We used to be better than this. We used to have leaders that were better than this.

[kpete]

Gitmo Torture Memoir of Mohamedou Ould Slahi
by Taylor Marsh on May 1, 2013

SLATE has published excerpts of a Gitmo torture memoir that should be required reading in Congress and in the Obama administration. It should then be passed to Ron Fournier who recently wrote a sloppy love poem to George W. Bush. The first installment of the torture memoir is here, but hold on, because it unmasks, yet again, our country’s leaders as not fit for their jobs.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/04/mohamedou_ould_slahi_s_guantanamo_memoirs_part_1_the_endless_interrogations.html

Here’s an excerpt on the background on the torture memoir by Mohamedou Ould Slahi:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/04/mohamedou_ould_slahi_s_guant_namo_memoirs_how_the_united_states_kept_a_gitmo.single.html



Mohamedou Ould Slahi at Guantánamo
Courtesy of the International Committee of the Red Cross [via Slate]

What followed was one of the most stubborn, deliberate, and cruel Guantánamo interrogations on record. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally signed Slahi’s interrogation plan. Like Mohamed al-Qahtani, the Pentagon’s other “Special Project,” Slahi would be subjected to months of 20-hour-a-day interrogations that combined sleep deprivation, severe temperature and diet manipulation, and total isolation with relentless physical and psychological humiliations. He was told his mother had been detained and would soon be at the mercy of the all-male population at Guantánamo. He was threatened with death and subjected to a violent mock rendition. Declassified files, including the Defense Department’s Schmidt-Furlow Report, the Justice Department’s investigation of FBI involvement in Guantánamo interrogations, and the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report on the treatment of detainees, document the Pentagon’s plan and its meticulous and malicious implementation.

That all this abuse was fruitless is clear from the 2010 decision of U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson granting Slahi’s habeas corpus petition and ordering his release. Once there had been talk of trying Slahi as a key 9/11 recruiter, a capital crime, but no criminal charges were ever prepared against him. The man first assigned to prosecute him, Marine Corps Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, withdrew from the case when he discovered Slahi had been tortured. When Couch’s boss, former Guantánamo chief prosecutor Col. Morris Davis, met with the CIA, the FBI, and military intelligence in 2007 to review Slahi’s case, the agencies conceded they could not link him to any acts of terrorism. During Slahi’s habeas corpus proceedings, the government still alleged he played a role in recruiting the 9/11 hijackers, though by then it was acknowledging, as Robertson notes in a footnote to his opinion, “that Slahi probably did not even know about the 9/11 attacks.” The only evidence the government offered to support allegations of Slahi’s involvement in terrorist plots came, Robertson found, from statements he made in the course of his brutal interrogation.

Slahi testified by closed video link to Washington during the habeas corpus proceedings. What he said remains classified. Until now, one of the few documents we had of Slahi describing his ordeal, in his own words, is the declassified transcript of his November 2005 Administrative Review Board hearing. The document is remarkable for the characteristic clarity and sly humor of Slahi’s voice; a masked interrogator, he tells the board, “had gloves, OJ Simpson gloves on his hands.” It is also exceptionally earnest. Early in his statement, he tells the board, “Please, I want you guys to understand my story okay, because it really doesn’t matter if they release me or not, I just want my story understood.”

The disgrace is on every single politician in Washington, including President Obama, a man who was supposed to make things different, especially on torture and Guantanamo Bay. It hasn’t happened.

We used to be better than this. We used to have leaders that were better than this.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/blog/2013/05/gitmo-torture-memoir-of-mohamedou-ould-slahi/

[Skittles]

2. back when WE THE PEOPLE actually MEANT something

[graham4anything]

3. Blame the protesters in 1968 who ditched LBJ and the Nader voters in 2000

the good thing is- LBJ is finally looking like the #2 or #3 president of all time he always was.
The best President of the last 50 years ever.

[Dragonfli]

5. Did they torture people or decree war criminals above the law?

You like blaming anyone but the republicans or the neoliberal type Democrats that believe "It happened in the past " and "looking forward past crimes" is an airtight legal Defense.

