Spanish investigation of Bush’s torture crimes

This video from the USA is called Olbermann: We cannot let mistakes of the past haunt our future! Bush Torture Memos.

By Paul Mitchell:

Spain: Garzón investigation reveals abuse suffered by Guantánamo detainees

5 May 2009

The criminal investigation launched this month by Spain’s top investigative judge, Baltasar Garzón, into allegations of torture at Guantánamo Bay and other US prison camps is based on the evidence of four detainees who were subsequently sent to Spain for trial. All four were accused of being Al Qaeda members, but Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed and Lahcen Ikassrien were acquitted by Spain’s High Court, and Abdul Latif Al-Banna and Omar Deghayes had their warrants for arrest in the UK cancelled.

Garzón’s investigation targets the “possible material authors, enablers and accomplices” of these illegal abuses, possibly including the high-level Bush administration officials, responsible for what amounts to an “authorized and systematic plan for torture and harsh treatment of people deprived of their freedom without any charges and without the most basic elemental rights for detainees, set forth and demanded by international treaties.”

MI5 secretly tried to hire British men held in Guantanamo Bay and other US prison camps by promising to protect them from their American captors and help secure their return home to the United Kingdom, The Independent has learnt: here.

Julia Sweig: Give Guantanamo back to the Cuban people: here.

CIA Was Authorized to Keep Prisoners Awake for 11 Days: here.

Bybee’s memo: Judge should resign or be impeached …by the Salt Lake Tribune: here.

Guantanamo inmate ‘slashes wrists’: here.

Former Guantanamo prisoner Omar Deghayes speaks out: here.

8 thoughts on “Spanish investigation of Bush’s torture crimes

  1. “Animals Have More Protection Than Detainees”, Say Experts

    Main Category: Psychology / Psychiatry

    Article Date: 05 May 2009 – 4:00 PDT

    Analysis: Ethical policies of physicians and psychologists concerning interrogation of detainees, BMJ online

    Under the American Psychological Association’s (APA) code of ethics, animals have more protection than detainees, say experts on

    Kenneth Pope, an independent psychologist, and Dr Thomas Gutheil, a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, maintain that the APA has enforceable standards that support the “humane treatment” of laboratory animals but that detainees who may be vulnerable or at risk are not afforded the same protection.

    Given the controversy surrounding the interrogation of prisoners at sites like Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, the authors question whether the different ethical stances of psychologists and physicians are justified.

    After 9/11, the APA changed its code of ethics which now runs contrary to Nuremberg principles and differs to how doctors operate, say the authors. The new code allows its members to set aside any ethical responsibilities that are in irreconcilable conflict with government authority, they say.

    Whereas doctors should “not conduct, directly participate in, or monitor an interrogation with an intent to intervene, because this undermines the physician’s role as healer”, in 2005 the American Psychological Association adopted a policy that allowed consultation and monitoring of individual interrogations with the intent of intervening.

    The differences between physicians and psychologists are partly historical, argue the authors.

    While acknowledging the many admirable stances taken by the APA, the authors argue that one of the fundamental differences between physicians and psychologists is that physicians have the concept of “first, do no harm”. They add that there were some reports that psychologists were not only complicit in America’s aggressive interrogation regime but that they had actually designed tactics and trained interrogators.

    Interrogation techniques linked to psychologists include hurting the detainee, using snarling dogs, using forced nudity, imposing long periods of standing, depriving detainees of sleep, using pornography and shackling detainees into painful “stress positions”.

    In conclusion the authors argue that no-one “regardless of professional discipline, specialty, or status – should be able to evade ethical responsibilities and escape personal ethical accountability by ‘just following the law’ or ‘just following orders’….. history has shown what can result when professionals follow this kind of fallacious ethical reasoning.”

    Link to Paper

    British Medical Journal


  2. Pingback: Guantanamo torture victim speaks | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Pingback: Georgian soldiers revolt against Saakashvili regime | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: Bush’s ‘Iraq-9/11′ lies based on torture | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: Condoleezza Rice defends Bush torture policy | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback: CIA torture report and the New York Times | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: United States President Jeb Bush would torture, like his brother | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: CIA lied on torture to US Justice Department | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.