Q. Mr. Squeam, welcome back. I remind you that you are still under oath. Now, you testified earlier today that the taking of prisoners from Afghanistan to Cuba was a point of irritation. Would you tell us more about that? What troubled you, specifically?
A. I said I wondered about the legality of it. They were taken prisoner by National Alliance ground forces, in a civil war that has been in progress for a number of years.
Q. What was your concern, about the legality of it, I mean?
A. The United States was not a direct party to this ongoing civil war until after the bombing of the buildings in New York, and even then only as a supplier of armaments, air support, and providing a few ground troops.
Q. Do you think the United States was reluctant to put troops on the ground?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is that?
A. The idea was to fight a technological war, similar to the Gulf War with Iraq. That way casualties would be minimal. If any American soldiers were killed, that might erode popular support back home.
Q. Do you think there was a concern that public opinion would turn against the war on terrorism?
A. Yes. There was a low level of participation by ground forces. This limited the risk of American deaths.
Q. Do you think it increased the number on non-American deaths?
. Yes, it undoubtedly did.
Q. Did you feel any remorse about the deaths at that time, Mr. Squeam?
A. I don't recall that I did.
Q. And how about now, Mr. Squeam? Do you have any feelings about the large number of deaths in Afghanistan that were a direct result of American activity?
A. To some extent, yes. But surprisingly not as much as if they were Americans.
Q. Why is this Mr. Squeam? Is an American life more precious than an Afghan life?
A. No, certainly not. I think it is because the Afghans were described by the American administration as being cruel and demonic in their culture, and indirectly responsible for the attack on the office buildings.
Q. Specifically how were they described, Mr. Squeam?
A. The Taleban were described as cruel, especially in the punishment for breaking the law and also their treatment of women.
Q. Did you question what you were told, Mr. Squeam?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of the Afghan culture or history, Mr. Squeam?
A. No. Not to any extent.
Q. Are you aware that the Taleban are Muslims ... that they follow a pattern of culture that is generally referred to as Islamic?
A. In a general way, yes. I knew they had an Islamic orientation.
Q. Were you told how long the Islamic culture has been in effect in Afghanistan?
A. I recall there was an attempt to present the Taleban regime as of recent origin, perhaps only five years or so.
Q. Did the laws and treatment of women exist prior to the Taleban administration?
A. I don't think so.
Q. But you are not certain?
A. No.
Q. If I suggested to you that the same laws and the treatment of women had been in force and effect in Afghanistan for over a thousand years, would that have any effect on your views regarding the Taleban administration, Mr. Squeam?
A. If that were true, I suppose it would.
Q. So the concept of cultural change, as opposed to a more limited regime change, might be appropriate?
A. I think that was the idea ... that new customs would be introduced and enforced.
Q. What ideas do you have in mind, Mr. Squeam?
A. Things like freedom and democracy.
Q. What about free enterprise, and the installation of a capitalistic system of economy.
A. I think that was understood to be an integral part of the regime change.
Q. Returning for a moment to the issue of prisoners. Did the Americans take the prisoners? I am asking because there were few American troops on the ground.
A. I don't know. I believe the Americans came specifically to interview the prisoners, after they were captured by Northern Alliance forces.
Q. Were the Americans allowed to interrogate the prisoners?
A. Yes, that is my understanding.
Q. What information was of interest to the Americans?
A. They wanted to sort the Taleban fighters from the Al Qaeda, and to get as much information as they could about the location of other forces and equipment. There was also interest in learning about any plans for further terrorists attacks.
Q. Do you refer to attacks both inside and outside Afghanistan?
A. Yes. Especially attacks on American buildings and citizens.
Q. Was a decision subsequently made to remove certain of the prisoners from Afghanistan?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your opinion of that decision, Mr. Squeam?
A. I thought the US involvement, although limited, was sufficient justification to take charge of selected prisoners. I thought of them as prisoners of war. I did not approve of removing them from Afghanistan. I felt that was unfair.