One small thing, The Nader voters aren't around every corner as you believe and were a very small percentage of voters, Al Gore won the election you idiot, SCOTUS just decided they were in charge of installing an idiot sociopath. Also, you may not know this, but not every one of us was for, or wanted to support, the clusterfuck in Vietnam, some of us were not as sociopathic as you may have been.


Anyone from the twenties or perhaps the 15th century you want to Blame for Bush's torture or Obama's support of his being above the law while you are at it?

[Summer Hathaway]

6. When did Obama

"support" the idea of Bush being above the law?

[Dragonfli]

11. In 2009, where were you?

Obama said it was time to admit “mistakes” and “move forward.”

He even specifically reassured the CIA in his first visit that they would face be no prosecutions for waterboarding or other illegal acts carried out for Bush/Cheney.

Also in 2009, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said on the ABC News program “This Week” that “those who devised policy” also “should not be prosecuted.” Many people saw that show, I guess you missed it.

When Rahm let the cat out of the bag, those of us that didn't think anyone responsible for war crimes should be above the law raised hell, there used to be a lot that opposed war crimes, you must have hung with a different crowd and so don't remember any of this.

After we applied pressure, the White house decided "they would not rule out" “those who devised policy” might face possible prosecution unlike the actual torturers at the CIA (he never even pretended to walk that back). I Don't remember anyone to this day that devised torture policies ever being charged by Holder, even after writing books bragging about it, Rahm appears to have been telling the truth for once.

Were you in a cave in '09 or something? You really can't remember any of this?

[Summer Hathaway]

14. I remember all of that perfectly well.

But it has nothing to do with my question.

You referred to "Obama's support of (Bush) being above the law".

My question is quite specific: When did Obama 'support' the idea that Bush was above the law?

Do you have any quotes where Obama said Dubya was 'above the law', and was not being indicted on that ground?

[Dragonfli]

18. Semantics really? I just answered your question.

He called it "recognizing mistakes and looking forward", but doing that in response to criminal acts supports them being above the laws they've broken, no matter the words used in public to justify and spin that support.

Semantics be damned, we both know the truth of it, only one of us argues semantics rather than what was done, a cheap and insincere tactic IMO.

[Summer Hathaway]

20. Words have meaning.

You clearly stated that Obama "supported" the idea that Bush was above the law.

He did no such thing. "Recognizing mistakes and looking forward" is in not even remotely equivalent to 'supporting' the notion that anyone is above the law.

This is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of you having made a statement that you can't back up - but no surprise there.

By your reasoning, any time a DA doesn't pursue charges against an alleged criminal, he is supporting the notion that the alleged criminal is above the law.

Pretty damned dumb, isn't it?

If you don't want to be called on when you make statements that have no resemblance to reality, you should refrain from making such statements in the first place.

[graham4anything]

8. Linear calander line- NOV. 2000 NH, 4 electoral votes, weeks before Florida SCOTUS Dec.2000

Why are Nader fans hiding the obvious facts of 2000

They yammer about SCOTUS, when New Hampshire's four puny electoral votes made all the difference election night about 8am eastern time, election was over if Nader didn't run.
Even Nader admits it himself. So why do his fans deny it?
Why so important to skip a month of time and take the time machine to Dec. when the election could have ended in Nov.

(BTW-if you don't like Scotus, why ditch LBJ in 1968 and Jimmy Carter in 1980?

Who in hell do you think put the 5 Scotus of 2000 that voted 5 to 4 on the court?
It wasn't President Johnson, Carter, Clinton or Obama.

It was republicans like Elizabeth Warren who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980.
And ditched LBJ over a wedge issue in 1968.

BTW-no one was against Vietnam when Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy started it or the first 1/2 of the war. It was only later.
Wars happen, they can't be changed.

Why is the only thing one cares about wars and social security when there are 1000 great things out there being done?

If one likes social security, then one shouldn't have ditched LBJ in 1968 and it directly allowed
Ford(who ensured with his pardon that a President will never be looked into), Reagan, Bush41,43 and Jeb.

BTW- NO LAW is being broken. Congress authorized anything and everything.

Why do people use hyperbole all the time?
No laws are broken. The constitution gave the right during war time, and in 2000, there was a war after 9-11, which OBL and 19 terrorists did, btw. There was NO Bush family doing 9-11.

