Conyers And Holder On The Frontline: Torture Should Bring The Bush Administration To Justice. Rounding Up Israel In The News.
| |
Conyers Wants Holder To Appoint A Special Counsel To Probe Bush Crimes
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5209334/Conyers-Report
| |
Conyers Wants Holder to Appoint a Special Counsel to Probe Bush Crimes
Saturday, 04 April 2009 14:03
By Jason Leopold
From: TPR: The Public Record
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has renewed his call for a special prosecutor to conduct a criminal inquiry into “war on terror” policies of the Bush administration, including whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on alleged terrorist detainees violated international and federal laws against torture.
The recommendation comes amid signs from other senior Democrats that they are shying away from a full-scale investigation, whether by a “truth commission” or a special prosecutor, into possible crimes committed under the authority of President George W. Bush. Congressional Republicans have been adamantly opposed to any inquiry.
Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, included his recommendation to Attorney General Eric Holder in a final report that was quietly released on April 2. Conyers made a similar recommendation in an earlier draft of his report, but this final version includes additional evidence that has surfaced in recent months to support his call for a special prosecutor.
“The Attorney General should appoint a Special Counsel to determine whether there were criminal violations committed pursuant to Bush Administration policies that were undertaken under unreviewable war powers, including enhanced interrogation, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless domestic surveillance,” Conyers’s report said. “In this regard, the report firmly rejects the notion that we should move on from these matters.”
While issuing a statement that accompanied the report, Conyers did not resubmit his formal request for a special prosecutor that he made last year when he and 55 other House Democrats signed a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Not unexpectedly, Mukasey – a staunch defender of Bush’s theories about expansive presidential powers – ignored the letter.
While Republicans have said they are against any effort to probe the Bush administration’s “war on terror” policies, Democrats also have been cool to the idea. Indeed, in early January, Conyers introduced a resolution, H.R. 104, to establish a national commission on presidential war powers and civil liberties. Two months later, the resolution had attracted a mere 27 co-sponsors.
Still, the final version of Conyers’s report, entitled “Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush,” may create some new momentum for holding the Bush administration accountable.
Of the 50 recommendations in the final version of the 541-page report, the appointment of a special prosecutor is the first, with the suggestion that a criminal inquiry should be conducted alongside hearings by a “blue ribbon” panel.
International Demands
In a statement posted on his Web site, Conyers said the Obama administration needs to follow in the footsteps of a magistrate in Spain who has authorized prosecutors there to investigate possible war crimes by six Bush administration officials who helped create the framework for the torture policies.
"President Obama has taken immediate action to right many of the Bush administration’s wrongs including pledges to disavow torture and close the prison at Guantanamo," Conyers said. “However, the administration still has much to do to restore the rule of law to its rightful place.
“A nonpartisan, independent accounting of what happened must take place, and the new administration must do more to roll back its predecessor’s policies on issues ranging from signing statements to the state secrets privilege."
Civil liberties and human rights organizations as well as numerous progressive groups have been pressuring Congress to back a criminal investigation into the Bush administration, particularly in light of evidence that has surfaced which demonstrates the Bush administration sanctioned torture.
The new version of Conyers’s report adds more details about the alleged crimes of the Bush administration and cites international laws against torture that require the U.S. to immediately launch a wide-ranging probe to determine whether torture laws were broken
“The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (Torture Convention), ratified by the United States in 1994, appears to require the United States to investigate possible torture committed within its jurisdiction,” Conyers’s report says.
“Moreover, the statement of Susan J. Crawford, the convening authority for military commissions, that: 'We tortured [Mohammed al-Qahtani],' along with other public materials that describe aspects of that interrogation, provide 'reasonable grounds' to believe that torture was committed there.”
In an interview with the Washington Post in January, Crawford said that she would not allow al-Qahtani’s prosecution to move forward because his interrogation met the legal definition of torture and as such the evidence against him was tainted.
Conyers's report said one of the many reasons a special counsel is needed to launch a criminal inquiry is the "documented incidents of grave abuse of detainees at various detention facilities including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and the extraordinary rendition of terror suspects to countries where they have been tortured, and the implementation of warrantless surveillance inside the United States, raise credible concerns that criminal laws may have been violated."
"The Bush Administration’s Attorney Generals refused to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether the practice of extraordinary rendition and, in particular whether the extraordinary rendition of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, violated the law. Similarly, there remains a serious question as to whether the warrantless domestic surveillance engaged in as part of the so-called “Terrorist Surveillance Program” prior to January 2007, violated the law."
Arar is a Syrian born Canadian who was from a vacation in September 2002 when he was detained by federal agents at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City on suspicion of having ties to terrorist groups.
