QUIT Steering Committee BLOG

QUIT Consultation in Durham Cancelled

2011-10-16T21:18:00.000-07:00

The QUIT Consultation November 11 & 12 2011 in Durham NC has been postponed due to lack of response. Future activities will be posted.

QUIT Consultation Meeting -Nov 11 & 12 Durham NC Envision the Future

2011-10-04T15:34:00.000-07:00

Dear Friend,

Can Quakers help end US-sponsored torture, and bring accountability for such practices?

Did we make a difference on slavery? The rights of women?

Yes.

But as with abolition and suffrage, ending torture won't be easy or quick.

And as this history shows, a quality Quaker contribution depends ultimately on whether a small, dedicated group of Friends will take up this concern and stick with it.

Are you one of those Friends? Do you think you might be?

If so, please join a special consultation on November 11-12, sponsored by QUIT, the Quaker Initiative to end Torture. There we will work together to find out, and continue the work.

The situation with official torture today is that it is rampant in US prisons, and very likely going on overseas behind a veil of military & intelligence secrecy. It's also being flaunted in "victory laps" by the architects of Abu Ghraib & the "black sites" -- and the American public is being told to accept and forget about all of it.

In Washington, Congress is silent. The White House backs impunity. The courts are closed to the victims. Stalemate.

In other countries afflicted by official torture (Chile, Argentina), a small, dogged opposition refused the forgetting and acceptance, until the wall of impunity finally cracked and accountability began in earnest.

Similarly, in the US today the few challenging voices are scattered and marginal. The dissenters are persistent "peculiar people" who decline to "go with the flow" of the manipulated mainstream.

People like Quakers.

QUIT has been at work since 2005. We've held several conferences, visited Monthly and Yearly Meetings, kept up a website, published an accountability pamphlet. All on a shoestring, all volunteer. We have refused to be silent, to forget, or accept.

And we haven't given up.

In the grand scheme of things, QUIT's efforts don't amount to much.

Yet compared with the deathly silences echoing through the halls of law and government, these few voices matter.

But to keep up this long work, QUIT needs more Friends to join its steering committee. Friends like you.

We'll gather on November 11 at Durham Friends Meeting in North Carolina to assess where we've been, and plan how to keep it going.

Will you join us?

For details, contact Chuck Fager at: chuckfager@aol.com, or call him at: 910-323-3912

Our current schedule:

Friday afternoon, November 11 -- Gather at Durham Friends Meeting

Dinner and a celebration with North Carolina Stop Torture Now of its six years of front-line anti-torture work (Find out more about NCSTN at: http://ncstoptorturenow.org/ ) NCSTN has set the pace for local-regional accountability work; there is literally no other group that compares. We will have a special opportunity to learn about what they've been doing, and how they've kept going.

Saturday we'll spend some time learning more about Stop Torture Now's work, then turn to QUIT's efforts, and undertake focused discernment on how we can move forward. The session will finish by late afternoon Saturday November 12.

This consultation will be a simple, no-frills event. We'll be arranging hospitality for attenders from a distance; we'll ask for a $25 donation to cover meals and incidentals.

Friends from the Durham area are welcome to sit in on the sessions; but please note that it will be a working meeting, and those who attend will likely be asked to take up various tasks.

- - - - - - - - - -

Here's the Things to Do list -- By All Means Add to it

Quaker House
Front-Line Peace Witness Since 1969
223 Hillside Avenue 910-323-3912 Fayetteville NC 28301
qpr@quaker.org www.quakerhouse.org

Some Suggestions for Torture Accountability Work
For Asheville Stop Torture Now -- September 6, 2009

-- STUDY! There's much to learn about the American "Torture Industrial Complex" (TIC), its extent, history, and danger to our lives and community (as well as the world). Also, equip yourselves to refute apologists for torture, who are noisy and active. A beginning reading-links list is at: http://www.ncstoptorturenow.net/resourcesreading.html

-- Get familiar with the many NC torture connections.

-- Learn about how psychologists and health care professionals have been complicit; call for accountability in these professions.

-- Keep the issue in the public eye and community discussion. Some ways to do this:

-- Write OpEds for area papers. (700 words max).

-- Letters to the Editors of area papers: keep a steady stream of them coming!

-- Arrange interviews for visiting accountability activists with are media.

-- Make presentations to area church and other groups.

-- Gather signatures on petitions for accountability to pass on to officials.

-- Periodic public vigils (E.g., for ìTorture Migration Day,î Sept. 16),

-- If a notorious torture supporter comes to town, protest!

-- Do research to uncover TIC connections in your area. Publicize your findings.

-- Work with other groups: e.g., western NC ACLU chapter.

-- "Adopt" a Gitmo prisoner.

-- Pester public officials about taking ACTION on accountability, including:

-- State officials, governor, Attorney General, SBI.

-- Members of Congress from Western NC. (They probably won't do much -- but get it on their agendas! Show up for public appearances.)

-- US Senators Hagan & Burr. (Ditto!)

-- Monitor accountability work at the national/international levels.

-- When torture defenders come to or near your town, protest!

-- Be Creative! Think of new things to do!

New Recordings

2011-07-19T21:11:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,

I recently gave a plenary on American Torture at a national Quaker conference. This talk was recorded and is now available. It is an mp3 audio file called To Go Where There is No Light. I discuss America’s use of torture and the Quaker Initiative to End Torture's (QUIT) call to end it.

To hear a preview of the talk, go to-

www.fgcquaker.org/gathering/social-media/john-calvi.

To purchase the whole talk as an mp3 audio file go to-

http://www.quakerbooks.org/to_go_where_there_is_no_light.php

Also – here is a link to a radio interview I did in July on Healing and Torture with Northern Spirit Radio-

http://www.northernspiritradio.org/index.asp?command=showinfo&showid=569667511687

The FGC plenary mp3 file is $5. The radio interview is $10. The money goes to these organizations- not to me or The Quaker Initiative to End Torture – QUIT!

I think both turned out well and I hope you will share this news with friends.

Thanks, John

Avoiding Impunity- Marjorie Cohn July 8 2011

2011-07-10T11:28:00.000-07:00

Avoiding Impunity: The Need to Broaden Torture Prosecutions By Marjorie Cohn July 8, 2011
http://jurist.org/forum/2011/07/marjorie-cohn-torture-investigation.php

JURIST Contributing Editor Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School of Law says that all instances of torture must be investigated as violations of US and international law and a failure to do so will allow impunity for those who authorized these actions...

"Nobody's above the law," President Barack Obama declared in 2009, as Congress contemplated an investigation of torture authorized by the Bush administration. But Mr. Obama has failed to honor those words. His Justice Department proclaimed its intention to grant a free pass to Bush officials and their lawyers who constructed a regime of torture and abuse. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced last week that his office will investigate only two instances of detainee mistreatment. He said the department "has determined that an expanded criminal investigation of the remaining matters is not warranted."

Holder has granted impunity to those who authorized, provided legal cover, and carried out the "remaining matters." Both of the incidents that Holder has agreed to investigate involved egregious treatment and both resulted in death. In one case, Gul Rahman froze to death in 2002 after being stripped and shackled to a cold cement floor in a secret American prison in Afghanistan known as the Salt Pit. The other man, Manadel al-Jamadi, died in 2003 at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He was suspended from the ceiling by his wrists, which were bound behind his back. Tony Diaz, an MP who witnessed al-Jamadi's torture, reported that blood gushed from his mouth like "a faucet had turned on" when al-Jamadi was lowered to the ground. These two deaths should be investigated and those responsible punished in accordance with the law.

But the investigation must have a much broader scope. More than 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody, many from torture. And untold numbers were subjected to torture and cruel treatment in violation of U.S. and international law. Gen. Barry McCaffrey said, "We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A."

Detainees were put in stress positions, including being chained to the floor, slammed against walls, placed into small boxes with insects, subjected to extremely cold and hot temperatures as well as diet manipulation, blaring music, and threats against themselves and their families. At least three men were waterboarded, a technique that makes the subject feel as though he is drowning. Pursuant to the Bush administration's efforts to create a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. Abu Zubaydah received this treatment on 83 occasions.
American law has long recognized that waterboarding constitutes torture. The United States prosecuted Japanese military leaders for torture based on waterboarding after World War II. The Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act make torture punishable as a war crime.

Lawyers in the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, including John Yoo and Jay Bybee, wrote the torture memos. They redefined torture much more narrowly than the Convention against Torture and the War Crimes Act, knowing interrogators would follow their advice. They also created elaborate justifications for torture and abuse, notwithstanding the absolute prohibition of torture in our law. When the United States ratified the Convention against Torture, it became part of U.S. law under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The convention says, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Yoo have all said they participated in the decision to waterboard and would do it again. Thus, they have admitted the commission of war crimes. Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba, who directed the investigation of mistreatment at Abu Ghraib, wrote, "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the [Bush] administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account." Taguba’s question has been answered. None of those lawyers or officials will be brought to justice. Outgoing C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta said, "We are now finally about to close this chapter of our agency's history." Ominously, David Petraeus, incoming C.I.A. Director, told Congress there might be circumstances in which a return to "enhanced interrogation" is warranted. That means torture may well
continue during Obama's tenure. This is unacceptable.

Not only is torture illegal; it doesn’t work and it makes people outside the U.S. resent us even more. High-level interrogators such as F.B.I. agent Ali Soufan have said the most valuable intelligence was obtained using traditional, humane interrogation methods. Former F.B.I. agent Dan Coleman agrees. "Brutalization doesn't work," hobserved. "Besides that, you lose your soul."

Marjorie Cohn is a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is a past president of the National Lawyers Guild and she lectures throughout the world on international human rights and US foreign policy. Cohn is also a news consultant for CBS News and a legal analyst for Court TV, and provides legal and political commentary on BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR, Air America and Pacifica Radio. She is the editor of The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse (NYU Press 2011)

Time to clean house on torture - Guardian

2010-12-04T08:58:00.000-08:00

Time to clean house on torture Letta Tayler guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 09.00 GMT

As WikiLeaks reveals how the US has covered the CIA's dirty tracks, the Obama administration must hold officials to account

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/02/torture-cia-wikileaks

In the already sordid annals of US torture in the name of countering terrorism, November proved to be an unusually embarrassing month – not just for the Bush administration, which sanctioned the abuses, but also for the Obama administration, which has failed to hold its predecessors accountable.

First, former President George W Bush boasted in his new memoir and on talkshows how he had authorised waterboarding, a form of torture. Then, a US special prosecutor announced that he will not pursue criminal charges against CIA officers for intentional destruction of videotapes that reportedly show two terrorism suspects being waterboarded in one of its secret prisons in Thailand in 2002. Now, classified diplomatic cables newly released by WikiLeaks confirm that both the Obama and Bush administrations sought to quash criminal investigations in Europe into illegal counterterrorism activities such as kidnapping and torture by Bush-era officials.

In Spain, US diplomats in April 2009 joined with a pair of Republican members of the US Congress to urge a Spanish prosecutor, as well as officials with Spain's justice ministry and foreign affairs ministry, to drop a potentially landmark investigation against six top Bush administration officials, the cables show. The Spanish probe sought to indict former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and five other Bush administration officials for creating the legal framework to justify the use of torture and other coercive interrogation techniques. The case "would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship" between Spain and the US, the Americans warned, according to one cable. Immediately following those meetings, Spain's attorney general recommended dropping the investigation, which has foundered ever since.

In Germany, other classified cables show, a US diplomat in 2007 warned Berlin that issuing international arrest warrants for CIA agents involved in the abduction and mistreatment of an innocent German citizen "would have a negative impact" on US-German relations. In 2003, the CIA abducted Khaled el-Masri, an unemployed German car salesman who was vacationing in Macedonia, and allegedly beat him and secretly flew him to a prison in Afghanistan. There, he was again beaten, he said, and held for months in solitary confinement. The CIA thought el-Masri was a similarly named al-Qaida member.

Nearly two months after determining they were holding the wrong man, and five months after his abduction, US officials arranged to have el-Masri dumped on a remote road in Albania. A German prosecutor issued arrest warrants for the suspected CIA agents in 2007, but the country's justice ministry did not pursue them.

These cables made few headlines in the US. Nearly a decade after President Bush launched his "war on terror", acts such as a former chief executive's unrepentant admission of torture, the CIA's destruction of evidence with impunity, and diplomatic efforts to subvert justice no longer hold much shock value. The humiliating snapshots from Abu Ghraib are already part of the nation's collective memory. The public has read of fatal beatings of suspects in Afghanistan and questionable detainee deaths at Guantánamo. It has been inundated with the so-called "torture memos", in which President Bush's top justice department officials justified waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods that had long been prohibited under US and international law.

But public weariness does not make the legal case against Bush administration officials less compelling. Indeed, every new piece of evidence underscores the need for the Obama administration to conduct a full-scale criminal investigation into senior-level responsibility for planning, authorising and ordering torture and other abuses committed in the aftermath of 11 September 2001. In the case of the CIA-linked abduction and ill-treatment of el-Masri, and the probe into the architects of President Bush's torture policy, Germany and Spain should do the same.

Despite his welcome ban on torture and secret prisons, President Obama has shown scant enthusiasm for prosecuting such crimes. John Durham – the same special prosecutor who declined to pursue charges for the destruction of the CIA tapes – is conducting a broader investigation into abusive interrogation methods. But the Obama administration has made clear that the scope is limited to "unauthorised" acts. That means it will not prosecute CIA agents who committed abuses authorised by Bush's top justice department lawyers, even if the abuses violated domestic and international law. It also means there is little hope that these former justice department officials will be investigated, let alone prosecuted, for concocting a legal rationale for these blatantly illegal acts, or that President Bush and other senior officials will be held accountable for criminal offences justified by this dubious legal advice.

While the Obama administration buries its head in the sand and pressures Europe to do the same, some European countries have, nevertheless, taken a few important steps towards accountability for abusive counterterrorism actions. In 2009, Italy convicted 23 Americans in absentia, most of them CIA agents, for kidnapping a Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003. (The Obama administration criticised the ruling.) In Spain, in addition to prosecutors seeking indictments against the six legal architects of President Bush's torture policy, they also asked a judge last spring to issue an arrest warrant for the 13 CIA agents implicated in the kidnapping and rendition of el-Masri. The agents allegedly entered Spain using false documents.

President Obama justifies his reluctance to investigate Bush administration officials by saying that the country needs to "look forward and not backwards". Yet, he admitted the fallacy of that attitude during an interview in March 2010 in a reference to Indonesia, a country with its own history of abuses. "We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed," President Obama said of the regime of former Indonesian President Suharto, a US ally. "We can't go forward without looking backwards."

If the US hopes to exert any moral authority over abusive regimes past and present, it is incumbent on President Obama to heed his own advice, rather than merely preach it to the rest of the world.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Lecture on American Torture

2010-11-07T06:34:00.000-08:00

But I just wanted to let you know that a talk I gave to Burlington Friends Meeting on October 24, 2010 in VT made it's way on to community TV. This is a QUIT Update (QUIT - The Quaker Initiative to End Torture). There are no explicit horror stories here about torture, only the questions about our democracy since American torture continues. There's a half hour lecture and a half hour Q & A.

http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/burlington-friends-meeting-discussion-john-calvi-quaker-initiative-end-torture

Please share this widely.

Thanks, John

John Calvi
calvij@sover.net
802/387-4789
PO Box 301
Putney VT 05346 USA
www.johncalvi.com
http://johncalvi.blogspot.com
www.quit-torture-now.org

QUIT 4 Conference a Great Success!

2010-11-07T06:25:00.000-08:00

Dear All,

Thank you for all your notes and for holding the QUIT conference in the
Light. The conference was excellent! All 4 presenters outdid themselves in
presenting current information from their fields. Terry Kupers, author of
Prison Madness, gave us clear information about how the use of torture in
American prisons results in deformed people unable to live as whole humans.
Fr Roy Bourgeois explained the history of the School of the Americas and the
torture training for more than 60,000 Latin American military and police
that continues. Scott Horton, lawyer and Harper's magazine writer of the No
Comment column, explained the legal context in which Obama not only
continues Bush policies but in some instances makes things worse regarding
torture. And Hector Aristizabal, Columbian therapist and torture survivor,
showed us how movement and play can help us integrate all the information
and subsequent emotions after learning so much about torture. California
has good and active groups working against torture and we heard of several
actions taken in recent years- everything from clown protests to
legislation. Friends from Durham, North Carolina and Bosie, Idaho and
Eugene, Oregon along with mostly Californians attended, plus several
non-Quakers joined us. Thanks again for your good care and support, John

John Calvi
calvij@sover.net
802/387-4789
PO Box 301
Putney VT 05346 USA
www.johncalvi.com
http://johncalvi.blogspot.com
www.quit-torture-now.org

4th QUIT Conference - last call

2010-09-02T07:11:00.000-07:00

Dear Friend,

I know how you feel: who wants to think about the Quaker Conference on Torture & Accountability (9/24-26/2010) over Labor Day weekend?
Even if the conference has a superb set of speakers and brainstorming sessions.
Even if it will kickstart the work of ending this awful blot on our national conscience.
Even if it could change our future.
Yours. Mine. Our children’s.
I mean, it’s holiday time. The “last hurrah” of summer.
And don’t we all know it’s been a long, hot, climate change, hard times kind of summer?
Yes, we know.
So go ahead and kick back. Take a break. Get some sun, surf, or just chill from the heavy stuff.
We're with you.
It's all good. Don’t think about it.
Just do it: go to www.quit-torture-now.org and register online.
It only takes a few minutes.
Then forget about it, and have an outrageous holiday.
Don’t reflect on all the great programming until after you’re back.
Never mind about the chances to do planning and networking.
They’ll keep til you’re rested up.
We won’t even mention the great food and serene atmosphere of the Quaker Center at Ben Lomond.
(No, we won’t mention it; some might think it’s really a vacation.)
But it’s not. The conference will be serious work, on an issue that’s shaping our future.
All the more reason to register now: so you can quit being serious about it til you’re back in the regular routine. When you’re looking ahead to autumn, the full-steam-ahead school year and all that goes with them.
The conference will be there, on the list. A memorable part of it, in fact.
But we’re not going to dwell on that.
Because now it’s time to party.
Register. Then party.
See you there.