Q. Specifically, what unfair treatment do you mean, Mr. Squeam?
A. They were not regarded as prisoners of war. If they are prisoners of war, then they have defined rights. By treating them otherwise, they are deprived these rights by a refusal to regard them as legitimate prisoners of war.
Q. Can you tell us how they were regarded?
A. Yes. A term for the prisoners was invented, something never known before, "illegal combatants." To me, this seemed ridiculous. There was no exact definition for such an ambiguous term. To me, it made a farce of the prisoner treatment, and unfortunately, the situation continues to the present.
Q. What was your reaction to the use of the term "illegal combatants?"
A. I was revolted.
Q. And why was that, Mr. Squeam?
A. First, it arrogantly flouts and violates the terms and spirit of the Geneva Convention. It is the germane international agreement in force. This agreement calls for the fair and humane treatment of prisoners of war. It was clear to everyone that the United States purposely intended to circumvent this agreement by introducing the new term.
Q. Did you make any protest at the time, Mr. Squeam?
A. No.
Q. And why was that, Mr. Squeam?
A. The United States made a statement that their actions were based on a finding that the prisoners were dedicated and determined killers, murderers who would kill again. It was for this reason they could not be released.
Q. Were you satisfied with that?
A. It did made sense. But the problem of sorting the Taleban from the Al Qaeda members remained. It is unfair to interrogate prisoners to discover information that can be used later to convict them.
Q. Is it correct to say your sense of fair play is offended?
A. Yes.
Q. Were the prisoners given legal counsel, or access to representatives of their country or their relatives?
A. So far as I am aware, they are kept in isolation.
Q. Did that seem unusual to you, that no provision was made for a legal defense?
A. I wondered at it, along with everyone else, but there was a lot of confusion at the time.
Q. Can you tell us about that?
A. Captured prisoners are generally held for the duration of the war, and then they are returned to their country. The manner in which wars are conducted usually does not call for subsequent legal proceedings unless there are allegations that war crimes have occurred.
Q. Were any war crimes alleged?
A. No.
Q. Please go on.
A. The was the question of whether there was a defined war to refer to. There was no date or geographical point of entry, and there was no formal surrender. Everything is open-ended, and there is thus no opportunity for the prisoners to argue for their release. The length of detention, along with the condition of it, is not presently a subject of debate.
Q. Mr. Squeam, would you say there is a tacit allegation of future criminal intent, an implication of danger to national security sufficiently severe to require extra-judicial pre-emptive detention?
A. Yes, pre-emptive detention, that seems the correct term to describe the indefinite imprisonment. However, it does not provide adequate justification.
Q. Is it your view, Mr. Squeam, that it is improper to hold prisoners of war, or 'illegal combatants' as it were, for prolonged and indefinite terms of incarceration on a mere suspicion of intent to commit future terrorist acts?
A. Improper, yes. I think suspicion is not sufficient, there must be a presentation of credible evidence. The evidence given cannot be obtained by torture or falsification. This new concept of 'pre-emptive incarceration' contains the seeds of tyranny and despotism. It portends mischief, and must be condemned and eradicated in its infancy.
Q. Do you find that there is deliberate ambiguity in the classification of the prisoners?
A. The ambiguity is apparent. If they are prisoners of war, then they should have rights in accord with the existing international agreement, the Geneva Convention. They are being denied these rights by a low legal maneuver, and that effort strikes me as indecent behaviour, unbecoming for an honourable country.
Q. Did you make any argument or protest at the time?
A. No. I didn't.
Q. Did you feel any shame, Mr. Squeam? I mean, at possibly being a tacit party to the deceit involved in the deprivation of the prisoner's rights?
A. Yes, I am ashamed. Something worse, it begins to undermine my belief in the traditional avenues of justice. Justice has become amenable to superpower interpretation. It is less than before, and it is spreading around the world. Every tin-pot dictator uses it to jail honest men whose only act is to expose crime and corruption, both in the government and private sectors.
Q. You say there is a loss of faith in the concept of an ideal justice. Can you give us a specific example?
A. Yes. Consider the question of intent. If these men had an intent to act as soldiers in time of war, that is certainly proper. You expect that. If they failed to act as brave soldiers, that would be a dereliction of duty to their country. So it would not be proper to bring an action against them for being brave soldiers.
Q. Please continue.
A. It seems they are regarded as un-indicted conspirators, members of a criminal conspiracy, although this is nowhere stated. The prisoners are treated as though they are members of a group that destroyed the office buildings in New York.
Q. Are they identified as members of a such a conspiracy?
A. No. there is an ongoing interrogation designed to find evidence to support such a charge. This has gone on for many months now.
Q. Does the incarceration of prisoners bother you?
A. Several aspects are troublesome. First is the possibility that there are innocent men among those incarcerated. For all I know, they might all be innocent. So there is a possibility that innocent men are being detained unjustly; that the long-established right of a man to defend himself against false charges is being denied. This is characteristic of a third rate dictatorship, but not a major democracy.
Q. Do you make any distinction between (1) charges that are not proven, (2) charges erroneously brought against innocent parties, and (3) charges that are false and malicious?
A. Yes, I do. That is why a defense is always necessary. When no defense is allowed, there is a gaping hole in the law, and it is through this hole that all individual freedoms are soon lost.
Q. Has the United States defended itself against the charge ... that primary legal defenses are being denied to the prisoners?
A. No. The charges were not strongly made by anyone or any country, not even by the UN. This is true even though there is widespread revulsion and distaste at the obvious lack of due process. The image of the United States as a bastion of freedom and human rights is badly damaged in the aftermath.
Q. You mentioned other aspects?
A. The men are not charged with any offense, which raises a number of other questions. Why are they not charged? What is the accusation? Are they at fault for fighting a civil war in their country? What right has a third country to hold soldiers indefinitely, interrogating them endlessly, with no date of release given? What has happened to justice?
Q. What else do you have to say on this issue of prisoners and their treatment, Mr. Squeam?
A. The democratically elected representatives of the people of the United States, the members of the House of Representatives and the members of the Senate, have not intervened in behalf of the prisoners. The judges of the United states, who are charged with upholding the laws, have not demanded justice for those held. To the people of planet Earth that indicates a total breakdown has occurred in the safeguards offered by democracy to protect human rights.
Q. In your opinion, what effect has this had on the people of the Earth?
A. An unfortunate one, in that respect for the law is diminished, along with a noticeable loss of faith in the desirability of installing a democratic system of government.
Q. Earlier in your testimony you stated that you had not noticed any deterioration in the level of civilisation. Now you admit to an awareness that basic institutions are disappointing in their performance. Am I correct in stating that you were in error in making your earlier assessment?
A. Yes.
You say that the treatment of the Afghanistan soldiers in Cuba indicates a fundamental change, a lessening, if you will, in the public's appreciation and regard for the legal processes once available under a democratic system of government?
A. Yes, I have to say that my opinion is altered regarding individual vulnerabilities, and along with that is a new awareness that the present United States government has become a threat to liberty and justice around the world.
Q. That is a rather broad statement, Mr. Squeam. Have you ever voiced this view before?
A. No. I think I am just becoming aware of the depth of the problem.
Q. In what regard?
A. News reports come in every day saying more prisoners are being taken, held as suspects. The United States is said to be removing new prisoners by air to third, where they are being tortured without any monitoring or other supervision. This activity is being done covertly, to avoid the negative publicity that it would generate, and to allow the United States to deny any involvement. In psychological warfare terms, this is called credible deniability.