[Dragonfli]

17. LBJ did great work for us, but he screwed up his legacy with Vietnam

Wars can be gotten out of, we did get out of Vietnam in the end you know. Once they started televising it, most of the public was horrified and in the end it was lack of public support that ended Vietnam - the protesters were a big part of that you have no right to vilify them for opposing the War, I assume you opposed John Kerry as well and so you are to blame for his loss in 2004 by your own strange logic (He opposed the war as well).

You say no law was being broken, but that is an outright lie, International and domestic laws were broken that specified torture during war as being quite illegal.

You do know that WE actually prosecuted some Japanese found guilty of the crime of waterboarding DURING WAR TIME.

I wonder by your postings if you are on medications that cause your crazy statements and inability to write coherently, I should probably just pity you for whatever illness you have. I think perhaps you are not responsible for much of it.

It is often best to ignore people that due to illness or medications provoke us for whatever reason. So I shall ignore you, luckily there is an option to do that with the push of a button.

[raccoon]

9. Easy to say that now. At the time, LBJ was very unpopular because of the war and the draft.

I don't know how old you are, but my guess is you don't remember that time period. Guess you had to be there.

[graham4anything]

10. I was there. And in hindsight, the protesters were damn stupid.

Because Bobby would NOT have been the nominee, Mccarthy(like McGovern was a cool and super guy with zippo chance of ever dreaming they would win) and Nixon won.

What was achieved?

The war was Eisenhower's and JFK's. And winning was the only option. Losing wasn't.

and the important thing is, selling LBJ down the river got what happened later.
One cannot deny it, or attempt to smear me by saying I was n't there, I was.

LBJ was the biggest peacenik there ever was. Single most humane President before Carter, and 1000 times more liberal than any president ever.

He would have beaten Nixon had he been the nominee.
If the party stuck together, he would have.

Stupid was what happened directly because of the protest, there is no denying that.

If you were there, you would remember losing was NOT an option.
Why do you think they wasted hundreds of billions on the stupid space race so a handful of republican astronauts could spend a few minutes on the moon?

[markpkessinger]

15. Can you say, "Gulf of Tonkin" boys and girls? n/t

[reformist2]

4. Couldn't Prez. Obama issue an executive order moving them to more humane locations?

[Luminous Animal]

19. It would still be life imprisonment with no trial. And more than half have been cleared for release.

It is not the conditions that the Gitmo prisoners are protesting. It is the very fact that they shouldn't be in prison.

[The Straight Story]

7. We used to believe in your body, your choice and didn't like bigotry either

But here on DU you find people who rail against both (and who hate when called out over it).

I can't blame the politicians/leaders when the very people voting for them feel the same.

Ban everything we can, from sodas to smoking in bars where people -choose- to go. Label 98% of people based on what less than 1% of those people do.

We LOST our principles because we decided they only applied to some things, like when the rw used them, and we have become a mirror image of them in many ways.

We once had a common enemy, now the enemy is fellow progressives if they are not pure enough, don't hate the same things we hate enough, and when they stand up on principle we smack the down.

Freedom, more rights for us all - naw, screw that. Let's just do what we can to control others and their lives and wonder why our leaders have not clue what we really want because it changes each situation based on the emotions of people.

[G_j]

13. and that applies to this story

??

[G_j]

12. of course

" The only evidence the government offered to support allegations of Slahi’s involvement in terrorist plots came, Robertson found, from statements he made in the course of his brutal interrogation"

[NightWatcher]

16. When were we better? When we interned Japanese US citizens in WWI

Or when we wiped out the native people in order to steal their lands?
Or when we imported and enslaved Africans at the same time we stated that all men were created equal?

We've always been cruel and greedy.

[spanone]

21. don rumsfeld....one. evil. fuck.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. It's interesting how the ODSers hold up FDR and LBJ, but forget all about Japanese Internment

Camps (FDR) and The Gulf of Tonkin (LBJ). Their hatred for this president blinds them.

I do think it is possible for a president to make bad decisions and still be a great president. FDR and LBJ were outstanding presidents, but let's not pretend that they were above reproach. FDR made a lot of mistakes in his final term and LBJ was nowhere near perfect. He was ill-tempered and didn't get along with most people. They were still great presidents, and so is President Obama!