John Calvi

PS. It only takes a few minutes to register: www.quit-torture-now.org . Then go get those bags of ice.

Hector Aristizabal at QUIT 4 Sept 24-26 Quaker Center Ben Lomond CA

2010-08-26T21:14:00.000-07:00

Dear All,

When The Quaker Initiative to End Torture – QUIT began its work in May of 2005, we began to look for teachers who could show us the various aspects of the torture industrial complex. One of the very first talented people we found was Hector Aristizabal. He taught at QUIT conferences in Ottawa and twice at Guilford. And now we are very happy have the blessing of his good work at QUIT 4 September 24-26 at Quaker Center in Ben Lomond, CA. Check out registration – www.quit-torture-now.org

Hector is a native from Medellin Colombia and currently lives in Pasadena CA. Hector’s commitment to the human rights work forced him to leave his country in 1989 due to death threats. Hector holds an MA degree in Psychology from the Antioquia University in Medellin, Colombia and a degree as a Marriage Family Therapist from Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena.

During the last 15 years Hector’s main work and interest has been on the use of Theater of The Oppressed techniques, traditional myths and story telling as a way to combine theater, drumming, and dance with psychotherapy in the creation of “modern rituals” as a way to address the healing needs of many of our communities. In his recent book Blessing next to the Wound Hector talks of his transformation from torture victim to healer.

Hope to see you there,

John Calvi
Founding convener QUIT

John Calvi
calvij@sover.net
802/387-4789
PO Box 301
Putney VT 05346 USA
www.johncalvi.com
http://johncalvi.blogspot.com
www.quit-torture-now.org

QUIT 4th Conference 9/24-26/2010 Ben Lomond, CA

2010-08-16T06:47:00.000-07:00

Dear Friend,

Several questions are bothering me today. Do they bother you too? Does it bother you that Jay Bybee sits as a federal judge after defying US and international law to make torture legal? If so, coming to the 2010 QUIT Conference on Torture & Accountability is a way of putting your feelings into action. (QUIT: The Quaker Initiative to end Torture.)

And what about John Yoo? Is it okay for him to green-light waterboarding and then go blithely back to teaching “law” at a distinguished California law school? If you think this is a disgrace, the Conference (September 24-26 at Quaker Center) is the place to put words into concrete effort.

Then there's Jeppesen Dataplan: when scores -- more likely hundreds – of “torture taxis” took off from an airfield in North Carolina, those flights were planned and coordinated in San Jose, from Jeppesen's faceless offices. The ACLU has sued Jeppesen. But more is needed.

The QUIT Torture Conference is the time to gather and find ways to broaden the challenge. Modern American torture: it's not just a few men in black masks beating blindfolded Muslims in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. It's a far-flung, complicated network, well represented on the West Coast. How well represented? It goes beyond Yoo, Bybee and Jeppesen. When investigators tracked down a CIA front company for torture planes, the trail led to a Reno office building, and a prominent Nevada Republican politician's lobby firm. And there's more we could include, but space is limited.

Unfortunately, the network is still largely in place, even after the change of administration in Washington. The new “ban” on torture came with significant loopholes. Guantanamo is not yet closed. Efforts to hold the torturers and their masters accountable have hit a stone wall. But many are chipping way at that wall.

At the QUIT conference, we'll hear from some of the most effective anti-torture and accountability activists:

* Scott Horton, who broke the story of the secret “prison-within-a-prison” at Guantanamo, and the prisoners who were murdered there.

* Father Roy Bourgeois, who has spearheaded the campaign to close the School of the Americas, and its torture academy.

* Dr. Terry Kupers, who has helped expose the extent of torture in prisons across the US.

And we'll have time for brainstorming to turn their information and inspiration into plans for action. The work to end torture is a long-term struggle. The 2010 QUIT Conference is one important step on that long journey.

Yet one more thing is bothering me: as I'm writing this, registrations for the QUIT conference are below our expectations. If torture is a concern for you, and you've been thinking about attending, we need to hear from you. Or if someone you know is considering it, please pass this note on to them. Torture won't end unless we make that happen.

Peace, John Calvi, Convener

PS. By the way, you don't have to be a Quaker to attend the QUIT Conference. All who want to end this practice are welcome and urged to attend. Online registration is easy, here: http://www.quit-torture-now.org/

John Calvi
calvij@sover.net
802/387-4789
PO Box 301 Putney VT 05346 USA
www.johncalvi.com
http://johncalvi.blogspot.com
www.quit-torture-now.org

One More Thing Needed - 4th QUIT Conference Sept 24-26 Quaker Center, Ben Lomond, CA

2010-08-07T05:22:00.001-07:00

The 4th Quaker Initiative to End Torture Conference is all ready to go! The site is in the beautiful Redwood Forests of Ben Lomond, CA. We’ve leased the entire of Quaker Center, an intimate conference center known for good food and comfort in a quiet, natural setting.

We’ve 3 renowned experts on American torture as our speakers. Scott Horton is a human rights attorney and author of Harper’s Magzine No Comment column- http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment - his overview of torture’s legal scene is a must read and makes him one of the most in-demand speakers. Fr. Roy Bourgeois is the founder of School of the America’s Watch. For 2 decades he’s collected information about America’s instruction of torture and formed the largest annual protest in American history. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize last year by the American Friends Service Committee. Dr. Terry Kupers is the author of Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We Must Do About It. He’s expertise on torture and abuse in American prisons is known to Congress and courtrooms across the country.

This will be the best QUIT conference yet. Everything is set to go September 24-26. Except one thing- registration is lagging. If you’ve been intending to register- now is the time. If you go on-line right now – www.quit-torture-now.org - and register, QUIT can be sure to go ahead. We would love to share all we’ve organized for the past year. It’s going to be a great gathering of dedicated people doing good and important work.

Thanks, John Calvi – founding convener QUIT

John Calvi
calvij@sover.net
802/387-4789
PO Box 301
Putney VT 05346 USA
www.johncalvi.com
http://johncalvi.blogspot.com
www.quit-torture-now.org

It Takes Just a Little More Than A Minute

2010-08-01T19:52:00.000-07:00

Dear Friend,

Our efforts in QUIT (The Quaker Initiative to end Torture) have been blessed with many minutes of support. One of the most recent came from Dallas Meeting, which said, in part:
“Dallas Friends Meeting reaffirms its support of the Quaker Initiative to End Torture, its educational programs, and its commitment to bringing an end to torture.
“We realize that the end of torture will not come about soon and may be the work of many lifetimes, but we have no doubt that acts of torture are counter to the spirit of love and light that Friends have given witness to for almost 400 years.
“We are holding the Fourth QUIT Conference, its attendees and program leaders, in the light as they continue this vital work.”

At QUIT we're grateful for that expression of support. We hope other Friends will follow its counsel and join together at the QUIT Conference at Quaker Center in California, Sept. 24-26 2010.

The conference is important to further what Baltimore Yearly Meeting added to this chorus, when it urged Friends “to find ways take up such a witness, by public education and organized effort.” The QUIT conference will provide both.

Besides compelling speakers such as Scott Horton andRoy Bourgeois, the conference will include opportunities to plan and strengthen the long work for accountability among Friends and others, especially on the West Coast.

More details of the conference schedule are available here: http://www.quit-torture-now.org/horton.htm

Online registration takes only a few minutes at:
http://www.quit-torture-now.org/quit4_registration.htm

“Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured, as though you yourselves were being tortured.” Hebrews 13:3 NRSV
“Recognizing that of God in every person, we condemn the use of torture for any purpose by any person, group, or government. Torture by any means is immoral. It debases the humanity of the tortured, the torturer, and those who have knowledge of it. . . .
“The acceptance of torture is making our society an international pariah. We appeal to Friends and others everywhere to take up this concern and follow it through. Let us bear down into the work of bringing this immoral practice into the Light. Let us do all we can to bring about the day when torture is banished from our country and from our planet.”

Help put these wonderful minutes into action. Please Join us at the Fourth Quaker Conference on Torture, Sept. 24-26.

Peace,
John Calvi
Founding convener of QUIT

John Calvi
calvij@sover.net
802/387-4789
PO Box 301
Putney VT 05346 USA
www.johncalvi.com
http://johncalvi.blogspot.com
www.quit-torture-now.org

4th QUIT Conference Sept. 24-26 2010 Quaker Center Ben Lomond CA

2010-07-26T06:12:00.000-07:00

Dear Friend,

Did you read about Jay Bybee's recent "admissions" regarding US torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other prisons?

At the Quaker Conference on Torture, Sept. 24-26 at Quaker Center in Ben Lomond CA, seeking accountability for the actions of officials like Bybee will be part of the agenda. We hope you'll join us there, and support this work.

Bybee is currently a judge on the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He holds this powerful post depite being one of the main authors of the notorious "torture memo," which formed the supposed legal basis for the US torture program. Bybee drafted his memo in 2002 for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. It was later withdrawn and repudiated by the same agency.

At first glance, Bybee's recent admissions to a Congressional committee might seem startling and even incriminating: he acknowledged that detainees--most of whom were later released without charge--were tortured. And torture is (or at least once was) a crime under US law.

Read more closely, all Bybee really said was that some torturers went too far in carrying out their orders.

Went too far? How? Torture victims died, for one thing; and for another, word of the abuse leaked out, producing a rising chorus of calls for holding accountable those who built and ran this system --including Jay Bybee.

Bybee regretted the negative publicity his own role has received -- but he said "I am going to stand by the memo." "We took a muscular view of presidential authority," Bybee said. "I wasn't running a debating society, and I wasn't running a law school." Instead, he was establishing torture as a policy of the US government. Unfortunately, that basic policy still stands, and Jay Bybee still sits on one of the highest courts in the land.

A government that can torture with impunity has laid the foundation of tyranny. The Quaker Torture Conference is part of the work of overturning this torture policy, dismantling the torture network, and bringing redress to torture victims and justice to perpetrators.

This effort ranks with the epic struggle against slavery in its importance. Please join us, Sept. 24-26. You can register online now at: http://www.quit-torture-now.org

And please pass this message on to others.
John Calvi QUIT Convener

John Calvi
calvij@sover.net
802/387-4789
PO Box 301
Putney VT 05346 USA
www.johncalvi.com
http://johncalvi.blogspot.com
www.quit-torture-now.org

4th QUIT Conference - Torture & Accountability Sept 24-26 QUAKER CENTER Ben Lomond, CA

2010-07-12T08:16:00.000-07:00

Dear Friend,

We wish we didn’t need a Quaker Conference on Torture in 2010. But we do. And we hope you, or someone from your meeting community, will join us there.

It’s still hard for many to admit, but the United states government built an extensive “Torture Industrial Complex” as part of the “War On Terror.”
Torture is illegal, a crime under existing U.S. And international laws. There was hope it would end when a new administration came into office in early 2009.

Unfortunately, the actual progress has been very limited: Guantanamo remains open. Secret prisons are still operating in Afghanistan and, likely, elsewhere. The official ban on torture techniques is limited in its applicability.

And perhaps worst of all, none of those who designed or carried out the U.S. torture program has been held accountable. Nor have any of the thousands of victims later released as innocent received compensation, or even an apology.

We think accountability today is the best way to prevent torture in the future. Other countries, including Canada and England, have begun accountability investigations. But the U.S. government is still refusing to follow suit.

It will take persistent and determined effort to root out the “Torture Industrial Complex.” The 2010 Quaker Conference on Torture is one more step toward the goal.

Won’t you take the step, and join us?

Peace,

John Calvi, Convener
QUIT: The Quaker Initiative to End Torture
Quaker Conference on Torture & Accountability
September 24-26, 2010 - Quaker Center-California
Register online NOW at: www.quit-torture-now.org

Registration for 4th QUIT Conference is OPEN!

2010-06-11T13:12:00.000-07:00

Registration is OPEN for the QUIT Conference on Accountability at our website-

www.quit-torture-now.org

A few reminders-

Dates- September 24-26 2010

Site- Quaker Center, Ben Lomond, California – near Santa Cruz
(this is not a Quaker Center program, we’ve leased the whole campus)

Please register soon – there are only 50 beds on campus & room for only 50 commuters.

Main Speakers – Scott Horton & Fr. Roy Bourgeois will both speak on Saturday 9/25.

If you are flying in, please use San Jose airport, which is closer – we are hoping to provide transportation from there as we area able. We will not be providing rides from San Francisco airport, which is 2 hours from Ben Lomond.

Please visit the website, fill out the registration form, and send a check.

This is the 4th conference of the Quaker Initiative to End Torture. Much more info at website.

Thanks, John Calvi
Founding Convener- QUIT
calvij@sover.net

George W Bush, Torture President - Scott Horton

2010-06-06T20:56:00.000-07:00

http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

Scott Horton

June 4, 9:35 AM

George W. Bush, Torture President

Last week we learned from an interview with former Argentine president Néstor Kirchner that former president George W. Bush touted war as a cure to a nation’s economic ills. Bush has not contested that account. Moreover, yesterday he clarified his role in the torture of prisoners at CIA black sites. For two years, Republicans have argued against any inquiry into the torture practices of the Bush-Cheney administration, but apparently all it takes to get Bush to discuss the issue is a fat speaking fee. In a keynote address before the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, he spoke glibly about waterboarding:
Sure, we waterboarded Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, former President George W. Bush reportedly said on Tuesday. And he would “do it again to save lives.”

A group of thirteen retired admirals and generals meeting in Philadelphia to discuss national security issues, speaking through former CENTCOM commander General Joseph Hoar, responded:
Waterboarding is torture. John McCain has said it’s torture. We have prosecuted foreign and American military personnel for waterboarding. We even prosecuted a sheriff in Texas for waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture and torture is a crime. It cannot be demonstrated that any use of it by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life. To the contrary, the misguided belief that torture saves lives has cost America dearly. It is shocking that former President George W. Bush said he would use waterboarding ‘again to save lives.’ When he authorized it the first time he sent America down the wrong road, battering our alliances, damaging counterinsurgency efforts, and increasing threats to our soldiers.

Bush’s statement amounts to an admission of his role in a serious crime. He can speak and act without concern because the Obama White House has announced its intention not to enforce American domestic law, under which this conduct was a felony, and not to comply with the unequivocal treaty commitments of the Convention Against Torture, under which the United States is unconditionally obligated to undertake a criminal investigation. In this way, the sins of one regime have been assumed by its successor.

Silencing Lawyers - Scott Horton, No Comment - Harpers

2010-05-26T22:06:00.000-07:00

http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

No Comment
By Scott Horton

May 26, 10:23 AM

Silencing the Lawyers

A total of 779 prisoners have been held in Guantánamo in connection with the war on terror. Five hundred seventy-nine were released, most by the Bush Administration, a quiet recognition of errors made in the decisions to detain them. A large number of those still detained are contesting their imprisonment through habeas corpus—under which the government must make a minimal showing that it has a reasonable basis for holding the prisoner. In roughly three-quarters of these cases so far (36 out of 50 decided), which are being heard before largely Republican-appointed, conservative federal judges in Washington, the court has found that the United States has no reason to hold the prisoner. That’s not surprising. In fact, we now know that 80 percent or more of the Guantánamo prisoners were captured not by American forces on or near a battlefield but rather by Afghan warlords and Pakistani security forces eager to collect reward money the United States was offering. So Ahmed the taxi driver and Mohammed the shepherd were whisked off to Gitmo.

What happened to the 600–800 Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders for whom the prison was originally conceived? We now have a pretty good idea. In the late fall of 2001, military operations in Afghanistan were successful, and Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership figures had fled to two last redoubts—the city of Kunduz in the northeast, and the Tora Bora region along the Pakistani frontier. But for reasons known only to him, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered a halt to the bombardment of Kunduz and opened an air corridor to allow the Pakistani military to airlift the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders out of Kunduz. The maneuver was ridiculed by one U.S. military official present at the time as “Operation Evil Airlift.” The United States quickly moved to fill Gitmo with nobodies. With that fact now becoming painfully apparent, you’d think that Congress would be calling for an investigation into how original plans for Gitmo were botched—specifically how the Al Qaeda and Taliban figures for whom it was built evaded capture in the face of one of the most powerful military forces ever fielded in Afghanistan. That could well be one of the most significant “lessons learned” of the war.

Instead, influential Republicans in Congress are crying out for an investigation of the lawyers. Florida Republican Jeff Miller has secured a provision in the current defense appropriations act (PDF) requiring that the Defense Department’s inspector general “conduct an investigation of the conduct and practices of lawyers” who represent clients at Guantánamo if there is some reason to believe that they “interfered with the operations” at Gitmo or “violated any applicable policy of the Department.” Of course, as Steven Vladeck has explained, in the thinking of the Bush era, prisoners were to be held at Gitmo without access to attorneys or the ability to make legal arguments, so everything that the defense counsel did amounted to “interference with the operations”–starting with securing a series of Supreme Court decisions holding that those operations were illegal.
Miller explained the need for this provision in a blog post for the Heritage Foundation. As he makes clear, his purpose is entirely retaliatory:

Last year the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) established the John Adams Project to “support military counsel at Guantanamo Bay.” The mission behind this treacherous enterprise was to identify intelligence officers involved in interrogating Guantanamo Bay detainees and then provide that information to military defense attorneys representing the detainees so that they could attempt to call intelligence personnel to testify. Unfortunately, it appears that their efforts may have been successful, when last year photographs of intelligence personnel were found in the cells of detainees. News reports indicate that American citizens hired private investigators to surreptitiously photograph intelligence personnel and provide them to enemies of this nation. If true, the disgraceful actions by the individuals involved in the John Adams Project have created a severe security risk for our intelligence community and, ultimately, the American people. Any attempt to identify and expose to potential harm our Nation’s fine intelligence and military officers who serve as our first line of defense is deceitful, shameful, and illegal.