A Canadian commission investigating his rendition by the U.S. to Syria concluded that he was systematically tortured. Moreover, the commission found that there wasn’t any evidence to support claims Arar had ties to terrorist organizations. The commission gave Arar $10.5 million for his pain and suffering. Arar was released in October 2003, a year after he was captured.
“It would seem that all or part of the above-described conduct meets the relevant requirements under federal regulations for the appointment of a special counsel, in that (i) a criminal investigation is warranted (e.g., waterboarding and warrantless domestic surveillance appear to violate criminal laws); (ii) the investigation would present a conflict of interest for the Justice Department (e.g., some of the potentially culpable parties have worked for or with the Department); and (iii) appointment of a special counsel would be in the public interest (e.g., it would help dispel a cloud of doubt over our law enforcement system).”
On the same day Conyers released the updated version of his report, his counterpart on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, said in a floor statement that he still favored a “truth commission” to probe the Bush administration’s “war on terror” policies, but expressed concern that Republicans were balking at such an inquiry.
"I regret that Senate Republicans have approached this matter to date as partisans,” Leahy said. “It will take bipartisan support in order to move this forward.”
This readiness of Democrats to put the pursuit of bipartisanship over the pursuit of justice – after a victorious election – parallels their actions 16 years ago when President Bill Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress swept under the rug investigations of the Reagan-Bush-41 era, such as the Iran-Contra scandal and Iraqgate support for Saddam Hussein. [See Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]
But Congress and the Obama administration are facing pressure from progressive organizations and civil and human rights groups for a serious investigation absent the support of the GOP.
Two weeks ago, the ACLU called on Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to launch a probe into the Bush administration's torture practices.
“The fact that such crimes have been committed can no longer be doubted or debated, nor can the need for an independent prosecutor be ignored by a new Justice Department committed to restoring the rule of law,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said.
“Given the increasing evidence of deliberate and widespread use of torture and abuse, and that such conduct was the predictable result of policy changes made at the highest levels of government, an independent prosecutor is clearly in the public interest,” Romero said.
Human rights organization Amnesty International has also called on President Barack Obama to "ensure that an independent inquiry into the [Bush administration's] detention and interrogations practices in its 'war on terror' is set up."
Obama, however, while stating on numerous occasions that "no one is above the law," has said he favored looking forward, not backward.
"My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing then people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen," Obama said during a press briefing on February. But generally speaking I am more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.”
Leahy has said he is against a criminal inquiry because it could take years, but Conyers indicated that a public inquiry and a criminal probe could go forward simultaneously.
“The fact that Congress is pursuing responsible oversight should not impact any criminal investigations, just as the work of the Ervin Committee did not limit the prerogatives of Special Counsels [Archibald] Cox or [Leon] Jaworski” in the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, Conyers said. “As a matter of fact, information gleaned from one review could reinforce and galvanize others.
“While I understand there is a powerful desire to simply move on and focus on the many large issues facing us, we simply cannot sweep these matters under the rug of history without addressing them head on,” Conyers said.
Congress has just left Washington for a two-week recess.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Con...90404-237.html
| |
Leahy: Truth Commission Dead; Law School Dean Rocks Radio on Torture
by Ralph Lopez Page 1 of 3 page(s)
Moving more out of step with progressive Vermonters all the time, Senator Pat Leahy announced at a meeting with constituents that his Truth Commission is off.
My friend and blogger Ed Dickau writes:
[The] senator is a hypocrite and a back peddling coward and opportunistic sell out. He could have been a servant of this nation and its Constitution; instead he chose to enjoy a measure of good press, progressive and liberal support, turned around and asked for campaign contributions for his “Good Acts” and then dumped us in the sewer of DC politics, bleeding, with a knife in our backs.
The Green Mountain State has been at the forefront of movements to hold Bush administration officials accountable for torture, lying us into the Iraq War, subverting the Constitution, and other crimes. A 2007 CBS poll showed two-thirds of Vermonters for impeaching Bush. At Matt Stoller's Opens Left 2010 Senate Primary Watch a commenter affirms the grumblings about Leahy:
let's please primary Leahy no matter what happens. His performance as ranking Dem on the judiciary committee during the Roberts and esp. the Alito hearings was dismal. Utterly Dismal. As ranking member, he should have had a game plan for Alito, esp after seeing the stealth type campaign that swept Roberts in. Now we have two more Scalias. Sure, it would have been a tough, uphill battle, but it would have been worth it and the buck stops at Leahy. Lousy strategy (i.e. none) lousy examination during hearings (I listened) and just downright lousy performance.
The news is not all bad however. Law School Dean Lawrence Velvel of the Justice Jackson prosecution project, which seeks to file a complaint against Bush administration officials for torture this spring, has taken to the airwaves and is tearing them up. This interview with WMPG FM's Michael Cutting in Portland, Maine is a strong indication that this is not going away, as politicians from Obama on right and on down would like it to. You can't hang men who are innocent, who you know are innocent, by the arms from the ceiling and torture them in the name of the American people. This interview is a MUST LISTEN. (To get Velvel on the radio/TV in your town contact neimpeach ( neimpeach@gmail.com ). More…
Prosecute Bush and Cheney for Torture
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
| |
Following the dismal failure of the Leahy Truth Commission simply because Republicans insisted on covering their ears and eyes to the truth we now - finally - have a congressional call for the Special Prosecutor.
We know now that the claim "extreme interrogation" of subjects such as Abu Zubaidah - produced ZERO usable or accurate intelligence.
We know now that several high ranking Generals lied to Congress about their knowledge of torture taking place at Gitmo.
On the question of whether the was or wasn't actual torture taking place, that has been settled by the International Red Cross.
BTW the organization which makes the determination under Geneva as to whether torture has occures - happens to be the International Red Cross.
We have always known - or should have - that the UN Convention Against Torture (signed by Ronald Reagan) leaves NO EXCUSES for the use of use of torture. None.
http://thegenevaconventionandgeorgebush.blogspot.com/
http://impeachmentwatchstatebystate.blogspot.com/
| | | | |
Torture News Roundup: DoD to Jail Gitmo Attorney?
by Valtin
In a week chock-full of important developments in the fight against torture, none stands out as more outrageous than the actions of Robert Gates' Department of Defense, threatening two attorneys for former Guantanamo prisoner and U.S./UK torture victim, Binyam Mohamed, with jail. Their crime? Writing a letter to Barack Obama and following security procedures!
Before we get there, let's summarize the week:
A federal judge ruled against President Obama and Attorney General Holder's contention that no "war on terror" prisoners held at Bagram prison in Afghanistan had any Constitutional rights.
Colin Powell told Rachael Maddow at MSNBC that he wasn't sure that waterboarding "would be considered criminal."
Andy Worthington ran a series explaining how Britain's draconian "control orders" have created a virtual, "second Guantanamo".
The fight over release of Bush Administration memos countenancing "harsh interrogation techniques" continues inside the Obama White House.
On February 11, I posted a well-read diary at Daily Kos that described news reports on how Clive Stafford Smith, acting in his role as an attorney for then-Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, sent a letter to Barack Obama [PDF] detailing torture techniques inflicted upon his client. A Pentagon review team then censored all the details of this torture from Smith's letter. (SeeBreaking: Pentagon Hiding Torture Evidence from Obama.)
Now Mohamed's attorneys face up to six months in jail, accused by Robert Gates' Department of Defense of breaking the rules for Guanatanamo attorneys and of "unprofessional conduct" in the writing of the letter to Obama.
From the Guardian article:
Clive Stafford Smith, director of legal charity Reprieve, and his colleague Ahmed Ghappour have been summoned to appear before a Washington court on May 11 after a complaint was made by the privilege review team.
Stafford Smith had written to the president after judges in the UK ruled against the release of US evidence detailing Mohamed's alleged torture at Guantánamo....
He and Gappour submitted the memo to the privilege team for clearance but the memo was redacted to just the title, leaving the president unable to read it. Stafford Smith included the redacted copy of the memo in his letter to illustrate the extent to which it had been censored. He described it as a "bizarre reality"....
The privilege team argue that by releasing the redacted memo Reprieve has breached the rules that govern Guantánamo lawyers and have made a complaint to the court of "unprofessional conduct".
Stafford Smith described their actions as intimidation, saying the complaint "doesn't even specify the rule supposedly breached".
This is totally unacceptable governmental conduct against a whistleblower and attorney working for human rights and against torture. He and his colleagues have broken no law. In fact, they followed the law and are now being punished for it. And this from a government that tried to coerce a pledge of silence from their client as a condition of his release from Guantanamo.
If you're feeling sufficiently outraged, you could write directly to the White House on this.
Meanwhile, Michael Isikoff at Newsweek is reporting that a "fierce internal battle within the White House over the disclosure of internal Justice Department interrogation memos is shaping up as a major test of the Obama administration's commitment to opening up government files about Bush-era counterterrorism policy."
As reported by NEWSWEEK, the White House last month had accepted a recommendation from Attorney General Eric Holder to declassify and publicly release three 2005 memos that graphically describe harsh interrogation techniques approved for the CIA to use against Al Qaeda suspects. But after the story, U.S. intelligence officials, led by senior national-security aide John Brennan, mounted an intense campaign to get the decision reversed, according to a senior administration official familiar with the debate. "Holy hell has broken loose over this," said the official, who asked not to be identified because of political sensitivities.
Brennan is a former senior CIA official who was once considered by Obama for agency director but withdrew his name late last year after public criticism that he was too close to past officials involved in Bush administration decisions. Brennan, who now oversees intelligence issues at the National Security Council, argued that release of the memos could embarrass foreign intelligence services who cooperated with the CIA, either by participating in overseas "extraordinary renditions" of high-level detainees or housing them in overseas "black site" prisons.
According to Isikoff, Brennan has gotten the backing of CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the "final decision" re release of the controversial memos will be made by President Barack Obama.
The ACLU has agreed to the two-week extension for the government to file their final response in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking release of the memos.
Federal Judge Rules Against Obama's Ban on Habeas at Bagram
Charlie Savage at The New York Times is reporting that a federal judge at the D.C. Federal District Court has ruled that some prisoners at Bagram prison in Afghanistan "have a right to challenge their imprisonment, dealing a blow to government efforts to detain terrorism suspects for extended periods without court oversight."
The ruling only applies to prisoners captured outside Afghanistan, but it deals a blow to the Obama administration's intent to keep Bagram as a site for detention for "terrorism suspects" caught outside Iraq or Afghanistan.
As the NYT puts it (link added):
The administration had sought to preserve Bagram as a haven where it could detain terrorism suspects beyond the reach of American courts, telling Judge Bates in February that it agreed with the Bush administration’s view that courts had no jurisdiction over detainees there.
Judge Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001, was not persuaded. He said transferring captured terrorism suspects to the prison inside Afghanistan and claiming they were beyond the jurisdiction of American courts "resurrects the same specter of limitless executive power the Supreme Court sought to guard against" in its 2008 ruling that Guantánamo prisoners have a right to habeas corpus.
Torture Scandal in Great Britain
The UK Guardian is reporting
MPs are to undertake the most far-reaching inquiry into Britain's role in human rights abuses in decades as allegations mount to suggest that officials repeatedly breached international law.
The Commons foreign affairs select committee will examine Britain's involvement in the detention, transfer and interrogation of prisoners held during the so-called war on terror. Among the matters to be examined later in the year are allegations, reported in the Guardian over the past two years, that British intelligence officers colluded in the torture of Britons held in Pakistan and Egypt.
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, will give evidence to the inquiry although he and Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, refused, earlier this year, to appear before parliament's joint committee on human rights, which is looking into reports that British officials were complicit in torture.
Journalist Andy Worthington also reports on Parliamentary investigations into British complicity in extraordinary rendition and torture.
On Monday March 30, in a committee room in the House of Commons, Diane Abbott MP chaired a meeting entitled, "Britain’s Guantánamo? The use of secret evidence and evidence based on torture in the UK courts," to discuss the stories of some of the men held as "terror suspects" on the basis of secret evidence, and to work out how to persuade the government to change its policies. A detailed report of the meeting is available here, and the profiles of five prisoners are available by following this link...
One of the cases Worthington highlights is that of a 39-year-old Algerian national known only as"Detainee Y":
They call me Y. But I am more than a letter. I am a man....
I came to the UK because of its impressive human rights record. Well, that’s what everyone said. I had spoken out against human rights abuses at home and got into trouble for it, so I had to leave. Maybe I should have been like everyone else and not said anything. What would you have done?
Now I have a death sentence waiting for me in Algeria.
I was living in London, as a refugee, rebuilding my life, recovering from torture and finally overcoming the demons it leaves behind.
Things were going well, and then suddenly my life turned upside down. First I was arrested as part of the "ricin plot." I spent 27 months in Belmarsh. There never was any ricin.
I was acquitted in 2005....
After 7/7 they came for me again. I had nothing to do with it. I was arrested, served with a deportation order to Algeria and taken to Long Lartin prison. No charge. No trial. I was there for 29 months.
And since last July I have been again on bail....
I feel watched all the time. "They" go everywhere I go. I don’t know what they want or what they are looking for....
I survived torture. It was some years ago, back in Algeria. It’s not an easy thing to go through. I wish none of you ever suffer it. But torture, it has to end. What is going on now has no end. This is slow torture.
My father died a few months ago, back home. It was a very hard time. I was all alone with my grief. I felt useless and worthless and hopeless....
Well, what else can I say? I feel so tired. I just want to stop thinking. I want to wake from this nightmare. All I have are dreams and hopes and wishes, but it’s hard to keep hold of these.
