Oh, the irony...

"The U.S. military will televise the Guantanamo trial of accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other suspects so relatives of those killed in the attacks can watch on the U.S. mainland," so reports Reuters.

Not only is this a disgusting spectacle that uses the image of 9/11 to cast doubt over the defendants’' allegedly presumed innocence, it is a self-fulfilling political statement that seeks to justify the farsical "war on terror". (Whatever happened to the American principle of "innocent until proven guilty?" ...which was developed from precisely these sorts of show trials that colonists were subjected to by the Crown before independence...)

The bit I find amusing is the part where the military cites the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on subjecting prisoners to "insults and public curiosity" (GCIII, Art. 13) in its disapproval of taking photos of them, yet those pesky GC provisions on things like torture and degrading treatment are somehow not applicable.

The military seems to have forgotten that GCIII applies to POWs... but the Guantánamo detainees are not POWs, right? So they can be tortured and humiliated and degraded since they're not POWs subject to the GC, but no photos can be taken of them because the 3rd GC prohibits public humiliation of POWs? Hmm.

Maybe the real reason the military doesn't want anyone to see the detainees is to prevent the outside world from learning of their health and treatment.

I agree with the 9/11 relative that this process should be about justice, not vengeance. Closed show trials held for quasi-political purposes are the practice of non-democratic countries. We, as a democracy, as the self-appointed 'city on a hill', can do better: open trials in real courts, with real evidence not manufactured or derived from years of degrading treatment and physical violence.

Sorry for the strong, undiplomatic tone, I'm tired and seriously cranky.

"Could I have my vente torture-ccino made with soymilk? kthx."

I ran across this article last night and thought I'd share it with you. In it, a former(?) Gitmo interrogator asserts that they don't torture detainees: they get to them to talk in much more contentional, less sexy ways: they chat with them. The interrogator says further that all of this torture business is a collection of myths spread by former detainees, trying to make the US look bad. He felt it was his responsibility to set the record straight and let it be known that the US doesn't need to torture, since conventional interview/interrogation tactics are so effective.

Hmm. I'm not quite sure what to make out of this. Some thoughts:

1) This is propaganda, full stop. The Administration finds someone with the knowledge and authority to speak on the matter, who goes to the press and says that Gitmo interviewers just need to chat with their subjects to find out very important things, and the subjects are just *bursting* to share. So Al-Qaeda is undone, piece by piece, with the help of some Folgers and Marlboros. The bad guys look like wimps and the US authorities are automatically off the hook, since they'd have no need to waterboard/"coerce"/torture anyone.

2) This is half truth, half propaganda. The Folgers-Marlboro method of interviewing probably does work nicely, sometimes. So these cases are made famous, in the hopes of sequelching the more infamous "difficult" cases, that require more "coercisve" methods.

3) This is all true. It wouldn't be unimaginable that these 2 former detainees have invented all sorts of things to make the US look bad on the international stage-- shame is shockingly effective and not just for dinky poor countries. Nor would it be unheard of that the detainees' counsel "enhance" certain elements of their clients' detention, both to win the sympathy of the world (and thereby for the clients) as well as to further their own careers once this Gitmo business is sorted. (Think about the things that defence attorneys say on the courthouse steps with regard to their clients during domestic proceedings.) And it's not unreasonable to think that certain peacenik NGOs have been using this Gitmo thing as a way of bashing the US, a pasttime for them.
But these doubts are a bit of a stretch, no? The stories coming from Gitmo, from a variety of governmental, non-governmental and private sources, are oddly similar. They tell of harsh treatment, limited and seemingly arbitrary processes and a number of other things that are not supposed to happen at the hands of Americans. (Did no one read the Declaration of Independence? That's a list of the sorts of injustices (as perceived by the Colonists) that are not supposed to happen in this 'country on a hill'.)

Am I convinced by this guy's sudden revelations? Not entirely. I do believe that the Gitmo administrators and staff probably don't break out the waterboarding kit staight away, perferring the coffee and cigarettes approach initially. That's common sense, and one hopes, good conscience. But do I believe that "coersion" with shocking similarities to torture occurs? More so than not.