| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

TORTURE- NEWS AND COMMENTARY

Page history last edited by PBworks 16 years, 1 month ago

We will be demonstrating tomorrow, February 18 at 9:00am at the intersection of La Canada/Esperanza in Green Valley.  Some of us are well over 80 years old.  We welcome some younger people with a  passion for peace to join us.

"We have suffered terrible casualties in the war with the Islamic Terrorists, but the only real victory they've achieved was the one the bush administration handed them when it replaced law with vengeance and sanctioned torture. "  Tim Rutten, an LA Times columnist in the LATimes-Washington Post 2/4.   timothy.rutten!latinmes.com

-------------------------------------

 

 

Teepen: Canada's slap at U.S. torture policies pains Washington

Cox News Service

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

http://www.news-journal.com/opin/contents/shared/news/storied/2008/01/Teepen_Column_0122_Cox.html

Ah, life's little embarrassing moments.

The United States finds itself identified in a training manual for Canadian diplomats as a country that sometimes abuses and tortures prisoners. The notice puts us in a rogues' gallery that also includes Afghanistan, Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and more.

Washington has protested, so far only informally, as has similarly listed Israel. The U.S. ambassador to Canada said, "We find it to be offensive for us to be on the same list with countries like Iran and China. Quite frankly, it's absurd."

Indeed, the listing is offensive – all the more so for coming from a country that likes us, more or less, more often than not.

But the good news is that the offense is easily righted. All we have to do is stop torturing.

(Let me pause here to take a probably futile stab at pre-emption. Every time I write about this issue, I get barraged with e-mails that typically resort to harrumphing, defensively, that at least we don't behead prisoners. Indeed we don't. I find little honor there. Do we really want to sail the world under a banner proclaiming such a feeble boast?)

The brute facts of the matter are that we have set up secret prisons around the world where we submit prisoners to practices that are accounted, at a minimum, lawlessly abusive by international law. We have shipped prisoners to countries notorious for torture. FBI personnel seconded to Guantanamo a few years ago reported and deplored the tactics used there. Ditto top U.S. military legal officers.

The Bush administration has lowered our standards to the point where we now actually debate just how much torture is acceptable and what kinds are OK.

Thanks to its kept attorneys general, the White House has been able to operate behind a scrim of seeming legality. At one point, the degraded Justice Department limited the definition of torture to practices that could kill or could cause major organ failure or permanent, serious physical damage.

Although it has pulled back from some of the extremes it previously indulged, the White House still refuses to recognize that waterboarding — which nearly drowns prisoners repeatedly — is beyond the pale.

Waterboarding was a favorite of the Inquisition – the medieval Olympics of torture. The practice is illegal under international law and under U.S. criminal and military law. Nonetheless, the president equivocates.

In a recent speech to the American Bar Association, Tom Ridge, the first head of the Homeland Security Department, had no uncertainty. "There's no doubt in my mind — under any set of circumstances — waterboarding is torture," he said, adding "...Waterboarding was, is — and will always be — torture."

If we managed to defeat the German Nazis and the Japanese militarists in World War II without rivaling them in atrocities — and of course we did — we can hold to our principles and still overcome radical Islam's terrorists.

Bush's willingness to discard those principles actually makes the task harder. Tom Ridge had that right, too: "One of America's great strengths is the soft power of our value system ..."

That is, it was when we still had a value system.

Tom Teepen is a columnist for Cox Newspapers. He is based in Atlanta.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

CITIZEN-TIMES.com

Here’s how to close Guantanamo


 

This January marks six years since the first detainees arrived at the U.S.-controlled detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba—the symbol of U.S. human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of national security. Since its creation, Guantánamo Bay has held more than 755 men from roughly 45 countries. Many of them have been interrogated using methods that amount to torture or ill-treatment. Only 10 have ever been charged with a crime.

President George W. Bush has said that he wants to close Guantánamo. What is he waiting for? He can announce now that Guantánamo will close and that all the detainees will either be charged and tried in a U.S. court without further delay –- or released immediately.

Many officials have questions about public security on the one hand and the safety of the detainees on the other. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said, “I hear some critics say we should close down Guantánamo and yet no one is willing to offer the United States an alternative.”

