicide bombers are “cowards,” NATO attacks on civilians are “tragic accidents,” intelligence is foolproof and only militants get arrested.

 Some journalists in Kabul are hamstrung by security rules set in Europe or America, which often reflect the least permissive times in Baghdad rather than any realistic threats in Afghanistan. These reporters can’t leave their compounds without convoys of armed guards. They couldn’t dream of driving around rural Paktia, dressed up in local clothes and squashed into the back of an old Toyota Corolla, to interview the survivors of a night raid.

 Ultra risk-averse organizations go even further and rely almost entirely on video footage and still images gifted by the entirely partial combat-camera teams or the coalition’s dedicated NATO TV unit, staffed by civilian ex-journalists who churn out good news b-roll. Others lap up this material because it’s cheaper and easier than having their own correspondents in a war zone.

 This self-censorship is compounded by the “embed culture,” which encourages journalists to visit the frontlines with NATO soldiers, who provide them food, shelter, security and ultimately with stories. British troops will only accept journalists who let military censors approve their stories before they are filed. Ostensibly, this is to stop sensitive information reaching the insurgents. In my three and a half years in Afghanistan, the British invariably use it as an opportunity to editorialize.

 In Helmand, in August 2008, a British censor attached to the Parachute Regiment threatened to ban me from ever embedding again if I filed footage of a paratrooper firing his heavy machine gun without wearing body armor. This had nothing to do with operational security and everything to do with health and safety, domestic UK politics (reference kit shortages and soldiers’ well-being), and ultimately “arse-covering” within the military.

 To my eternal shame, I backed down. Embeds were my livelihood. I swapped the clip for something a combat camera team provided. But I was blacklisted for more than a year all the same -- for arguing.

 The Americans are just as subtle.  I was thrown off a trip with the Marines Special Operations Command troops (MarSOC) last year when they realized I had written a story many months earlier linking their colleagues to three of Afghanistan’s worst civilian casualty incidents.

 The platoon commander boasted that his Special Forces were “a fusion of weapons and intelligence”. Two hours later he asked me what my name was. Then he booked me on the next flight out. At least we know the weapons work.

 As a freelance reporter, as I was then, the NATO blacklist was a daunting prospect. Many journalists I know here still prefer access to truth. Looking back, for me, it was the best thing that could have happened.

 I have traveled from the north east corner of Afghanistan to the capital of Helmand province, and every major city in between, independently. I plan hard and take local security advice, and I am lucky that my newspaper supports me.

 NATO however, is continuing to fight back. Challenge them and they will challenge you. They have admitted that the dead women were not bound and gagged, but rather had been wrapped in ritual preparation for burial. But NATO still insits the women were killed before, not during, the firefight. They have also admitted the two dead men were not the intended target of the raid. But they have also tried hard to discredit me, personally, for bringing this to the world’s attention. In an unprecedented response to my original story about the Gardez night raid they named me individually, twice, in their denial of the cover up.

 They claimed to have a recording of my conversation which contradicted my shorthand record. When I asked to hear it, they ignored me. When I pressed them, they said there had been a misunderstanding. When they said recording, they meant someone had taken notes. The tapes, they said, do not exist. 

 Since then the United Nations and the New York Times have both corroborated my findings. The New York Times repeated the accusation of a cover-up. I take solace from the more experienced and intrepid of my colleagues who have been through all this before. NATO lies and unless we check them, they get away with it. If we check them, they attack us. It's unpleasant but important. There’s no doubt in my mind that we must continue to question what the soldiers want us to know.

Jerome Starkey @'Nieman Watchdog'

DJ Food - More Volts: The Funky Eno

  (Thanx to Dr Feelgoed!)

Amy Cook - Refueled Magazine's "Behind-the-Scenes"

@ the very wonderful

'Refueled' 

A new view of the Maya

Money, keys, comb, wallet, lighter, hanky, pen, cigarettes, contraceptives, vasoline, whips, chains, whistles, dildos and a BOOK!

U.S. Admits Role in February Killing of Afghan Women

...The admission was an abrupt about-face. In a statement soon after the raid, NATO had claimed that its raiding party had stumbled upon the “bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed” and hidden in a room in the house. Military officials had also said later that the bodies showed signs of puncture and slashing wounds from a knife, and that the women appeared to have been killed several hours before the raid.

And in what would be a scandalous turn to the investigation, The Times of London reported Sunday night that Afghan investigators also determined that American forces not only killed the women but had also “dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath” and then “washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened.”...

Full story

@'NY Times'