Redstate

I could be wrong - but I think the "26" also includes incidents at point of capture.

That the fact that zero detainees have died at Gitmo is not just a happy piece of luck. It really and actually is a stunning feat in detention center management. Given that the population of Gitmo averages between 500-600 (consistent with a small sized state prison), and has experienced consecutive years with no deaths is positively astounding.

Especially given the fact that many of the prisoners are trying to kill themselves. Those running Gitmo deserve awards, not irresponsible comparisons.

I agree with you that the actions of a few shouldn't lead one to believe that there's a systematic problem with the way we treat prisoners.

At the same time, the killing or abuse of captured prisoners is simply unacceptable, and those responsible should receive the highest sanction that military justice allows.

they shouldn't. Anyone who kills a prisoner should certainly be held accountable, and I'm not advocating leniency for them.

At Macho Nachos.

I blogged about the incidents of abuse as a percentage of prisoners last year on Tacitus.  The Red Cross report at the time suggested that most of the charges of "abuse" arose from when either Coalition Troops or the Baghdad Police were apprehending a detainee and many were attributed to rougher treatment at the hands of the BP than US forces.  

Any idea on where to confirm the "point-of-capture" figures for deaths?

I'll try to keep an eye out for it though

....to publicly acknowledge that this post does indeed alleviate many of my publicly-stated concerns about deaths in US detention.  Well put, Leon.

I am not man enough to write much more than that, because I am in a Vicodin haze.  So many colors.

has been proven to have killed a detainee or person in custody, we should charge them and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

That is one thing that the military doesn't seem to be doing, is actively seeking to harm the detainees, if there was a policy to harm I would expect the death rates of those in detention to be much higher than the .003% per year that it is.

I don't think Leon's point is that we should excuse the guys that kill people, but more a call for perspective, when it comes to using the numbers.  29 is certainly 29 too many, and is a high number, but when compared to the number of detainees we move through the system each year, it isn't really all that high.

I would be curious to see what the death per 1000 is in say a Chinese prison, or Russian, or Syrian, or Iran-just about any other country, and they don't have the excuse of operating in a war zone.

... by Wizbang (or someone similar) who compared the homicide rates between the U.S. detaintees (wherein most purported homicides were alleged to be guard-on-inmate) and U.S. prisoners (wherein most purported homicides were alleged to be inmate-on-inmate), and concluded that the rates were approximately ten times higher for the former?  (I recall it getting good play on InstaPundit but, for some reason, my powers of Google are insufficient to find it.)  IOW, I think that a rudimentary version of the DOJ's comparison has already been done.

Now, statistics can be misleading; maybe it includes point-of-capture incidents; or maybe there's other facts that explain the data.  However, such statistics at least raise a prima facie case that something is not quite right at various US detention facilities.  I'd humbly submit that, in such a circumstance, the very least we should do is thoroughly and independently (outside the chain of command) investigate these allegations, and then address (or celebrate, if it turns out to be explainable) whatever is discovered.

investigations of possible crimes are done outside the chain of command.

Maybe some former/current military member could enlighten us further.

Given that the homicide rate in U. S. Detention facilities abroad, as we have already examined, is about 7 per 10,000, what those statistics would be saying is that in U. S. Prisons, the homicide rate is about 7 per 100,000. In other words, lower than the average homicide rate in the general U. S. population.

I frankly find that to be absolutely incredible -- the point of being unbelievable.

AND, we are still granting the assumption that all 26 cases currently under investigation are homicides. That, also, is something I would find almost unbelievable.

JAG is outside the chain of command for everything but the Judge Advocate.

Leon states "let us grant the contention that all 26 cases currently under investigation were, in fact, murders. This means that we are averaging a little less than 8 murders a year, within a population subset of about 10,000-12,000 (prisoners and guards) that is almost entirely male, with good reason for holding grudges of death against one another, and have been expertly trained to kill other people (and quite possibly desensitized to killing other people as well). This translates to a homicide rate of approximately 70/100,000 population, which is admittedly high in comparison to the homicide rate of the U. S. population as a whole"

Just to put this in perspective, The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports 3,374 inmates on death row in the U.S. in 2003. On page 9 of their bulletion "Capital Punishment, 2003" they report that 10 persons died while under sentence of death that year, six from natural causes and four suicides. There were no "homicides" or "investigations of murder". Also, the FBI reports the homicide rate for 2003 as 5.7/100,000 for the U.S.

So let us review, 0 death row homicides v. 29 homicide "investigations". A homocide rate of 70/100,000 v. 5.7/100,000. You make the call.

The JAG is, of course, outside of the chain of command -- and the JAG's office is obviously responsible for prosecutions.  (Incidentally, SFAIK, the JAG's office is not specifically charged with investigations -- though, like any prosecutor, they undoubtably do get involved; rather, investigations are handled by the MP.)  I meant to say that an investigation to determine whether there has been any systematic causes of disparate treatment of detainees.

If it was remotely related to the discussion at hand.

I take the point that apparently no one has died at Guantanamo yet, and that the statement that "prisoners are dying in our custody with alarming frequency" is pretty indefensible as regards Guantanamo.

But really doesnt this post boil down to saying "hey Gitmo isnt so bad we havent killed anyone yet!!"

These people are being treated in a manner that would be unacceptable if they were american citizens. That in itself is wrong.

Treat them with dignity and respect and yet try them to the full extent of the law. Contrast their irrational ideology and acts of atrocity with the fundamental fairness and reasonableness of American justice and you will go much farther in repudiating their cause than the current apparent "make an example of them" policy does.