Let’s decode Miller’s histrionics here. It’s about torture. One of the key issues in many of the habeas cases, as well as in the forthcoming military commissions proceedings, is whether statements elicited from prisoners should be excluded because they were secured through the use of coercion—in the most serious cases, through the use of torture. In fact, the prior convening authority, Dick Cheney protégée Susan J. Crawford, concluded that at least one such statement was secured by torture, judges in several of the habeas cases have concluded that impermissible coercion was used, and in one of the military commission proceedings—involving child soldier Omar Khadr—one of his own interrogators testified, against his own interests and considerable government pressure, that he believes that Khadr was tortured. In order to make their case, the defense counsel need to establish if there were written or audiovisual records made of the interrogation sessions. They also have to identify all the potential witnesses and attempt to find out what the witnesses said or didn’t say. They are having a difficult time in this process because the government is not cooperating with them. Moreover, clear evidence–like the videotapes of interrogation sessions–keeps mysteriously disappearing.

Of course, the government can control whether the supposed statements are an issue. It can decide not to rely on them. It also has the power to insist that certain kinds of evidence are classified and can only he heard by the court under restricted circumstances. But the government does not have the right to use the statements against the prisoners and then block any inquiry into how they were secured and who was involved in the process, because that would turn the proceedings into a travesty. Secret evidence of that very sort was regularly used in the Tudor- and Stuart-era Court of Star Chamber, and the Founding Fathers appropriately forbade it—largely because the evidence was usually dishonest and unreliable. The prohibition on secret evidence was made absolute in the seventeenth century. It is “a fundamental common law principle,” as the Court of Appeal ruled just a few weeks ago in rejecting an effort to deny defendants access to evidence of torture in the hands of government interrogators.

The defense counsel working at Guantánamo have been subjected to a barrage of officially sponsored indignities. They have been tarred with ethnic slurs and accusations of homosexuality, accused of undermining national security, subjected to continual petty harassment. They have also had their livelihoods threatened through appeals to their paying clients. These events have been reported as separate incidents in the press, but this conduct results from a carefully orchestrated Bush Administration policy that goes under the rubric of “lawfare.” With the Bush Administration out of power, these efforts have been taken up by former Vice President Dick Cheney, his daughter, and a collection of Republican hacks. There’s nothing remotely “disgraceful” about the efforts of defense counsel to identify witnesses and collect evidence, and to prove torture if indeed torture was used. That’s the essence of justice. Congressman Miller is afraid that the truth of what happened to these prisoners will be fully exposed and that they may be proven innocent. He therefore instinctively wants to silence the lawyers who are putting the lie to his claims. But overcoming the legacy of Guantánamo has to start with learning the truth about what happened there. That may indeed be a painful experience for Miller and his colleagues, but their efforts to interfere with justice will only make the process longer and more painful.

QUIT Conference Sept 24-26 Quaker Center Ben Lomond, CA

2010-03-16T07:32:00.001-07:00

Dear Friend,
Will you please post the enclosed flyer, and share the information below with Friends, through your Meeting newsletter or online community email list? Thank thee!
The QUIT Conference Planning Committee
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Your Calendars Now:
The Third National Quaker Conference on Torture & Accountability:
September 24-26, 2010
Quaker Center, Ben Lomond CA: http://www.quakercenter.org/

Two internationally known anti-torture activists will headline the third Quaker Conference on Torture. Human rights attorney and investigator Scott Horton will be the keynote speaker. Father Roy Bourgeois, founder of SOA Watch, will also bring his unique perspective on the work.

Scott Horton has been one of the most tenacious investigators and reporters on issues of torture and accountability. Earlier this year, he broke the stunning story about three Guantanamo prisoners, whose deaths there were previously reported as suicides. Horton's investigations showed they more likely died during torture by US secret units. They were killed at a previously unknown “black site” outside the Guantanamo complex. Scott continues his reporting at a hard-hitting blog, “No Comment” here: http://www.harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

Roy Bourgeois, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former missionary to Bolivia, founded SOA Watch in 1990, and has been active in the effort to abolish the “School of Assassins” ever since. He has also been active in the struggle for women's ordination in the Catholic church.

Friend John Calvi, coordinator of QUIT, The Quaker Initiative to End Torture, has been working on the concern for torture and accountability for several years.

Accountability today is the way to prevent torture in the future. The road to accountability will be long and difficult. This 2010 Quaker conference (which is open to other interested persons as well) will be one strong step down that long path. Watch for more details soon about the program. Fees will be kept as modest as possible, and registration will be limited. More information at the QUIT website: www.quit-torture-now.org

********************************************************************************************************

Patience & Determination: Tools for Ending Torture & Seeking Accountability. 54 pages. $3.00 plus $2 shipping.
This new study booklet from Quaker House and QUIT is for those working to end torture and hold torturers accountable, or seeking encouragement in the effort.

It was produced because, despite an initial flurry of reform, the new administration in Washington has left in place many of the interrogation policies and programs of its predecessors. It has also turned aside efforts to hold accountable those who planned and carried out illegal torture policies and programs.

In short, opposition to a real examination and uprooting of the "Torture Industrial Complex" in the United States is strong and deeply entrenched. There is still much work to do.

This emerging reality has deeply dismayed those who hoped that 2009 would bring a clear break with the history of US torture, and accountability for those responsible as a way of preventing its return. But it has also underlined the need for pressing forward with accountability work.

Such work is difficult and stressful, and requires, in the words of pioneering Swiss torture investigator Dick Marty, "patience and determination"; hence the title.

While torture is a worldwide problem, this booklet is addressed mainly to readers in the United States, where torture became a particularly salient issue in the years since 2002. Patience & Determination includes nine concise selections. All are suitable for private reflection or reading aloud in small group discussion. The booklet is a Quaker initiative, but should be "user-friendly" for other groups.

Keeping up with the developments on torture and accountability in 2009 and now 2010 has been like a roller-coaster ride: full of rapid ups and downs and unexpected twists and turns, with more to come.

Order copies from: Quaker House, 223 Hillside Avenue, Fayetteville NC 28301.
Quantity pricing: 5 copies or more to one address, $2.50 each, plus $1 per copy shipping.

Obama's Secret Prisons - Gopal

2010-02-02T19:10:00.000-08:00

Obama’s Secret Prisons
Night Raids, Hidden Detention Centers, the “Black Jail,” and the Dogs of War in Afghanistan
By Anand Gopal

[The research for this story was supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism .]

One quiet, wintry night last year in the eastern Afghan town of Khost, a young government employee named Ismatullah simply vanished. He had last been seen in the town’s bazaar with a group of friends. Family members scoured Khost’s dust-doused streets for days. Village elders contacted Taliban commanders in the area who were wont to kidnap government workers, but they had never heard of the young man. Even the governor got involved, ordering his police to round up nettlesome criminal gangs that sometimes preyed on young bazaar-goers for ransom.

But the hunt turned up nothing. Spring and summer came and went with no sign of Ismatullah. Then one day, long after the police and village elders had abandoned their search, a courier delivered a neat, handwritten note on Red Cross stationary to the family. In it, Ismatullah informed them that he was in Bagram, an American prison more than 200 miles away. U.S. forces had picked him up while he was on his way home from the bazaar, the terse letter stated, and he didn’t know when he would be freed.

Sometime in the last few years, Pashtun villagers in Afghanistan’s rugged heartland began to lose faith in the American project. Many of them can point to the precise moment of this transformation, and it usually took place in the dead of the night, when most of the country was fast asleep. In the secretive U.S. detentions process, suspects are usually nabbed in the darkness and then sent to one of a number of detention areas on military bases, often on the slightest suspicion and without the knowledge of their families.

This process has become even more feared and hated in Afghanistan than coalition airstrikes. The night raids and detentions, little known or understood outside of these Pashtun villages, are slowly turning Afghans against the very forces they greeted as liberators just a few years ago.

One Dark Night in November

It was the 19th of November 2009, at 3:15 am. A loud blast awoke the villagers of a leafy neighborhood outside Ghazni city, a town of ancient provenance in the country’s south. A team of U.S. soldiers burst through the front gate of the home of Majidullah Qarar, the spokesman for the Minister of Agriculture. Qarar was in Kabul at the time, but his relatives were home, four of whom were sleeping in the family’s one-room guesthouse. One of them, Hamidullah, who sold carrots at the local bazaar, ran towards the door of the guesthouse. He was immediately shot, but managed to crawl back inside, leaving a trail of blood behind him. Then Azim, a baker, darted towards his injured cousin. He, too, was shot and crumpled to the floor. The fallen men cried out to the two relatives remaining in the room, but they -- both children -- refused to move, glued to their beds in silent horror.

The foreign soldiers, most of them tattooed and bearded, then went on to the main compound. They threw clothes on the floor, smashed dinner plates, and forced open closets. Finally, they found the man they were looking for: Habib-ur-Rahman, a computer programmer and government employee. Rahman was responsible for converting Microsoft Windows from English to the local Pashto language so that government offices could use the software. He had spent time in Kuwait, and the Afghan translator accompanying the soldiers said they were acting on a tip that Rahman was a member of al-Qaeda.

They took the barefoot Rahman and a cousin of his to a helicopter some distance away and transported them to a small American base in a neighboring province for interrogation. After two days, U.S. forces released Rahman’s cousin. But Rahman has not been seen or heard from since.

“We’ve called his phone, but it doesn’t answer,” says his cousin Qarar, the spokesman for the agriculture minister. Using his powerful connections, Qarar enlisted local police, parliamentarians, the governor, and even the agriculture minister himself in the search for his cousin, but they turned up nothing. Government officials who independently investigated the scene in the aftermath of the raid and corroborated the claims of the family also pressed for an answer as to why two of Qarar’s family members were killed. American forces issued a statement saying that the dead were “enemy militants [that] demonstrated hostile intent.”

Weeks after the raid, the family remains bitter. “Everyone in the area knew we were a family that worked for the government,” Qarar says. “Rahman couldn’t even leave the city because if the Taliban caught him in the countryside they would have killed him.”

Beyond the question of Rahman’s guilt or innocence, however, it’s how he was taken that has left such a residue of hate and anger among his family. “Did they have to kill my cousins? Did they have to destroy our house?” Qarar asks. “They knew where Rahman worked. Couldn’t they have at least tried to come with a warrant in the daytime? We would have forced Rahman to comply.”

“I used to go on TV and argue that people should support this government and the foreigners,” he adds. “But I was wrong. Why should anyone do so? I don’t care if I get fired for saying it, but that’s the truth.”

The Dogs of War

Night raids are only the first step in the American detention process in Afghanistan. Suspects are usually sent to one among a series of prisons on U.S. military bases around the country. There are officially nine such jails, called Field Detention Sites in military parlance. They are small holding areas, often just a clutch of cells divided by plywood, and are mainly used for prisoner interrogation.

In the early years of the war, these were but way stations for those en route to Bagram prison, a facility with a notorious reputation for abusive behavior. As a spotlight of international attention fell on Bagram in recent years, wardens there cleaned up their act and the mistreatment of prisoners began to shift to the little-noticed Field Detention Sites.

Of the 24 former detainees interviewed for this story, 17 claim to have been abused at or en route to these sites. Doctors, government officials, and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, a body tasked with investigating abuse claims, corroborate 12 of these claims.

One of these former detainees is Noor Agha Sher Khan, who used to be a police officer in Gardez, a mud-caked town in the eastern part of the country. According to Sher Khan, U.S. forces detained him in a night raid in 2003 and brought him to a Field Detention Site at a nearby U.S. base. “They interrogated me the whole night,” he recalls, “but I had nothing to tell them.” Sher Khan worked for a police commander whom U.S. forces had detained on suspicion of having ties to the insurgency. He had occasionally acted as a driver for this commander, which made him suspicious in American eyes.

The interrogators blindfolded him, taped his mouth shut, and chained him to the ceiling, he alleges. Occasionally they unleashed a dog, which repeatedly bit him. At one point, they removed the blindfold and forced him to kneel on a long wooden bar. “They tied my hands to a pulley [above] and pushed me back and forth as the bar rolled across my shins. I screamed and screamed.” They then pushed him to the ground and forced him to swallow 12 bottles worth of water. “Two people held my mouth open and they poured water down my throat until my stomach was full and I became unconscious. It was as if someone had inflated me.” he says. After he was roused from his torpor, he vomited the water uncontrollably.

This continued for a number of days; sometimes he was hung upside down from the ceiling, and other times blindfolded for extended periods. Eventually, he was sent on to Bagram where the torture ceased. Four months later, he was quietly released, with a letter of apology from U.S. authorities for wrongfully imprisoning him.

An investigation of Sher Khan’s case by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and an independent doctor found that he had wounds consistent with the abusive treatment he alleges. U.S. forces have declined to comment on the specifics of his case, but a spokesman said that some soldiers involved in detentions in this part of the country had been given unspecified “administrative punishments.” He added that “all detainees are treated humanely,” except for isolated cases.

The Disappeared

Some of those taken to the Field Detention Sites never make it to Bagram, but instead are simply released after authorities deem them to be innocuous. Even then, some allege abuse. Such was the case with Hajji Ehsanullah, snatched one winter night in 2008 from his home in the southern province of Zabul. He was taken to a detention site in Khost Province, some 200 miles away. He returned home 13 days later, his skin scarred by dog bites and with memory difficulties that, according to his doctor, resulted from a blow to the head. U.S. forces had dropped him off at a gas station in Khost after three days of interrogation. It took him ten more days to find his way home.

Others taken to these sites never end up in Bagram for an entirely different reason. In the hardscrabble villages of the Pashtun south, where rumors grow more abundantly than the most bountiful crop, locals whisper tales of people who were captured and executed. Most have no evidence. But occasionally, a body turns up. Such was the case at a detention site on an American military base in Helmand province, where in 2003 a U.S. military coroner wrote in the autopsy report of a detainee who died in U.S. custody (later made available through the Freedom of Information Act): “Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries to the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdomyolysis (release of toxic byproducts into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide.”

In the dust-swept province of Khost one day this past December, U.S. forces launched a night raid on the village of Motai, killing six people and capturing nine, according to nearly a dozen local government authorities and witnesses. Two days later, the bodies of two of those detained -- plastic cuffs binding their hands -- were found more than a mile from the largest U.S. base in the area. A U.S. military spokesman denies any involvement in the deaths and declines to comment on the details of the raid. Local Afghan officials and tribal elders, however, steadfastly maintain that the two were killed while in U.S. custody. American authorities released four other villagers in subsequent days. The fate of the three remaining captives is unknown.

The matter might be cleared up if the U.S. military were less secretive about its detention process. But secrecy has been the order of the day. The nine Field Detention Sites are enveloped in a blanket of official secrecy, but at least the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations are aware of them. There may, however, be others whose existences on the scores of military bases that dot the country have not been disclosed. One example, according to former detainees, is the detention facility at Rish Khor, an Afghan army base that sits atop a mountain overlooking the capital, Kabul.

One night last year, U.S. forces raided Zaiwalat, a tiny village that fits snugly into the mountains of Wardak Province, a few dozen miles west of Kabul, and netted nine locals. They brought the captives to Rish Khor and interrogated them for three days. “They kept us in a container,” recalls Rehmatullah Muhammad, one of the nine. “It was made of steel. We were handcuffed for three days continuously. We barely slept those days.” The plain-clothed interrogators accused Rehmatullah and the others of giving food and shelter to the Taliban. The suspects were then sent on to Bagram and released after four months. (A number of former detainees said they were interrogated by plainclothed officials, but they did not know if these officials belonged to the military, the CIA, or private contractors.)

Afghan human rights campaigners worry that U.S. forces may be using secret detention sites like Rish Khor to carry out interrogations away from prying eyes. The U.S. military, however, denies even having knowledge of the facility.

The Black Jail

Much less secret is the final stop for most captives: the Bagram Internment Facility. These days ominously dubbed “Obama’s Guantanamo,” Bagram nonetheless offers the best conditions for captives during the entire detention process.

Its modern life as a prison began in 2002, when small numbers of detainees from throughout Asia were incarcerated there on the first leg of an odyssey that would eventually bring them to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the years since, however, it has become the main destination for those caught within Afghanistan as part of the growing war there. By 2009, the inmate population had swelled to more than 700. Housed in a windowless old Soviet hangar, the prison consists of two rows of serried cage-like cells bathed continuously in white light. Guards walk along a platform that runs across the mesh-tops of the pens, an easy position from which to supervise the prisoners below.

Regular, even infamous, abuse in the style of Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison marked Bagram’s early years. Abdullah Mujahed, for example, was apprehended in the village of Kar Marchi in the eastern province of Paktia in 2003. Mujahed was a Tajik militia commander who had led an armed uprising against the Taliban in their waning days, but U.S. forces accused him of having ties to the insurgency. “In Bagram, we were handcuffed, blindfolded, and had our feet chained for days,” he recalls. “They didn’t allow us to sleep at all for 13 days and nights.” A guard would strike his legs every time he dozed off. Daily, he could hear the screams of tortured inmates and the unmistakable sound of shackles dragging across the floor.

Then, one day, a team of soldiers dragged him to an aircraft, but refused to tell him where he was going. Eventually he landed at another prison, where the air felt thick and wet. As he walked through the row of cages, inmates began to shout, “This is Guantanamo! You are in Guantanamo!” He would learn there that he was accused of leading the Pakistani Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (which in reality was led by another person who had the same name and who died in 2006). The U.S. eventually released him and returned him to Afghanistan.

Former Bagram detainees allege that they were regularly beaten, subjected to blaring music 24 hours a day, prevented from sleeping, stripped naked, and forced to assume what interrogators term “stress positions.” The nadir came in late 2002 when interrogators beat two inmates to death.

The U.S. Special Forces also run a second, secret prison somewhere on Bagram Air Base that the Red Cross still does not have access to. Used primarily for interrogations, it is so feared by prisoners that they have dubbed it the “Black Jail.”

One day two years ago, U.S. forces came to get Noor Muhammad, outside of the town of Kajaki in the southern province of Helmand. Muhammad, a physician, was running a clinic that served all comers -- including the Taliban. The soldiers raided his clinic and his home, killing five people (including two patients) and detaining both his father and him. The next day, villagers found the handcuffed corpse of Muhammad’s father, apparently dead from a gunshot.

The soldiers took Muhammad to the Black Jail. “It was a tiny, narrow corridor, with lots of cells on both sides and a big steel gate and bright lights. We didn’t know when it was night and when it was day.” He was held in a concrete, windowless room, in complete solitary confinement. Soldiers regularly dragged him by his neck, and refused him food and water. They accused him of providing medical care to the insurgents, to which he replied, “I am a doctor. It’s my duty to provide care to every human being who comes to my clinic, whether they are Taliban or from the government.”

Eventually, Muhammad was released, but he has since closed his clinic and left his home village. “I am scared of the Americans and the Taliban,” he says. “I’m happy my father is dead, so he doesn’t have to experience this hell.”

Afraid of the Dark

Unlike the Black Jail, U.S. officials have, in the last two years, moved to reform the main prison at Bagram. Torture there has stopped, and American prison officials now boast that the typical inmate gains 15 pounds while in custody. Sometime in the early months of this year, officials plan to open a dazzling new prison -- that will eventually replace Bagram -- with huge, airy cells, the latest medical equipment, and rooms for vocational training. The Bagram prison itself will be handed over to the Afghans in the coming year, although the rest of the detention process will remain in U.S. hands.

But human rights advocates say that concerns about the detention process still remain. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that inmates at Guantanamo cannot be stripped of their right to habeas corpus, but stopped short of making the same argument for Bagram. (U.S. officials say that Bagram is in the midst of a war zone and therefore U.S. domestic civil rights legislation does not apply.) Unlike Guantanamo, inmates there do not have access to a lawyer. Most say they have no idea why they have been detained. Inmates do now appear before a review panel every six months, which is intended to reassess their detention, but their ability to ask questions about their situation is limited. “I was only allowed to answer yes or no and not explain anything at my hearing,” says Rehmatullah Muhammad.

Nonetheless, the improvement in Bagram’s conditions begs the question: Can the U.S. fight a cleaner war? This is what Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal promised this summer: fewer civilian casualties, fewer of the feared house raids, and a more transparent detention process.

The American troops that operate under NATO command have begun to enforce stricter rules of engagement: they may now officially hold detainees for only 96 hours before transferring them to the Afghan authorities or freeing them, and Afghan forces must take the lead in house searches. American soldiers, when questioned, bristle at these restrictions -- and have ways of circumventing them. “Sometimes we detain people, then, when the 96 hours are up, we transfer them to the Afghans,” says one U.S. Marine, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “They rough them up a bit for us and then send them back to us for another 96 hours. This keeps going until we get what we want.”

A simpler way of dancing around the rules is to call in the U.S. Special Operations Forces -- the Navy SEALS, Green Berets, and others -- which are not under NATO command and so are not bound by the stricter rules of engagement. These elite troops are behind most of the night raids and detentions in the search for “high-value suspects.” U.S. military officials say in interviews that the new restrictions have not affected the number of raids and detentions at all. The actual change, however, is more subtle: the detention process has shifted almost entirely to areas and actors that can best avoid public scrutiny: Special Operations Forces and small field prisons.

The shift signals a deeper reality of war, American soldiers say: you can’t fight guerrillas without invasive raids and detentions, any more than you could fight them without bullets. Through the eyes of a U.S. soldier, Afghanistan is a scary place. The men are bearded and turbaned. They pray incessantly. In most of the country, women are barred from leaving the house. Many Afghans own a Kalashnikov. “You can’t trust anyone,” says Rodrigo Arias, a Marine based in the northeastern province of Kunar. “I’ve nearly been killed in ambushes but the villagers don’t tell us anything. But they usually know something.”

An officer who has worked in the Field Detention Sites says that it takes dozens of raids to turn up a useful suspect. “Sometimes you’ve got to bust down doors. Sometimes you’ve got to twist arms. You have to cast a wide net, but when you get the right person it makes all the difference.”

For Arias, it’s a matter of survival. “I want to go home in one piece. If that means rounding people up, then round them up.” To question this, he says, is to question whether the war itself is worth fighting. “That’s not my job. The people in Washington can figure that out.”

If night raids and detentions are an unavoidable part of modern counterinsurgency warfare, then so is the resentment they breed. “We were all happy when the Americans first came. We thought they would bring peace and stability,” says former detainee Rehmatullah. “But now most people in my village want them to leave.” A year after Rehmatullah was released, his nephew was taken. Two months later, some other villagers were grabbed.

It has become a predictable pattern: Taliban forces ambush American convoys as they pass through the village, and then retreat into the thick fruit orchards that cover the area. The Americans then return at night to pick up suspects. In the last two years, 16 people have been taken and 10 killed in night raids in this single village of about 300, according to villagers. In the same period, they say, the insurgents killed one local and did not take anyone hostage.

The people of this village therefore have begun to fear the night raids more than the Taliban. There are now nights when Rehmatullah’s children hear the distant thrum of a helicopter and rush into his room. He consoles them, but admits he needs solace himself. “I know I should be too old for it,” he says, “but this war has made me afraid of the dark.”

Anand Gopal has reported in Afghanistan for the Christian Science Monitor and the Wall Street Journal. His dispatches can be read at anandgopal.com . He is currently working on a book about the Afghan war. This piece appears in print in the latest issue of the Nation magazine. To catch him in an audio interview with TomDispatch’s Timothy MacBain discussing how he got this story, click here .

Copyright 2010 Anand Gopal

Justice Dept Clears Yoo, Bybee torture memo authors

2010-01-30T15:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.truthout.org/obamas-doj-clears-torture-memo-authors-john-yoo-jay-bybee-professional-misconduct56531

SATURDAY 30 JANUARY 2010
Justice Department Clears Torture Memo Authors John Yoo, Jay Bybee of Misconduct
Friday 29 January 2010

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

Department of Justice watchdog report clearsJohn Yoo of misconduct. (Photo: JohnYoo; Edited: JaredRodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
A long-awaited Department of Justice watchdog report that probed whether John Yoo and his former boss Jay Bybee violated professional standards when they provided the Bush White House with legal advice on torture has cleared both men of misconduct, according to Newsweek, citing unnamed sources who have seen the document.
An earlier version of the report, prepared by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and completed in December 2008, actually concluded that Yoo, a Berkeley law professor, and Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge on the 9th Circuit, violated professional standards when they drafted an August 2002 legal opinion that authorized CIA officers to use brutal methods when interrogating suspected terrorist detainees.
But as I reported last April, those previous conclusions were watered down after OPR received responses on the report's conclusions from Yoo and Bybee, who both worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC):
Legal sources familiar with the internal debate about the draft report say OPR is in the process of "watering"- down the criticism of legal opinions by [OLC] lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee in 2002 and 2003 and by [OLC acting head Steven Bradbury], who in 2005 reinstated some of the Yoo-Bybee opinions after they had been withdrawn by Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith when he headed the OLC in 2003 and 2004.
David Margolis, the 34-year career prosecutor at the DOJ charged with reviewing the final version of the report, was responsible for "softening" OPR's earlier finding of professional misconduct and instead determined that Yoo and Bybee "showed poor judgment" when they drafted an August 1, 2002 legal opinion authorizing the CIA to employ methods such as waterboarding against detainees during interrogations, according to Newsweek.
That means neither Yoo nor Bybee will be referred to state bar associations where they could have faced disciplinary action since poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct, according to OPR's post-investigation procedures. For Bybee, such a referral could have also led to an impeachment inquiry before Congress.
Yoo and Bybee, however, are still under scrutiny. Legal advocacy groups have filed complaints against them, and others who worked on the Bush administration's so-called "enhanced interrogation" program, with state bar associations in hopes that their law licenses will be revoked.
When the report is released and if its conclusions match Newsweek's story, particularly the key finding that Yoo and Bybee did not violate professional standards and won't face disciplinary action, the Obama administration will face a swift backlash from those who say the president and his appointees have gone above and beyond to cover-up war crimes committed by the Bush administration.
Newsweek noted that the OPR report is "sharply critical" of the "legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding" and other methods of torture CIA interrogators used against detainees after 9/11 and that only, a critical conclusion that raises questions about the Obama Justice Department's reasons for not holding Yoo and Bybee accountable.
Moreover, the report, which is still under a declassification review "will provide many new details about how waterboarding was adopted and the role that top White House officials played in the process, say two sources who have read the report but asked for anonymity to describe a sensitive document," Newsweek reported.
Two of the most controversial sections of the 2002 memo—including one contending that the president, as commander in chief, can override a federal law banning torture—were not in the original draft of the memo, say the sources. But when Michael Chertoff, then-chief of Justice’s criminal division, refused the CIA’s request for a blanket pledge not to prosecute its officers for torture, Yoo met at the White House with David Addington, Dick Cheney’s chief counsel, and then–White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. After that, Yoo inserted a section about the commander in chief’s wartime powers and another saying that agency officers accused of torturing Qaeda suspects could claim they were acting in “self-defense” to prevent future terror attacks, the sources say. Both legal claims have long since been rejected by Justice officials as overly broad and unsupported by legal precedent.
The OPR probe was launched in mid-2004 after a meeting in which Jack Goldsmith, then head of the OLC, got into a tense debate with White House lawyers, including Vice President Dick Cheney’s legal counsel David Addington.
That back-and-forth over the OLC’s judgments regarding President Bush’s powers rest at the heart of the Bush administration’s defense of its “enhanced interrogation” techniques that have been widely denounced as torture, such as waterboarding which subjects a person to the panicked gag reflex of drowning and which was used on at least three “high-value” detainees.
Bush officials insist that they were acting under the guidance of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises Presidents on the scope of their constitutional powers. For the OPR report to conclude that Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury violated their professional duties as lawyers and, in effect, gave Bush pre-cooked legal opinions to do what he already wanted to do would have shattered that line of defense.
Goldsmith ended up withdrawing some of the Yoo-Bybee opinions because he felt they were “legally flawed” and “sloppily written.”
He resigned shortly thereafter and was subsequently replaced on an acting basis by Bradbury, who restored some of the controversial Yoo-Bybee opinions in May 2005, again granting George W. Bush broad powers to inflict painful interrogations on detainees.
Last March, the Justice Department revealed that the OPR report underwent revisions after the initial draft was rejected by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, both of who insisted that Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury be given an opportunity to respond to its conclusions.
“Attorney General Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Filip and OLC provided comments [after the first draft was completed in December], and OPR revised the draft report to the extent it deemed appropriate based on those comments,” said acting Assistant Attorney General Faith Burton in a March 25, 2009 letter to Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) and Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Burton also said at the time that the final OPR would likely undergo more revisions based on responses from the former OLC lawyers. Several months later, Durbin and Whitehouse received a letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich who disclosed the post investigation process.
Weich’s letter noted that if the appeals filed by Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury resulted in a rejection of OPR’s findings by the "career official" reviewing the document then no such referral would occur.
"Department policy usually requires referral of OPR's misconduct findings to the subject's state bar disciplinary authority, but if the appeal resulted in a rejection of OPR's misconduct findings, then no referral was made," said Weich’s May 4, 2008 letter to Durbin and Whitehouse. "This process afforded former employees roughly the same opportunity to contest OPR's findings that current employees were afforded through the disciplinary process."
Weich added that the initial draft of the report was also shared with the CIA for a "classification review," and the agency, having reviewed the findings, "requested an opportunity to provide substantive comment on the report."
Durbin and Whitehouse, in a statement last May, said they "will be interested in the scope of the ‘substantive comment' the CIA is providing, and the reasons why an outside agency would have such comment on an internal disciplinary matter."
As Truthout previously reported, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before Congress last year that the OPR report was expected be released by end of November. In interviews over the past month, two senior aides to Democratic lawmakers claimed the report was being held up in lieu of the passage of a health care bill.
But Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokeswoman, disputed the allegations.
"That is absolutely untrue," Schmaler said. "One thing has nothing to do with another."
Schmaler said the review "process is ongoing and we hope to have [the report] complete and released soon."
Two DOJ officials familiar with details of the report said a delay in releasing it in the time frame Holder had promised was due, in part, to the fact that Margolis was hospitalized in December for pneumonia.
In his testimony last November, Holder said the report had not been released sooner due to "the amount of time we gave to the lawyers who represented the people who are the subject of the report an opportunity to respond. And then [OPR] had to react to those responses."

QUIT Work Continues - No Change Yet

2009-12-16T08:01:00.000-08:00

The Quaker Initiative to End Torture QUIT - December 2009

Dear Friends,

QUIT began when 6 Friends in May of 2005, after seeing the horrors of the Abu Ghraib torture photos, called for an end to American torture. With a minute from South Central Yearly Meeting and a gift from Friends World Committee for Consultation, we organized the first QUIT conference in June 2006. This led to our website www.quit-torture-now.org and listserver and the collection of 31 minutes from yearly meetings across North America and the spectrum of Quakers. Two more conferences in the US and Canada followed in 2007.

QUIT has been very busy creating an organization and continuing to educate Friends. We’ve filed for 501 c3 status, revised and updated our website including a blog, and continued to teach QUIT Updates from coast to coast. A new study booklet is available – Patience & Determination: Tools for Ending Torture & Seeking Accountability is available http://quakerhouse.org/patience-01.htm . And we are currently planning our next conference for September 24-26 2010 at Quaker Center in Ben Lomond, Ca.

Two aspects of the work in particular call for further education and action. There is a misunderstanding that American torture was a problem created and ending with the last administration. In truth, the United States has a 60 year modern history of torture in policy, practice, and experimentation. There is a further misunderstanding that the current administration has ended all American torture. Actually, beatings and forced feedings continue in Guantanamo against US and international law. The Red Cross has not been allowed into Baghram prison in Afghanistan, which is older and larger than Guantanamo. And the same Bush appointed lawyers, arguing against the release of information and fair process for prisoners in both prisons, are still in the “new” justice department making the same arguments in court today. The Obama executive order to end all policy and practice of torture has not made it into the dungeons or the courts.

QUIT needs your support to continue this important work. We are a young and spare organization with a leading to end the worst humans do to one another. This is excellent work for Friends as it needs much Light and is a long term work that will take more than one generation of Friends to accomplish. It is the Second Abolition and you can help from the beginning of a new historic Quaker work.

Please support our work generously with a tax-deductible gift for QUIT. Checks made out to The Washington Peace Center with “QUIT Treasurer” noted in the memo line and sent to Scilla Wahrhaftig 7514 Kensington Street Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Any questions can go to Scilla at (412) 371 3607 swahrhaftig@afsc.org . Thank you for your help.

In the Light

John Calvi, Scilla Wahrhaftig, and Chuck Fager.

Scilla Wahrhaftig
AFSC Pennsylvania Program Director
7514 Kensington Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
(412) 371 3607
www.afsc.org/pittsburgh

DOJ Rescues John Yoo - Horton, Harpers

2009-12-08T20:50:00.000-08:00

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/12/hbc-90006184
DOJ to the Rescue… of John Yoo By Scott Horton
The Holder Justice Department has filed a sweeping amicus brief in the Padilla v. Yoo case before the Ninth Circuit, seeking to make absolute the immunity granted Justice Department lawyers who counsel torture, disappearings, and other crimes against humanity. The case was brought by Jose Padilla, who claims that he was tortured as the direct result of memoranda written by Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley. At this stage, the case does not address the factual basis of Padilla’s claims, but documents that have been declassified by the Department of Justice make it clear that the charges have a firm basis in fact. Here’s the portion of the opinion authored by a lifelong Republican, Bush-appointed judge that the Justice Department found so objectionable:
Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct….
The Holder Justice Department insists that they are absolutely not responsible, and that they are free to act according to a far lower standard of conduct than that which governs Americans generally. Indeed, this has emerged as a sort of ignoble mantra for the Justice Department, uniting both the Bush and Obama administrations.
According to the allegations in the suit, Padilla’s extraordinary regimen of abuse was imposed only after John Yoo personally gave it a green light, knowing that the torture prescription awaited his say-so. The result was long-term physical and psychological damage. Yoo’s outlandish opinions have been rescinded, but the question remains: can a Justice Department lawyer be held to account for grossly incompetent and unethical work that results in severe physical harm? It’s long been a tenet of federal law that agents of the government who are responsible for torturing individuals may be held to account for their conduct. The Holder Justice Department has been working feverishly to overturn this law, at least as it applies to employees of the Justice Department. With the solid backing of Republican-appointed judges on the Second Circuit, they achieved a major breakthrough on the Second Circuit in the Maher Arar case. Now they’re peddling the same pap to the Ninth Circuit.
The Justice Department once argued that no doctrine of immunity could be invoked to protect a person who, under cover of law and the authority of office, engages in torture, conspiracy to torture, or the holding of individuals outside of access to justice for prolonged periods (“disappearings”). These arguments were made in cases brought before the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, including United States v. Altstoetter and the Ministries cases—authorities which the brief filed by the Justice Department fails to note. Now the Justice Department argues that there are only three possible avenues for accountability of a Justice Department lawyer: internal review by the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of Inspector General, bar disciplinary action, and criminal prosecution. It effectively boils down to the Justice Department saying that it alone will decide about the accountability of its staffers for wrongful conduct that damages others.
Moreover, the courses that the brief describes are a chimera. The Office of Professional Responsibility has investigated John Yoo’s abusive and unprofessional memo writing for five years. As of this morning, its findings still have not been released—notwithstanding a representation by the attorney general to the Senate Judiciary Committee that they would be made public before November was out. More generally, OPR rarely actually investigates even the most serious allegations of misconduct, and almost never actually recommends any form of discipline. The only exceptions occur when a federal judge becomes involved, insisting on action (and often not even then), or when the misconduct becomes a matter of public outrage sustained in major newspapers and broadcast media for years. The ABA Journal has correctly summarized the situation by calling OPR the Justice Department’s “roach motel”—“the cases go in, but nothing ever comes out.”
The brief’s reference to the Inspector General’s office is also absurd. As OIG notes, it does not even have jurisdiction to deal with legal professional staff at the Justice Department—that rests with OPR.
Next, the Department suggests that state bar associations can address these questions. As a matter of established practice, however, state bar associations do not take up cases involving Justice Department employees. They defer instead to the Justice Department to deal with them, choosing only to look at cases involving Justice Department lawyers when the DOJ asks them to do so. Bars also apply guild rules, and like the ancient guilds, don’t much like punishing their own.
Finally, there is the question of criminal accountability. In the face of actual criminal investigations, the DOJ has behaved usually like a criminal accused, and intent on obstruction, not like a law enforcement agency. Criminal investigations involving the conduct of Yoo and his fellow torture-memo writers are underway at this moment in a number of foreign jurisdictions, most notably including the two pending criminal cases in Spain. It’s noteworthy that the U.S. Justice Department, presented with letters rogatory from the Spanish court probing into the torture of Spanish citizens at Guantánamo and the role played by DOJ lawyers in this process, elected not to respond. Attorney General Holder traveled to Europe at the outset of his term, promising European justice officials a new era of cooperation. But in the first significant test case, he has continued the Bush-era cover-up of potentially criminal misconduct deep inside the Justice Department.
The Holder Justice Department’s brief can only be squared with prior DOJ arguments this way: foreign lawyers in foreign Justice Departments have no immunity and can be held accountable, but lawyers who work for us have absolute immunity from any meaningful form of accountability. The path to a renewal of the criminal misconduct of the Bush years is being prepared right now. And Obama Justice Department lawyers are doing the work.

