Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Scott Horton on 24.

In the last eighteen months, Antonin Scalia, one of the most influential judges in American history, has twice suggested that he would turn to a fictional television character named Jack Bauer to resolve legal questions about torture. The first time was in a speech in Canada, and the second, only three weeks ago, in an interview with the BBC. This is evidence of the unprecedented influence of a television program on one of the most important legal policy issues before our country today. And it is, or should be, very troubling.

What next, Tom and Jerry?

Some things should not be done:

News coverage of the torture issue began in proper terms after the publication of the Abu Ghraib photographs. There were a handful of reports that predated this, such as notice of the first two deaths in Bagram Air Base. At the time the Abu Ghraib photographs appeared, I had completed a major study by the NYC Bar Association looking into legal standards governing interrogation practices. This study had been directly inspired by information the Bar had received from its JAG members to the effect that unlawful torture techniques were being used. Specifically, the following techniques were the focus of our concern: waterboarding, long-time standing, hypothermia, sleep deprivation in excess of two days, the use of psychotropic drugs and the sensory deprivation/sensory overload techniques first developed for the CIA at McGill University. Each of these techniques has a long history. Each had historically been condemned as “torture” by the United States when used by other nations. Each was clearly prohibited under the prior U.S. Army Field Manual. And each was now being used.

I discovered that when I gave interviews to major media on this subject, any time I used the word “torture” with reference to these techniques, the interview passage would not be used. At one point I was informed by a cable news network that “we put this on international, because we can’t use that word on the domestic feed.” “That word” was torture. I was coached or told that the words “coercive interrogation technique” were fine, but “torture” was a red light. Why? The Administration objected vehemently to the use of this word. After all, President Bush has gone before the cameras and stated more than three dozen times “We do not torture.” By using the T-word, I was told, I was challenging the honesty of the president. You just couldn’t do that.

What possible basis could anyone have for challenging the honesty of the Crawford Caligula?

Chris Floyd with vets' stories.

I. Absence of Evidence
There are many things that the American people are forbidden to know by the immensely profitable organizations that control the dispensing of information in the United States. Some things will simply not be reported, others will be distorted or sugar-coated or shellacked with fabrications until they bear only the most tangential connection to the actual events being "reported."

One of the most forbidden topics of all, of course, is the savage reality of the conflicts being fought in the name of the so-called "War on Terror." This global war – launched solely to advance a long-held, openly acknowledged militarist agenda of global domination by an authoritarian, lawless elite – has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, while corrupting and brutalizing the soldiers ordered, under knowingly false pretenses, to carry out the Dominators' sinister agenda. But the full story – and full force – of the crimes being committed every day in America's name, by American forces, at the command of America's leaders, are hidden from the American public by the American media. It is entirely possible to live your entire life as an active, engaged member of American society, diligently keeping up with the latest news from the most respectable sources, and never once have to confront this horrifying truth. The information-dispensers will not provide it for you; you have to seek it out yourself.

Just in case you don't watch 24.

James Carroll - Torture Shocks. 

A piece of legislation sits on the desk of President Bush today, awaiting his signature. Every expectation is that he will veto it. Another mistake.

The bill is the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 2008, with a provision tying CIA interrogation techniques to the US Army Field Manual, which is explicit in prohibiting “acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumane treatment.” The CIA would henceforth be forbidden to engage in any kind of torture, but so would any “instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location.” The legacy of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, renditions, and black sites would finally be sealed. The United States would bind itself to one standard of interrogation, completely prohibiting any form of torture. The nation would be back in line with standards of the Geneva Convention, and, as a group of retired admirals and generals put it recently, with “the moral principles on which this country was founded.”

Dozens of former military leaders, in a campaign orchestrated by the human rights organization Human Rights First, have been actively working to get all forms of inhumane interrogation outlawed, including those practiced by the CIA. The three points the military leaders make are that information obtained through brutality is unreliable, American soldiers will be subject to similar mistreatment, and that procedures in violation of internationally recognized norms are dishonorable. Their advocacy was part of what led to the passage of the legislation that is now before Bush. Unfortunately, the number of congressional votes in favor of the bill fell short of the margin needed to override a presidential veto.

No one’s vote meant more than Senator John McCain’s, and here is where the first shock is felt. After leading the charge against torture in all its forms - McCain has been vigorous in denouncing the Bush administration’s refusal to outlaw waterboarding - the Arizona senator voted against extending his own firmly stated standard to the CIA.

