| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| U.S. Recruits a Rough Ally to Be a Jailer | |
| 2005-05-01 | |
| Seven months before Sept. 11, 2001, the State Department issued a human rights report on Uzbekistan. It was a litany of horrors. The police repeatedly tortured prisoners, State Department officials wrote, noting that the most common techniques were "beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask." Separately, international human rights groups had reported that torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death, the groups reported. The February 2001 State Department report stated bluntly, "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights." Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, however, the Bush administration turned to Uzbekistan as a partner in fighting global terrorism. The nation, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, granted the United States the use of a military base for fighting the Taliban across the border in Afghanistan. President Bush welcomed President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan to the White House, and the United States has given Uzbekistan more than $500 million for border control and other security measures. Now there is growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 Just realised the article says it was just after the 9/11 attacks that the administration looked to Uzbekistan for some assistance. I guess that the Uzbekistanis, realising that one of the options on the table at that time was 'boiling' the entire Middle East, thought it would be politic to do what they do *anyhow* and help the 'crazy Americans'. It's a thought... |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2005-05-01 9:34:52 PM |
| #6 I'll sleep OK |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-01 9:12:52 PM |
| #5 Phil, I agree with you - but *only* to the extent that I believe that the information gained will be useless. You stick electrodes on my nuts, I'll tell you black is white and anything else you like so you'll stop. This article is a very informative view from Oct 2003. It's now gone behind their paywall, but the gist of it was that violence was not effective. It's a ways back now, but I *think* I remember them talking about being brutal in life-or-death situations. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2005-05-01 9:11:40 PM |
| #4 Phil, I might have agreed with you before the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo media extravaganzas, but what are the choices? We're at war, but the media wants us to playt patty-cake with these thugs. I say this problem is just not at the top of my priority list. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-05-01 8:43:21 PM |
| #3 Life is too short to read the NYT, so maybe someone can tell me whether the guys being sent to Uzbekistan are, you know, Uzbeks.... |
| Posted by: Iblis 2005-05-01 8:18:49 PM |
| #2 The NYT needs to invest in an atlas so its reporters understand why in order to deal with Afghanistan, the USA had to obtain the cooperation of one or more neighbouring states. None of those are very nice. And concerning the detainees, what does the NYT suggest is done with them. Keep them in Gitmo, let them go, hand them over to the UN? |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-05-01 3:23:31 AM |
| #1 I really dislike this practice. It embodies all of the moral problems involved in torturing people (rather than simple interrogations) with no sort of material benefits, since I think all of the countries used thusly will at the end of the day lie to us about what they've found out. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-05-01 2:01:37 AM |