Illegal Torture Not Just for Guantánamo

2009-12-08T08:34:00.000-08:00

Friends:

This is an article by my colleague, bonnie Kerness on torture in prisons written for the War Resisters League.

Scilla

Illegal Torture Not Just for Guantánamo
By Bonnie Kerness

In the mid-1980s, the American Friends Service Committee’s (AFSC) Prison Watch Project received a letter from Ojore Lutalo at Trenton State Prison. He wrote that he had been placed in a management control unit, which he described as a “prison within a prison.” Although he had been in and out of prison for years, he had never heard of such a unit, and he didn’t know why he was placed there or for how long. He wrote that he was being held in extended solitary confinement, allowed only one hour every other day for exercise.

One of the first control units was established in the late 1960s at San Quentin’s O wing. Another was established in 1972 at Marion Federal Penitentiary in the infamous H Unit, made up of cruel boxcar cells. Similar units were established in the 1970s in New Jersey and Massachusetts. By 1997, 45 states and the District of Columbia as well as the federal system were operating control units.

During the 1990s, a new generation of supermaximum security—or supermax—prisons began to crop up. These institutions were designed for the universal and permanent isolation of all their inhabitants. By 2002, according to Human Rights Watch, more than 20,000 prisoners, or nearly 2 percent of the U.S. prison population, were being held in long-term solitary confinement. AFSC estimates that figure is now up to 2.5 percent.
Sensory Assault and Isolation
From the beginning, control units have relied on sensory deprivation. Prisoners are confined in tiny cells the size of a parking space for 23 or 24 hours a day, often in what they describe as an “eerie silence.” In some cases, constant unpleasant noise or having the lights on 24 hours a day creates a different form of sensory assault.

Letters coming into Prison Watch tell of living in a cage the size of a small bathroom, with tiers of cages above, below, and on either side. Many have no cell windows. The cells are often soundproof, and there is little interaction with anyone other than staff.

Education or therapeutic programs are nonexistent; even exercise is solitary. When a prisoner leaves the cell, a strip search is conducted, often including a pointedly humiliating anal probe—even though the prisoner may have had no direct contact with another human being for months.

The decision to isolate the prisoner may be made without any formal proceedings, and the period of isolation most often has no defined endpoint, especially when isolation is imposed for “administrative” rather than “disciplinary” reasons. The newest supermax prisons use advanced technology to create an environment that combines total isolation with unending surveillance via camera.

It is well established that isolation and sensory deprivation can aggravate or even cause a variety of psychiatric symptoms. Prisoners subjected to extended isolation often experience depression, despair, hallucinations, problems with impulse control, and an impaired ability to concentrate, think, or remember. Some describe cutting themselves just so they can feel something.
Controlling Radicals
Studies of the recent history of incarceration suggest that isolation and sensory deprivation were initially used in the 1960s as a technique for behavior modification with prisoners involved in the growing prisoners’ rights movement. In that era, Islamic militants, jailhouse lawyers, ethnically based prison gangs, and activists jailed for both nonviolent and violent political activities all posed potential challenges to the balance of power inside the prisons. The concerns raised by all of these populations about racism, brutality, overcrowding, and other conditions of confinement garnered considerable visibility and support from outside prison walls.

Many trace the continued expansion of isolation and the development of control units to the tumultuous years of the civil rights, anti-apartheid, native, and anti-war movements, when many activists found themselves in U.S. prisons. Incarceration, isolation, and torture were used on these political prisoners and then extended to other prisoners. Sensory deprivation was used extensively with imprisoned members of the Black Panther Party, Puerto Rican Independentistas, members of the American Indian Movement, and white radicals. In later years, jailhouse lawyers, Islamic militants, and prisoner activists were placed in extended isolation.

Right now, efforts to expand the solitary confinement population involve the alleged spread of gang problems in U.S. prisons. Throughout the country, more supermax prisons are being built. In these gang prisons, called security threat group management units, prisoners are pressured to renounce their group membership.

Such tactics are reminiscent of the witch hunts during the McCarthy investigations in the 1950s, the ongoing FBI Counterintelligence Program, and current Department of Homeland Security directives. Ojore Lutalo was released to general population in 2002 and won a substantial monetary award for being held in isolation for 16 years. Less than two years later, he was placed back in isolation. When I called to ask why, I was told it was at the request of Homeland Security.

Once established, control units became increasingly normalized, morphing (with government subsidies) into supermax prisons, which were promoted by prison authorities as a cost-effective way of managing the huge increases in the incarceration of the 1990s—a safety and labor-saving measure permitting large numbers of people in prison to be controlled by fewer guards. In reality, when the costs are analyzed separately from the general costs of imprisonment, such settings turn out to be more, not less, expensive.
Torture Testimonies
One 17-year-old wrote about his experience with isolation in a juvenile facility, “If you do something wrong, they lock you down. They feed you when they want to feed you. One time it was 2 a.m. when they gave me a hard sandwich. I felt like I couldn’t get air. … I hurt so much.”

On Mother’s Day 2003 in Elizabeth, N.J., Eddie Sinclair, Jr. hanged himself in the Union County youth detention facility; Eddie, the 17-year-old son of an African father and a Puerto Rican mother, had stolen a bicycle. He had missed a court appointment and was picked up by police and locked in an isolation cage.

AFSC receives letters from adult prisons describing not only isolation but also of the use of torture techniques which, according to credible testimonies, occur far more often in the isolation prisons than in general population: “John was directed to leave the strip cell and a urine-soaked pillow case was placed over his head like a hood. He was walked, shackled and hooded, to a different cell where he was placed in a device called ‘the chair,’ where he was kept for over 30 hours resulting in extreme physical and emotional suffering.”

Another writes with a description of a man who lay in his own filth for two days before dying. He had three broken vertebrae and a spinal fracture due to an interaction with guards. He had been treated by prison staff with Tylenol.

From a woman in Arizona: “The only thing you get in isolation is a peanut butter sandwich in the morning, a cheese sandwich in the afternoon, and for supper another peanut butter sandwich. If you want a drink here, you have to drink toilet water.”

From another woman in Missouri: “When I refused to move into a double cell, they came into my cell and dragged me out and threw me on my back. I was beaten about my face and head. One of the guards stuck his finger in my eye deliberately. I was then rolled on my stomach and cuffed on my wrists with leg irons on my ankles. … I was made to walk a thousand feet with the leg irons. Then they put me in a device called a restraint chair. When they put you in this chair your hands are cuffed behind your back and tucked under your buttocks. They stripped me naked … and kept me there over nine hours until I fouled myself on my hands which were tucked underneath me through a hole in the chair.”

Some of the saddest letters are from prisoners writing on behalf of the mentally ill living in enforced isolation in supermax prisons—like the man in California who spread feces over his body. The guards’ response to this was to put him in a bath so hot it boiled 30 percent of the skin off him.

Currently, people who are mentally ill, learning disabled, or illiterate constitute a large percentage of the prison population. Whether the origins of their problems are neurological, socioeconomic, or both, these populations often experience the greatest difficulties following prison rules, controlling their anger, or handling the prison environment. As a result, they are the most likely to be written up for disciplinary infractions and transferred to a control unit or supermax facility. Once there, they are the least able to withstand the rigors of isolation and the most susceptible to complete mental breakdown or even suicide.

Prisoners and their families have made thousands of calls and complaints describing inhumane conditions including cold, filth, callous medical providers, isolation often lasting more than a decade, use of devices of torture, harassment, brutality, and racism. AFSC has received vivid descriptions of four- and five-point restraints, restraint hoods, restraint belts, restraint beds, stun grenades, stun guns, stun belts, tethers, and waist and leg chains. Almost all the testimonies about the use of torture devices come from control units, supermax prisons, or other isolation units.
Human Rights Violations
Under international standards for human rights, extended isolation is considered a form of torture and is banned. The conditions and practices that the imprisoned describe are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Convention against Torture, and the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. U.S. prison practices also violate dozens of other international treaties and fit the U.N. definition of genocide.

In 1995, the U.N. Human Rights Committee stated that conditions in certain U.S. maximum security prisons were incompatible with international standards. In 1996, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture reported on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in U.S. supermax prisons. In 1998, the special rapporteur on violence against women took testimony in California on the ill treatment of women in U.S. prisons.

In 2000, the U.N. Committee on Torture roundly condemned the United States for its treatment of prisoners, citing supermax prisons and the use of torture devices, as well as the practice of jailing youth with adults. It also cited the use of stun belts and restraints chairs as violating the U.N. Convention against Torture. In May 2006, the same committee concluded that the United States should “review the regimen imposed on detainees in supermaximum prisons, in particular, the practice of prolonged isolation.”

When the news about the torture and abuse in Abu Ghraib prison broke, President Bush said that “what took place in that prison doesn’t represent the America I know.” Unfortunately, for the more than 2.5 million U.S. citizens and countless undocumented immigrants living in U.S. prisons, this is the “America” that they know and experience daily. What happened at Abu Ghraib—what is happening at secret prisons all over the world and at Guantánamo Bay—is a reflection of the physical and mental abuse taking place every day to men, women, and children living in the jails and prisons of this country.

Isolation units, supermax prisons, sensory deprivation, brutality toward prisoners, and the use of devices of torture are all violations of human rights and of fundamental human decency. All have little or nothing to do with the safe and orderly operation of correctional institutions and everything to do with the spread of a culture of violence, retribution, dehumanization, and sadism.

Bonnie Kerness is a lifelong anti-racist activist, beginning in the civil rights movement in the early 1960s. She coordinates the Prison Watch Project for the American Friends Service Committee in the New York Metropolitan Region and has helped publish “The Prison Inside the Prison: Control Units, Supermax Prisons and Devices of Torture,” “The Survivor’s Manual,” and “Our Children’s House.”

Scilla Wahrhaftig
AFSC Pennsylvania Program Director
7514 Kensington Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
(412) 371 3607
www.afsc.org/pittsburgh

Italy Got It Right - CIA Renditions Are Wrong LA Times

2009-11-05T19:10:00.000-08:00

latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-rendition6-2009nov06,0,3770282.story

latimes.com
Editorial

Italy got it right: CIA renditions are wrong

The conviction of 23 Americans in the abduction of Muslim cleric Abu Omar may be largely symbolic, but it sends an important message to the Obama administration.
4:41 PM PST, November 5, 2009

'Extrajudicial detentions" and "extraordinary renditions" were nicely scrubbed terms for the Bush administration's policy of capturing suspects in one country and spiriting them away to another, where they were harshly interrogated and even tortured. Now an Italian court has called this CIA practice by its real name -- illegal.

The conviction of 23 Americans and two Italians for kidnapping an Egyptian cleric off the streets of Milan in 2003 in one sense is largely symbolic: The defendants were tried in absentia, and the Italian government is not seeking their extradition; barring a successful appeal, the two governments may try to work out a clemency deal. Yet the decision matters. It repudiates President Obama's expressed desire to look away from the ugly past, and sends a strong message that the U.S. government cannot operate outside the law with impunity in the name of fighting terrorism.

The CIA abducted Hassan Osama Nasr on Feb. 17, 2003. The Muslim cleric, suspected of recruiting insurgents for Iraq and Afghanistan, was flown to Egypt, where he allegedly was tortured with electric shocks, beatings and threats of rape. He was released in 2007.

Obama has since ended CIA interrogations in secret prisons and shut overseas jails used by the CIA, but he has not stopped the practice of extraordinary rendition. The difference between his and his predecessor's policy is that the administration will now demand credible assurances that prisoners won't be tortured, and that prisoners will be "rendered to justice" rather than held indefinitely without trial.

We don't like renditions and think even the most dangerous criminals are entitled to due process, including extradition hearings. A war against violent extremists cannot be won by immoral or illegal means; the U.S. can't outsource dirty work and claim to have clean hands.

Some have questioned how this case differs from the capture of Nazi Germany's Adolf Eichmann by Israeli security forces in Buenos Aires in May 1960, an extrajudicial action that was widely praised at the time. One significant difference is that Argentina's military government was harboring a war criminal, whereas Italy had opened its own criminal investigation of Nasr when the CIA swooped in to kidnap him. Another is that Eichmann was put on trial, publicly. Nasr, to say the least, was not.

Jane Mayer on the CIA use of drones Oct 21, 2009

2009-10-21T19:12:00.000-07:00

This is a conversation with Jane Mayer in the New Yorker about the CIA using drones to kill. Unmanned flying killing machines are being improved upon in miniature also- see full article in the magazine. This means anyone anywhere can be chosen, found, and killed with no one to confirm it's the right person, the right place, or in the company of children, family, etc. Just as "extraordinary rendition" brought innocent people to torture chambers, this now kills all present.

October 21, 2009
Jane Mayer on Predator Drones and Pakistan
In this week’s issue of the magazine, Jane Mayer writes about the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of drones to kill terrorist suspects in Pakistan—a program that the Obama Adminstration is relying upon more and more. (Subscribers can access the entire article; everyone else can buy access to this issue online.) Mayer spoke about the costs of a remote-controlled war, the C.I.A.’s lack of transparency, and the Pakistan’s complicated response.

How has the use of Predator drones by the United States changed the situation in Pakistan?

Well, there’s good news and bad news. According to the C.I.A., they’ve killed more than half of the twenty most wanted Al Qaeda terrorist suspects. The bad news is that they’ve inflamed anti-American sentiment, because they’ve also killed hundreds of civilians.

And how is it different than other uses of American force?

It’s not coming from the military. It’s a covert program run by the C.I.A. People know about Predator drones, but not that there are two programs. The U.S.-military program is an extension of conventional military force. The C.I.A. runs a secret targeted-killing program, which really is an unprecedented use of lethal force in places where we are not at war, such as Pakistan. It’s a whole new frontier in the use of force.

John Radsen, a former lawyer for the C.I.A., told me that [the C.I.A.] “doesn’t have much experience with killing. Traditionally, the agency that does that is the Department of Defense.” You’ve got a civilian agency involved in targeted killing behind a black curtain, where the rules of the game are unclear, to the rest of the world and also to us. We don’t know, for instance, who is on the target list. How do you get on the list? Can you get off the list? Who makes the list? What are the criteria? Where is the battlefield? Where does the battlefield end? It originally seemed simple, because in the beginning it seemed like they would just go after Al Qaeda, but the target list has been growing, particularly in Pakistan.

How do these targeted killings not violate the U.S. ban on assassinations?

After 9/11, the Bush Administration declared that terrorism was no longer a crime; it was an extension of war. Soldiers are privileged to kill enemy combatants in a war, and America is legally allowed to defend itself. And these targeted killings became an extension of the global war on terror.

How long has there been drone activity in Pakistan? Is it new?

Toward the end of the Bush Administration, the drone program in Pakistan ramped up, but when Obama became President, he accelerated it even faster. It’s surprising, but the Obama Administration has carried out as many unmanned drone strikes in its first ten months as the Bush Administration did in its final three years. It’s the favorite weapon of choice right now against Al Qaeda, and for good reason: It’s been effective in killing a lot of people the U.S. wants to see dead.

What does Pakistan think of the drones?

Originally, the Pakistani people’s reaction to the U.S. drone strikes in their country was incredibly negative. Pakistanis rose up and complained that the program violated their sovereignty. So, to obtain Pakistani support—or at least the support of the Zardari government—the Obama Administration quietly decided last March to allow the Pakistani government to nominate some of its own targets. The U.S. has been and is involved in killing not just Al Qaeda figures, but Pakistani targets—people like Taliban leader Beitullah Mehsud who are enemies of the Pakistani state.

Are there any safeguards that prevent the U.S. from carrying out political vendettas for top Pakistani officials?

Well, the problem with this program is that it’s invisible; I would guess there must be all kinds of legal safeguards, and lawyers at the C.I.A. are discussing who we can kill and who we can’t, but none of that is available to the American people. It’s quite a contrast with the armed forces, because the use of lethal force in the military is a transparent process. There are after-action reports, and there’s a very obvious chain of command. We know where the responsibility runs, straight on up to the top of the government. This system keeps checks on abuses of power. There is no such transparency at the C.I.A.

How does the continued collateral damage from Predator drones square with General Stanley McChrystal’s order to the military to lay off the air strikes in Afghanistan and avoid civilian deaths?

Well, you could argue it either way. There is less collateral damage from a drone strike than there is from an F-16. According to intelligence officials, drones are more surgical in the way they kill—they usually use Hellfire missiles and do less damage than a fighter jet might.

At the same time, the fact that they kill civilians at all raises the same problem that McChrystal is trying to combat, which is that they incite people on the ground against the United States. When you’re trying to win a battle of hearts and minds, trying to win over civilian populations against terrorists, it can be counterproductive. That’s why [the former Petraeus adviser and counterinsurgency theorist] David Kilcullen wrote, “Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement.”

Are people in Pakistan scared to move around because of the drones?

According to some recent studies, terrorists are scampering around only at night and accusing each other of being spies and informing on one another. So it’s had the desired effect in unravelling terror cells.

If the C.I.A. doesn’t have experience killing people, who is piloting the drones?

It doesn’t take as much talent or experience or training to pilot a drone as it does to pilot a real plane. The skills are much like what you need to do well in a video game. And the C.I.A. has outsourced a lot of the drone piloting, which also raises interesting legal questions, because you not have only civilians running this program, but you may have people who are not even in the U.S. government piloting the drones.

You mention in your piece that drone pilots, who work from an office, suffer from combat stress.

Someone sitting at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Virginia, can view and home in on a target on the other side of the world with tremendous precision, even at night, and destroy it. Peter Singer, who wrote a book on robotic warfare, said that cubicle warriors experience the same stress as regular warriors in a real war. Detached killing still takes a tremendous emotional toll inside our borders.

Why do you think the Obama Administration chose to rely more on drones?

Basically because they can. It’s sort of the least bad option. They can’t get into the tribal areas of Pakistan where a lot of Al Qaeda suspects are thought to be hiding, but they can see them with these drones. So it’s the only way they can get at them.
But there are all kinds of unintended consequences. For one thing, these missile strikes could scatter Al Qaeda, and cells could move to other parts of Pakistan, maybe down toward Karachi, where the population is denser. There have been reports of people already starting to move there.
Also, if the United States can legally kill people from the sky in a country that we’re not at war with, other countries will argue they can do the same thing. And the people using those joysticks in Langley and the deserts of Nevada could now be considered under international law to be engaged in warfare, which means they can legally be retaliated against. It’s a new horizon.

What would the outlines of a more transparent drone program look like?

Michael Walzer, the political philosopher, has noted that when the United States goes about killing people, we usually know who they can kill and where the battlefield is. International lawyers are calling for a public revelation of who is on this list, where can we go after them, and how many people can we take out with them. They want to know the legal, ethical, and political boundaries of the program.

A historian's account of Democrats and Bush-era war crimes

2009-10-11T19:54:00.000-07:00

Glenn Greenwald <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/>

Thursday Oct. 8, 2009 13:09 EDT

A historian's account of Democrats and Bush-era war crimes
(updated below - Update II - Update III)

The American Propsect's Adam Serwer notes that <http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2009&base_name=congress_torture_coverup> , yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully inserted into the Homeland Security appropriations bill an amendment -- supported by the Obama White House -- to provide an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act's mandates by authorizing the Defense Secretary to suppress long-concealed photographs of detainee abuse. Two courts had ruled -- unanimously -- that the American people have the right to see these photographs under FOIA, a 40-year-old law championed by the Democrats in the LBJ era and long considered a crowning jewel in their legislative achievements <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/10/foia/index.html> . But this Lieberman amendment, which is now likely to pass, undermines all of that and -- as EBay founder Pierre Omidyar put it today <http://twitter.com/pierre/statuses/4711868371> -- its central purpose is to "legalize suppression" of evidence of American war crimes.

What made those detainee photographs so important from the start is that they depict brutal abuse well outside of the Abu Ghraib facility and thus reveal to Americans -- and the world -- that America's torture was not, as they've been constantly told, limited to rogue sadists at Abu Ghraib and the waterboarding of three bad guys. Instead, our torture regime was systematic, pervasive, brutal, fatal, and -- because it was the by-product of conscious policies set at the highest levels of government -- common across America's "War on Terror" detention regime. These photographs would have documented those vital facts; combated the false denials from torture apologists; fueled the momentum for accountability; and revealed, in graphic and unavoidable terms, what was truly done by America's government. But a Democrat-led Congress, at the urging of a Democratic President, is now taking extraordinary steps -- including a new law which has no purpose other than to suppress evidence of America's war crimes -- to ensure that this evidence never sees the light of day.

If a historian were to write about the events of the first nine months of 2009 when it came to transparency issues as they relate to the war crimes of the Bush years, the following is what would be written. Just remember this was all done with an overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President elected on a promise to usher in <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/> "an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and <http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.business/index.html> "a new era of openness in our country." There's no blaming Republicans for any of this:

In February, the Obama DOJ went to court to block victims of rendition and torture from having a day in court <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets/index.html> , adopting in full the Bush argument that whatever was done to the victims is a "state secret" and national security would be harmed if the case proceeded. The following week, the Obama DOJ invoked the same "secrecy" argument to insist that victims of illegal warrantless eavesdropping must be barred from a day in court, and when the Obama administration lost that argument, they engaged in <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/28/al_haramain/> a series of extraordinary <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/02/obama-invokes-s/> manuevers <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-administr/> to avoid complying with the court's order that the case proceed, to the point where the GOP-appointed federal judge threatened the Government with sanctions for noncompliance <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/22/state/n124823D29.DTL> . Two weeks later <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/21/obama-administration-tryi_n_168843.html> , "the Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, [tried] to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails."

In April, the Obama DOJ, in order to demand dismissal of a lawsuit brought against Bush officials for illegal spying on Americans, not only invoked the Bush/Cheney "state secrets" theory, but also invented a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/> to insist Bush officials are immune from consequences for illegal domestic spying. The same month -- in the case brought by torture victims -- an appeals court ruled against <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/28/secrecy/> the Obama DOJ on its "secrecy" claims, yet the administration vowed to keep appealing <http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/obama-doj-asks-full-panel-to-review-jeppesen/> to prevent any judicial review of the interrogation program. In responses to these abuses, a handful of Democratic legislators re-introduced Bush-era legislation to restrict the President from asserting "state secrets" claims <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/12/state_secrets/> to dismiss lawsuits, but it stalled in Congress all year. At the end of April and then again in August <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/24/ig_report/> , the administration did respond to a FOIA lawsuit <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-of-President-Barack-Obama-on-Release-of-OLC-Memos/> seeking the release of torture documents by releasing some of those documents, emphasizing that they had no choice in light of clear legal requirements.

In May, after the British High Court ruled that a torture victim had the right to obtain evidence in the possession of British intelligence agencies documeting the CIA's abuse of him, the Obama administration threatened <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/12/obama/> that it would cut off intelligence-sharing with Britain if the court revealed those facts, causing the court to conceal them. Also in May, Obama announced he had changed his mind <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051301751.html> and would fight-- rather than comply with -- two separate, unanimous court orders compelling the disclosure of Bush-era torture photos, and weeks later, vowed he would do anything <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/photos/index.html> (including issue an Executive Order or support a new FISA exemption) to prevent disclosure of those photos in the event he lost yet again, this time in the Supreme Court. In June <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060804117.html?hpid=topnews> , the administration "objected to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security." In August, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder announced <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/24/holder/index.html> that while some rogue torturers may be subject to prosecution, any Bush officials who relied on Bush DOJ torture memos in "good faith" will "be protected from legal jeopardy." And all year long, the Obama DOJ fought (unsuccessfully) <http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/they-tortured-a-man-they-knew-to-be-innocent.html> to keep encaged at Guantanamo a man whom Bush officials had tortured while knowing he was innocent.

That's the record which an historian, wedded as faithfully as possible to a narration of indisputable facts, would be compelled to write. And those are just disclosure and transparency issues relating to Bush-era crimes. None of that has anything to do with ongoing assertion of detention powers, habeas corpus denials, renditions, transparency issues generally <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/17/transparency/> , the Democrats' active efforts <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/opinion/08thu1.html> just this week to prevent abuses of the Patriot Act and FISA, etc. (for those with Twitter, just read Marcy Wheeler's infuriating account <http://twitter.com/emptywheel> from the last two hours of how key Democrats in the Senate -- led by Dianne Feinstein and Pat Leahy -- just gutted virtually every effort to rein in Patriot Act and FISA abuses that were sponsored by Feingold, Durbin and even Arlen Specter: NAJIBULLAH ZAZI!!!). And now this war on transparency is all culminating with a White House-backed effort -- spearheaded by key ally Joe Lieberman -- to sweep aside two federal court rulings and to write a new exemption for FOIA that has no purpose but to prevent the world from seeing new and critical evidence of systematic American war crimes. If the stated goal of Democrats had been to use their newfound control of Government to protect and suppress Bush-era war crimes, how could they have done any better?

UPDATE: When I interviewed House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter back in June <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/10/foia/index.html> , she vowed to do everything possible to stop the Lieberman/Graham/Obama photo suppression amendment, arguing that FOIA was every bit "as sacred to Democrats as Social Security and Medicare." If only that were true. Back in June, Slaughter -- with the help of an intense campaign from blogs and civil libertarians -- did succeed in blocking its enactment, but as Mother Jones' Nick Baumann reports <http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/detainee-abuse-photos-suppression-bill> , the legislative mechanism used by Lieberman this week virtually assures its passage, even though Slaughter vows still to oppose it.

Two other related notes: (1) a journalist emails me to remind that I should add to Obama's anti-transparency crusade the White House's efforts to water down the "journalist shield law" <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100105038.html> to the point where it would easily enable the Government to compel disclosure of the identity of whistle-blowers in the national security context (i.e., the kind who told Dana Priest about CIA black sites and Eric Lichtblau about illegal NSA eavesdropping) -- a clear violation of Obama's campaign platform that was engineered by the White House in secret rather than out in the open <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01shield.html> ; and (2) I wasn't able to watch the Patriot Act proceedings today, but -- in addition to Wheeler's linked descriptions above -- the normally rhetorically restrained Adam Serwer just wrote <http://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/4713711866> of the Senate Democrats' bill: "Senate passes PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. They should name it after J. Edgar Hoover."

UPDATE II: Quite related to all of this: The Nation's Chris Hayes today examines how many liberal advocacy groups <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091026/hayes> allow themselves to be controlled by the White House and subject themselves to collective message coordinating. As Hayes notes, Jane Hamsher refers to these controlled progressive groups as the "veal pen," which she expertly described here <http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/06/van-jones-a-moment-of-truth-for-liberal-institutions-in-the-veal-pen/> . There are many reasons why the reaction to things such as what I describe in today's post from progressive groups (as distinct from the very vocal civil liberties groups) has been so muted and acquiescent -- e.g., a tribal refusal to criticize one's own, a gut belief that someone as good and just as Barack Obama couldn't possibly really be continuing Bush/Cheney policies and complicitly helping to suppress their war crimes, the anger that one provokes from one's own "allies" with such criticism, etc. -- but the organized co-option process which Hayes and Hamsher document, accompanied by the fear of losing access and funding, is a very significant factor.

UPDATE III: Russ Feingold just wrote a scathing condemnation of the behavior of his Senate Democratic colleagues and, especially, the Obama administration <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/8/791144/-Its-Not-the-Prosecutors-Committee,-its-the-Judiciary-Committee> with regard to what they just did with the Patriot Act and FISA renewals, including this:

I am also very troubled that administration officials have been taking positions behind closed doors that they are not taking publicly. . . [I]f the administration wanted to further water down the already limited reforms in the bill that was on the table, they should have said so openly. Instead, at our only public hearing we were told that the Justice Department did not have positions on the crucial issues about to be discussed. Then, over the past week, in classified settings, the Department has weighed in against even some of the limited reforms that Sen. Leahy originally proposed.

The administration loves to posture in public as though they support various reforms -- to lead their wild-eyed supporters to believe they do -- only to work in secret to gut those same reforms. Feingold adds that "[a]t the beginning of the year, I had high hopes for the Patriot Act reauthorization process." Why? Just because of small facts like these:

We had just elected a President with a strong civil liberties record in the Senate. His Attorney General had supported some reforms during consideration of the last reauthorization bill in 2005. And Democrats controlled the Senate by such a large margin that our advantage on the Judiciary Committee ended up at 12-7 after Sen. Specter switched parties.

Despite all of that, Feingold ended up having to vote against the new Patriot Act bill that he spent all year leading because it was diluted to the point where very little was fixed and some things were actually made worse. When it comes to transparency and civil liberties, that's what the Democratic Congress and White House are. If the record I documented here isn't enough to see that, then take it from someone who sees them up close and personal every day <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/8/791144/-Its-Not-the-Prosecutors-Committee,-its-the-Judiciary-Committee> .

-- Glenn Greenwald

____________________________________________________________________________

http://www.truthout.org/1008094

Spending Bill Includes Provision to Block Release of Abuse Photos <http://www.truthout.org/1008094>

Thursday 08 October 2009

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

US Supreme Court justices are expected to meet Friday to decide whether to take up the case.

Congressional lawmakers moved a step closer Wednesday toward banning the Department of Defense from releasing photographs depicting US Soldiers abusing detainees held in prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Conferees on the Senate and House Appropriations Committees released a Homeland Security spending bill summary <http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Homeland_Security_FY10_Conference.pdf> , which includes a provision that would allow President Obama to authorize "the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos," essentially exempting the images from Freedom of Information Act requests.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the government in 2003 to gain access to photographs and videos related to the treatment of "war on terror" prisoners in US custody, criticized committee members who supported the measure.

"Congress should not give the government the authority to hide evidence of its own misconduct, and if it does grant that authority, the Secretary of Defense should not invoke it," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "If this shameful provision passes, Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates should take into account the importance of transparency to the democratic process, the extraordinary importance of these photos to the ongoing debate about the treatment of prisoners, and the likelihood that the suppression of these photos will ultimately be far more damaging to our national security than their disclosure would be.

"The last administration's decision to endorse torture undermined the United States' moral authority and compromised its security. The failure of the current administration to fully confront the abuses of the last administration will only compound these harms."

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the release of the photos in a June 2005 ruling that was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2008. The Obama administration indicated earlier this year it would abide by a court order and release at least 44 of the photographs in question, but President Obama backtracked, saying he conferred with high-ranking military officials who advised him that releasing the images would stoke anti-American sentiment and would endanger the lives of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As Truthout previously reported <http://www.truthout.org/091109A> , the Obama administration petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear the case at the same time the president privately told Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) he would work with Congress to help get a measure passed aimed at blocking the photographs from being released.

That revelation was made in a footnote contained in a 33-page petition <http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/dodvaclu_certpetition.pdf> the Obama administration filed with the high-court in August.

According to the petition and other documents, the photographs at issue includes one in which a female solider pointed a broom at one detainee "as if I was sticking the end of a broom stick into [his] rectum."

Other photos are said to show US soldiers pointing guns at the heads of hooded and bound detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. The filing also notes that the detainee abuse was investigated by the US Army's Criminal Investigation Division and "three of the six investigations led to criminal charges and in two of those cases, the accused were found guilty and punished."

Supreme Court justices are expected to meet Friday to discuss whether they intend to take up the case. Presumably, the Obama administration would withdraw its Supreme Court petition if Congress passes a final version of the bill with the language banning the photos intact.

Obama's decision to fight to conceal the photos to the Supreme Court marks an about-face on the open-government policies that he proclaimed during his first days in office.

On January 21, Obama signed an executive order <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Freedom_of_Information_Act/> instructing all federal agencies and departments to "adopt a presumption in favor" of Freedom of Information Act requests and promised to make the federal government more transparent.

"The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears," Obama's order said. "In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public."

Lieberman and Graham sharply criticized Obama's original decision not to fight the appeals court ruling in favor of the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court. Lieberman and Graham then sponsored an amendment - the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 - attached to the Senate's Homeland Security appropriations bill that called for the Department of Defense to prohibit the release of abuse photographs for a period of three years.

The Senate unanimously passed the Lieberman/Graham amendment on July 9. Congressmen Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) sponsored similar legislation in the House. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at the time it was a strong possibility the language barring release of the photographs would be stripped from the final version of the spending bill, which now appears unlikely.

In a statement after House and Senate conferees <http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/FY10_Homeland_Conferees_Appointed-10.1.09.pdf> on the Appropriations Committee met Wednesday, Lieberman and Graham said they are both "looking forward" to swift passage of the legislation and urged Obama to sign the bill into law.

"I'm pleased Congress has finally acted to prevent the further release of photos showing detainee abuse," Graham said <http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=30e64542-802a-23ad-4b6e-175a6676dc5d&Region_id=&Issue_id=> . "I hope the courts will give deference to the Executive and Legislative branches who now speak with one voice prohibiting the photos' release. From the beginning I have said these photos do not add anything new. The release of these photos would be used by our enemies to incite violence against our soldiers and civilians serving abroad."

Last September, in upholding a lower court ruling ordering the release of the photos, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted that past US administrations had championed the release of photos that showed prisoners of war being abused and tortured.

Notably, after World War II, the US government publicized photos of prisoners in Japanese and German prisons and concentration camps, which the court noted, "showed emaciated prisoners, subjugated detainees, and even corpses. But the United States championed the use of the photos as a means of holding the perpetrators accountable."

Additionally, the appeals court shot down arguments like those made by Graham, saying, "It is plainly insufficient to claim that releasing documents could reasonably be expected to endanger some unspecified member of a group so vast as to encompass all United States troops, coalition forces, and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan," the appeals court panel of judges ruled.

The appeals court further added that releasing "the photographs is likely to further the purposes of the Geneva Conventions by deterring future abuse of prisoners."

Obama Admin Fights Bagram Detainee Court Access

2009-09-14T18:41:00.000-07:00

September 14, 2009

Obama Admin Fights Bagram Detainee Court Access

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/14/us/politics/AP-US-Terror-Detainees.html

Filed at 9:16 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration argued late Monday that allowing terrorism detainees in Afghanistan to file lawsuits in U.S. courts challenging their detention would endanger the military mission in that country.

Although the Pentagon is giving the roughly 600 detainees at Bagram Airfield a new chance to challenge their detentions, the Obama administration stuck with Bush administration policy in a court filing Monday night that said the Bagram detainees' rights shouldn't extend as far as U.S. courtrooms.

In a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, the Justice Department said Bagram detainees should not be given equal rights to sue in the United States that the Supreme Court granted last year to detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba.

The administration argued in its brief that Bagram is in an active war zone and the sovereign nation of Afghanistan, and there are sensitive diplomatic considerations involving detainees held there. That's in contrast to Cuba, which has no diplomatic relations with the United States and does not have the security implications of a war zone, the administration said.

The filing was made in response to a ruling in April by U.S. District Judge John Bates, who said foreign detainees at Bagram should be allowed to sue in U.S. civilian courts to challenge their confinement. Bates said the cases of the Guantanamo and Bagram detainees were essentially the same -- the first time a federal judge applied the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo detainees to those held elsewhere in the world.

Bates' ruling was applauded by human rights organizations and drew a rebuke from congressional Republicans who said the judge, an Army veteran nominated by then-President George W. Bush, was endangering national security.

Obama's Justice Department has sided with the congressional Republicans and put forward the same argument as the Bush administration. It said in Monday's 85-page filing that allowing Bagram detainees access to U.S. courts would divert military personnel at Bagram and ''have serious adverse consequences for the military mission in Afghanistan.''
Bates' ruling ''reverses long-standing law, imposes great practical problems, conflicts with the considered judgment of both political branches, and risks opening the federal courts to habeas claims brought by detainees held in other theaters of war during future military actions,'' the filing said.

The filing comes on the heels of media reports over the weekend that the Pentagon has a new policy for Bagram detainees to challenge their detentions before military review boards. The prisoners will be given a U.S. military official to serve as their personal representative to help argue their case and for the first time they will be able to call witnesses and submit evidence in their defense.

Bates had cited the Bagram detainees' lack of representation or access to evidence in his April ruling.

Fear Was No Excuse - Miami Herald 9/11/09

2009-09-11T09:02:00.000-07:00

Fear was no excuse to condone torture BY CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR

Posted on Fri, Sep. 11, 2009 www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1227832.html

In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to ``take off the gloves.'' As a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a retired commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, we knew that was a recipe for disaster.

But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics.

We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to ``the dark side'' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture ``worked'' and that our country is better off for having gone there.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Cheney applauded the ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' -- what we used to call ``war crimes'' because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were ``absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.'' He claimed they were ``directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.''

Repeating these assertions doesn't make them true. We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using noncoercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.

Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did.

What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters.

The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor.

To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.

On Aug. 24, the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.

The unanimous decision represents an unusual consensus among the defense, intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney's. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security.

On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.

Our current commander-in-chief understands this. The task force recommendations take us a step closer to restoring the rule of law and the standards of human dignity that made us who we are as a nation. Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools' errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer.

Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

US tried to soften Treaty on Detainees- Wash Post 9/09

2009-09-07T20:01:00.000-07:00

U.S. Tried to Soften Treaty on Detainees
Bush White House Sought to Shield Those Running Secret CIA Prisons
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702225.html?hpid=topnews

From 2003 to 2006, the Bush administration quietly tried to relax the draft language of a treaty meant to bar and punish "enforced disappearances" so that those overseeing the CIA's secret prison system would not be criminally prosecuted under its provisions, according to former officials and hundreds of pages of documents recently declassified by the State Department.

The aim of the global treaty, long supported by the United States, was to end official kidnappings, detentions and killings like those that plagued Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, and that allegedly still occur in Russia, China, Iran, Colombia, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. But the documents suggest that initial U.S. support for the negotiations collided head-on with the then-undisclosed goal of seizing suspected terrorists anywhere in the world for questioning by CIA interrogators or indefinite detention by the U.S. military at foreign sites.

Instead of embracing a far-reaching ban on arrests, detentions and abductions of people without disclosing their fate or whereabouts or ensuring "the protection of the law," the United States pressed in 2004 for a more limited prohibition on intentionally placing detainees outside legal protections for "a prolonged period of time." At the time, the CIA was secretly holding about a dozen prisoners.

Foreign governments criticized the U.S.-preferred wording, calling it vague and saying that proving intent would be hard and should not be necessary.
In the end, the Bush administration declined to endorse the treaty's broadly worded ban, which at least 81 countries have now signed, including all members of the European Union and many nations with checkered human rights records, such as Algeria, Argentina, Cuba and Guatemala.

A White House official said the Obama administration is reviewing the previous U.S. stance on the treaty as part of a wider look at international human rights accords that Washington has not signed. The official did not say when a decision might be made.

The administration has already reversed its predecessor's decision to shun the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is monitoring the treaty's implementation. But it has also said it will retain the ability to capture and transfer suspects to third countries, a practice known as rendition, while stressing that it will not do so if detainees are at risk of torture.
The documents detailing U.S. proposals to loosen some of the treaty's key language were released last week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by Amnesty International, but many passages were redacted, and the remaining portions make no direct reference to specific CIA or Defense Department objections.
A senior Bush administration policymaker confirmed in an interview last week, however, that the existence of the CIA prisons and the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the Defense Department has held hundreds of suspected terrorists without initially disclosing their names, was "a complicating factor" in U.S. deliberations on the treaty.
"Our negotiators were certainly aware that there was this program where people were being held, and were not in touch with people, and they had to be careful to ensure that there was room" for that program to continue, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the deliberations. He added that the treaty's proposed definition of "enforced disappearances" was only one of several problems Washington had with the draft.

"As with a number of previous human rights treaties, the language was just so broad that . . . we were not going to be able to sign," he said.
The treaty requires member countries to enact domestic criminal penalties for state-orchestrated disappearances and to compensate victims, but it has not taken legal effect because it has not been ratified by at least 20 nations, the minimum required. That leaves U.N. investigations of such cases in the hands of a five-member group chaired by a South African, which last year sent 1,203 new allegations of enforced disappearances to officials in the 28 countries said to be involved. A total of 42,393 alleged such disappearances in 79 countries remain unresolved by the group, according to its most recent annual report.

The U.N. group complained to the Bush administration last year about reports of the "enforced disappearance for a certain period of time" of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, a radical Egyptian cleric who was abducted by the CIA from a Milan street in 2003 and sent to Egypt, where he says he was tortured. When the State Department responded that U.S. policy bars such renditions if torture is anticipated, the U.N. group highlighted the gulf between the global treaty's view of "intentionality" and the Bush administration's view.

"Intentionality is essentially irrelevant," the group said in its response to Washington, "in the sense that any act of enforced disappearance has the consequence of placing the persons subjected thereto outside the protection of the law, regardless of the pursued purposes." U.S. negotiators had argued to the contrary in 2006 -- that proving intent is "an essential ingredient of the crime."

During the negotiations, China and a few other countries joined the United States in repeatedly attempting to slow the pace of the drafting, citing the complexity of the underlying issues. But a February 2004 State Department cable described the United States as "isolated" in urging that the text include language allowing those participating in enforced disappearances to be exempt from prosecution if they thought they were following lawful orders.

The documents also spell out how the Bush administration was "virtually alone" in objecting to a treaty provision stipulating that anyone "with a legitimate interest," such as a relative, be given an explanation and accounting of an individual's detention by the government as well as information on the person's whereabouts and health. U.S. negotiators called that provision unacceptable in a 2004 document, saying it "could impair national security, law enforcement, or privacy interests."

David Kaye, a State Department lawyer from 1999 to 2002 who directs the International Human Rights Program at UCLA Law School, said after reviewing the documents that "it's clear that the 'right to know' was at the heart of the effort to draft this new instrument." In that context, he said, "the failure to come up with a creative way to solve the American problem with this language plainly looks like the Bush administration objected to the purpose of the treaty itself -- and that our allies roundly rejected the U.S. position."

He added: "I think a lot of the 'problems' in the text could be resolved and that the United States should consider joining this treaty."
Allen Weiner, another former State Department lawyer who is co-director of the Program in International Law at Stanford Law School, similarly said that many of the apparent U.S. concerns were "solvable" or could have been addressed in legal "reservations," whereby the U.S. government spelled out its plans to implement the treaty's language.
The senior Bush administration official noted, however, that Washington's ability to gain concessions from others was undermined by public revelation of the CIA prisons in 2005. "I doubt that other countries would have been pushing quite so hard on this particular convention at this time were they not trying to cause problems for the administration," he said.

The context, he said, enabled "both the Europeans and the Latins" to "join forces" in arguing against the U.S. proposals.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

2009-08-11T09:25:00.001-07:00

UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Urges American Psychological Association Act on Own Policies

Rapporteur Says Guantanamo Conditions Continue to Violate International Law

CONTACT: press@ccrjustice.org

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/un-special-rapporteur-torture-urges-american-psychological-association-act-o

August 7, 2009, New York – The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) responded today to a letter made public from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture to the American Psychological Association (APA) stating that the conditions of the men held at Guantánamo violate international law and requesting that all psychologists be removed from the base and no longer participate actively or tacitly in interrogations.

The letter came the day after CCR and the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) requested the Canadian Government open a war crimes investigation into Dr. Larry James, a former high-ranking psychologist at Guantánamo who is in Toronto for the annual APA convention.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, called attention to the fact that Guantanamo detainees are still arbitrarily detained, cruelly force-fed and isolated. He expressed his concern about the mental conditions of some of the long term detainees. The current conditions, combined with “the rough physical treatment and past practice of torture” led him to declare that the men and children detained in Guantanamo continue to be held “in violation of international law.”

Mr. Novak officially affirmed what CCR and its allies have been saying and the SASC report and OLC memos documented, that psychologists have been involved “in the design, supervision, implementation, and legitimization of a regime of physical and psychological torture at US military and intelligence facilities, including Guantánamo.”

Mr. Nowak urged the American Psychological Association to follow its own policies and requested the removal of all psychologists from Guantanamo and from all other detention sites where violations of human rights continue. The APA has seen internal strife and controversy these last years over the participation of some military and intelligence psychologists in torture and other abuses of detainees at U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Said Center for Constitutional Rights fellow Deborah Popowski, “We call on the APA to officially condemn the participation of its members in abusive interrogations in violation of their professional ethics. Psychologists were central to the design and implementation of abusive interrogation policies. When health professionals do harm, we all suffer.”

For more information on the involvement of health professionals in torture and abuse visit the Center for Constitutional Rights website www.whenhealersharm.org. CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for the last six years – sending the first ever habeas attorney to the base and sending the first attorney to meet with a former CIA “ghost detainee” there. CCR has been responsible for organizing and coordinating more than 500 pro bono lawyers across the country in order to represent the men at Guantanamo, ensuring that nearly all have the option of legal representation. In addition, CCR has been working to resettle the approximately 60 men who remain at Guantánamo because they cannot return to their country of origin for fear of persecution and torture. www.ccrjustice.org.

Torturing Children - Henry Giroux

2009-08-07T08:33:00.000-07:00

Torturing Children: Bush's Legacy and Democracy's Failure
Monday 03 August 2009 by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t Perspective www.truthout.org/080309A

The torture of children under the Bush administration has gone relatively unpublicized.

This is an excerpt from Henry A. Giroux's forthcoming book, "Hearts of Darkness: Torturing Children in the War on Terror," to be published by Paradigm Publishers.

Nowhere is there a more disturbing, if not horrifying, example of the relationship between a culture of cruelty and the politics of irresponsibility than in the resounding silence that surrounds the torture of children under the presidency of George W. Bush - and the equal moral and political failure of the Obama administration to address and rectify the conditions that made it possible. But if we are to draw out the dark and hidden parameters of such crimes, they must be made visible so men and women can once again refuse to orphan the law, justice, and morality. How we deal with the issue of state terrorism and its complicity with the torture of children will determine not merely the conditions under which we are willing to live, but whether we will live in a society in which moral responsibility disappears altogether and whether we will come to find ourselves living under a democratic or authoritarian social order. This is not merely a political and ethical matter, but also a matter of how we take seriously the task of educating ourselves more critically in the future.

We haven't always looked away. When Emmett Till's battered, brutalized, and broken fourteen-year-old body was open to public viewing in Chicago after he was murdered in Mississippi in 1955, his mother refused to have him interred in a closed casket. His mutilated and swollen head, his face disfigured and missing an eye, made him unrecognizable as the young, handsome boy he once was. The torture, humiliation, and pain this innocent African-American youth endured at the hands of white racists was transformed into a sense of collective outrage and pain, and helped launch the Civil Rights movement. Torture when inflicted on children becomes indefensible. Even among those who believe that torture is a defensible practice to extract information, the case for inflicting pain and abuse upon children proves impossible to support. The image of young children being subjected to prolonged standing, handcuffed to the top of a cell door, doused with cold water, raped, and shocked with electrodes boggles the mind. Corrupting and degenerate practices, such despicable acts also reveal the utter moral depravity underlying the rationales used to defend torture as a viable war tactic. There is an undeniable pathological outcome when the issue of national security becomes more important than the survival of morality itself, resulting in some cases in the deaths of thousands of children - and with little public outrage. For instance, Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, appearing on the national television program "60 Minutes" in 1996 was asked by Leslie Stahl for her reaction to the killing of half a million Iraqi children in five years as a result of the U.S. blockade. Stahl pointedly asked her, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."(1) The comment was barely reported in the mainstream media and produced no outrage among the American public. As Rahul Mahajan points out, "The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale - a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one's political ends - does not seem to be one that can be made in the U.S. mass media."(2) More recently, Michael Haas has argued that in spite of the ample evidence that the United States has both detained and abused what may be hundreds of children in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo, there has been almost no public debate about the issue and precious few calls for prosecuting those responsible for the torture. He writes:

The mistreatment of children is something not so funny that has been neglected on the road to investigations of and calls for prosecution of those responsible for torture. George W. Bush has never been asked about the abuse of children in American-run prisons in the "war on terror." It is high time for Bush and others to be held accountable for what is arguably the most egregious of all their war crimes - the abuse and death of children, who should never have been arrested in the first place. The best kept secret of the Bush's war crimes is that thousands of children have been imprisoned, tortured, and otherwise denied rights under the Geneva Conventions and related international agreements. Yet both Congress and the media have strangely failed to identify the very existence of child prisoners as a war crime.(3)

While it is difficult to confirm how many children have actually been detained, sexually abused, and tortured by the Bush administration, there is ample evidence that such practices have taken place not only from the accounts of numerous journalists but also in a number of legal reports. One of the most profoundly disturbing and documented cases of the torture of a child in the custody of U.S. forces is that of Mohammed Jawad, who was captured in Afghanistan after he allegedly threw a hand grenade at a military vehicle that injured an Afghan interpreter and two U.S. soldiers. He was immediately arrested by the local Afghan police, who tortured him and consequently elicited a confession from him. An Afghan Attorney General in a letter to the U.S. government claimed that Jawad was 12 years-old when captured, indicating that he was still in primary school, though other sources claim he was around 15 or 16.(4) Jawad denies the charges made by the Afghan police, claiming that "they tortured me. They beat me. They beat me a lot. One person told me, 'If you don't confess, they are going to kill you.' So, I told them anything they wanted to hear."(5) On the basis of a confession obtained through torture, Jawad was turned over to U.S. forces and detained first at Bagram and later at Guantánamo. This child caught in the wild zone of permanent war and illegal legalities has spent more than six years as a detainee. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, even after admitting that Jawad had been tortured illegally, has asked the court to detain him so that it can decide whether or not it wants to bring a criminal charge against him. After a federal judge claimed the government's case was "riddled with holes," the Obama administration decided it would no longer consider Jawad a "military detainee but would be held for possible prosecution in American civilian courts."(6) This shameful decision takes place against any sense of reason or modicum of morality and justice. Even Jawad's former military prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, a Bronze Star recipient, has stated that there "is no credible evidence or legal basis" to continue his detention and that he does not represent a risk to anyone.(7) In an affidavit filed with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), he claimed "that at least three other Afghans had been arrested for the crime and had subsequently confessed, casting considerable doubt on the claim that Mr. Jawad was solely responsible for the attack."(8) It gets worse: Vandeveld also pointed out that the confession obtained by the Afghan police and used as the cornerstone of the Bush case against Jawad could not have been written by him because "Jawad was functionally illiterate and could not read or write [and] the statement was not even in his native language of Pashto."(9) The ACLU points out that "the written statement allegedly contain Mohammed's confession and thumbprint is in Farsi," which Jawad does not read, write, or speak.(10) Vandeveld was so repulsed by the fact that all of the evidence used against Jawad was forcibly obtained through torture that he "first demanded that Jawad be released, then, when Bush officials refused, unsuccessfully demanded to be relieved of his duty to prosecute and then finally resigned."(11) Since resigning, he is now a key witness in Jawad's defense and works actively with the ACLU to get him released. As Bob Herbert has written, "There is no credible evidence against Jawad, and his torture-induced confession has rightly been ruled inadmissible by a military judge. But the administration does not feel that he has suffered enough."(12) And, yet, Jawad was the subject of egregious and repugnant acts of torture from the moment he was captured in Afghanistan and later turned over to American forces.

In a sworn affidavit, Colonel Vandeveld stated that Jawad had undergone extensive abuse at Bagram for approximately two months: "The abuse included the slapping of Mr. Jawad across the face while Mr. Jawad's head was covered with a hood, as well as Mr. Jawad's having been shoved down a stairwell while both hooded and shackled."(13) As soon as Jawad arrived at Bagram, the abuse began with him being forced to pose for nude photographs and undergo a strip search in front of a number of witnesses. He was also blindfolded and hooded while interrogated and "told ... to hold on to a water bottle that he believed was actually a bomb that could explode at any moment." In addition, while in the custody of U.S. forces, he was subjected to severe abuse and torture. According to the ACLU:
U.S. personnel subjected Mohammed to beatings, forced him into so-called "stress positions," forcibly hooded him, placed him in physical and linguistic isolation, pushed him down stairs, chained him to a wall for prolonged periods, and subjected him to threats including threats to kill him, and other intimidation. U.S. forces also subjected Mohammed to sleep deprivation; interrogators' notes indicate that Mohammed was so disoriented at one point that he did not know whether it was day or night. Mohammed was also intimidated, frightened and deeply disturbed by the sounds of screams from other prisoners and rumours of other prisoners being beaten to death.(14)

The specifics of the conditions at Bagram under which Jawad was confined as a child are spelled out in a military interrogator's report:

While at the BCP (Bagram Collection Point) he described the isolation cell as a small room on the second floor made of wood.... He stated that while he was held in the isolation cells, they kept him restrained in handcuffs and a hood over his head, also making him drink lots of water. He said the guards made him stand up and if he sat down, he would be beaten.... [He] stated that he was made to stand to keep him from sleeping and said when he sat down the guards would open the cell door, grab him by the throat and stand him up. He said they would also kick him and make him fall over, as he was wearing leg shackles and was unable to take large steps. He said the guards would fasten his handcuffs to the isolation cell door so he would be unable to sit down.... [He] said due to being kicked and beaten at the BCP, he experienced chest pains and difficulty with urination.(15)

The interrogations, abuse, and isolation daily proved so debilitating physically and mentally that Jawad told military personnel at Bagram that he was contemplating suicide. What must be kept in mind is that this victim of illegal abuse and torture was only a juvenile, still in his teens and not even old enough to vote in the United States. Unfortunately, the torture and abuse of this child continued as he was transferred to Guantánamo. Starved for three days before the trip, given only sips of water, he arrived in Cuba on February 3, 2003, and was subjected to physical and linguistic isolation for 30 days - the only human contact being with interrogators. In October 2003, he underwent another 30-day period of solitary confinement. The interrogators displayed ruthlessness with this young boy that is hard to imagine, all in the absence of legal council for Jawad. For instance, "Military records from throughout 2003 indicate that Mohammed repeatedly cried and asked for his mother during interrogation. Upon information and belief, before one interrogation, Mohammed fainted, complained of dizziness and stomach, but was given an IV and forced to go through with the interrogation."(16) Driven to despair over his treatment, Jawad attempted suicide on December 25, 2003. Hints of such despair had been observed by one interrogator who approached a military psychologist and asked that the "techniques being applied to Jawad should be temporarily halted because they were causing him to dissociate, to crack up without providing good information."(17) These techniques were particularly severe and, as Meteor Blades points out, can cause "physical deterioration, panic, rage, loss of appetite, lethargy, paranoia, hallucinations, self-mutilation, cognitive dysfunction, disorientation and mental breakdowns, any of which, alone or in combination, can spur the detainee to give interrogators more information than he might otherwise surrender."(18) Not only did Army Lieutenant Colonel Diane M. Zeirhoffer, a licensed psychologist, refuse to stop the abuse, which she had ordered, she also, according to the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld, engaged in a psychological assessment not to "assist in identifying and treating any emotional or psychological disturbances Mr. Jawad might have been suffering from. It was instead conducted to assist the interrogators in extracting information from Mr. Jawad, even exploiting his mental vulnerabilities to do so.... From my perspective, this officer had employed his or her professional training and expertise in a profoundly unethical manner."(19) This is a profoundly egregious example of how the war on terror, its reign of illegal legalities, and its supportive culture of cruelty transforms members of a profession who take an oath to "do no harm" into military thugs who use their professional skills in the service of CIA and military interrogations and detainee torture - even the almost unspeakable torture of juveniles. The abuse of Jawad, bordering on Gestapo-like sadism, continued after his attempted suicide. From May 7-20, 2004, he was subjected to what military interrogators called the "frequent flyer" program, which was systemic regime of sleep disruption and deprivation. In order to disrupt his sleep cycle, Jawad, according to military records, "was moved between two different cells 112 times, on average every two hours and 50 minutes, day and night. Every time he was moved, he was shackled."(20) As a result of this abuse, "Mohammed's medical records indicate that significant health effects he suffered during this time include blood in his urine, bodily pain, and a weight loss of 10% from April 2004 to May 2004."(21) At a June 2008 military commission hearing, Jawad's U.S. military lawyer inquired as to why "someone in a position of authority ... and not just the guards" was not being held accountable for Jawad's subjection to the "frequent flyer" program.(22) The government refused to supply any names or prosecute anyone involved in the program, citing their right to privacy, as if such a right overrides "allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right of victims of human rights violations to remedy."(23)

The torture and abuse of the child detainee, Mohammed Jawad, continues up to on or about June 2, 2008 when he was "beaten, kicked, and pepper-sprayed while he was on the ground with his feet and hands in shackles, for allegedly not comply with guards' instructions. Fifteen days later, there were still visible marks consistent with physical abuse on his body, including his arms, knees, shoulder, forehead, and ribs."(24) How the Obama administration can possibly defend building a criminal case against Mohammed Jawad, given that he was under 18 years-old at the time of his arrest and has endured endless years of torture and abuse at the hands of the U.S. government, raises serious questions about ethical and political integrity of this government and its alleged commitment for human rights. The case against this young man is so weak that Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle has not only recently accused the government of "dragging [the case] out for no good reason," but also expressed alarm at how weak the government's case was, stating in a refusal to give them an extension to amass new evidence against Jawad, "You'd better go consult real quick with the powers that be, because this is a case that's been screaming at everybody for years. This case is an outrage to me.... I am not going to sit up here and wait for you to come up with new evidence at this late hour.... This case is in shambles."(25) On July 30, 2009, Judge Huvelle ordered the Obama administration to release Jawad by late August. She stated "After this horrible, long, tortured history, I hope the government will succeed in getting him back home.... Enough has been imposed on this young man to date."(26) The New York Times reported, in what can only be interpreted as another example of bad faith on the part of the Obama administration, that the Justice Department responded to Judge Huvelle's ruling by suggesting that "they were studying whether to file civilian criminal charges against Mr. Jawad. If they do, officials say, he could be transferred to the United States to face charges, instead of being sent to Afghanistan, where his lawyers say he would be released to his mother."(27) This response goes to the heart of the contradiction between Obama as an iconic symbol of a more democratic and hopeful future and the reality of an administration that is capable of reproducing some of the worst policies of the Bush administration. Jawad's case is about more than legal incompetence, it is also about the descent into the "dark side," where a culture of cruelty reigns and the law is on the side of the most frightening of antidemocratic practices, pointing to a society in which terror becomes as totalizing as the loss of any sense of ethical responsibility. Torture of this type, especially of a child, would appear to have more in common with the techniques used by the Gestapo, Pol Pot, the Pinochet thugs in Chile, and the military junta in Argentina in the 1970s rather than with the United States - or at least the democratic country the United States has historically claimed to be.

(1). See, for example, Rahul Mahajan, "We Think the Price is Worth It," Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (November/December 2001). Online at: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084.
(2). Ibid.
(3). Michael Haas, "Children, Unlamented Victims of Bush War Crimes," FactPlatform (May 4, 2009). Online at: http://www.factjo.com/Manbar_En/MemberDetails.aspx?Id=187, and Michael Haas, "George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes" (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2009).
(4). Will Mathews, "Government Seeks to Continue Detaining Mohammed Jawad at Guantánamo Despite Lack of Evidence," CommonDreams.Org (July 24, 2009). Online at: http://www.commondreams.org/pring/45088; and ACLU Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, "Amended Petition."
(5). Cited in Andy Worthington, "The Case of Mohamed Jawad," Counterpunch (October 17, 2007). Online at: http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington1017200.html.
(6). William Glaberson, "Government Might Allow U.S. Trial for Detainee," New York Times (July 25, 2009), p. A14.
(7). ACLU, "Mohammed Jawad-Habeas Corpus," Safe and Free (January 13, 2009). Online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38714res20090113.html.
(8). ACLU Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, "Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on Behalf of Mohammed Jawad," June 2009. Online at: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/amended_jawad_2009113.pdf. "Amended Petition."
(9). Ibid. "Amended Petition."
(10). Ibid. "Amended Petition."
(11). Glenn Greenwald, "Mohammed Jawad and Obama's Efforts to Suspend Military Commissions," Salon.com (January 21, 2009). Online at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/21/Guant%C3%A1namo/.
(12). Bob Herbert, "How Long is Enough," New York Times (June 30, 2009), p. A21.
(13). Colonel Vandeveld sworn affidavit is included in the ACLU Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, "Amended Petition."
(14). Ibid.
(15). Amnesty International, United States of America - "From Ill-Treatment to Unfair Trail: The Case of Mohammed Jawad, Child 'Enemy Combatant'" (London: Amnesty International, 2008), pp. 12-13.
(16). ACLU Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, "Amended Petition."
(17). Meteor Blades, "Army Psychologist Pleads 'Fifth' in Case of Prisoner 900," DailyKos (August 14, 2008). Online at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/14/202414/685/395/568118.
(18). Ibid.
(19). Colonel Vandeveld sworn affidavit is included in the ACLU Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, "Amended Petition."
(20). Amnesty International, United States of America - "From Ill-Treatment to Unfair Trail: The Case of Mohammed Jawad, Child 'Enemy Combatant'" (London: Amnesty International, 2008), p. 20.
(21). Ibid., ACLU Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, "Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on Behalf of Mohammed Jawad."
(22). Amnesty International, United States of America, p. 31.
(23). Ibid.
(24). ACLU Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, "Amended Petition."
(25). Cited in Jason Leopold, "Obama Administration Cooks Up New Legal Argument for Detaining Guantánamo Prisoner," Truthout (July 28, 2009). Online at: http://www.truthout.org/072809.
(26). Valtin, "'So Ordered': U.S. to Release Mohammed Jawad After Six Years of False Imprisonment," Daily Kos (July 30, 2009). Online at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/30/18119/5521
(27). William Glaberson, "Judge orders Release of Young Detainee at Guantánamo," New York Times (July 31, 2009). P. A14

Henry A. Giroux holds the Global TV Network chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University in Canada. Related work: Henry A. Giroux, "The Mouse that Roared: Disney and the End of Innocence" (Lanham: Rowman and Lilttlefield, 2001). His most recent books include "Take Back Higher Education" (co-authored with Susan Searls Giroux, 2006), "The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex" (2007) and "Against the Terror of Neoliberalism: Politics Beyond the Age of Greed" (2008). His newest book, "Youth in a Suspect Society: Beyond the Politics of Disposability," will be published by Palgrave Mcmillan in 2009.

UK Torture Probe Shows US Coverup Of Abuse

2009-07-09T20:30:00.000-07:00

Scott Horton, primo accountability blogger, points out that the Brits are being pushed into a serious torure probe:

In Britain a criminal probe is now underway into the torture of an Ethiopian who had been granted protected status and was then held for years in Guantánamo. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also authorized a formal official inquiry. Now, a former Conservative shadow minister has invoked privilege by disclosing details of the British government’s complicity in a torture-by-proxy scheme on the floor of parliament. . . .

. . . Britain’s turn to torture has a very clear provenance. It comes from fighting “shoulder to shoulder” with the United States. The Bush Administration’s torture philosophy and tools spread on contact through the British intelligence system. With evidence of the Bush Administration’s torture policies mounting, and with some British intelligence agents giving eyewitness accounts of the torture of prisoners in American custody, the Blair Government adopted a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” policy. Its instructions to intelligence agents working with the Americans seem to have turned on shoddy legal advice that misapprehended the gravity of the crime of torture under international law and the formal obligations imposed to stop it.

Horton concludes that

. . . the conduct of the British agents likely made them conspirators or aiders and abettors in the crime of torture under international legal standards. All of which demonstrates the peril of cooperation with the Bush regime, given its criminal policies. But note all the judicial, legal, and parliamentary wheels turning in Britain, all flowing from engagement with the United States. What is happening in the United States itself? To our lasting shame, the answer is: nothing.

(Emphasis added)

Read his full post here.

Chuck Fager

- - - - - -

Obama Planning Indefinite Detention for Some Gitmo Prisoners -- EVEN IF They're Acquitted

2009-07-08T20:59:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal reported on July 8 that:

"The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission. (Emphasis added.)

"Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.

"Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past.

Blogger's comment: Indefinite detention without trial is bad enough. Indefinite detention in spite of an acquittal after trial? This is a tool of tyranny. One thought the US had put such notions back under their rock when a new team took over the White House. Such notions seem increasingly, to borrow a term, "quaint."

At least a few members of Congress are not buying it:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), who has scheduled a Wednesday hearing on military commissions before the House Judiciary subcommittee he heads, questioned the administration's plan to allot prisoners to federal courts, military commissions or indefinite detention.

"What bothers me is that they seem to be saying, 'Some people we have good enough evidence against, so we'll give them a fair trial. Some people the evidence is not so good, so we'll give them a less fair trial. We'll give them just enough due process to ensure a conviction because we know they're guilty. That's not a fair trial, that's a show trial," Mr. Nadler said.

(Emphasis added.)

Read the full article here.

Posted by Chuck Fager

2009-06-23T18:16:00.000-07:00

Here's another important revelation, that a recent President of the American Psychological Assn. had both covert CIA and torture connections. And he was far from an isolated connection.

WOW -- the shrinks have SO MUCH housecleaning to do! Hope the many Quakes who are in the field are on top of this unfolding scandal.

Chuck

Former American Psychological Association President had long time CIA connection
by Stephen Soldz

Nathaniel Raymond, of Physicians for Human Rights has posted a piece on the PHR blog discussing Jane Mayer's blockbuster revelation last weekend that former American Psychological Association [APA] President Joseph Matarazzo had a long relationship with the CIA, serving on its professional-standards board. This relationship antedated the creation of the agency's "enhanced interrogations" torture program.

This new information helps put in perspective the revelation in an NPR interview by Navy psychologist [and former APA ethics policy-maker] Bryce Lefever that Matarazzo had been recruiting SERE psychologists to "do their duty" to protect the country in the summer of 2001, before 911! The nature of the pre-911 activities for which Matarazzo was recruiting assistance are still secret. We also don't know what was involved in serving on the agency's professional-standards board.

Suspicions of Matarazzo's CIA connection are not new. It was reported in 2007 that Matarazzo was on the board of Mitchell Jessen & Associates, the consulting firm owned by former SERE psychologists that designed and implemented the CIA torture program, for $1,000 a day, plus expenses. . . .

Lots more to this post; don't miss it.

Commentary: Obama's promise of a new beginning now hollow

2009-06-23T14:26:00.000-07:00

Joe Galloway asks:

“Who stole our change?

Who hijacked a popular uprising that was going to put a stop to business as usual in Washington, D.C.?

What happened to Barack Obama on his way to the White House?”

[Joe Galloway is a military affairs columnist for McClatchy newspapers. His columns are often published in our local paper, the Fayetteville NC Observer.

Galloway is a Vietnam veteran and strongly pro-military. But he is also pro-constitution and has written forcefully against torture.

In a column published today (June 23 2009), he was, I thought, especially eloquent]:

[Obama] came to town on a white horse, riding a staggering wave of popular approval in the polls, a golden leader in a golden moment with a golden opportunity, and then he did what? Nothing much. Nothing different.

Oh, he can still talk the talk and he does that incessantly. But he seemingly can't walk the walk. He may still sound like a revolutionary but more and more he looks and acts like George W. Bush, albeit a George W. Bush who can speak a complete sentence in the English language.

Obama's approval ratings are beginning to unwind and begin a long downward spiral among those who had believed in the promises of change. There was a golden moment when change was possible, but it is gone now.

There was one thing Obama absolutely had to do, even before tackling an economic meltdown and the Wall Street and big bank rip-offs:

He had to reassure Americans that we all live under the rule of law; that no one by virtue of holding the highest offices in the land, or having the biggest bank account, is above the law.

It was incumbent on new President Obama to step back and let justice be done. Let the investigators do their job, Not only to let justice be done but let justice be seen to be done.

But no. He said he wanted to focus on the future, not revisit the past. He needed to get moving on stimulating a floundering economy. . . .

He declared that we, as a nation and people, would no longer torture our enemies and suspected enemies; would no longer lock them up and throw away the key; would no longer violate our own laws and those of the international conventions governing warfare.

But he trooped over to the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters to reassure those who had "only followed orders" when they tortured and abused helpless prisoners that they would never face justice. Nor would those who gave those illegal orders.

He promised to release another big batch of torture photos from our concentration camps in Afghanistan and Iraq and then reneged on that promise under pressure from the national security mavens.

His promises of transparency in government weren't worth a pitcher of warm spit. He sent the new, cleaner Justice Department lawyers into court to use the same limp arguments of national security to ask judges to back off on doing their jobs.

And bit-by-bit the possibility of change disappeared; bit-by-bit the hope of a renewed and reinvigorated American democracy and way of government faded away. Those who had held a dream in their hand closed their hand and crushed it. >>

The full column is here.

And while you’re there check out some of his other related articles. Galloway is no peacenik; but his is an important voice for accountability.

--Chuck Fager