I just want to sleep.
I have to stay in the house for 20 hours a day. I wear a tag. It makes me feel like a slave.
I am not allowed outside my boundaries. I can’t go to the town centre, but I can go to two cemeteries if I want....
Why am I living like this? Why did I spend 56 months in prison? Why do they want to deport me to Algeria? Why do they say I’m a threat to national security? I am here like this today because of secret evidence.
Detainee Y is a victim of Britain's notorious "control orders." As explained in this article from the Guardian, control orders, or were introduced as part of Britain's Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. They have created a virtual "Second Guantanamo" inside of Great Britain's borders:
What are control orders?
They enable the home secretary to impose a wide range of restrictions on any person, based on intelligence information, she suspects of involvement in terrorism-related activity, whether a UK national or not, and whether the terrorist activity is domestic or international.
What do these restrictions include?
Virtual house arrest, including specifying where and with whom subjects can live and placing them under curfew for up to 13 hours a day; limiting them to travelling within a specific geographical zone – for example, one mile of their home; controlling their access to telephones and banning access to the internet; dictating who they can meet or communicate with, and what occupation or studies they can undertake; proscribing where they can travel and what places of worship they can attend; electronic tagging; foreign travel bans; and daily reporting to and monitoring by the police.
The home secretary also has the power to add new restrictions or obligations, or vary them, as she sees fit.
Andy Worthington comments on Britain's "control orders" and other antidemocratic "antiterrorism" laws:
In the UK, since December 2001, the British government has, at various times, held around 70 men without charge or trial, refusing to try them as criminal suspects in recognized courts. The policy began with the imprisonment of 17 men in Belmarsh high-security prison, but when, after three years, the Law Lords ruled that their imprisonment was in contravention of the Human Rights Act, the government responded by introducing control orders and deportation bail, both of which involve draconian restrictions that amount to house arrest. Throughout this whole period, the government has justified the men’s detention through the use of secret evidence that the prisoners — known as "detainees" — are not allowed to see.
Another similarity concerns attempts by both the British and American governments to bypass their obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture — which prevents the return of foreign nationals to countries where they face the risk of torture — by reaching diplomatic agreements with various dictatorships in North Africa and the Middle East. These purport to guarantee that repatriated prisoners will be treated humanely, but in reality they have proved worthless.
British Rendition and Torture Pre-9/11?
"All you need to know is that there was a ‘before 9/11’ and there was an ‘after9/11.’ After 9/11, the gloves came off." -- Cofer Black, as Director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center
Britain's partnership with the United States in use of both rendition and torture precedes even the 9/11 crisis, which both governments hypocritically cite as the impetus for their draconian and illegal policies of detention and torture. According to an article at Cageprisoners, looking at increasing evidence that British intelligence agencies were involved in torture:
The Daily Telegraph reported last week that MI5 and MI6 had identified 15 cases where their officers had alerted senior personnel to possible mistreatment but no further action was taken...
Asim Qureshi of Cage Prisoners... told the Daily Telegraph: "At first we thought these were cases of individual abuses but the more we saw and the more testimony we heard, the more we realised there was pattern.
"We were seeing interviews by MI5 and MI6 alongside the use of torture by other countries. This has been very, very systematic and that is what concerns us most. There has been a policy to keep prisoners beyond the reach of law and turn a blind eye to torture.
"We believe that the government is going to pass off the case of Binyam Mohamed as an isolated incident and use witness B [the officer allegedly involved] as a scapegoat but we believe it is important to put this in the context of what has been happening in the last seven or eight years."
The Cageprisoners report, "Fabricating Terrorism II", just released, describes one case of rendition and torture that predates 9/11 (emphasis added).
CASE 1 – FARID HILALI
Nationality: Moroccan/ British Resident
History/Background: Farid was initially detained in 1999 while in UAE. There he was subjected to torture and interrogation on behalf of the British security services and was later sent to Morocco where this treatment continued. On his release he came to the UK and was arrested on immigration offences, but he was re-arrested in June when Spain issued a European arrest warrant to extradite him for alleged terror offences, and in particular involvement in 9/11. The case against Hilali seems to be vague and circumstantial, and entirely reliant on mobile phone communications data and intercept evidence.
And, Back at Guantanamo...
U.S. Navy Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler, a military attorney who has represented Omar Khadr, a Guantanmo prisoner who was first arrested as a 15-year-old in Afghanistan and ultimately brought to Gitmo, has been fired from Khadr's defense team and reassigned.
In his two years on the case, Commander Kuebler campaigned for Mr. Khadr’s return to Canada to short-circuit a military tribunal system that he described as unfair. Like all Guantánamo prosecutions, the case is suspended pending a review of policies by the Obama administration.
The chief defense counsel at Guantánamo, Col. Peter Masciola of the Air Force, concluded that Commander Kuebler’s removal was necessary to pursue "a client-centered representation," according to a statement from his office. Colonel Masciola did not immediately respond to a request for further details....
In February, Commander Kuebler was blocked from traveling to meet Mr. Khadr at Guantánamo amid the internal investigation, which he said was related to his criticism of Colonel Masciola’s management.
He complained about Colonel Masciola’s cooperation with the review of Guantánamo cases that was intended to decide whether the cases should be tried in civilian or military courts or some combination of the two.
"I don’t want to make it easier for the government to prosecute my client," he said at the time. "I want my client to be released."
Colin Powell reiterated, in an interview with Rachael Maddow this week, his long-time belief that Guantanamo be closed. But when Maddow pressed Powell on his participation in White House "Prinicpals" meetings that met in 2002-2003 to approve torture of prisoners held by the CIA, Powell got quite defensive. He seemed to forget that new CIA Director Leon Panetta told Congress only a few months ago that the government considered waterboarding to be torture. From the Powell-Maddow interview:
RACHEL: On the issue of intelligence—tainted evidence and those things—were you ever present at meetings at which the interrogation of prisoners, like Abu Zubaida, other prisoners in those early days, where the interrogation was directed? Where specific interrogation techniques were approved. It has been reported on a couple of different sources that there were Principals Meetings, which you would have typically been there, where interrogations were almost play-by-play discussed.
POWELL: They were not play-by-play discussed but there were conversations at a senior level as to what could be done with respect to interrogation. I cannot go further because I don't have knowledge of all the meetings that took place or what was discussed at each of those meetings and I think it's going to have to be the written record of those meetings that will determine whether anything improper took place....
MADDOW: If there was a meeting, though, at which senior officials were saying, were discussing and giving the approval for sleep deprivation, stress positions, water boarding, were those officials committing crimes when they were giving that authorization?
POWELL: You’re asking me a legal question. I mean I don't know that any of these items would be considered criminal. And I will wait for whatever investigations that the government or the Congress intends to pursue with this.
Both the Powell interview and the firing of Kuebler took place in the context of a flap over whether or not Senator Patrick Leahy has abandoned hope for Truth Commission on torture.
Other Torture News
China to Address Torture of Prisoners
Since January, five cases of young men dying in policy custody have become public. When police in the Southwestern province of Yunnan explained the jail death of Li Qiaomin by saying he had injured himself fatally during a game of hide-and-seek, this explanation triggered a burst of outrage on blogs and online discussion forums, forcing local authorities to launch a propaganda offensive and a new investigation.
Since then, state media have flooded readers with a wave of propaganda that suggested the government was seeking solutions to the problem prisoner abuse.
State media reported that prisoners in detention centres in Beijing would be given cards with contact information of the local prosecutor to allow them to blow the whistle on detention officers if they were mistreated. Representatives of other departments such as the justice ministry proposed to take supervision of the detention facilities away from the police in order to separate investigation powers and direct responsibility for the prisoners.
Seton Hall Law Students Reveal That Generals Knew Guantanamo Detainees Were Tortured
General Schmidt's Investigation Uncovered Numerous Abuses Which Were Omitted from Both His Report and His Congressional Testimony
Today Seton Hall Law delivered a report establishing that military officials at the highest levels were aware of the abusive interrogation techniques employed at the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay (GTMO), and misled Congress during testimony. In addition, FBI personnel reported that the information obtained from inhumane interrogations was unreliable.
Professor Mark Denbeaux, Director of the Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research, commented on the findings: "Who knew about the torture at GTMO? Turns out they all did. It's not news that the interrogators were torturing and abusing detainees. We've got FBI reports attesting to this. But now we've discovered that the highest levels knew about the torture and abuse, and covered it up.
Conyers Wants Holder to Appoint a Special Counsel to Probe Bush Crimes
"The Attorney General should appoint a Special Counsel to determine whether there were criminal violations committed pursuant to Bush Administration policies that were undertaken under unreviewable war powers, including enhanced interrogation, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless domestic surveillance," Conyers’s report says. "In this regard, the report firmly rejects the notion that we should move on from these matters"....
However, Conyers has not formally asked the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel as he had last year when he and 55 other House Democrats signed a letter sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey seeking a special prosecutor ....
National Geographic airs a documentary tonight (9 PM both Eastern and Pacific time) , Explorer: Inside Guantanamo. This film is unreviewed by me, but the blurb says:
A symbol of freedom protected or freedom tragically betrayed, the controversies of Guantanamo embody the thorny issues of America’s fight against an enemy that wears no uniform, has no address and will declare no armistice, and an administrations battle to keep prisoners beyond the reach of due process in American courts. The goings-on inside the wire encircling this highly classified camp have been a closely held government secret until now. For the first time, National Geographic exclusively captures day-to-day life in the most famous prison in the world exploring the ongoing daily struggle between the guard force of dedicated young military personnel and the equally dedicated detainees, many of whom are still in legal limbo after being held years.
Second Guantanamo Prisoner to be released by Obama Administration
Ayman Saeed Batarfi, a 38-year old Yemeni doctor will be the second prisoner from Guantanamo to be released. He was first detained in Afghanistan in 2001, where his lawyers had indicated he had been on a humanitarian mission.
Bartafi was initially held at Bagram Airforce Base and then transferred to the infamous Guantanamo Bay Prison....
What is most interesting about Batarfi's release is that we are not being told where he's going. According to an AP report, Department of Justice spokesman Dan Boyd indicated that Batarfi would be transferred to 'an appropriate destination country in a manner that is consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice'.
What exactly does this mean? If this were happening during the Bush administration, one could interpret the above statement as another one of their famous extraordinary renditions....
It also makes one wonder if Batarfi was subjected to the same type of 'exit interview' as his British counterpart, whereby he was asked not to reveal that he was tortured if he were released.
Bizarre Story of the Week:
Miss Universe and Miss USA tour Guantanamo
Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza says the trip was ‘an incredible experience’
Historical Article of the Week:
THE CIA AND THE MEDIA by Carl Bernstein
This 25,000 word landmark article, first published in Rolling Stonemagazine in 1977, has been "reprinted" and posted on the Internet in bastardized and censored versions over the years. Bernstein's posting of the full article online is an important event, one that, for reasons evident from reading the article itself, has been ignored by the mainstream media.
What follows are some selections from the piece:
The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements....
During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolume report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency....
There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as "known assets" and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects....
Despite The Evidence Of Widespread CIA Use Of journalists, the Senate Intelligence Committee and its staff decided against questioning any of the reporters, editors, publishers or broadcast executives whose relationships with the Agency are detailed in CIA files.
According to sources in the Senate and the Agency, the use of journalists was one of two areas of inquiry which the CIA went to extraordinary lengths to curtail. The other was the Agency’s continuing and extensive use of academics for recruitment and information gathering purposes.
Do You Want Action On Torture? Then You Must Act!
Do you want action on the issue of the Bush Administrations apparent State Sponsored Torture program? It is an easy enough question, but you should consider it. Not, do you think it will happen or should happen, but do you want it to happen? Knowing the answer to this question can inform your next steps, so even if you think you know take a couple of minutes and really think about it.
| |
Something the Dog Said's diary
There is no doubt this is going to be a truly divisive issue. There is a significant percentage of the population who feels that it is just fine to torture (though they would not use those words exactly) prisoners who are terror suspects. They have internalized this idea that somehow a small group can pose an existential threat to the United States. It is easy to scoff at this, the idea that any amount of terrorism could destroy a nation of 305 million which occupies 1/3 of a continent, but this is where the fear based policies of the Republicans have put us. They will be very upset if we even investigate the very credible charges of a State Sponsored Torture program.
This will absolutely be seized upon by the Republicans in Congress as a rallying cry. They will crank up the rhetoric about political witch hunts, about one party rule and will generally lose their cool in an effort to make this an issue that derails the Presidents policies, all of them. They will be on the cable news shows howling that we are caving in to the terrorists, that we are making it impossible for any President to keep us safe. They will claim that by investigating and acting on this investigation we will be destroying valuable ways of gathering intelligence and helping those who would attack the United States by giving them knowledge of the techniques that we might use to question them.
Of course this ignores the fact that any terror group in the world already knows that we have used stress positions, beatings, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, and small confined spaces to question prisoners. It also ignores the fact that none of these torture techniques is effective at all in gaining actionable intelligence. They will not care at all about the facts; they will crank up the rhetoric to 11 and play it twenty four hours a day, everyday.
There will also be those, who are perhaps, not Republicans and not mouth breathers who believe the TV Show 24 is a documentary, who will resist this. They will point to the crises which the nation faces, two wars, an economy just barely above a Depression level and massive numbers of uninsured citizens and say "We have to focus on bigger problems". They will not be evil or even obstructionist in this, merely cynical that the Rule of Law is something they should hold most dear, even in the face of major crises like these. They will use what the Republicans and their base will do as an excuse to not face a hard and shameful fact that our Nation truly has done what we thought only rouge nations did.