“What we need,” he said in explaining his vote against the Intelligence Authorization Act, “is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.” Because McCain, a torture survivor, has such credibility on the question, his negative vote provided cover for many others, which is why Bush’s expected veto can be upheld.

But what is this appeal to “good faith”? Firmly rebutting McCain’s assertion, Lieutenant General Harry Soyster, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and one of the most active of the Human Rights First cadre of military leaders, said, “But as Senator McCain well knows, the Bush administration has never provided a good faith interpretation of laws prohibiting torture; instead it has produced - and continues to produce - legal opinions that downgrade the definition of torture to the point where the term becomes virtually meaningless and any conduct at all is permissible.”

Has McCain's vote got anything to do with his political ambitions?

Back to Scott Horton's article and the words quoted therein of  Albert Camus:

Though it may be true that, at least in history, values, be they of a nation or of humanity as a whole, do not survive unless we fight for them, neither combat (nor force) can alone suffice to justify them. Rather it must be the other way: the fight must be justified and guided by those values. We must fight for the truth and we must take care not to kill it with the very weapons we use in its defense; it is at this doubled price that we must pay in order that our words assume once more their proper power.

....of the worst. Were they? In the Holland article there is a link
to an analysis of those who were held at Guantanamo Bay. It is worth highlighting the summary:

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a
large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the
Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist
group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody.

This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the
United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected
enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

Perhaps it was enough merely to be a Muslim. Now, as to what Muslim's think ...

While speaking authoritatively about Islam and the "psychology" of the Muslim mind, the talking heads on television screens, the experts sitting in prestigious think tanks, the policy analysts strategizing in D.C., and the often loud and bombastic voices heard on the airwaves are rarely, if ever, Muslims.

To many concerned and prescient minds, this reality is often baffling and troubling. One such individual, Jim Clifton, Gallup's Chairman and CEO, remarked, "no one in Washington had any idea what 1.3 billion Muslims were thinking, and yet we were working on intricate strategies that were going to change the world for all time."

In order to discover what Muslims truly think, Gallup spent 6 years interviewing nearly 50,000 Muslims from 35 countries representing the most comprehensive analysis of the wishes, desires, grievances, complaints, and opinions of nearly 1.3 billion Muslims. The results are illuminating to say the least.

One finding:

ALI: Frequently in America we hear, "Muslims hate our values and our freedoms." The Question is: Do they hate us, and if they do, why?

ESPOSITO: That's part of it. When you look at the data, you actually have a refutation of that argument. When Muslims are asked, "Do they admire anything about the West?" contrast that to Americans when asked, "What do you admire about Muslims?" The answer of majority Americans is either, "I don't know" or "Nothing." So, close to 56% Americans say this.

Muslims, even though they do resent us, they talk about how they admire us. How they admire our freedom, how they admire our work ethic, our technology, and a whole slew of qualities. When asked, "What do you resent about the West and what concerns you about the West?" They are very clear about this as well. They're very clear about resenting the denigration of Islam and Muslims and painting them as extremists. They're very clear about being concerned about [American] invasion or "dominance." But the important thing here is that the notion-- "they hate us for who we are", our values, our freedoms, and our democratization--is simply refuted.

A majority of Muslims in most Muslim countries surveyed simply indicate the opposite.
That answers another question that we have here which is, "You know, if 'they' hate 'us' so much, when they're given an opportunity how come many would like to study here or visit?"

Anti Americanism is not based on who we are, in terms of values and principles, many of which are admired by others. But, rather, it's by what we do. It's the way we walk, not so much by the way we talk in terms of our principles. It's the sense of our double standards that creates the problem.

Now for a victim's story.

For hours, the words come pouring out of Abu Omar as he describes his years of torture at the hands of Egypt's security services. Spreading his arms in a crucifixion position, he demonstrates how he was tied to a metal door as shocks were administered to his nipples and genitals. His legs tremble as he describes how he was twice raped. He mentions, almost casually, the hearing loss in his left ear from the beatings, and how he still wakes up at night screaming, takes tranquilizers, finds it hard to concentrate, and has unspecified "problems with my wife at home." He is, in short, a broken man.

There is nothing particularly unusual about Abu Omar's story. Torture is a standard investigative technique of Egypt's intelligence services and police, as the State Department and human rights organizations have documented myriad times over the years. What is somewhat unusual is that Abu Omar ended up inside Egypt's torture chambers courtesy of the United States, via an "extraordinary rendition"—in this case, a spectacular daylight kidnapping by the Central Intelligence Agency on the streets of Milan, Italy.

First introduced during the Clinton administration, extraordinary renditions—in which suspected terrorists are turned over to countries known to use torture, usually for the purpose of extracting information from them—have been one of the cia's most controversial tools in the war on terror. According to legal experts, the practice has no justification in United States law and flagrantly violates the Convention Against Torture, an international treaty that Congress ratified in 1994. Nonetheless, Congress and the American courts have essentially ignored the practice, and the Bush administration has insisted that it has never knowingly sent anyone to a place where he will be tortured.

Bush made the following comment in his SOTU address:

The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear.

Some people mean what they say. Others indulge in gross hypocrisy - in addition to crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.

Alexander III spent two and a half years backtracking throughout this region. He was engaged in a serious and bloody "insurgency" against his invasion led by Bessus, Spitamenes and Ariamazes (among others). He dealt with this by military means and, when this singularly failed, with gratuitous slaughter and acts of terror.

It was when these too failed that he realised what he faced was not a "national Persian resistance" but peoples fighting to defend their way of living. They had little time for these Macedonian invaders and even less for a future ensconced as the servile population of the conqueror's "Alexandrias" (garison towns). It was then that Alexander decided he should marry into the local elites and settle matters via this dynastic marriage.

Seems the area, unfortunately, hasn't changed much. The real question though is just who will marry whom today?

Father Park

A New York Times editorial.

In the next few days President Bush is expected to again claim the right to order mistreatment of prisoners that any civilized person would regard as torture. 

Mr. Bush is planning to veto a law that would require the C.I.A. and all the intelligence services to abide by the restrictions on holding and interrogating prisoners contained in the United States Army Field Manual. Mr. Bush says the Army rules are too restrictive.

What are these burdens? In addition to a blanket prohibition of torture, the manual specifically bans:

¶ Forcing a prisoner to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner.

¶ Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a prisoner, and using duct tape over the eyes.

¶ Applying beatings, electric shocks, burns or other forms of physical pain.

¶ Waterboarding.

¶ Using military working dogs.

¶ Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.

¶ Conducting mock executions.

¶ Depriving a prisoner of necessary food, water or medical care.

Such practices have long been prohibited by American laws and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents. Mr. Bush, however, declared that he was unbound by the laws of civilization in responding to the barbarism of Sept. 11, 2001. And reports soon surfaced about the abuse of prisoners at detention centers in Afghanistan, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons.

As a boy it was frogs; now he is president ... 

And thanks to you, Craig, for the links. So Jack ...off is in Gibney's sights? Good. Have some links of my own related to bad behaviour.

 Philip Zimbardo. 

Never-before released photos of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were made public at an elite gathering in California on Thursday.

Stanford University professor Philip Zimbardo displayed the shocking images as he described the prison's design as resulting in a "Lucifer effect" that turned seemingly ordinary guards evil.

"If you give people power without oversight it is a formula for abuse," Zimbardo said to stunned audience members at the Technology, Entertainment and Design conference.

"Abu Ghraib abuses went on for three months ... Who was watching the store? Nobody, and it was on purpose." 

On allegations of UK involvement.  

"As of 1940 hrs 29/02/08 I have been placed under an injunction preventing me from speaking publicly and publishing material gained as a result of my service in UKSF (SAS).

I will be continuing to collect evidence and opinion on British Involvement in extraordinary rendition, torture, secret detentions, extra judicial detention, use of evidence gained through torture, breaches of the Geneva Conventions, breaches of International Law and failure to abide by our obligations as per UN Convention Against Torture. I am carrying on regardless "
Ben Griffin, Former UK Special forces trooper

Ben Griffin, the ex-SAS trooper who this week revealed the extensive British collaboration with US rendition and torture, was served with an injunction immediately after speaking at the London World Against War rally last night. The government is trying to gag Ben to prevent any more revelations about British involvement in the US policy of kidnapping people and sending them to secret centres for interrogation and torture. 