I partially misremembered the point (the particulars of my poor memory will be clear from reading the actual post, reproduced below).  From Quando (http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1878):

But, in any event, as far as we can tell, out of 108 prisoner death in US Military custody, at least 27 of them, or 25% appear to be murders committed mainly by US Military personnel, although in one case, the Justice Department is investigating since the suspects are CIA employees. Compare that, to say, 2001, when, in the US corrections system--both state and federal--homicides accounted for 57 of the 3,311 deaths that year, or 1.7%. And that, by the way, includes homicides of inmates by other inmates. The number killed by prison guards, while not broken out, is no doubt substantially smaller still.

25% v.1.7%

This is as near as we can get to an apples-to-apples comparison* -- given that most of the relevant information has not been released -- and, as is self-evident, it raises some serious questions regarding our treatment of detainees.

Now, it may be that those questions can be answered satisfactorily:  perhaps, as Krempasky has suggested, it includes killings at the point of detention.  Perhaps the numbers are just wrong.  But it seems silly -- as well as ultimately counterproductive -- to simply dismiss the numbers.

von

*Strict death rate-to-death rate comparisons are likely to be misleading for any number of reasons (e.g., prisoners outside Iraq tend to be older and/or to have been held long enough to have a greater likelihood of dying by a natural cause [cancer, etc.]; etc.)

Which quotes Quando for the correct apples-to-apples (or, near as we can get) comparison.

Are any Guantanomo detainees American citizens? I don't think so. Moreover, they are classified as illegal enemy combatants. You argue that they should be treated as American citizens. Why?

you guys mostly agree. Both agree that no illegal detainee deaths are acceptable, and both agree that crimes against detainees should be investigated fully and prosecuted as required.

You guys might disagree, not sure, about what constitutes expected (not accepted) detainee attrition. The numbers are inconclusive, but seem to argue that the system isn't broken. That said, I suppose we can conclude that a certain level of barbarity is to be expected in war, even under carefully managed conditions.

you guys mostly agree.

You're right, I think.  The difference is one of emphasis.  As well as the perception on my part that certain folks (not Thomas or Leon) are a bit too eager to see unqualified good where, in war, there are only varying grays.*  Or they believe that valor and greatness only can be achieved by hardness and certainty.

IOW, if one believes that the U.S. is en route to becoming, if it is not already, an empire, one can prefer either Athens or Rome as the model.  My sign off indicates which I prefer.  

*See, e.g., the "I love Gitmo" cheerleading (with T-shirts!)

When did mere existence become the end-all?  When did doing and being good cease to matter?

Incidentally, although the Roman state did indeed last longer as a political entity, the Hellenic ideal (of which the Roman Republic, by the bye, was but a poor facsimile) was far more influential.    

Federal corrections system?  Because I would say the numbers don't add up.  There are far more than 3,000 prisoners in the US, I bet there are that many in Texas or California alone.

And as an aside, it is probably more likely that the enemy combatants and insurgents in Iraq are going to be more violent as a whole than the averabe FBP inmate (although this may be debateable, but most federal crimes are of the more white collar sort than state crimes).

A better comparison would probably be violent/close security inmates/deaths to Iraqi detainees/deaths.

#1 most death row inmates are locked down 23 of 24 hours a day, and they are restrained anytime they leave their cells, also by the time they get death row, they are a good bit of time past their trial and sentencing (often it takes a year or longer before they get there).

Also, death row inmates do not generally have a desire to hurt the guards in charge of them beyond the crime that got them there, a detainee from the WOT does have a desire to harm those who are holding them, and may even feel it is their duty to do so.

"we haven't killed anyone yet, so it isn't so bad"

But more an argument that if you actually believe that abuse/beatings/desire for death is so systemic and approved of by the military and administration that you would be likely to see more deaths than we are.

As long as abuse/murder/torture/etc is being investigated and those involved are being charged, then the system is working-humans aren't perfect, and at least in regards to Iraq, often captures are made in the heat of battle, and things may go down quickly.  May not be an excuse for the actual behavior, but is often a reality of being in a warzone.

I don't see them as evidence of an empire in decline, but rather as evidence of an engaged and angry electorate with a sense of humor, and unbridled capitalism, which I largely support.

I doubt that wearers really "heart" Gitmo so much as they love a satirical thumb in the eye of their opponents. It's an age old American  tradition.

Besides, the model is lovely.

inmate deaths not total population.

Actually, von, this is a nearly worthless comparison. Proving that there are more homicides as a percentage of deaths does not prove that homicide is a bigger problem, the far more likely explanation is that the military detention facilities do a much better job of preventing other kinds of death, thus making the homicide percentage much higher.

What would be an apples-to-apples-comparison would be a study of the gross number of homicides in ratio to total population. I would be extremely interested if you have such a statistic.

Again, we are still operating under the assumption that all 26* cases under investigation were, in fact, homicides, and not just "deaths under investigation for homicide."

*I am assuming that the discrepancy between our figures is that your report was released before the clearing of Lt. Pantaro. If that is so, it lends more credence to the notion that point-of-capture homicides are included in the number 26.

comparisons aren't all that useful.

that some of those homocides we are assuming were by US military personel, which also may not be the case upon further investigation.

A comparison of prisoner deaths attributed to guards in military custody vs. civilian custody?

Or is that what is being argued?

And if you can find a statistic that esoteric, I think I can dig up a trophy for you. The DOJ has been working on this report (which is supposed to cover the period of 2000-2002) for more than two years now, and it's still not done, and I think it will merely contain an accurate count of "deaths" - no idea if they're broken down into homicide, etc.

Yes, the best metric would be to compare guard-on-inmate homicide rates.  The numbers I've provided are the closest to that metric of any yet provided, but they are not that metric.

For one thing, if it is going to be directly that, then we need to subtract out any deaths that occur at the capture point.

Probably a better comparison would be to add in deaths attributed to police during aprehension and questioning, since part of those 26 possible homocides may have occured at this stage, rather than the post arrest/conviction stage.

This also may be why we don't see any deaths at Gitmo (more comparable to the prison phase) than in Iraq (probably more comparable to initial aprehension, question phase).

We must assume that the authorities are doing their job, and that it is proper to investigate these 27 deaths as homicides committed by either US military personnel or CIA operatives.  And I don't discount the fact that it may be that the investigations will conclude that all 27 are justified homicides.  (Note that a large number of justified homicides is still troubling from any number of perspectives, albeit not as troubling as a large number of murders.)

Actually, von, this is a nearly worthless comparison.

You really can't mean this, Leon.  (Indeed, the spinning that follows suggests that you recognize that this is a very worthwhile comparison, which you then try to explain away.)

I am assuming that the discrepancy between our figures is that your report was released before the clearing of Lt. Pantaro. If that is so, it lends more credence to the notion that point-of-capture homicides are included in the number 26.

If you read what I quoted, you'll see that the 27th is not a military "homicide," but rather an alleged homicide committed by CIA operatives -- which is why it's not reflected in your figures (which purport to measure only alleged homicides committed by military personnel.)

Perhaps I phrased it poorly, and I certainly didn't intend to insult you, but the point stands. Showing that a greater percentage of prisoner deaths are attributable to homicide (as opposed to heart attacks, etc.) is explainable in one of two equally plausible ways:

1. The problem of homicide is much worse in detainee camps.
   
2. The problem of "other causes of death" is not nearly as bad in detainee camps.

Now, as I went to great lengths to show in my post, the "other causes of death" is extraordinarily low in comparison with the United States population as a whole - and if the 22 killed in the mortar attack are removed from the equation as a factor of being located in a combat zone, the incidence of all kinds of death among the detainee population is less than one third of the U. S. population as a whole.

So, I believe the far more likely cause of the higher percentage is due to the smaller number of total deaths, not a higher number of homicides. This is a perfectly plausible explanation in that, as you pointed out, most U. S. prisons are filled with older inmates, etc. and we would expect to see more "other causes" deaths.

Now, you may disagree, and attempt to paste explanation number one on, but that just highlights the point that it's a mostly worthless comparison, in that it's so wide open to legitimate alternate interpretations that it's value as an examiner of ratio of guard-to-prisoner murder is diminished to practically zero.

I don't see them as evidence of an empire in decline, but rather as evidence of an engaged and angry electorate with a sense of humor, and unbridled capitalism, which I largely support.

And I'm second to very few in my love for unbridled capitalism.  

homicides per death is not really a relevant statistic is it?

Surely Homicides per prisoner is a relevant one though, and in that case the statistics would be worse for the military detention facilities.  Right?

Perhaps some (military) guards have a desire to harm detainees ("suspected terrorists"). It makes sense to me, given the context of a war.

Measured homicides as a percentage of total deaths.

Surely Homicides per prisoner is a relevant one though

Absolutely it would. Unfortunately, we can't find it.

and in that case the statistics would be worse for the military detention facilities.  Right?

If that statistic was available, we'd know. Unfortunately, we just don't have it.

Frankly, I'm skeptical. What we are looking at now is 26 (27?) deaths over a three year period that are being "investigated" for homicide. How many deaths that "investigated" as homicides turn out not to be homicides? I don't know, but someone in law enforcement could probably give you a ballpark figure. I'd say it's a significant number. We are also unsure how many of those 26/27 were at point-of-capture, as opposed to homicides during the time of detention.

I'd be frankly shocked if more than 15 of the deaths in question turned out to be actual homicides, committed during the time of incarceration. 15 out of a total population of 65,000 - or 5 a year in a rotating population of approximately 10,000. Again, I'd be surprised if the domestic figures are significantly lower.

But I think we're naive if we dismiss the reality of this point. As I pointed out in my original post, there are some very real animosities lurking under the surface in these prison situations that are certainly worse than you would expect to find in the average U. S. Prison. Most DOC officials aren't guarding prisoners that have killed their very close friends, or prisoners that are associates of those that have killed their very close friends.

If we are able to draw a genuine statistical comparison between guard-on-inmate homicides, and the incidence is slightly higher in detainee facilities, I'd attribute most of the difference to this factor, as opposed to any sort of policy or failure of policy issue.

Let's see if we can figure out where we agree, and where we're in dispute.  (This is g

The statistic that I provided (via Qando -- must remember to not put in a "u") compared "homicide as percentage of total deaths" within both populations.  Assuming that the numbers are accurate and the count is legitimate, it unambiguously shows that homicides are a far greater proportion of total deaths in the "military" prison population than in the "civilian" prison population.  (The quotes indicate that I recognize that I'm not being as precise as I should be.)  

Now, the question becomes, "why is that so?"  I agree with you that two explanations immediately spring to mind:

1.  The problem of homicide is much worse in detainee camps.
   
2.  The problem of "other causes of death" is not nearly as bad in detainee camps.
   

You argue, and I'll assume that it's true at the moment (I have no reason to disbelieve it), that there's evidence that "other causes of death" occurs less frequently in the "military" prison population.  You draw from this evidence that point 2 must be the reason for the disparate homicide rates among "military" and "civilian" prisoners.

