What will the US do about torture?
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 06-08-2004 - 1:28pm |
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - A classified Pentagon report, providing a series of legal arguments apparently intended to justify abuses and torture against detainees, appears to undermine public assurances by senior US officials, including President George W Bush, that the military would never resort to such practices in the "war on terrorism".
Short excerpts of the report, which was drafted by Defense Department lawyers, were published in the Wall Street Journal on Monday. The text asserts, among other things, that the president, in his position as commander-in-chief, has virtually unlimited power to wage war, even in violation of US law and international treaties.
"The breadth of authority in the report is wholly unprecedented," says Avi Cover, a senior attorney with the US Law and Security program of Human Rights First, formerly known as Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. "Until now, we've used the rhetoric of a president who is 'above the law', but this document makes that explicit; it's not a metaphor anymore," he added.
While it is unknown whether Bush himself ever saw or approved the report, it was classified "secret" by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld on March 6, 2003, the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, according to the Journal.
A full copy of the report is expected to be published on the Internet soon, according to sources who declined to say on which website it would appear.
The report's partial publication comes amid growing charges that the Pentagon is engaged in a cover-up of the full extent of abuses committed by US forces in their anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan, Iraq, at the US naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
{snip, snip}
In its report, the working group took the position that neither the US Congress, the courts, nor international law could interfere with the president's powers to wage war. That means, according to the report, that the president himself is not bound by US law, such as the federal Torture Statute or the constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment.
"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," the document stated, adding later that "without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" to wage war.
"What's most terrifying about this is the argument that the administration has been making since September 11 - that the president has unlimited power to do whatever he deems necessary," said Cover. "It doesn't matter what Congress says, what the constitution says, or what international law says."
But the report also bolsters the growing belief that easing the rules governing interrogations was a top-level policy decision that better explains why reports of abuses are so widespread.
"If anyone still thinks that the only people who dreamt up the idea about torturing prisoners were just some privates and corporals at Abu Ghraib, this document should put that myth to rest," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. "It's not hard to see how these abstract arguments made in Washington led to appalling and systematic abuses that ended up doing huge damage to US interests," he said.
"Effectively, what you've got here is a group of government attorneys trying to justify war crimes," Horton told Inter Press Service. "It makes a mockery of Haynes' statement about adhering to the CAT and Bush's assurances that the US would not torture or subject detainees to cruel or inhumane treatment.
"If we apply the same rules to ourselves as we have advocated in the international tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rumsfeld , then Donald Rumsfeld is in very serious trouble."

Pages
I must fess up; it wasn't just the administration that was being exempted from war crimes, it was all Americans. However, if the nation prosecutes the perps, then the world will probably not prosecute. Who wouldn't the US prosecute? It appears that the UN will defeat the renewal by too many abstaining, and not a direct veto. The US has a handfull of supporters. Will see if I can find the reference and edit this post.
I couldn't find the article I read, but here's another:
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=2625
New Abuse Charges
Allegations of mistreatment of female detainees.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040628-655389,00.html?cnn=yes
Could the abuse of prisoners in Iraq have gone beyond the beatings and sexual humiliation already alleged? Unreleased, classified parts of the report on prison abuse from Major General Anthony Taguba, which were read to TIME, contain indications of mistreatment of female prisoners. In a Feb. 21 statement to Taguba, Lieut. Colonel Steven L. Jordan, former head of the Abu Ghraib interrogation center, said he had received reports "that there were members of the MI community that had come over and done a late-night interrogation of two female detainees" last October. According to a statement by Jordan's boss, Colonel Thomas Pappas, three interrogators were later cited for violations of military law in their handling of the two females, ages 17 and 18. Senate Armed Services Committee investigators are probing whether the two women were sexually abused. The Pentagon declined to comment.
Meanwhile, a class action filed in California on behalf of former detainees raises the specter of brutal physical abuse.
One plaintiff, identified only as Neisef, claims that after he was taken from his home on the outskirts of Baghdad last November and sent to Abu Ghraib, Americans made him disrobe and attached electrical wires to his genitals. He claims he was shocked three times. Although a vein in his penis ruptured and he had blood in his urine, he says, he was refused medical attention. In another session, Neisef claims, he was held down by two men while a uniformed woman forced him to have sex with her. "I was crying," said Neisef, 28. "I felt like my whole manhood was gone." The class action also claims that detainees were raped in prison. On June 6, Neisef was released, after a U.S. civilian told him, he says, that he had been wrongly accused by informants. A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad confirms that a prisoner with Neisef's ID number was released on that date, and TIME has obtained a copy of his release order. But the Pentagon would not comment on the specifics of Neisef's account.
Surprise, Suprise.
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine, and he said that Iraq, Iran, etc have never subscribed to the Geneve Conventions.
I don't know if that would play any part in their use or not. Does someone have the answer to that?
From my post #41 in this thread.
>"However, the Taliban did represent a nation state—one that was party to the conventions. Still, the Administration decided that, as John Yoo—a University of California law professor who while a Justice Department attorney wrote one of the primary memos—explained last week in a Los Angeles Times editorial, "the Taliban militia lost its right to prisoner-of-war status because it did not wear uniforms, did not operate under responsible commanders and systematically violated the laws of war." "<
I thought I remembered reading that correctly.
Also, just to clear up one point, in no way to I condone what happened at abhu Ghraib (sp?) prison
At the present time. I seriously doubt that this administration will be held accountable. They always find a way to slither around accusations.
As I stated in another post, Spies are not granted protection under the Geneve Convention.
So because the compatants weren't wearing uniforms they are spys? The intent of the convention was to protect our soldiers in foreign countries. I have heard McCane expound on this with passion. I think the lack of uniforms is following the letter of the law too closely, at the expense of the spirit of the law. Such definitions could endanger our troops.
America has always held itself to be morally superior to other nations; so I think it is beneath us not to torture prisoners, whether in uniform or not.
Edited 6/23/2004 4:00 pm ET ET by hayashig
Pages