Q. Do you believe these news reports to be reliable and true, Mr. Squeam?
A. The United States does not deny them, and they thus acquire a flavoring, so to speak, a suggestion there is an existing policy of silence. Avoiding the subject automatically avoids any negative publicity an open public debate would generate.
Q. The problem here, as you are no doubt aware, is that the burden of proof rests with the reporter and agency writing the news, and not with the country or countries engaged in collecting and transporting prisoners. You see that, don't you Mr. Squeam?
A. The fact that the prisoners held in Cuba are receiving no legal representation speaks volumes, and makes any further allegation sound plausible. We hear repeatedly the term "by any means possible." This creates an arena for fantastic imaginings, especially when Rumsfeld, the American Secretary of Defense, instructs his warriors and strategists to "think the unthinkable." Everyone else on Earth is thereby invited to do likewise, as though all prior ethical restraints are removed.
Q. Is this reference limited to the war on terror?
A. Not at all. That is the great danger. The war on terror now has priority over any previous law or standard of conduct. It extends the license for unethical behaviour the width and breadth of American culture. For lack of an indignant opposition, a great deal of unacceptable behaviour is now a commonplace.
Q. What examples can you give?
A. There is a phrase, "change of regime," which is introduced as a goal of foreign policy. While everyone knows this practice has ancient precedents, until now it has not been an openly stated goal. It is a policy of official murder. Now it has become a point of pride to intercede in the affairs of other countries at will, tossing established diplomatic standards aside without consideration for the serious effects this brings.
Q. What does the term 'regime change' suggest to you? What actions are permissible under this policy?
A. There is an implied intent to assassinate the leader or leaders of the target country. Only a few countries have used this method of achieving foreign policy objectives, and those that do have not achieved a more dignified status from it. It is obvious that once assassination becomes routine, public life will no longer be attractive, simply for fear of receiving the lethal attentions of displeased opponents.
Q. To the best of your knowledge, what countries use the targeted assassination method?
A. Israel uses it, making it a point of pride. Russia has used it in the past, though it was not openly boasted of, as in the present international climate.
Q. Any others?
A. Certainly the United States has adopted it, using the phrase "by any means necessary" as both description of method and implicit justification.
Q. Is this a matter of conjecture, Mr. Squeam? Are you certain of your facts?
A. Both Israel and America have recently targeted individuals, using laser-guided bombs to destroy civilian houses, along with all the occupants inside. In both instances there were a large number of casualties, and in the case of the American attack, which took place in Afghanistan, it was a total mistake, as those killed were attending a wedding, and the individual to be assassinated was not even in the vicinity.
Q. Do you find anything objectionable in this activity?
A. To kill anyone, whether by this method or others, is immoral, in my opinion. To mark someone for execution without due process to protect the innocent is evidence of an insensitivity to all prior concern for the sanctity of human life. To send a bomb into a home full of innocent women and children is inexcusable, and there is no justification that can be accepted.
Q. The United States and Israel are culpable in this particular respect, the targeting of individuals for assassination?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you find this behaviour a disappointment?
A. Yes. More than that, it erodes my belief in the ordinary safeguards I once held to be inviolable, and I would hope all intelligent and educated people join me in this opinion.
Q. You find such behaviour to be unethical and intolerable, do you, Mr. Squeam?
A. Yes, anyone would.
Q. Do you find the behaviour contrary to the basic principles of freedom and democracy?
A. Yes, there is some contradiction. As I said, it is troubling.
Q. Have you said or written anything of your views?
A. No.
Q. Have you communicated your views to your political leaders and other representatives?
A. No.
Q. Do you think others feel as you do?
A. I hope so, but the probability is they will not speak out. Many are intimidated, and many others don't seem to find anything wrong with what is going on.
Q. Does that have any bearing on your own failure to voice disagreement?
A. I think it does. I have a lot to lose.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Squeam. We will now recess for the day. Please return tomorrow at 10:00 AM. You are excused.
The url of this page is: https://harunrmy0.tripod.com/99Squeam2.html