In October, 2001, six Algerian men were arrested in Bosnia and accused of plotting to blow up the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. They were later released due to insufficient evidence, but immediately handed off to U.S. military forces. In an exclusive interview Chris talks with Lakhdar Boumediene, one of the six men arrested who was then detained at Guantanamo for seven years - without charge or explanation.
With the help of a translator, Boumediene explains life as a Guantanamo prisoner, including the internal politics, ways in which he says U.S. military officials tortured him, and the struggles he faced after being released.
-Brett Brownell (@brettbrownell) is video and web producer for Up with Chris Hayes.
Leave a Comment:
Human Rights are everyone's right.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
(Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
I don't think that not getting the food you want is torture. Nor is having a nasal tube put in incorrectly torture. Nor even being indefinitely detained, which is bad, but it isn't torture.
I read the interview was much longer and edited for certain unknown reasons. But I ask you to say the same thing you just did after being held in a place like that after 7 + years.
I would still say the same thing because being held even if you are innocent is *not* torture.
The short international definition of torture is an act of intentionally causing severe physical or mental pain .
It is not intentional if the nurse can claim they did not know about Bourmediene's medical condition- that his left nasal passage was physically blocked and inserting a tube on that side would cause severe pain. Was it unintentional or a strategy of plausible deniability so that they could be free to escalate pain in order to achieve compliance from a stubborn detainee? Who do you trust?
Now for severe mental pain. What does Boumediene mean when he asks if it is torture- the pain of not being able to be with his children for 7 years as they grow up?
If you would not be bothered by this but substantial numbers of others would, then does this mean that the other person is being tortured while you are not? There is a legal question and a moral question. Legal decisions rest on the best objective measures, so the fact you, or a hardened Marine would not personally regard something as mentally painful is irrelevant. The court decides based on the objective measure.
"If you would not be bothered by this" -- Please do not put words into my mouth. I never said I would not be bothered and in fact I CLEARLY said it was wrong. Just that wrongful imprisonment does not amount to torture.
Not being able to see your kids is also not torture. It is clearly a very bad thing, esp if you are innocent, but it likewise doesn't amount to torture.
"Legal decisions rest on the best objective measures" - Correct, and by all objective legal definitions unjust imprisonment simply is not and never has been equal to torture. I very much doubt that there is one single case in recent history where the simple act of imprisoning someone, however unjust it was, amounted to torture.
"I suffered" does not equal torture.
"I was illegally detained" does not equal torture.
"I didn't receive my preferred food" does not equal torture.
I really don't think these tactics are effective here.
"Diversionary attempts to misrepresent the opponent"
I have not misrepresented Boumediene. In this interview he states clearly that he considers not being given his preferred diet torture. He also appears to believe that being separated from his children is torture. Neither of there meet the definition.
Trying to intubate him would only count as torture if the nurse knew of his medical condition. It is possible she/he did not. Medical errors or even incompetence are all NOT torture.
"Non responsiveness to the definition"
None of the above meet the definition of torture. Unless there were things that happened not reported here no reasonable person can say that Boumediene was subjected to torture. If you have additional information you should present that.
Bold. Are you claiming that it is inconceivable that there are conditions under which any of the behavior described on Chris's show could be shown to be torture in a court of law? Be careful.
No response? Well, we can leave this thread with this then. You stated:
Actually no, he didn't. That is not just a misrepresentation, it is an outright lie, and a pretty easily falsifiable one at that.
Video (as most MSNBC videos) does NOT work. Pathetic.
This was the best show so far. Excellent panel=Adult, engaging and no personality disorders this week. Fine choice of topics. Huge props for the discussion of the obscenity that is Guantanamo and for the interview with Lakhdar Boumediene. Except for Amy Goodman on Democracy Now no other show has discussed in depth this shameful situation that this country created and perpetuates.
Lakhdar Boumediene
Please this is not the will of the majority of the peoples of the United States of America. Forgive us for the sin committed against you........certainly a crime against humanity.
هذا هو الأخضر بومدين الرجاء عدم رغبة الغالبية من سكان الولايات المتحدة. واغفر لنا هذه يخطئ موجهة ضد أنت بالتأكيد جريمة ضد الانسانية.
lost souls rembrd
أرجو أن يغفر لنا على الجرائم ضد الانسانية التي لحقت بكم. صدقوني ان رجاء كثير من مواطني الولايات المتحدة لا تؤمن بهذه التصرفات. وكثير منا من أعمال الإذلال التي ترتكب ضد سيادتكم في التسمية. وفقد ارواح rembrd
Please forgive us for the crimes against humanity that you suffered. Please believe me that many citizens of the United States of America do NOT believe in this behavior.
Many of us are shamed by the actions that were committed against you in our name.
Lost souls rembrd
Only watched Sat. hour 1 so far, but wanted to respond to the Boumediene interview & the panel response. I'm very grateful you're addressing these matters, and I found the responses to the interview fascinating and moving. But as the reference to Taxi to the Dark Side makes clear: this isn't an isolated case. And it's not even the worst of the many cases out there. When Chris says he somehow wants to retain his perhaps naive belief in America as the "good guys" -- and I do understand the complex inner conflict his comment shows he has, and that many others certainly share -- I ask myself this question: why not simply give up the idea that America is on the side of good? The evidence is overwhelmingly against it. America acts, not to promote freedom, democracy or other good things, but to keep and expand its power. It really is as simple as that, and it crosses all lines of party affiliation.
--U.S. soldiers slaughter a group of children, and offer nothing more than a tepid, "Oops, we're sorry."
--The U.S. invades and creates chaos and civil war in a country that posed no threat to it.
--The U.S. kidnaps hundreds or thousands of innocent people, holds them without charge, tortures many, kills some, releases some, and allows others to remain captive indefinitely.
--The U.S. sells high-tech weapons to a grotesquely oppressive anti-western, anti-democratic "kingdom."
--Virtually the only time U.S. military forces are disciplined for abuses of their power is when the evidence (video, photographic, etc.) is overwhelming; otherwise it's all swept under the rug, if not actively encouraged.
--The Pentagon treats the death of a high-profile U.S. soldier as a propaganda opportunity, disregards the truth, and thus dismisses his family's needs and spews contempt on the American public as a whole.
Look at any of these, or all of these, or so very many more examples that could be listed (I haven't even mentioned any systematic domestic outrages! cf. Glenn Greenwald), and ask yourself: can a country that does this really be "the good guys"? Isn't it ultimately just absurd even to entertain the possibility that the U.S. is "the good guys"?
We're not the good guys. We're the bad guys. We wear the black hats. (Which of course doesn't mean the folks labeled "enemies" wear the white hats.) We happily consign millions around the world, and here at home, to misery and death, simply to keep our power, that is, to maintain our oligarchic empire.
This is really a simple truth. When I was a kid they had us say the pledge of allegiance every morning at school. I regret ever doing that now; how can I hold any allegiance to a country that can do these things -- and keep on doing them, and defend doing them, and put them in place as comprehensive policies, and not even debate them in, e.g., an election cycle? As a previous commenter noted, only Amy Goodman on tv, and now Chris Hayes, deals with this at all. No offense, Chris, but in the tv universe, Up is still pretty marginal; if it wasn't, you wouldn't get away with having these discussions. You won't hear Rachel Maddow digging into this stuff, will you?
Oops ... I'm rambling. Anyway, keep it up, Up. You're doing a great job: I'm now suitably outraged and depressed. LOL.
As with the Penn state case of institutional inability to stop immoral events, this raises the old question whether humans make moral judgments based on norms and societal rules, or based on their emotions.
Neuroscientists know that moral judgement fails without feelings. A study proving this examined individuals with a particular kind of brain damage that prevented them from feeling empathy or compassion.
Now, what happens if the norms and collective representations of a group can achieve the same effect?
We have very powerful means of achieving conformity in masses of people, and controlling their representations as in the case of Fox News. The question is whether our emotions have sufficient education that they can overcome representations and norms that would otherwise cause them to perform immoral deeds?
Some say that it is the arts that educate our emotions. I am not saying we need to abandon rationality and surrender to extreme emotions. Rational thought gives us powerful tools to transport us to solutions that our emotions could not.
But departing from beautiful literature that guides our emotions is the path to utilitarian models of social homeostasis- or the reductionism that it is all about power.
Quite Orwellian hearing about torture being only what the US define it to be, so mind your words.
One good description of insanity- someone who repeats the same destructive behavior expecting a positive result. I watched the interview.
Interesting, this would explain why Mr. Hayes doesn't look at our military as heroes....these jihadist must be his "heroes". Why does this liberal clown have a job still....oh yeah.....forgot.....he's a liberal. Really sad. A pathetic apology of words from someone as breezy as a sack full of posteriors. Does Daniel Pearl ever cross this meat heads mind? Muslim Brotherhood? 9/11????
Concerning Hayes comments concerning "Heroes"
One thing is for sure, Hayes - will NEVER be a hero of anyone, unless its those that hate the USA!
Second: Planes leave the USA every 45 seconds or so, so get on one and go to any of several countries who will make him greatful for the sacrifices of servicemen, so that he has the right to insult what we call heroes!
I have no intention of trying stop his comments, cause they are covered by our freedom of speech, which heroes died to give. But he really needs to get a clue about how good he has it!
MSNBC stands for: Making Stupid Negative Bigoted Comments!