Libertarian Librarian

Washington was an amazing and idealistic man who did his best to lead our fledgling military in the most ethical way possible during what was probably our purest military endeavor as a nation. But the American Revolution wasn't all sunshine and roses on our part. Two instances of our retaliation against British prisoners during the Revolution come to mind.

First, the Continental Congress, in December of 1776, authorized Captain Biddle to force British prisoners of war into service in order to fill his complement aboard the Randolph. Once at sea, the prisoners mutinied and Captain Biddle "ended the trouble quickly."

Second, in December of 1781, The Congress directed the Secretary of War to use British prisoners in the Simsbury mines in Connecticut and resolved "that he cause them to be treated in all other respects in such manner as will make their situation correspond as near as may be to that of the Citizens of the United States prisoners in Great Britain."

Since its inception, our nation has occasionally treated enemy prisoners in a manner similar to that in which our enemy treated our compatriots in their charge. I am not attempting to present the argument that events such as that justify any such abuses, then or now. Rather, I'd like to dispel the concept that you and others seem to have; that America has, in our recent history, slipped from a "moral high ground" that we have always stood on before.

Even considering events such as the Simsbury mines of the Revolution up through the Abu Ghraibs of this current conflict, I truly believe that America has stood, and continues to stand, for something better.

Remember that the military was already looking into the abuses at Abu Ghraib before it became front page news, and this is part of the reason why we, in my opinion, continue to hold the moral high ground. We continue to "be a civilized society, governed by laws and guided by morals" because, even though abuses may have occurred under our watch, we investigate and try those in our ranks who commit abuses against the enemy in our charge.

Instances like those at Abu Ghraib are the exception, not the norm. The primary guidelines for the U.S. military regarding interrogations are found in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. While even that manual notes that techniques will vary from conflict-to-conflict and theater-to-theater, it also notes that the "use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government."

Most interrogations will depend upon a study of the subject, and a determination of which techniques will provide the best results based upon that subject's demeanor. Some techniques will induce a level of stress and anxiety that some in the civilian world may object to, but I would not consider that abuse (and definitely not torture). We want intel information from those we capture, and a good interrogator is not going to lose the opportunity to get information from those in our custody by either abusing or coddling them.
 

Washington was a practical and amazing man. Also a visionary one. And I know the Revolutionary War wasn't all sunshine and roses on our part. Washington himself oversaw what can only be described as a massacre of French forces during the French and Indian War.

No war is ever sunshine and roses. Nor would I expect it to be, and I hope you are correct that Abu Ghraib is the exception, not the rule. But mounting evidence seems to me to suggest otherwise. More and more it seems to me that America and Americans are finding that they'd rather kill a few innocent folks if it means we can maybe get some info out of the guilty ones.

To me, this is a dangerous trend, one which could indicate that we are, indeed, losing the moral high ground that America has, since its inception, stood for. I don't think it has happened-- but I think it could very easily, and if nobody stands up and says, "Wait a minute-- this isn't right. This is not what our country believes in" we can drift down that road without even hardly noticing.

Especially when our President, Vice President and many other high ranking politicians don't seem to feel there's anything at all to worry about. 83,000 detainees, over a 100 deaths, Abu Ghraib, and increasing numbers of detainees who are being held for extended periods of time even after its been determined they don't know anything.

Rod, if you want to get your undies in a bundle about the violation of civil rights or the ignominity of government forces abusing their power, do it about THIS.

Honestly, folks, if we haven't tipped over the edge into sanctioned torture, we are precariously close to that precipice.
 

First, there is the Breitbart article that you linked to regarding the number of detainees held by the U.S.

According to the numbers given in that article, the U.S. has detained approximately 83,000 people since the fall of 2001 in all theaters of the war. Of those 83,000 detainees, 108 of them have died. This needs to be put into perspective.

The current combined populations of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, is 56,003,893 people. That means that the percentage of the total number of people detained by the U.S. over the last four years as it relates to the current populations of the two major theaters in the current war is 0.15%. That means that approximately 99% of the total populations of Afghanistan and Iraq have not been detained.

What a headline that would be: Over 99% of Afghanis and Iraqis have not been detained by the U.S.!

Of the approximate total of 83,000 people detained by the U.S. since the fall of 2001, and discounting the 108 that the article cites as having died in U.s. custody over the last four years, 82.51% have been released since their initial detention.

What a headline that would be: The U.S. has released over 80% of all detainees in the last four years!

The percentage of the approximate total of 83,000 people detained by the U.S. since the fall of 2001 who have died while in U.S. custody is 0.13%.

What a headline that would be: Over 99.7% of all people detained by the U.S. since the fall of 2001 have survived U.S. custody!

And let's take a look at those deaths. Of the 108 people who died while in U.S. custody in the last four years, 22 died in an attack on the Abu Ghraib prison by terrorists, 26 of the deaths have been investigated as criminal homicides (though the article doesn't state whether the suspected murderer was another inmate or U.S. personnel), and the remaining 60 have died from either natural or other unstated causes.

What a headline that would be: Terrorist attacks on U.S. run detention facilities are responsible for one-fifth of all deaths of U.S. detainees who have died while in U.S. custody over the last four years!

The article states that 75 military personnel have been convicted of abusing detainees since the fall of 2001. If we go with only 150,000 total U.S. military having been involved in theater in the last four years (a conservative figure), that would mean that 0.06% of them were convicted of abusing detainees.

What a headline that would be: Over 99.8% of U.S. military personnel have not abused detainees over the last four years!

When we look at the approximately 13,900 people currently being detained in Iraq (which is only 16.75% of the total detained over the last four years), 4,030 of them have been detained one year or longer.

What a headline that would be: Over 70% of all current detainees in Iraq have been held less than one year.

Then there are the approximately 500 people currently detained at Guantanamo. That's 0.6% of to 83,000 total detainees since the fall of 2001 that the article references.

What a headline that would be: Guantanamo detainees make-up only 0.6% of all U.S. detainees held since the fall of 2001!

Let's look at those numbers again:

Over 99% of Afghanis and Iraqis have not been detained by the U.S.
The U.S. has released over 80% of all detainees in the last four years.
Over 99.7% of all people detained by the U.S. since the fall of 2001 have survived U.S. custody.
Terrorist attacks on U.S. run detention facilities are responsible for one-fifth of all deaths of U.S. detainees who have died while in U.S. custody over the last four years.
Over 99.8% of U.S. military personnel have not abused detainees over the last four years.
Over 70% of all current detainees in Iraq have been held less than one year.
Guantanamo detainees make-up only 0.6% of all U.S. detainees held since the fall of 2001.

You're right, Nick. We are damned close to tipping over the edge of the precipice into state sanctioned torture. The numbers prove it.

Second, there is the Washington Post article you cited to show that we continue to hold prisoners "even after its been determined they don't know anything."

The article's author, P. Sabin Willett, is a lawyer who represents a Guantanamo detainee named Adel. The following items are the pertinent details provided in Willet's 700+ word article:

1. Willet contends that Adel is innocent because a military secret tribunal ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, and not a terrorist.
2. Adel was turned over to the U.S. by an unnamed bounty hunter who was allegedly paid $5,000.00 by the Pentagon for bringing in Adel.
3. The Defense Department says it is trying to arrange for a country to take him, but that it needs to be some country other than his native communist China, where Muslims like Adel are routinely tortured.

Everything in Willet's piece, other than the details above, are filler items intended to provoke an emotional response instead of a reasoned view of the facts.

We don't know all the facts of Adel's case because the military has classified the documents, and Willet will only tell us that a bounty hunter was paid for turning over Adel, and that Adel was allegedly found not to be al Qaeda, Taliban, or a terrorist. Further, Adel continues to be held because the U.S. government has decided not to release him from its custody if that deportation would send the subject to a nation without a government willing to accept him or to a regime where the subject would be maltreated upon repatriation.

Even if the DOD tried to send Adel back to China, I can all but guarantee that Willet would appeal the decision on "humanitarian grounds," promptly applying for asylum on behalf of Adel due to the treatment of Muslims in his native China.

I have little doubt that Willet is currently working on presenting a case on the behalf of Adel to allow him to be released freely into the U.S. on the basis of Zadvydas v. Davis. Since habeas corpus being applied to Guantanamo detainees got Adel's foot in the door, Willet now may have the chance to argue for his release into the U.S. through federal court.

So, yes, you are correct that we are continuing to hold at least one prisoner in Guantanamo even after they have been cleared by a military tribunal; but the rest of that story is that we are doing so because we are "a civilized society, governed by laws and guided by morals" which won't send him back to his native China to be tortured.

Third, there is the Andrew Sullivan link to allegations of abuse from former detainees and Andrew's personal list of torture methods.

Isn't it strange that, of the 68,000+ detainees who are no longer in our custody, there are only a handful who peddle their stories of abuse to the press? Is that because the U.S. was so intimidating that the remaining tens-of-thousands won't come forward? Or maybe it's just some b.s. about the U.S. from some dip s. who wants to get his fifteen minutes of fame live from Kabul or Sadr City.

And as far as the list of torture techniques, when Dana Priest passes the documentation of the CIA torture methods used in the secret foreign prisons on to Sullivan, then I'll listen. Until then, maybe Andrew should check out the documented case of the Spanish Imam who, in his book Women in Islam, detailed methods of beating one's wife without leaving marks.

Finally, you title your post, "The Moral High Ground." That is followed by a quote from David Fischer's book, Washington's Crossing, which included: "Washington's example carried growing weight, more so than his written orders and prohibitions. He often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies." and "The esteem of others was important to [Washington and his officers] mainly because they believed that victory would come only if they deserved to win."

You proceed from there to note that, while "even if it is unfair to say that America has been torturing its prisoners of war, I think it is fair to say that we are willing to "coerce" the innocent in order to interrogate the guilty. This is exactly backward from what we, as Americans, espouse and which is embodied in Washington's stance in the Revolutionary War."

This isn't the first time you have referenced our supposedly past morality, either. You have previously stated that More importantly-- we have ALWAYS stood for something better in America. Washington refused to humiliate the British troops, Sherman (or was it Grant?) was respectful and non-punitory in his dealings with Davis and Lee.

While Washington may have refused to humiliate the British troops, you have stated that he "oversaw what can only be described as a massacre of French forces during the French and Indian War." Further, as I noted in my first comment to this post, the Continental Congress chose to force British troops into service aboard a U.S. ship, and also directed the Secretary of War to press British POWs into service in mines in Connecticut as retaliation for the treatment of our prisoners by the British.

General Grant may have been respectful and non-punitive in his dealings with Davis and Lee, but William Tecumseh Sherman remains one of the most despised men in the South. General Sherman burned every piece of territory he captured while on his way to the Atlantic coast, destroying cities such as Atlanta and Savannah.

You note all of this, apparently in an attempt to show how far we have strayed in the war on terror from the moral standing you feel we once held as a nation prior to this episode in history. Yet, when called on it, you acknowledge that we were poorly behaved then as well. You also acknowledge that you know that the prior conflicts weren't sunshine and roses, and that no war ever is.

So what is the point of noting Washington, the founding principles, Civil War leaders, and the like? Washington oversaw a "massacre," the Continental Congress drafted resolutions to abuse enemy prisoners in a manner similar to the abuse our prisoners received, and Sherman executed a scorched earth policy. These were no better than some of the unfortunate instances in the conflict we are currently in. What was the point of noting them before talking about allegations of prisoner abuse facing the U.S. today?
 

Great post, as always Mojo. You are my Hero!

Now, let's rework one of your headlines a little:

What a headline that would be: Guantanamo detainees make-up only 0.6% of all U.S. detainees held since the fall of 2001!

To this:

What a headline that would be: Guantanamo detainees make-up only six tenths of one percent of all U.S. detainees held since the fall of 2001!
 

Thanks, John. You're right; 0.6% could misconstrued as a higher percentage or not quite as much of an insignificant percentage. Six-tenths-of-one-percent would have been a better way to phrase it.