What will the US do about torture?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
What will the US do about torture?
59
Tue, 06-08-2004 - 1:28pm
Torture: Another blow for Rumsfeld?

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."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF09Ak01.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 06-23-2004 - 6:43pm

...that are wearing a uniform of their country.


Good thing that American Revolution isn't going on now...because according the Geneva Conventions, our founding fathers would have been considered 'terrorists' or 'spies'.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 06-23-2004 - 9:42pm
I have never condoned the abuse of the prisoners, but just stating the facts about the Geneve Conventions, which, from what I have read thus far, are quite specific on its protections and who it protects.

In all honesty, John Walker Lindh legally gave up his citizenship by taking up arms for the Taliban, and he had no righs in our courts and could very well have been held as an enemy combatant in GITMO as long as necessary, without due process, but the Government chose to handle the case differently.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 06-23-2004 - 9:43pm
Too bad that the Geneve Conventions were written 200 years after that war.....sorry....make that 150 years.


Edited 6/24/2004 10:27 am ET ET by debateguy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 06-27-2004 - 12:14pm
Update: Report: CIA suspending harsh interrogation tactics.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/27/cia.prisoners.ap/index.html


The CIA has suspended use of some White House-approved aggressive interrogation tactics employed to extract information from reluctant al Qaeda prisoners, The Washington Post reported Sunday.


Citing unnamed intelligence officials, the newspaper reported that what the CIA calls "enhanced interrogation techniques" were put on hold pending a review by Justice Department and other lawyers.


The techniques include such things as feigned drowning and refusal of pain medication for injuries.


The paper quoted current and former CIA officers aware of the recent decision as saying the suspension reflects the agency's concern about being accused of unsanctioned and illegal activities, as it was in the 1970s.


The decision applies to CIA facilities around the world, but not to military prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere, the Post said. A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the issue, it said.


It said CIA interrogations will continue, but without the suspended techniques, which also include feigning suffocation, "stress positions," light and noise bombardment, sleep deprivation, and making captives think they are being interrogated by another government.


The newspaper said the interrogation methods were approved by Justice Department and National Security Council lawyers in 2002, outlined to congressional leaders and required the authorization of CIA Director George J. Tenet for use.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 06-30-2004 - 12:03pm
New York Times Editorial

Abu Ghraib, Stonewalled

Published: June 30, 2004

While piously declaring its determination to unearth the truth about Abu Ghraib, the Bush administration has spent nearly two months obstructing investigations by the Army and members of Congress. It has dragged out the Army's inquiry, withheld crucial government documents from a Senate committee and stonewalled senators over dozens of Red Cross reports that document the horrible mistreatment of Iraqis at American military prisons. Even last week's document dump from the White House, which included those cynical legal road maps around treaties and laws against torturing prisoners, seemed part of this stonewalling campaign. Nothing in those hundreds of pages explained what orders had been issued to the military and C.I.A. jailers in Iraq, and by whom.

It took the Pentagon more than two weeks to appoint a replacement for Maj. Gen. George Fay, who had to be relieved of the task of investigating the military intelligence units at Abu Ghraib because he was not senior enough to question Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq. The process underscored the inability of the military to investigate itself at this level. The Pentagon named someone of high enough rank — just barely. That officer is a three-star general, as is General Sanchez. He will have to get up to speed before questioning General Sanchez, and the Pentagon will undoubtedly stall again when the new investigating general, inevitably, needs to go yet higher.

The Pentagon has also not turned over to the Senate the full report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who conducted the Army's biggest investigation so far into abuses at Abu Ghraib. The Pentagon has still not accounted for the 2,000 pages missing from his 6,000-page file when it was given to the Senate Armed Services Committee more than a month ago; the missing pages include draft documents on interrogation techniques for Iraq. The committee's chairman, Senator John Warner, said last week that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had assured him that he was working on the problem. Mr. Warner's faith seems deeply misplaced.

Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of another issue, the Red Cross reports on Iraq, is the most outrageous example of the administration's bad faith on the prison scandal. The Bush administration has cited Red Cross confidentiality policies to explain its failure to give up the reports. The trouble is, the Red Cross has repeatedly told the administration to go ahead and share the agency's findings with Congress, as long as steps are taken to prevent leaks.

On May 7, the Senate armed services panel asked Mr. Rumsfeld for these reports on widespread abuse in the military prisons in Iraq; one of the reports had already appeared on the Internet. Mr. Rumsfeld assured the committee that he would turn them over, if the Red Cross agreed. Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides have not handed over the reports — 40 in all, including 24 from Iraq. Over the weeks, the Pentagon has assured increasingly angry senators that it was negotiating with the Red Cross, and then offered the rather absurd claim that it was still "collecting" the documents.

In fact, the International Red Cross gave its consent within 24 hours of Mr. Rumsfeld's empty promise, and has repeated it several times.

In late May, Kevin Moley, the American ambassador to the international organizations based in Geneva, invited the head of the Red Cross, Jakob Kellenberger, to "express any concerns" his organization had about giving the documents to Congress. Dr. Kellenberger replied that it was never a problem as long as the documents were kept confidential. Given the administration's habit of selective disclosure, however, Dr. Kellenberger insisted that all of the reports, not just some, be sent to Congress, in their entirety. He has also asked for an inventory of what is shared.

Still, the Pentagon told Senator Warner's committee that it had not worked out an arrangement. On June 15, Christophe Girod, head of the Red Cross delegation in Washington, wrote to Senator Edward Kennedy, a leader in the fight to get the prison reports, that the decision "lies with the U.S. authorities." He confirmed that the Red Cross had given the Pentagon permission to hand over the documents in early May.

Last Thursday, members of the Armed Services Committee attended a closed-door briefing with the Pentagon, ostensibly on the Red Cross reports. But the briefers did not turn over any documents; they merely showed the senators reports on Guantánamo Bay that had no bearing on Iraq.

The Senate is now in a two-week recess. In one of the few signs of life on Capitol Hill on this issue, Mr. Warner promises to resume his hearings after the recess. But even the Red Cross in Geneva has got it figured out: the administration has no intention of cooperating. It's time for the Republican majority in Congress to stop covering for the White House and compel the administration, by subpoena if necessary, to turn over all documents relating to Abu Ghraib — starting with those Red Cross reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30WED1.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 06-30-2004 - 12:19pm

>"It's time for the Republican majority in Congress to stop covering for the White House and compel the administration, by subpoena if necessary, to turn over all documents relating to Abu Ghraib — starting with those Red Cross reports."<


How much longer can they keep these reports secret? I'm sick of the stonewalling & secrets of this admin.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 06-30-2004 - 4:43pm
<>

I don't think the Republican party is going to crack until after the election. If they can keep it secret until November, there may be no outcry. As far as I can tell the Democrats are treading water.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 07-03-2004 - 10:10am

Update, 3-6-04:





US PROBES NEW ABUSE CASE


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13148237,00.html


The US military has confirmed it is investigating a new allegation of prisoner abuse - this time in Afghanistan.



It is the third to be probed in that country in the wake of revelations of detainee abuse in Iraq.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 07-03-2004 - 10:23am

3 GIs charged in Iraqi's drowning.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-soldier03.html


Three U.S. soldiers have been charged with manslaughter in the drowning of an Iraqi detainee who was forced to jump off a bridge near Baghdad in January, the military said Friday.


A fourth soldier, who like the three others is from Fort Carson, faces charges for allegedly ordering a second Iraqi to jump. That man survived.

The Army said the drowning happened in the Tigris River in the city of Samarra. Both Iraqis were civilians who had been detained for a curfew violation, Army spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington said.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages