|
|||||||||||||||
|
Abu Ghraib and the ISA: What's the difference?
by Anil Netto Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. If you prefer to read our web-based edition, please support our work and make a donation. For a US$10 donation (via credit card) 
For a US$25 donation
The Abu Ghraib horror and other similar scandals in Iraq have shamed the United States and Britain. They have undermined any shred of moral authority the Anglo-American colonial forces may have left in their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. But as we rightly condemn the US and UK, let us take a critical look at our own backyard. The methods of humiliating and abusing detainees may vary, the degree of torture and abuse may be different, but the overall objective is the same: to strip detainees of their personal dignity, to humiliate them and ultimately to �break them,� to �turn them over�, to �neutralise� them. Where are the apples? Deputy Internal Security Minister Noh Omar, who led officials and journalists into the Kamunting Detention Camp recently, listened carefully to the complaints made by the detainees, some of whom have been detained for more than two years. �There have been allegations - people compare Kamunting prison with Abu Ghraib prison,� he said. �There is no torture here. You have to compare apples with apples.�
There is a whole body of testimony from former detainees that point to the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of ISA detainees. And they are eloquent rebuttal to Nor�s remarks. Systemic abuse Most analysts agree that the torture at Abu Ghraib was not an isolated breakdown of discipline. Rather the shocking photographs point to a systemic pattern of abuse and torture, not just physical torture but also increasingly psychological. It is aimed at destroying personal identity and humiliating the individual�s sense of self-worth. This systemic torture and abuse was practised not only after Sept 11, when the US administration rode roughshod over the Geneva Conventions and trampled on international human rights law, but also well before that. Over the last 50 years, the US Central Intelligence Agency has turned torture into something of a fine art. From the 1950s to the early 1960s, the CIA spearheaded intensive research into interrogation techniques, which included experimenting with electric shocks, hallucinogenic drugs, and sensory deprivation. This allowed the CIA to produce new methods of torture that were more psychological (but still under accepted definitions of torture) than physical. Psychological torture There are two stages to this approach of psychological torture, honed by the CIA. In the first stage, non-violent techniques are used to disorient the detainee. The detainee may be hooded or deprived of sleep to make him confused. To heighten the sense of disorientation, interrogators often launch attacks on personal identity via sexual humiliation. (Alfred McCoy, �Cruel Science, The Long Shadow of CIA Torture Research�). Sleep deprivation, disorientation and sexual humiliation? Now doesn�t this sound familiar in both the Abu Ghraib and the Malaysian contexts? Some former ISA detainees have complained of being forced to strip or to simulate sex acts.They have also spoken of humiliating interrogation of their private/sexual lives. McCoy points out that once the subject is disoriented, interrogators move on to a second stage. Detainees are subjected to self-inflicted discomfort or to use current parlance, detainees are �stressed out� by making them stand for hours in uncomfortable, humiliating positions. The idea here, he says, is to make victims feel responsible for their own pain. They are made to feel that the only way they can ease that pain is by succumbing to the power of the interrogator. Such discomfort in the Malaysian context can take the form of being subjected to blasts of cold air from a powerful airconditioner or bright lights aimed at the detainee or constant shouting and screaming into the ears of detainees. On the surface, mental torture like this might appear to be less barbaric than physical torture. But mental torture leaves deeper and longer-lasting scars than the physical approach and it may take a long while for victims to recover from the trauma. That is why human rights groups do not differentiate between psychological and physical torture: torture is torture no matter what the techniques used. It is not only the victims who are traumatised. The perpetrators too are affected � they may end up with grossly inflated egos and suffer emotional damage and resort to even greater cruelty towards detainees. The export of torture The new methods of psychological torture were incorporated into the CIA�s �Kubark Counter-intelligence Interrogation� manual in 1963. And this new approach to torture was exported globally to police in Asia and Latin America through the USAID�s Office of Public Safety (OPS), which was subsequently closed down in 1975 following complaints. (McCoy). But though OPS was shut down, this approach of psychological torture - its advocates call it �torture lite� or �no-touch torture� - remained. The CIA introduced these and other chilling torture techniques in Central America in the 1980s and shared these methods with militaries elsewhere. Indeed, while the US has publicly said it is against torture - the US ratified the Convention against Torture in 1994 - its CIA and security apparatus has been promoting these techniques around the world, notably in Latin America. The notorious US Army School of Americas, based in Fort Benning, Georgia, USA, has trained Latin American soldiers in combat, counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. The graduates of this school are responsible for some of the worst human rights violations in Latin America as they moved to wipe out dissidents, left wing groups and grassroots movements. In 1996 the Pentagon was pressured to release the school�s training manuals that advocated torture, extortion and execution. Following public criticism, a cosmetic change was made and the school was renamed the �Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC)� in 2001. But critics say the new military training school is the continuation of the SOA under a new name. �New name, same shame,� they say. Thus, from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay, the same wicked systemic patterns of abuse and torture have continued. The question is: is the Malaysian government happy to associate itself with such discredited techniques used on ISA detainees � sleep deprivation, disorientation, stress positions apart from physical abuse (slapping, spitting, etc)? If we are critical about Abu Ghraib, surely we should also make a ringing condemnation against all forms of torture � whether physical or psychological. What better way to show the world that we are against torture than by ratifying the Convention against Torture? What better way to show our commitment to the Rule of Law than by signing the Rome Statute, endorsing the International Criminal Court? (Not surprisingly, the US has refused to sign on to - and indeed has tried to undermine - the ICC). Blame it on "preventive detention" Torture occurs in an environment where there are few checks-and-balances. In the US, the Iraqis who were tortured and abused were among thousands who were detained without charge as �security detainees�. In Malaysia, ISA detainees are arrested under �preventive detention� laws. Whether they are Iraqi prisoners who are �security detainees� or ISA detainees held under �preventive detention� laws or foreign nationals in the US held under the Patriot Act or �unlawful combatants� detained in Guantanamo Bay, or suspected militants arrested under India�s Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), there is one thing they all have in common.: they have all been detained without trial. There is no natural justice, no recourse to lawyers, no independent judges and no courts. Significantly, the new Indian government is reportedly taking welcome steps to remove POTA from the statute books. When suspects are arrested without trial, a shroud of darkness falls over their incarceration. In this long, dark night, captives are at the mercy of all-powerful, merciless interrogators. In secret corridors and hellish chambers, conditions are ripe for torture and terrifying abuse to occur. This is why the ISA and other preventive detention laws are diabolical: they allow captors and interrogators to act with impunity, knowing they will in all likelihood never be brought to book. Malaysians who are outraged by Abu Ghraib must redouble their efforts to campaign for the immediate repeal of the ISA. Too many lives have been destroyed already. Now e-mail us and tell us what you think. | |||||||||||||||
Sleep deprivation, disorientation and sexual humiliation? Now doesn�t this sound familiar in both the Abu Ghraib and the Malaysian contexts?