Gonzales is right; closing Guantánamo is not without its challenges. Regardless, the Bush administration has the moral and legal responsibility to meet this challenge. Amnesty International, which called for the closure almost two years ago, has developed a framework for shuttering the detention center that respects U.S. concerns for security and assures human rights are protected.

To shut down Guantánamo, first, detainees should either be 1) charged with a crime and given a fair trial or 2) released from detention. For those detainees to be prosecuted, they must be charged with a recognizable crime under law and tried before an independent and impartial tribunal, such as a U.S. federal court, in full accordance with international standards.

The substandard military commissions established by the administration—and rubber-stamped by Congress—will not suffice for trying detainees. These courts do not provide safeguards for a fair trial; they are not independent, statements extracted under torture may be used as evidence and the defendant may be excluded from hearing all of the evidence against him.

For the second group of detainees who are not charged with a crime and then released, the Bush administration needs to provide humane solutions. For example, the United States should release detainees to their countries of origin, unless they are at risk of torture or cruel and inhuman treatment—the principle of non-refoulement. If the detainees cannot return to their countries, the United States should provide them with the opportunity to apply for asylum in the United States. Finally, if a detainee does not wish to remain in the United States and is at risk of abuse in their country of origin, a transfer to a third country should be facilitated.

And of course, the United States has an obligation under international law to provide prompt and adequate reparation for the period that prisoners spent unlawfully detained and other abuses they may have suffered, such as torture. Abiding by this framework, the Bush administration can avoid causing further harm, and instead serve justice in the war on terror.

The Bush administration created the system of detention in which detainees – many of whom were transferred to the facility unlawfully – have been held without charge or trial, outside the framework of international law and without the possibility of full recourse to U.S. courts. Therefore, the administration is responsible for redressing these wrongs, and ensuring that similar policies are not implemented in the future.

The United States was once considered a leader on human rights and an advocate for the rule of law. But actions in the war on terror have caused the world to question our nation’s moral compass. The administration must close Guantánamo as a first step toward ending human rights abuses. It is time for the United States to embrace a new foreign policy that counters terror with justice.


Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Copyright 2008 Asheville Citizen-Times. All rights reserved.

-------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Did Democrats and Republicans Endorse Torture?

by Brent Budowsky | Dec 13 2007 - 7:48am |    The Smirking Chimp

 

 

The reason a special prosecutor is needed in the torture tapes obstruction of justice case, and the reason there is private panic in many Democratic and Republican circles, is that it now appears that some prominent Democrats, along with some prominent Republicans, gave a private thumbs-up to torture in 2002.

Waterboarding is torture. Torture is a crime. Looking at the various creative means of torture that have been publicly reported, the laws that were broken include the Geneva Convention, European law, the U.S. War Crimes Act, the domestic laws of probably a dozen countries at least, especially in Europe, and very possibly the Nuremberg rules.

Flashing back to 2001 and 2002, when torture was instituted and some Democrats and Republicans were briefed: That was the time when most senior Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the Iraq war and voting for the Patriot Act (including the majority in the Congress who did not read the Patriot Act before voting for it).

It would not be surprising, given the political atmosphere of the times in 2001 and 2002, if some senior Democrats as well as senior Republicans joined the torture bandwagon in highly classified briefings. No doubt some did not, but others did.

It is time for truth. It is time for truth without fear. It is time to end torture. It is time for those who were wrong, in either party, to put their wrongness to the side and call for a full and complete investigation, no matter where the truth may lead, because it is clear where the cause of right must stand: End torture now.

My bet is that the president will ultimately issue a mass pardon, including himself and the vice president, which he can do for crimes other than impeachment. My bet is that we will learn that the president and vice president both knew about the destruction of the torture tapes. My bet is that at least some senior Democrats, and close to all senior Republicans who were briefed, gave their approval or assent to torture in classified briefings.

It is time for truth, and only a fully independent special counsel, commonly known as special prosecutor, can get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

While a special counsel investigates the destruction of the torture tapes, specifically whether obstruction was committed and who was complicit, there are other issues that must now be addressed, honorably and fully:

1. Is there evidence in the transcripts of the destroyed torture tapes that torture, in fact, did not provide good information? Is there proof that torture does not work?

2. Is there evidence in the transcripts of the destroyed torture tapes that bad evidence that was wrong and extracted through torture was used in phony terror scares that always came forward before major elections and major votes in Congress?

3. Now-Attorney General Michael Mukasey dramatically changed his testimony on torture in his confirmation hearings between his first and second days of testimony, and specifically changed his testimony on waterboarding. Was he told between those first and second days, or at any other time, about either the destruction of the torture tapes or any other potential crime involving torture?

4. Exactly who is complicit in the cover-up of the Abu Ghraib crimes that is strongly suggested by the courageous statements of the highly respected Gen. Antonio Taguba and is this related to similar potential crimes of obstruction and cover-up in the torture tapes case?

Don't believe a word that is uttered by these former CIA employees now doing the media rounds, and don't believe a word of the various excuses, evasions and triangulations by administration officials or Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

It is time for a special prosecutor, time for the rule of law, time for the triumph of truth and time to end torture here and now, once and forever, in an America that has rejected torture from the days of George Washington and must reject it now, forever.

[Note: Brent asks that you crosspost your comments to The Hill, where this blog entry also appears. --JT]

_______

 

 

About author

Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit. Left goverment in 1990 for marketing and public affairs business including major corporate entertainment and talent management. He can be reached at brentbbi@webtv.net.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Investigations of the Destruction of CIA Torture Tapes

 

How An ACLU Lawsuit Might Force the Bush Administration To Reveal What Actually Happened

BY  John Dean.   in  The Smirking Chimp   December 14, 2007

 

By my count, there appear to be no less than ten preliminary investigations underway, following the revelation that the CIA destroyed at least two sets of videotapes (containing hundreds of hours of footage) of "advanced interrogation" techniques being employed in terrorism investigations. In fact, every branch of government is now involved.

 

Within the Executive Branch, according to news reports, the CIA's General Counsel and Inspector General are investigating. The Department of Justice is investigating. On Capitol Hill, both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are investigating. In addition, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is inquiring as to whether the Federal Records Act has been violated. And Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, has made preliminary inquiries as well.

 

The Bush Administration has shown that it is not very good at investigating itself, so no one should hold their breath for the outcome of either the CIA or Justice Department investigation. And Attorney General Mukasey has dismissed an independent special counsel inquiry as very premature. The Democratic-controlled Congress could get to the bottom of all this, but one should bear in mind that our elected representatives have yet to get to the bottom of the political firing of U.S. Attorneys (although, to be fair, they did get former Attorney General Gonzales to resign). Today, Congress suffers from a degenerative spinal malady, and while they can bark, they appear unable to bite.

 

There are three court orders that may have been violated, but one in particular strikes me as a very serious problem for the CIA. Accordingly, we may well be in the unique situation in which a pending civil lawsuit might flush out some answers, and the federal judiciary might thus embarrass the other branches into actually taking meaningful action. I say "might" because the Bush Administration thinks nothing of stiffing federal court judges who seek information, and they probably figure they can tap-dance for the federal judiciary - along with all the other inquiries -- until they are out of Washington on January 20, 2009.

Nevertheless, the situation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests by the American Civil Liberties Union, could well force the Bush Administration's hand. An order holding the CIA in contempt of court might get the Administration's attention.

 

The ACLU's Lawsuit, and the Order that the CIA Produce Documents

When word of mistreatment of detainees surfaced, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request targeting the CIA and others on October 7, 2003 and May 25, 2004, seeking records concerning the treatment of all detainees apprehended after September 11, 2001 and held in U.S. custody abroad. This, of course, would mean not only in Guantanamo but in the secret prisons in Eastern Europe operated by the CIA.

Not surprisingly, the government stiffed the request, so the ACLU filed a lawsuit in June 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case ended up in the courtroom of Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. On September 15, 2004, Judge Hellerstein ordered the CIA and other government departments to "produce or identify" all responsive documents by October 15, 2004.