So, somebody doesn't want him to speak out. There is a video and a  copy of a statement made before the injunction. From the statement:

Our government would have us believe that our involvement in the process known as Extraordinary Rendition is limited to two occasions on which planes carrying detainees landed to refuel on the British Indian Ocean Territory, Diego Garcia. David Miliband has stated that the British Government expects the Government of the United States to “seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and airspace, including Overseas Territories; that we will grant that permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations; and how we understand our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture¹.” (Taken from a statement given to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday 21 February 2008)

The use of British Territory and airspace pales into insignificance in light of the fact that it has been British soldiers detaining the victims of Extraordinary Rendition in the first place. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001 UKSF has operated within a joint US/UK Task Force. This Task Force has been responsible for the detention of hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Individuals detained by British soldiers within this Task force have ended up in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Theatre Internment Facility, Balad Special Forces Base, Camp Nama BIAP and Abu Ghraib Prison.

Whilst the government has stated its desire that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp be closed, it has remained silent over these other secretive prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. These secretive prisons are part of a global network in which individuals face torture and are held indefinately without charge. All of this is in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions, International Law and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Early involvement of UKSF in the process of Extraordinary Rendition centres around operations carried out in Afghanistan in late 2001. Of note is an incident at the Qalai Janghi fortress, near Mazar-i-Sharif. UKSF fought alongside their US counterparts to put down a bloody revolt by captured Taliban fighters. The surviving Taliban fighters were then rendered to Guantanamo Bay.

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003 this joint US/UK task force appeared. Its primary mission was to kill or capture high value targets. Individuals detained by this Task Force often included non-combatants caught up in the search for high value targets. The use of secret detention centres within Iraq has negated the need to use Guantanamo Bay whilst allowing similar practice to go unnoticed.

And in the US:

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb 28 (IPS) - U.S. veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are planning to descend on Washington from Mar. 13-16 to testify about war crimes they committed or personally witnessed in those countries.

"The war in Iraq is not covered to its potential because of how dangerous it is for reporters to cover it," said Liam Madden, a former Marine and member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War. "That's left a lot of misconceptions in the minds of the American public about what the true nature of military occupation looks like."

Iraq Veterans Against the War argues that well-publicised incidents of U.S. brutality like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of an entire family of Iraqis in the town of Haditha are not the isolated incidents perpetrated by "a few bad apples", as many politicians and military leaders have claimed. They are part of a pattern, the group says, of "an increasingly bloody occupation".

"The problem that we face in Iraq is that policymakers in leadership have set a precedent of lawlessness where we don't abide by the rule of law, we don't respect international treaties, so when that atmosphere exists it lends itself to criminal activity," argues former U.S. Army Sergeant Logan Laituri, who served a tour in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 before being discharged as a conscientious objector.

Laituri told IPS that precedent of lawlessness makes itself felt in the rules of engagement handed down by commanders to soldiers on the front lines. When he was stationed in Samarra, for example, he said one of his fellow soldiers shot an unarmed man while he walked down the street.

"The problem is that that soldier was not committing a crime as you might call it because the rules of engagement were very clear that no one was supposed to be walking down the street," he said. "But I have a problem with that. You can't tell a family to leave everything they know so you can bomb the shit out of their house or their city. So while he definitely has protection under the law, I don't think that legitimates that type of violence."

Iraq Veterans Against the War is calling the gathering "Winter Soldier," after a quote from the U.S. revolutionary Thomas Paine, who wrote in 1776: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

  The wheels are in motion.

Thanks Bob. The Oscar winning documentary Taxi to the Dark Side also tells some of the story of that long and twisted and tortuous path.  Good news is that Alex Gibney has a new target in his sights:

The filmmaker who won an Academy Award Sunday night for best documentary is next turning his attention to the Jack Abramoff scandal, including GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s role in investigating the affair.

Alex Gibney, who made last year’s Taxi to the Dark Side, about the lethal interrogation of an Afghani taxicab driver by American military forces, told Politico his Abramoff film would be coming out later this year. Its tentative title: Casino Jack and the United States of Money.

“The film should give viewers a greater understanding, in a blow-by-blow way, of how the political process works, particularly with regards to lobbying,” Gibney says. “This movie will have it all: wild international intrigue, money changing hands in unexpected places, etc. It will be fun. As someone said about an earlier picture I made: ‘It’s a comedy that turns into farce and ends up in horror.’”