Tortured Confessions

By Lila Schow

August, 2003

Army Special Forces Captain Humbert R. Versace did not go down easily.¹ Captured by the North Vietnamese October 29, 1963, Versace suffered three bullet wounds to one leg, the burning pain of embedded shrapnel in his body and a brutal blow to the head.  Although only 27, he was the senior member among the imprisoned Americans.  As such, Versace demanded that the North Vietnamese abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention.  Rules that govern humanitarian treatment for prisoners of war. ²

Versace deified his captors at every turn.   Singing to lift morale.  Cursing and harassing his guards in English, French, and Vietnamese.  Using every opportunity afforded to make the lives of his captors a little less pleasant. 

They responded in kind.  Ignoring the Geneva Convention, his guards “tied a rope around his neck and dragged his emaciated, jaundiced body from village to village to show locals they had defeated this strong American soldier.” ²

But the relentless abuse led to no confessions, no information, not even during repeated interrogations.  The cruelty only steeled Versace's resolve to defy the enemy. For refusing to cooperate with his captors he was kept hungry and placed in a tiger cage.  For two years he lived between bamboo walls only 6 feet long, 2 feet wide and 3 feet high, the size of a coffin.

Other prisoners were kept in the same horrific conditions.  Some cage tops were covered in an effort to keep the blazing sun from roasting the inhabitants.  Versace’s got one step better.  The guards covered the sides to trap the heat in the cage. His weight plummeted from 180 to just over 100 pounds.

His three escape attempts proved unsuccessful.  As the North Vietnamese dragged him to another unsuccessful interrogation he shouted, “I am an officer of the United States Army. You can force me to come here, you can make me sit and listen, but I don't have to believe a damn word you say."¹

A few days later the North Vietnamese pulled Versace from his filth crusted, mosquito infested cage.  Forced to kneel in the mud, his forehead pressed into the ground he was killed with one shot to the back of the head. ²

Almost forty years since Versace’s capture, another man died at the hands of his captors.  Young Dilawar was not an Army Special Forces Captain.  At 22, he made his living as a farmer and part time taxi driver.  Upon his capture he was imprisoned in Bagram, Afghanistan. Shackled to the ceiling, hooded and naked, his captors routinely kicked him awake. 

Interrogated relentlessly, he proved unable or unwilling to cooperate.  His death did not come as a result of a bullet to the back of the head, but rather “blunt force injuries to lower extremities.” ³ Homicide.  A “death resulting from the intentional or grossly reckless behavior of another person or persons.” ³

Another difference between Dilawar and Versace?  Dilawar was an Afghan prisoner held by the United States in a base north of Kabul, one of three to have died since the detentions began in 2001. ⁴ The murders bring a menacing ring of truth to Bush’s statement, “more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.” ⁵

The North Vietnamese  never authorized the United States to take direct part in the hostilities resulting from the Communist rebellion in the 1950’s, therefore the argument could be made that US troops in the country fell into the category of unlawful combatants. 

Does the term ‘unlawful combatant’ legitimize the brutal torture and ultimate deaths of these two men?  According to the document that neither the United States or the North Vietnamese chose the follow, the Geneva Conventions, even those considered ‘unlawful combatants’ are entitled to certain rights:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de[out of] combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.⁶

How is it that the horror Americans feel upon learning that one of our soldiers suffered brutal interrogation by his captors does not extend to the Afghans the US government is currently torturing?  Since September 11, 2001, it seems torture has become an acceptable means to prevent future terrorist acts.

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz supported calls to allow US judges to issue ‘torture warrants’ to prevent a repeat of September 11 arguing, “If the stakes are high enough, torture is permissible.  No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility.”⁷

The problem with this, argues Henry Shue, Oxford professor, “is that torture is a shortcut, and everybody loves a shortcut.” ⁷ Indeed, the combination of torture warrants and Patriot Acts I and II is a nightmare for even the mildest government critics.