 

The CIA claimed that some of the relevant documents were the subject of an inquiry by the CIA's Office of the Inspector General, so its attorneys requested a stay of the judge's order and an extension of time to comply with the request for other documents. In February 2005, Judge Hellerstein denied the CIA's request for a stay, but he did not enforce the stay immediately when the CIA moved for the judge to reconsider his ruling based on additional evidence from the CIA's Director - as the CIA entered a full-court press to prevent the ACLU from getting anything.

This stalling action had been playing out, when news of the destruction of the tapes became public. Now, in the action before Judge Hellerstein, he ACLU has moved to hold the CIA in contempt of court, based on the Judge's September 15, 2004 ruling. It is difficult to see why the CIA is, in fact, not in contempt, given the nature of the FOIA request and the judge's order.

 

Motion to Hold the CIA In Contempt

On December 6, The New York Times reported that the CIA had destroyed two videotapes of CIA detainees who were being subjected to "aggressive interrogation techniques" - more commonly called torture. The Washington Post soon reported that the destruction of the tapes had occurred in November 2005. CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly acknowledged that destruction, and soon confirmed this statement under oath in testimony to the House and Senate, saying that the destruction had occurred before he became Director.

 

Passing over who did what and why to focus on the situation in Judge Hellerstein's courtroom, on December 12, of this year the ACLU filed a motion to hold the CIA in contempt of court. The ACLU makes a powerful case that the CIA violated Judge Hellerstein's order of September 15, 2005 - issued before the CIA's apparent destruction of the tapes.

 

The Court's Order required the CIA to "produce or identify all responsive documents." Those not produced had to be identified. Classified documents were to be "identified in camera [that is, only to the court] on a log produced to the court." Recall, too, that the FOIA request sought information on the handling of all but a few detainees, who were within the United States.

 

It is well- and long-established law that a court order of this nature requires that the party preserve all information possessed that is responsive to the request. Thus, the CIA was obligated to preserve the tapes even if they were hell-bent on fighting in court to deny them to the ACLU. And as this litigation proceeded, Judge Hellerstein's later orders only served to reinforce that obligation, as a string of precedents makes clear.

 

What Is Next?

In addition to holding the CIA in contempt for destroying tapes that were subject to an FOIA request that surely reached these videos, the ACLU has also requested that the CIA provide some public disclosure of the facts surrounding the destruction of this material. In addition, the ACLU has requested permission to take depositions of those involved, under oath, and has requested that the court issue a further order barring the CIA from destroying, removing, or tampering with other records that are the subject of the ACLU's FOIA request. Finally, the ACLU is seeking costs for its expenses and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

 

How this is resolved depends on one factor: Judge Hellerstein. Doubtless, the CIA will respond with papers proclaiming its innocence, and no doubt denying that it was aware of the destruction. However, this is where the Judge himself - if he does not give the ACLU discovery powers - may demand that the CIA tell him what they have been up to, given his clear prior orders.

 

About the author: John Dean is a columnist for FindLaw and a former counsel to the President

 

As I have written before, judges appointed by Republican presidents tend to throw cases that might embarrass Republican presidents out of their court, as quickly as they can figure out how to do so. Federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, fortunately, do not tend to cower when either Republican or Democratic presidents are involved. A judge ends up with a case like this through a random selection procedure; in this case, the CIA happened to draw a Judge it cannot intimidate, which makes it interesting.

 

More on Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, Who Issued the Videotapes Order

Judge Hellerstein was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1998. An editor of the Columbia Law Review during his law school years, he started his legal career in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps of the Army in 1959-1960. An experienced litigator with a prestigious New York City law firm, he is a highly-respected judge. He works hard, is fair, and is savvy.

He is also a nightmare for the CIA in a case like this, because on June 3, 2005 he ordered the release of four videos from Abu Ghraib, along with dozens of photographs - not withstanding an effort of the government to suppress this material from ever becoming public.

Judge Hellerstein appears to have no tolerance for torture. Unlike his former colleague and now-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who still is not clear that waterboarding is torture, one does not have the sense that Judge Hellerstein suffers from such confusion. While Judge Hellerstein is going to appropriately protect the sources and methods of the CIA, if any judge is going to get to the bottom of this destruction of these records quickly, this is the judge.

_______

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.