Here's why I think you're wrong.

1.  There is no requirement that if 2 is true, 1 cannot be true.  Both can be true.
   
2.  One would expect that the non-homicide death total to be much greater at "civilian" prisons, where (unlike Iraq) prisoners are held long enough to die in prison of natural causes.  
   
3.  The disparity between "civilian" and "military" homicide rates is much greater than even the 1.7% to 25% numbers suggest.  The "civilian" homicide total (1.7% of all deaths) includes all types of homicides, including inmate on inmate homicides; the "military" homicide total (25%) includes only homicides allegedly committed by guards.  IOW, the actual guard-to-guard comparison may very well be something along the lines of .7% or .25% (civilian) to 25% (military).
   
4.  Moreover, if one follows the presumption of the "rational" anti-abuse critic* -- that some prisoners are tortured and that some torture leads to death, but that prisoners are otherwise well-cared for and care is usually taken not to kill prisoners during torture (the "benevolent torturer" hypothesis), one would expect the numbers that one sees.

Again, as I've repeatedly mentioned, it may be that there's absolutely nothing to these charges.  But we demonstrate that -- and live up to our ideals -- by actually going out and demonstrating it.  That is, we treat the allegations seriously, investigate them thoroughly, hold folks up and down the chain of command responsible for illegal acts, and not dismiss or minimize charges (and, in particular, we don't behave irreverently).

von

*By definition, the "rational anti-abuse critic" include yours truly.  ;-)

"metrics" are specious at best.  Scientists and scientists-lite(economists, statisticians, etc.) can make the entire world melt away in a simple phrase, ceteris paribus.  And that's perfectly reasonable if you want to know how significant mound height is in baseball or how the Fed rate affects savings but when it comes to drawing a big, bright line between acceptable practices and Pol Pot I won't buy it.  

deaths by inmate on inmate then you can't really compare the numbers anyway.

But Leon makes a good point.

For instance lets say prison A has 10 murders by inmates, 1 murder by a guard and 500 suicides (let's leave out natural causes since they don't involve much action by the guards).  But in prison B the guards are more vigilant regarding suicides so there are only 100 of those, but the same number of murders by guards and inmates.  Because they were more vigilant in preventing suicides, the percentage of murders per death is actually higher than prison A (although if my math is screwed up, feel free to correct me).  I think that is what Leon is getting at here.

Also, I think in order to be a real comparison, you must include deaths of suspects at aprehension, and during the initial interrogation proccess.  The stat you quote seems to be of inmates murdered while in prison (which would be post aprhension, more than likely post conviction, although the stat may include inmates while in jail) only, but most people who are killed by criminal justice workers happens at the aprehension point, not the incarceration point, and in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan at least, the military is fulfilling the function of both the police and the prison guard, and it isn't clear from the 26 homicide stat at what point they are occuring.  

While murder isn't acceptable, there is far more heat of the moment/adrenalin rush going on at the aprehension point, which is why three are often instances of cops going over board during the arrests (think Rodney King here if you like).

Even in the civilian world, cops are often very harsh with known cop killers (talk to some cops, cop killers will often show up with a few extra bruises after their arrest).

Not to mention that most prisons and jails are not located in war zones-when I worked at the jail I felt very safe-but then the majority of inmates I worked with did nothing personally to me, and they treated me with a lot of respect, and I didn't feel personally victimized by them.

That probably is not the case with the US soldier holding insurgents.  Most of them to some degree probably do feel personally victimized by the men they are holding.  

Not to mention that no matter how good the screening proccess, some bad apples are going to get through it, and end up in a situation where they can power trip (power tripping occurs in almost any military or paramilitary organization).  

I am not saying that they are American citizens just that they should be afforded the same rights as American citizens.

Why? because being a foreigner I dont see why people should be discriminated against is such a way. Why are they not due the same rights as you? Does being from the US suddenly make you a more worthy person somehow?

Honestly I am not trying to be a troll here I would like to hear the opposing argument as it is your government's policy.

I am not saying that they are American citizens just that they should be afforded the same rights as American citizens.

Which rights?  In what ways?  In what jurisdiction?

Why? because being a foreigner I dont see why people should be discriminated against is such a way.

Discriminated against in what way?

Honestly I am not trying to be a troll here I would like to hear the opposing argument as it is your government's policy.

Which policy?

Fair enough, I agree this evidence would seem to put the lie to the idea that torture and physical abuse is random, unmeasured and rampant at Guantanamo.

I also would agree that too many people too easily accept such preposterous ideas without question.

However I do think that the institutionalised policies of Guantanamo (the extreme interrogation techniques, the bare conditions,  and the lack of appropriate legal rights for the detainees) are a form of unacceptable abuse, and that that should not be glossed over.

Thats a characterisation that I know many here would disagree with, but it is nevertheless the point I was trying to make.

However I do think that the institutionalised policies of Guantanamo (the extreme interrogation techniques,

Which ones, are all interrogation techniques extreme?  Do they all bother you, or is it only some of them?  Be specific.

the bare conditions,

Okay, let's get back to the Geneva conventions.  Did you know that the conventions only require that POW's be housed in housing of the same type as the soldiers?  Did you realize that the soldiers at Gitmo actually are in the same type of building, and have 6 people per room, that one detainee is in?  They are subject to the same tempatures, and honestly according to my husband Gitmo is not a very fun place to be (he got to spend two weeks there waiting for his ship, back in the '90's during the Haitian crisis)

 and the lack of appropriate legal rights for the detainees)  

Are you opposed then to military tribunals?  What legal rights do you want them to have, and in what jurisdiction?

Just Me said:

"Which rights?  In what ways?  In what jurisdiction?"

The rights you would expect to be afforded in a court of law - to due process. Are you saying that they have these rights? why then are there no American citizens in Guantanamo? was was John Walker Lindh not placed there?  

Any jurisdiction in the United States would be preferable to Guantanamo, though as 9/11 is ostensibly the justification for all this New York would probably be appropriate. I imagine the detainees would settle for the harshest jurisdiction possible (Texas?) over Guantanamo, which was picked specifically because it was a legal limbo not covered by the US constitution

"Discriminated against in what way?"

C'mon are you really suggesting these individual's are being treated in the same manner as any other prisoner (even a POW) would be?

Let me give you just one example then - the detainees were initially not allowed to see any lawyers at all. After extensive court battles they were finally granted the right to meet counsel - but the guards must be present and there are limits on what they can discuss.

"Which policy?"

The policy of not affording to them the same rights which are constitutionally guaranteed to American citizens.

try again:

The rights you would expect to be afforded in a court of law - to due process.

What rights do you expect (I am asking you for details)?

<i?why then are there no American citizens in Guantanamo?</i>  

I don't think there are currently any, but I may be wrong.  Feel free to provide me a link on this one.

was was John Walker Lindh not placed there?

Nope, Lindh was never taken to Gitmo, he was taken to a federal prison in the US, and plead guilty to some charges, and I think got a 20 year sentence.  

Any jurisdiction in the United States would be preferable to Guantanamo,  Why?

I imagine the detainees would settle for the harshest jurisdiction possible (Texas?) over Guantanamo, which was picked specifically because it was a legal limbo not covered by the US constitution

Lol you really don't know much about the US prison system do you.  I worked in a jail, and can tell you that I would rather be at Gitmo than the jail I worked in.  Shoot, I bet there are prisoners in US prisons right now that would sign up to go to Gitmo.  Remember the comment about the AC being turned down, and turned off?  Guess what, several of our prison systems do not have an AC at all in them.  

Then after we are done comparing Gitmo to US systems, lets go compare Gitmo to some of the prisons in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabie, Iran etc.  Some of their prisoners may want to sign up for Gitmo as well.

"Discriminated against in what way?"

C'mon are you really suggesting these individual's are being treated in the same manner as any other prisoner (even a POW) would be?

In what ways?  Provide specifics?  What ways are these prisoners being treated that is different from other prisoners?

Let me give you just one example then - the detainees were initially not allowed to see any lawyers at all. After extensive court battles they were finally granted the right to meet counsel - but the guards must be present and there are limits on what they can discuss.

Give me a link please-one that isn't biased, I am curious as to whether or not there is a security issue involved here.  I seem to recall that a lawyer here in the US was recently convicted of passing on messages between her client (one of the first WTC bombers) and other terrorists.  I think the US government has a legitimate security issue involved with the Gitmo detainees in this regard.

"Which policy?"

The policy of not affording to them the same rights which are constitutionally guaranteed to American citizens.

Tell me which rights those are, and why the constitution applies to them.

"are all interrogation techniques extreme?  Do they all bother you, or is it only some of them?  Be specific"

Any interrogation technique which contravenes the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions.

Vague? how about this - any technique which your country would condemn if your own troops were subjected to it by a foreign power.

"Did you realize that the soldiers at Gitmo actually are in the same type of building, and have 6 people per room, that one detainee is in?"

Frankly I find it very hard to believe that the soldiers are kept in the same conditions as the detainees. But do you really think that the Red Cross or any other such independent organisation would agree that Gitmo complies to the Geneva Conventions?

"Are you opposed then to military tribunals?"  

Absolutely. They do not represent the due process which any American would expect for themselves, therefore they are unjust as they are being carried out by the American government.

"What legal rights do you want them to have, and in what jurisdiction?"

The same rights accorded to an American arrested in the United States in any legitimate US jurisdiction.

Hope that answers your questions.

Any interrogation technique which contravenes the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions.

Vague? how about this - any technique which your country would condemn if your own troops were subjected to it by a foreign power.

Be more specific, exactly what techniques do you find okay, and what do you find to cross the line?

Frankly I find it very hard to believe that the soldiers are kept in the same conditions as the detainees. But do you really think that the Red Cross or any other such independent organisation would agree that Gitmo complies to the Geneva Conventions?

If you mean by housing and food, then the place does meet convention standards.  

Absolutely. They do not represent the due process which any American would expect for themselves, therefore they are unjust as they are being carried out by the American government.

So you are of the opinion that this is a criminal justice matter?  Just how do you propose we protect witnesses during these trials?  What are the charges?  Do you think that none of the detainees are a risk or a danger, should we all turn them loose?  You volunteering Ireland as the place to send them?

The same rights accorded to an American arrested in the United States in any legitimate US jurisdiction.

What are they-be specific?

You argue, and I'll assume that it's true at the moment (I have no reason to disbelieve it), that there's evidence that "other causes of death" occurs less frequently in the "military" prison population.  You draw from this evidence that point 2 must be the reason for the disparate homicide rates among "military" and "civilian" prisoners.

This is not, in fact, the central point that I am arguing (although it is tangential). The central point at issue here is, does the higher ratio of murders to total deaths have significance to the current issue at hand. I maintain that it does not, since as we have seen here, the interpretation of those statistics is a matter of great ambiguity.

I contend that point two is mainly to blame, you contend that point one (or a combination of one and two) is mainly to blame, but without the added data of murders to total population, neither of our theories rests on anything more than conjecture.

Any statistic that is open to multiple legitimate interpretations is, in fact, useless in a debate like this, absent the clarifying data needed to give meaning to the statistic. That is what the problem is with examining homicides as a percentage of total deaths in the first place - it proves nothing.

One would expect that the non-homicide death total to be much greater at "civilian" prisons, where (unlike Iraq) prisoners are held long enough to die in prison of natural causes.

Yes, but we are not talking about total deaths, we are talking about deaths per annum, which should be somewhat consistent. But granting an overall age discrepancy (again, this is conjecture since the data is unavailable for either sets of population), the morbidity rate in general for the military detention population is approximately one third that of the population as a whole. That is a startling discrepancy which (I believe) must at least partially be attributed to overall good prison management.

Especially given that nearly 1/5 of the total deaths in military detention were due to a single mortar shell.

The disparity between "civilian" and "military" homicide rates is much greater than even the 1.7% to 25% numbers suggest.  The "civilian" homicide total (1.7% of all deaths) includes all types of homicides, including inmate on inmate homicides; the "military" homicide total (25%) includes only homicides allegedly committed by guards.  IOW, the actual guard-to-guard comparison may very well be something along the lines of .7% or .25% (civilian) to 25% (military).

There may be validity to this, there may not. You must admit at least, that this is conjecture. A reasonable conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless.

Moreover, if one follows the presumption of the "rational" anti-abuse critic* -- that some prisoners are tortured and that some torture leads to death, but that prisoners are otherwise well-cared for and care is usually taken not to kill prisoners during torture (the "benevolent torturer" hypothesis), one would expect the numbers that one sees.

That is beyond the pale of this particular post, as I tried to set out in the original. However, as Gitmo is currently in the news, the fact that they have yet to experience a single death is evidence of truly special care indeed, if "torture" is the norm there.

Again, as I've repeatedly mentioned, it may be that there's absolutely nothing to these charges.  But we demonstrate that -- and live up to our ideals -- by actually going out and demonstrating it.  That is, we treat the allegations seriously, investigate them thoroughly, hold folks up and down the chain of command responsible for illegal acts, and not dismiss or minimize charges (and, in particular, we don't behave irreverently).

Right there with you.

a response to Valmurgh above.

Aristotle and Plato did. Roman law outlasted Greek law by thousands of years. Roman engineering still stands. Tacitus and Virgil inspired as many as Homer and Aeschylus.

And anyway, yes, lasting matters. Doing and being good matters, but surviving is one of the chief virtues and goals of a State (or, since we're dealing with pre- and post-Westphalian systems here, a gens, nation, or patria).

Roman civilization absorbed Greek civilization in its entirety, and after about 30 BC (when Ptolemaic Egypt fell) you really can't speak of Greek civilization as separate from Roman civilization. Roman writers owe a huge debt to Greek writers before them (Vergil was very self-consciously copying Homer's example) and the Roman ruling class had Greek philosophy drilled into them by their Greek pedagogues.

Virgil did more than copy Homer, and drew heavily on more native Latin sources. It's the Cliff's Notes Version of the Aeneid that says Virgil drew from Homer. Any serious analysis of that work, or any of his others, shows a mind indebted in a hundred different directions, most of which weren't to Homer.

And your analysis, while facially correct, is rather like saying American culture is British. Some truth there, but there are miles in between. The Romans didn't become Hellenes; they altered and changed and rewrote what they got until it fit their view of the world.

There may be validity to this, there may not. You must admit at least, that this is conjecture. A reasonable conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless.

Sure.  

That is beyond the pale of this particular post, as I tried to set out in the original. However, as Gitmo is currently in the news, the fact that they have yet to experience a single death is evidence of truly special care indeed, if "torture" is the norm there.

I'm not really addressing Gitmo, actually; I'm addressing the credible allegations of torture occuring at other U.S. facilities.  

Now how am I suppose to sit through that horrid show?
-bro

I find it very interesting, revealing perhaps, that everyone in this discussion has had most of the numbers at hand necessary to do a decent apples-to-apples comparison and yet no one has taken the final simple steps to do so ...

Leon even pointed it out himself: "What would be an apples-to-apples-comparison would be a study of the gross number of homicides in ratio to total population. I would be extremely interested if you have such a statistic."  

Well all you needed to do was look up the total US prison population for 2001, which I did in about ten seconds using Google: 631,240 (jail) and 1,330,007 (prison).  

Using Qando's stat of 57 homocides for that year, you get a homocide rate of about:

0.0029% (prison+jail)

0.0043% (prison)

Let's use the larger percentage for a more favorable comparison for the military and let's also make the enormous assumption that all 57 of these homocides were murders committed by guards.

Now for the military numbers: let's assume for a second all 26/27 of these homocides are in fact murders.  The article gives a total processed population of about 65,000 since Afghanistan.  That gives a homocide rate of about:

0.040%

See the difference?  It's in the decimal place ... These guard homocide rates are about 10 times higher than the general US prison population's!  That's 1000% of the normal homocide rate.

Now what about the two large assumptions we have made?

(a) all 57 civilian homocides were committed by guards and were murders (helps military comparison)

and

(b) all 26/27 homocides committed by US personnel were murders (hurts military comparison)

My gut tells me that the effects of these two assmptions will either cancel out or actually make the comparison even worse for the military.  Meaning that I bet a higher percentage of the investigated military homocides will turn out to be murders than the percentage of murders committed by civilian guards out of the civilian homocides.

Let the spinning and whinging begin ...

For doing further research into this post. I think your analysis of the statistics, insofar as they are correct, is pretty spot-on. I think it's highly unlikely that even half of the 26/27 under investigation will turn out to be homicides, and I think that it's likely that less than half of the 57 will also be homicides.

The main problem that I have with this analysis, and I have done some further reading on Qando, is that I find the 57 statistic to be incredible to the point of being unbelievable. There are at least two stupendously large problems with assuming this number is correct.

1. Where in the heck did Qando get this statistic, which the DOJ itself does not have? It smacks of a statistic made out of thin air/incomplete data, especially when you consider that
   
2. 57 murders in a population of about 2,000,000 gives a murder rate that is far less than half of the U. S. population as a whole. Now let's use our common sense and see if that's believable - that a population consisting chiefly of men, all or most of whom have shown violent tendencies, bunked in insanely tight quarters and put under tremendous psychological strain on a daily basis has less than half the murder rate of the outside population? Especially given the rising problem of gang violence in prison? I know that theoretically they have less access to weapons, but there's no way that accounts for all of the difference. I'm not buying that bridge.

Until the DOJ releases the official stats on murders in prison, I'm calling the 57 number flat-out bogus.

Now, there is another problem with your statistical comparison which I haven't even really touched - the 26/27 is over a three year period. This means that the actual figure is 8 per year, which means that the murder rate in military prisons is really about three times higher than that of U. S. prisons. IF all of our rather large assumptions turn out to be correct.

Right now, I say the shakiest of the three is that 57 is the correct number of homicides in U. S. Prisons.

I'd be interested to know the homicide rate among violent offenders in high-security US prisons.

Even then, though, I don't think it's likely that your (a) and (b) come out making the situation look good.

I know that theoretically they have less access to weapons, but there's no way that accounts for all of the difference

I would hope for the sake of our prison guards that the concept of "less access to weapons" for violent incarcerated offenders is a bit more solid than "theorhetical."

I don't know that this assesment gives much credit to the prison system.  The fact that murder rate may be as high as half the rate of the public is interesting and disturbing to me, because not only do the inmates not have ready access to weapons (and less powerful weapons for that matter - you can get all the spoon shivs you want, but try to get ammo for your tec-9), but they are also restricted in opportunity - e.g., you can't just walk over to the other guy's cell.  Prison guards are trained to spot these situations brewing and separate potential trouble (if for no other reason self preservation). Finally, the "heat of the moment" killing is pretty difficult to do because you aren't walking around with a weapon like you can in the real world - you have to plan your actions in prison - and even a short amount of time away from the situation can let cooler heads prevail.  

Finally, even in prison the percentage of violent offenders is low - 13% in federal prison according to the DoJ, and approximately 30% in various state systems - sourced from various news articles (but not unbelievable given the DoJ number).  The number of murderers in that group is once again a subsegment.

Taken all together it makes a case for why the numbers of murders may indeed be lower in prison per capita than outside...

I would hope for the sake of our prison guards that the concept of "less access to weapons" for violent incarcerated offenders is a bit more solid than "theorhetical."

I'll grant you that LESS access to weapons is reality, whilst NO access to weapons is purely theoretical. Unless a whole bunch of prisoners have lied to me with no reason, getting or fashioning a lethal weapon in prison takes place with a lot more frequency than you'd expect.

I don't know that this assesment gives much credit to the prison system.  The fact that murder rate may be as high as half the rate of the public is interesting and disturbing to me, because not only do the inmates not have ready access to weapons (and less powerful weapons for that matter - you can get all the spoon shivs you want, but try to get ammo for your tec-9), but they are also restricted in opportunity - e.g., you can't just walk over to the other guy's cell.  Prison guards are trained to spot these situations brewing and separate potential trouble (if for no other reason self preservation).

This actually varies quite widely from one prison to the next. Some provide almost no interaction between prisoners, some quite a bit. Nevertheless, there is more than enough in almost any prison that grudges can be acted upon. And again, it doesn't take a lot of time with a relatively sharp object to get the job done, especially if you are surrounded by members of your gang. From the prisoners I've talked to, the prison gangs of today are every bit as organized and potentially lethal as their counterparts on the outside.

Finally, the "heat of the moment" killing is pretty difficult to do because you aren't walking around with a weapon like you can in the real world - you have to plan your actions in prison - and even a short amount of time away from the situation can let cooler heads prevail.

A valid point, but for those already facing extended sentences in prison, the deterrent of further punishment is also removed, thus removing one of the central "cooling" factors involved in contemplation. Besides which, we again come to the point that many of them are currently in prison for doing things of a premeditated nature.

Taken all together it makes a case for why the numbers of murders may indeed be lower in prison per capita than outside...

Perhaps, but less than half as high? I'm not buying.

Besides which, we again come to the point that many of them are currently in prison for doing things of a premeditated nature  

Again, though premeditated to do what?  A great number of  "violent crimes" are committed as a side effect of other premeditated behavior, e.g., drug selling, robbery, etc. where the motivation and predilication is for something other than violence. E.g., I am running from the cops for burglary and smash into a cruiser -> assualt with a deadly weapon.

I am not saying you are wrong in your assesment.. seems like a low number to me as well, just I can see reasons why that number isn't out of the realm of possiblity.

The main problem that I have with this analysis, and I have done some further reading on Qando, is that I find the 57 statistic to be incredible to the point of being unbelievable ... Until the DOJ releases the official stats on murders in prison, I'm calling the 57 number flat-out bogus.  

Well, I did some more poking around on the web and found this report on homocides in England and Wales. On page 9 of that report though, they list the US statistics of prisoner population and homocides in state prisons.  The report says they got those statistics from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which is authoritative.  I have yet to be able to find these statistics on that website, but I chalk that up to my shoddy search skills and not some mendacity on the report's authors parts.

The report says that in 2001, the US state prison population was a little over 1.2M and that 48 homocides occurred in that population that year.  These numbers are roughly in line with the previous ten+ years too.  So I don't believe Qando's number is grossly wrong, if it is wrong at all.

The BJS also listed that 49% of state prisoners were held on violent offenses in 2001.

So, if we re-run the numbers with these statistics we get a raw homocide rate of about:

48 / 1.2e6 = 0.004%

which is in line with my former analysis of homocide rates in civilian prison.  If we now adjust that by only considering the 49% of the population held for violent crimes we raise it to about (and assume all the homocides took place within that population):

48 / 1.2e6 / 0.49 ~= 0.0082%

Now, there is another problem with your statistical comparison which I haven't even really touched - the 26/27 is over a three year period. This means that the actual figure is 8 per year, which means that the murder rate in military prisons is really about three times higher than that of U. S. prisons.

Nope, I'm smarter than that. ;) The 65,000 number I used represents the total number of prisoners processed in the military detainee system since Afghanistan started, as stated in the original government report / article.  The 26/27 homocide number covers that same period of time (ignoring justifiable homocide).  Therefore, because the time periods are the same, doing the direct division yields the proper homocide rate.

26 / 65000 = 0.04%

Ok, so all this means that the homocide rate in the military detainee system since Afghanistan is about

0.04% / 0.0082% = 4.9

times higher than the civilian homocide rate in US state prisons within the violent offenses population in 2001.  As I stated in my previous post, the 2 major assumptions I made in this analysis will probably only make the comparison worse for the military.

I don't know if this alarms you or not, but I have to stop posting now as my hair is on fire and I need to run around the room for a while!

That the 48 homocides in 2001 was the lowest count of homocides in the covered time period (1990-2001).

The average # of homocides per year in that time frame was: 64.

The average population in that period of time was: ~1.0M

With those numbers you get a rate of:

64 / 1.0e6 = 0.0064%

and adjusting for violent offenders (assume roughly constant %)

64 / 1.0e6 / 0.49 = 0.013%

which still means that the military's rate is

0.040% / 0.013% = 3.1

times higher than the homocide rate in the violent civilian prison population from 1990-2001.  Again, my main assumptions will probably make the comparison worse for the military ...

Currently has reports on civilian homicides, and the civilian homicide rate. I checked the website extensively in researching my original post. If you will observe here, which is from the BJS, they don't even claim to have a correct number of DEATHS assembled yet:

Deaths in Custody collects quarterly inmate death records from each of the Nation's 50 State prison systems, 50 State juvenile correctional authorities, and 3,095 local jails. In addition, this program collects quarterly records of all deaths during the process of arrest by each of the Nation's 17,784 State and local law enforcement agencies. These death records include information on the deceased's personal characteristics (age, gender and race/ethnicity), their criminal background (legal status, offense types, length of stay in custody), as well as details of the death itself (the date, time, location and cause of each death, as well as information on autopsies and medical treatment provided for illnesses/diseases). Data collections covering these populations were developed in annual phases: data collection from local jails began in 2000, State prisons were added in 2001, State juvenile correctional agencies were added in 2002, and coverage of arrest-process deaths began in 2003. While data is collected on a quarterly schedule, datasets will be produced in annual formats, with the first release of information (covering 2000-2002) scheduled for Spring 2005.

If you observe the site, you will notice that the report is not yet posted. So, I'm very interested to see the source that you are using for that.

Well it sounds like the "Deaths in Custody" program is much more in depth than the statistics previously gathered, which would explain the delay.

I'm sure the justice system has been tracking the raw # of homocides in our prisons for many years now.  I linked to the report from which I quoted those statistics in my last post.  They had numbers for 1990-2001.  I will try to find the associated BJS statistics directly, or I will write to the report's authors themselves to find them.

Still, I have little reason to believe that these researchers would fabricate a study (or statistics) on homocide in prison in England and Wales with false information about the US.

information, so much as incomplete information.

I'm interested in learning whatever you find out.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to learn that the homicide rate is somewhat higher in the military prisons than in the civilian prisons - and it is almost certainly the case that the guard-on-inmate homicide rate is much higher.

However, I'm still not certain that the comparison as such is a valid one, being that the comparative sample of military prisoners is so much smaller than the civilian prison population that a relatively small number of homicides can disproportionately skewer the results.

I believe, when all the dust settles, that we have charges brought on 15 of these homicides, at most. However, even granting that all 26 are successfully prosecuted as homicides, 8 homicides a year in our entire military prison system is perfectly explainable without resorting to explanations that involve systemic problems in military discipline - or even worse, that these homicides are somehow condoned or ordered.

And, the basic point of my post, that overall deaths (of every kind) in U. S. Custody are strikingly low for a prison population - that point stands.