It would also be illegal under the UN’s Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. ⁸

The murder of the three detainees clearly fell under the UN’s definition of torture.  Even Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld said, “[T]here is not a rush to try. The purpose is not to punish people, as it is in a court of law; it is to gain information and try to prevent an additional terrorist act.” ⁹

So if torture is not legal, not justified but is still being used we must ask ourselves, is it at least a viable means of gathering reliable information to protect ourselves from the bin Ladens of the future?

Amnesty International claims that “certain people—the uneducated, the poor, the emotionally insecure, the mentally impaired, the young—are especially susceptible to manipulation in the interrogation room. In cases involving the death penalty, such vulnerability is especially dangerous.” ¹⁰

Police in Illinois used interrogation techniques similar to the ones Dilawar faced on Gary Gauger, the prime suspect in the murderer of his parents.  “[D]eprived of sleep, stripped naked, made to put on a prison uniform and forbidden to leave, although he hadn't yet been charged with any crime,” Gary eventually confessed to a crime he had not committed and spent three years in jail. ¹¹

How could an innocent person implicate themselves in such a manner?  It is easier than you might thing.  Gary endured an 18 hour, abusive, interrogation in which he was repeatedly threatened with evidence that didn’t exist, the death penalty, denied a lawyer, not formally charged with a crime and not allowed to leave the station.  It ended only when he gave in and gave his mind over to the interrogators.  At their suggestion, Gary drew a picture showing how he might have killed his parents.  The picture was later used in court to convict him. 

Gary says, “You have to realize, I was in a very vulnerable state.  My parents have been murdered, I'm looking to the police to help solve this crime." ¹¹

Already, “two British detainees have been told by their military jailers to plead guilty and accept 20-year prison sentences or go to trial and face certain conviction and the real threat of execution.”¹⁷

After being held in solitary confinement for almost two years, zero suspects in Guantanamo or in US bases overseas have been formally charged with a crime while 22 have been set free from Guantanamo alone. ¹² How many of the over 3,000 incarcerated are men like Gary who would confess to a crime they never committed in order to end their suffering.  Gary lied about his involvement in the murders of his parents after only 18 hours.  These men have been at the hands of interrogators for nearly 17,520 hours.

"There is intense torture," warns a 180-page terrorist training manual used by bin Laden followers. "Let no one think that such techniques are fabrications of our imagination, or that we copied them from spy stories. On the contrary, these are factual incidents." ¹³

According to Amnesty International, suspects from Guantanamo have been transferred to Syria (The State Department reports torture methods there include: forcing objects into the rectum, bending the suspects over backward which asphyxiates and fractures the vertebrae), and Egypt (beaten with whips, metal rods and forced to endure electric shocks). ⁷

"One of the reasons we're so strict about noncoercive interrogation techniques in criminal courts is that in most cases those techniques produce false confessions," reports Texas attorney, Cynthia Orr, the co-chair of the death penalty committee of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers. ¹²

False confessions for the innocent, but does torture encourage the guilty to give up their secrets?  Or does it prove to terrorists that the United States is a country worth destroying because it defaces the dignity of human beings.

Frederick J. Hacker in his 1976 book: Crusaders, Criminals, Crazies: Terror and Terrorism in Our Time classifies terrorists into three groups.  Criminals motivated by personal gain; crazies or those whose actions are fundamentally irrational; and crusaders, driven by their passionate ideas and convictions.

The post September 11 terrorists would almost certainly fall into the last category.  So blinded by their cause, crusaders are not moved by promises, threats, or reprisals against comrades and family members.  Like Versace, intense torture just reinforces their will to be defiant.

So how do we break them?  Christopher Dillingham, a former police vice-squad officer says, "You'll find oftentimes that crusaders want to speak about their cause, and particularly when you're dealing with somebody in an upper-level hierarchy . . .  you'll find strong ego involvement and there's a tendency to boast and to brag.  I suspect with Al Qaeda it's pretty much going to be the same thing. They want their message to get out."⁸

John Hess, a former FBI consultant who spent 12 years developing and teaching courses in interviewing, interrogation, and statement analysis agrees.  His training is based on Aristotle’s principles of ethos, logos and pathos. “Whether trying to convince a customer to buy a product or a suspect to tell the truth, the chance of success increases with the appropriateness of the sales pitch. Many lost sales result from trying to use the same pitch with every customer--and interrogators lose many confessions using the same approach with every suspect.”¹⁴

Pay me now or pay me more later is not an effective key to prying information from a terrorists lips.  However, encouraging the suspect to talk about their goals, grievances and gains may lead to information that would prevent a serious attack.

There is not much motivation for suspects in Guantanamo and elsewhere to be forthcoming with information.  President Bush has already made preparations to try the detainees in secret, without lawyers, without the option to appeal, without a jury, where normal rules of evidence do not apply, and where the death penalty is the punishment granted to the guilty party.¹⁵
 

The presumption of innocence does not apply, even though many of the detainees are children.¹⁶  Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about reports of mistreatment claimed, “They are being treated vastly better than they treated anybody else” a statement that indicates the side the Bush Administration will be on if trials are ever held for these people. ¹⁷

The most frightening development from these detentions is that both the terrorist and torturer share the view that violence is accepted and justified in the name of the cause.

“When you are conducting a war in the name of the rule of law and at the same time violating the most fundamental rule of law, you are clearly handing fodder to your adversaries, who will then say, ‘Look, all this talk about freedom and ideals and justice is just wind’.”⁸

William Shulz

Executive Director, Amnesty International

Sources

1. All gave some -- some gave all by Geoff Metcalf, MAY 31, 1999 http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/19545.html
2. Local captain to get Medal of Honor Humbert R. Versace By MATTHEW DOLAN,
   The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot  July 6, 2002 http://www.historicalmilitaria.com/Army%20News/Versace.html
3. Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base by Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles Friday March 7, 2003 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,909294,00.html
4. U.S. Probes Death of Prisoner in Afghanistan By April Witt
   Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 24, 2003; Page A18 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24336-2003Jun23&notFound=true
5. President Delivers "State of the Union" The U.S. Capitol  For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary January 28, 2003 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
6. Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949 The Avalon Project at Yale Law School http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
7. Tortured Logic, Thumbscrewing International Law by Eyal Press, Amnesty International; Summer 2003 issue of IA
8. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
9. Sec. Rumsfeld Remarks on Guantanamo Bay Detainees Date:  February 4, 2003 http://www.useu.be/Terrorism/USResponse/Feb0403RumsfeldGuantanamo.html
10. False Confessions: Scaring Suspects to Death by EDWIN DOBB AI http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/false_confessions.html
11. The art of interrogation By Reed Johnson, Times Staff Writer March 15, 2003 http://www.calendarlive.com/cl-et-johnson15mar15,0,620420.story?coll=cl-home-more-channels
12. Afghans freed from Guantanamo camp BBCi Monday, 24 March, 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2880301.stm
13. Torture likely tool in anti-terror fight By Michael James and Peter Hermann Sun Staff Originally published October 10, 2001http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stop-polabuse/message/8533
14. Interrogation: Some Keys to Success by John E. Hess October 1999 http://www.neiassociates.org/interrogation.htm
15. Bush approves terror suspect trials BBCi Friday, 4 July, 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3043332.stm
16. US detains children at Guantanamo Bay by Staff and agencies Wednesday April 23, 2003  The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,941876,00.html
17. Bush picks six for drumhead trials, possible execution By Bill Vann 10 July 2003 WSWS http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/guan-j10.shtml

Further Reading:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503B.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042703J.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061103J.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/3055127.stm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/guan-j10.shtml

Lawyer Says Guantanamo Detainees Tortured (Oct, 2003)

The US military detains another of its Guantanamo Bay soldiers (Sept, 2003)

Families of Guantanamo Bay prisoners launch US Supreme Court appeal (Sept, 2003)

Blair government surrenders rights of Britons held in Guantanamo (Aug, 2003)

Australian and British governments claim military trials will be "fair" (Aug, 2003)