Then there is the time factor. Even if we get the Special Prosecutor that Rep. Conyers is recommending, it will take time to get the full scope of the crimes that were committed in the name of national security. There will be court cases arguing that the former President and his administration do not have to testify before a Grand Jury. There is no hope that they will win these arguments, but the whole tactic will be to play for time, and they will use it as aggressively as they can. They will try to make this as messy and drawn out as possible to make it an issue in the 2010 midterm elections. The Dog does not know if it would play well for them or not, but for a political Party that has no ideas and no focus this will be there obvious strategy.
Once the crimes are detailed, then trials begin. Or more properly the preparation for trails; again there will be motions and hearings and attempts to suppress evidence. There will be motions to dismiss. All of these will have to be heard and adjudicated, as our argument for doing this is the Rule of Law must be paramount, so we will have to allow all of the functions of this Rule to be used to defend those indicted.
In the end this will be a long and painful process and there are likely to be some that we would love to see convicted acquitted, there will be some sentenced to less than what we feel is appropriate punishment for their crimes. Ours is a system of law that try’s to give the defendant a strong advantage so that we do not convict innocent people and with the best lawyers that money can by, this will be used to someone’s advantage, count on it.
So, when we ask for action on torture, be clear in what you are signing up for. It will not be pretty, it will not be easy and we can not guarantee the outcome. If now, you as the Dog does, still feel that it must be done, that to fail to investigate and prosecute means a confirmation that there are two sets of laws in this nation, one for the powerful and one for everyone else, then you must start to act!
It is not enough to want change to happen, there are all kinds of things which we would like to be different in the world, but wanting it does not make it happen. If torture is an abomination to you, if the Rule of Law is something that you view to under pin all else in our society, if you just feel that we need to clear our name in the world, then the Dog is asking you to stop hopping it will be done and start making sure that it will be done.
What can we do? For a start, call or write your Representative and Senators in the Congress and tell them that you strongly support Rep. Conyers recommendation for a Special Prosecutor. It is the right thing to do whether they think the former President is innocent or not, as it will show what the facts are. Do this today, it takes about five minutes and it does not have to be a big deal, just that sentence above in an e-mail to put them on notice.
Start talking to your friends and relatives about this issue. It is not a pleasant conversation, there is no doubt about that, but if you want action you must take action. Go to this link and put your name on the petition, then send it to everyone you know. If you are a member of a church, start asking your pastor or priest what they think about torture and ask them to speak out for investigations to their flock.
If we all act in small ways, then this becomes too big for those that would like to sweep it under the rug to ignore. It becomes the voice of the People, which has been compared with the voice of God, and when that speaks, then action occurs in Washington.
So, we come full circle. Do you want, really want, action on torture? If the answer is yes, then the first step is yours. Do not let the ugliness and potential problems dissuade you, make a stand as a Citizen, as a Human Being to hold those that would degrade us all in the name of security accountable for their actions.
The floor is yours.
| An Unhelpful Discourse On Israel The following article is written by Israeli/American peace activist Jeff Halper for the Australian Jewish News but the paper refuses to run the piece, despite spending weeks attacking Halper and his supporters in its pages: Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, a peace and human rights organization dedicated to achieving a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. He can be reached at <jeff@icahd.org> We are different peoples. Israel can no more define Diaspora Jewish life than you can define Israel. Rather than knee-jerk defense of an imaginary place, you need to develop a respect for Israel and Israeli voices, a respect that will come only when you start regarding Israel as a real country. And you have to get a life of your own. You have to develop alternative Diaspora Jewish cultures and identities. Ironically, after all I have said, the Israeli government will resist that, for it uses you as agents to support its policies, often extreme right-wing and militaristic policies that contradict your very values of cultural pluralism and human rights. Remember: Israel does what it does in your name. Unless you take an independent position, you are complicit. |
Israel Has Its Cheney: Avigdor Lieberman: Foreign Minister Holding The Keys To The New Government!
| |
|
|
--Curators discover copy of original list naming 801 Jews to be saved from Nazis among manuscript material of author Thomas Keneally, who wrote "Schindler's Ark."AND THAT’S A WRAP FOR NOW….
Sunday Late Nite: What Else Do VIPs Deserve?
"Mantis laws" will be instituted immediately to permit rich persons the exquisite pleasure of eliminating their mates after enjoying their sexual services. No questions asked; special 800 number to call for pickup, disposal, and cleanup. Now, every Rich American can also be a Rich American Psycho!
| | | | |
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment