June 22, 2007
The CIA's Family Jewels
Washington D.C., June 21, 2007 - The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s, according to declassified documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden announced today that the Agency is declassifying the full 693-page file amassed on CIA's illegal activities by order of then-CIA director James Schlesinger in 1973--the so-called "family jewels." Only a few dozen heavily-censored pages of this file have previously been declassified, although multiple Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed over the years for the documents. Gen. Hayden called the file "a glimpse of a very different time and a very different Agency." The papers are scheduled for public release on Monday, June 25.
"This is the first voluntary CIA declassification of controversial material since George Tenet in 1998 reneged on the 1990s promises of greater openness at the Agency," commented Thomas Blanton, the Archive's director.
Hayden also announced the declassification of some 11,000 pages of the so-called CAESAR, POLO and ESAU papers--hard-target analyses of Soviet and Chinese leadership internal politics and Sino-Soviet relations from 1953-1973, a collection of intelligence on Warsaw Pact military programs, and hundreds of pages on the A-12 spy plane.
The National Security Archive separately obtained (and posted today) a six-page summary of the illegal CIA activities, prepared by Justice Department lawyers after a CIA briefing in December 1974, and the memorandum of conversation when the CIA first briefed President Gerald Ford on the scandal on January 3, 1975.
Then-CIA director Schlesinger commissioned the "family jewels" compilation with a May 9, 1973 directive after finding out that Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and James McCord (both veteran CIA officers) had cooperation from the Agency as they carried out "dirty tricks" for President Nixon. The Schlesinger directive, drafted by deputy director for operations William Colby, commanded senior CIA officials to report immediately on any current or past Agency matters that might fall outside CIA authority. By the end of May, Colby had been named to succeed Schlesinger as DCI, and his loose-leaf notebook of memos totaled 693 pages [see John Prados, Lost Crusader: The Secret Wars of CIA Director William Colby (Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 259-260.]
Seymour Hersh broke the story of CIA's illegal domestic operations with a front page story in the New York Times on December 22, 1974 ("Huge C.I.A. Operation Reported in U.S. Against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years"), writing that "a check of the CIA's domestic files ordered last year… produced evidence of dozens of other illegal activities… beginning in the nineteen fifties, including break-ins, wiretapping, and the surreptitious inspection of mail."
On December 31, 1974, CIA director Colby and the CIA general counsel John Warner met with the deputy attorney general, Lawrence Silberman, and his associate, James Wilderotter, to brief Justice "in connection with the recent New York Times articles" on CIA matters that "presented legal questions." Colby's list included 18 specifics:
1. Confinement of a Russian defector that "might be regarded as a violation of the kidnapping laws."
2. Wiretapping of two syndicated columnists, Robert Allen and Paul Scott.
3. Physical surveillance of muckraker Jack Anderson and his associates, including current Fox News anchor Brit Hume.
4. Physical surveillance of then Washington Post reporter Michael Getler.
5. Break-in at the home of a former CIA employee.
6. Break-in at the office of a former defector.
7. Warrantless entry into the apartment of a former CIA employee.
8. Mail opening from 1953 to 1973 of letters to and from the Soviet Union.
9. Mail opening from 1969 to 1972 of letters to and from China.
10. Behavior modification experiments on "unwitting" U.S. citizens.
11. Assassination plots against Castro, Lumumba, and Trujillo (on the latter, "no active part" but a "faint connection" to the killers).
12. Surveillance of dissident groups between 1967 and 1971.
13. Surveillance of a particular Latin American female and U.S. citizens in Detroit.
14. Surveillance of a CIA critic and former officer, Victor Marchetti.
15. Amassing of files on 9,900-plus Americans related to the antiwar movement.
16. Polygraph experiments with the San Mateo, California, sheriff.
17. Fake CIA identification documents that might violate state laws.
18. Testing of electronic equipment on US telephone circuits.
Read the Documents at
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/index.htm
US may move detainees from Guantanamo to Afghan prison
The Associated Press
Friday, June 22, 2007
US May Move Detainees to Afghan Prison
By DEB RIECHMANN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON, June 22 (AP) -- The United States is helping build a prison in Afghanistan that would take some prisoners now at Guantanamo Bay,
but the White House said Friday that it was not meant as an alternative to the detainee facility in Cuba.
The Bush administration wants to close Guantanamo Bay and move its terror suspects to prisons elsewhere, but says no decision about the status of the facility is imminent. White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said the United States has released about 80 of some 375 detainees, and hopes to transfer several dozen Afghans back to Afghanistan in the near future.
"America does not have any intention of being the world's jailer,"
Perino said, adding that the administration wants other nations to
take their prisoners back, and treat them humanely, but not let them back on the battlefield.
She said President Bush has directed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to work with her counterparts around the world to try to repatriate the detainees to their home countries, make sure that they are held safely
and treated humanely and that they are not allowed to perpetrate acts
of terrorism.
The Guantanamo Bay prison, set up in 2002 to house terror suspects captured in military operations, mostly in Afghanistan, has been a
flashpoint for criticism of the Bush administration at home and abroad.
Human rights advocates and foreign leaders have repeatedly called for
the shutdown of Guantanamo, and the prison is regarded by many as proof
of U.S. double standards on fundamental freedoms in the war on terrorism.
Some of the detainees come from countries that are U.S. allies,
including Britain, Saudi Arabia and Australia. Each of those governments raised complaints about the conditions or duration of detentions, or
about the possibility that detainees might face death sentences.
Senior administration officials said Thursday that a consensus is building for a plan to shut the detention center and transfer detainees to one of more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum-security military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. Perino would not comment on whether detainees were headed to Kansas.
Bush's national security and legal advisers had been scheduled to discuss the move at a meeting Friday, the officials said, but after The Associated Press reported it, the White House said the meeting would not take place that day and no decision on Guantanamo Bay's status is imminent.
Three senior administration officials spoke about the discussions
on condition of anonymity because they were internal deliberations.
Perino said the meeting was canceled "very late" on Thursday because
it was determined that a "meeting wasn't necessary at this time."
"There was going to be a meeting in which Guantanamo detainee issues
were discussed today, but that has been taken off the schedule,"
Perino said Friday. "That doesn't mean that people don't continue
to work on what the president has asked them to do, which is work towards getting that facility closed."
Expected to consult soon, according to the officials, were Rice,
Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace.
June 11, 2007
Court orders release of "enemy combatant" in U.S.
Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:07PM EDT
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush cannot order the military to indefinitely imprison a suspected al Qaeda operative, who is the only foreign national held in the United States as an "enemy combatant," a court ruled on Monday.
The 2-1 appellate ruling was a major setback for Bush's contention in the war on terrorism that he has the power to detain people in the United States without charging them.
The court panel based in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that the Qatari national involved, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, must be released from military custody.
"The decision protects legal residents and citizens from secret detention," said al-Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice in New York.
The fresh blow to Bush's policies, already under scrutiny on Capitol Hill and in military tribunals, followed last week's dismissal of charges against two terrorism suspects at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Judges in those high-profile cases have been considering acceptable standards for trying terrorism suspects since the September 11 attacks.
The Pentagon is asking for reconsideration of the rulings that two were being held in the controversial prison because they were designated only as "enemy combatants," and not "unlawful enemy combatants" as required by a 2006 law crafted after earlier definitions were rejected.
In the case involving al-Marri, who has been held in a U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina, for about four years without charges, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz made a clear distinction for suspects being held in the United States.
"The government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention. For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians -- let alone imprison them indefinitely," she said.
The ruling sent the case back to a federal judge in South Carolina with instructions to direct the defense secretary to release al-Marri from military custody within a reasonable period of time.
The government can transfer him to civilian authorities to face criminal charges, initiate deportation proceedings, hold him as a witness in a grand jury proceeding or detain him for a limited period under the Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law.
MILITARY DETENTION MUST CEASE
"But military detention of al-Marri must cease," Motz concluded in her 77-page ruling rejecting the administration's argument that Bush has the legal power to keep him indefinitely.
She also rejected the argument that the 2006 law passed by the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress takes away such cases from U.S. courts.
Al-Marri entered the United States on September 10, 2001, and was said by a captured al Qaeda member to be there to help operatives planning a second wave of attacks.
Al-Marri was a legal U.S. resident and was initially detained in December 2001 to testify in the investigation of the September 11 attacks.
He later was indicted in Illinois, where he attended school, for credit card fraud, making false statements to the FBI and other charges. Al-Marri pleaded not guilty.
The U.S. government dropped the charges on June 23, 2003, when Bush designated him an enemy combatant and al-Marri was taken to Charleston.
Besides al-Marri, only two others have been held as enemy combatants inside the United States since the hijacked airliner attacks.
In January of 2006, Jose Padilla, who had been held for three years at the same brig in Charleston, had his case transferred to a criminal court in Miami, where his trial is now under way.
And Yaser Esam Hamdi, another U.S. citizen held at the brig for two years, was deported to Saudi Arabia after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 upheld his right to challenge his detention.
The Justice Department said it would appeal the ruling to the entire appeals court.
January 23, 2007
No right to habeas corpus in the US?
Last week US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argued that the US Constitution does not guarantee the right to habeas corpus because it didn't say so explicitly. His reasoning would seem comical, were it not for the fact that the administration takes it all too seriously. Indeed, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminated habeas corpus for all non-citizens, and, as Parry explains below, arguably for citizens as well. In the mind of the Bush Administration, the Executive is all powerful and the Constitution provides no rights against executive power. Once again, it's incumbent upon the courts to restore the rule of law to the United States - and incumbent on the electorate to do away with the Bush administration in the next election.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml
Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
by ROBERT PARRY
In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.
“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.
Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.
“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”
Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”
“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.
While Gonzales’s statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don’t exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.
For instance, the First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.
Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that “the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.
That Attorney General Gonzales would express such an extraordinary opinion, doubting the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, suggests either a sophomoric mind or an unwillingness to respect this well-established right, one that the Founders considered so important that they embedded it in the original text of the Constitution.
Other cherished rights – including freedom of religion and speech – were added later in the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.
Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitution’s granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment, which reads:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.”
Bush's Powers
Gonzales’s Jan. 18 statement suggests that he is still seeking reasons to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to President George W. Bush’s executive powers that Bush’s neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during “a time of war,” even one as vaguely defined as the “war on terror” which may last forever.
In the final weeks of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Bush administration pushed through the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that effectively eliminated habeas corpus for non-citizens, including legal resident aliens.
Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an “unlawful enemy combatant” and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals “kangaroo courts” because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution.
Some language in the new law also suggests that “any person,” presumably including American citizens, could be swept up into indefinite detention if they are suspected of having aided and abetted terrorists.
“Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.
Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that “any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.”
Who has “an allegiance or duty to the United States” if not an American citizen? That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens. This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens.
Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.
The law states that once a person is detained, “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”
That court-stripping provision – barring “any claim or cause of action whatsoever” – would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person can’t file a motion with a court, he can’t assert any constitutional rights, including habeas corpus.
Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights – such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” – would seem to be beyond a detainee’s reach as well.
Special Rules
Under the new law, the military judge “may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings” if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte – or one-sided – communications from the prosecutor or a government representative.
The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it “possesses sufficient probative value” and “the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.”
The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence “while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable.”
During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a “national security privilege” that could stop “the examination of any witness,” presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter.
In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel “star chamber” system for the prosecution, imprisonment and possible execution of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic.
Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants,” Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for “any person” – American citizen or otherwise – who crosses some ill-defined line.
There are a multitude of reasons to think that Bush and advisers will interpret every legal ambiguity in the new law in their favor, thus granting Bush the broadest possible powers over people he identifies as enemies.
As further evidence of that, the American people now know that Attorney General Gonzales doesn’t even believe that the Constitution grants them habeas corpus rights to a fair trial.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' This article is republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.
Note: Also read Deborah Kory's parody: How to Interpret the Ten Commandments -- An attempt at legal analysis of Biblical law following Gonzalesian logic.
January 11, 2007
A voice from Gitmo's darkness
This letter from a prisoer currently imprisoned at Guantanamo was published in the LA Times today. Once again I wonder about its timeliness.
A voice from Gitmo's darkness
A current detainee speaks of the torture and humiliation he has experienced at Guantanamo since 2002.
By Jumah al-Dossari, JUMAH AL-DOSSARI is a 33-year-old citizen of Bahrain. This article was excerpted from letters he wrote to his attorneys. Its contents have been deemed unclassified by the Department of Defense.
January 11, 2007
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba — I AM WRITING from the darkness of the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo in the hope that I can make our voices heard by the world. My hand quivers as I hold the pen.
In January 2002, I was picked up in Pakistan, blindfolded, shackled, drugged and loaded onto a plane flown to Cuba. When we got off the plane in Guantanamo, we did not know where we were. They took us to Camp X-Ray and locked us in cages with two buckets — one empty and one filled with water. We were to urinate in one and wash in the other.
At Guantanamo, soldiers have assaulted me, placed me in solitary confinement, threatened to kill me, threatened to kill my daughter and told me I will stay in Cuba for the rest of my life. They have deprived me of sleep, forced me to listen to extremely loud music and shined intense lights in my face. They have placed me in cold rooms for hours without food, drink or the ability to go to the bathroom or wash for prayers. They have wrapped me in the Israeli flag and told me there is a holy war between the Cross and the Star of David on one hand and the Crescent on the other. They have beaten me unconscious.
What I write here is not what my imagination fancies or my insanity dictates. These are verifiable facts witnessed by other detainees, representatives of the Red Cross, interrogators and translators.
During the first few years at Guantanamo, I was interrogated many times. My interrogators told me that they wanted me to admit that I am from Al Qaeda and that I was involved in the terrorist attacks on the United States. I told them that I have no connection to what they described. I am not a member of Al Qaeda. I did not encourage anyone to go fight for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have done nothing but kill and denigrate a religion. I never fought, and I never carried a weapon. I like the United States, and I am not an enemy. I have lived in the United States, and I wanted to become a citizen.
I know that the soldiers who did bad things to me represent themselves, not the United States. And I have to say that not all American soldiers stationed in Cuba tortured us or mistreated us. There were soldiers who treated us very humanely. Some even cried when they witnessed our dire conditions. Once, in Camp Delta, a soldier apologized to me and offered me hot chocolate and cookies. When I thanked him, he said, "I do not need you to thank me." I include this because I do not want readers to think that I fault all Americans.
But, why, after five years, is there no conclusion to the situation at Guantanamo? For how long will fathers, mothers, wives, siblings and children cry for their imprisoned loved ones? For how long will my daughter have to ask about my return? The answers can only be found with the fair-minded people of America.
I would rather die than stay here forever, and I have tried to commit suicide many times. The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people, and I have been destroyed. I am hopeless because our voices are not heard from the depths of the detention center.
If I die, please remember that there was a human being named Jumah at Guantanamo whose beliefs, dignity and humanity were abused. Please remember that there are hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo suffering the same misfortune. They have not been charged with any crimes. They have not been accused of taking any action against the United States.
Show the world the letters I gave you. Let the world read them. Let the world know the agony of the detainees in Cuba.
December 6, 2006
Lawyers Demand Release of Chinese Muslims
Court Documents Allege Lengthy Detainment at Guantanamo Is Part of Deal With
Beijing
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; A13
Attorneys for a group of Chinese Muslims held for nearly five years in the
U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, filed suit yesterday, asking that
the men be released immediately and alleging that they have been held as
part of a political deal between the United States and China.
Citing new laws that allow detainees to challenge their status as "enemy
combatants," the lawyers argue that their seven clients -- ethnic Uighurs
(pronounced wee-gurs) -- have never taken up arms against the United States or its
allies. They contend that the men have been labeled wrongfully as terrorist
suspects because they oppose the Communist Chinese government.
In a 58-page filing at the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, the lawyers argue that the Uighurs have been held since early 2002 as a
way to win Chinese acquiescence for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The lawyers -- Sabin Willett and Susan Baker Manning -- allege in the court
documents that their clients' detention was one of several demands the Chinese
government solicited in mid-2002 as the United States was seeking global
support for toppling Saddam Hussein.
U.S. officials labeled the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) -- a group
that includes Uighur separatists who want their own nation in western China
-- a terrorist organization in August 2002 after diplomatic discussions with
China about Iraq, the lawyers allege.
"In the crisis atmosphere of the time, the interests of a few dozen refugees
paled beside the urgency of the Administration's war plans," the lawsuit
said. "The Iraq deal sealed the fate of the seven petitioners here. More than
four years have passed. Long-discarded pawns in a diplomatic match between
superpowers, petitioners today remain illegally imprisoned at Guantanamo."
Former State Department officials acknowledged in interviews that they
negotiated with China about placing ETIM and another group on a list of known
terrorist organizations, and that ETIM was added after intelligence reports
indicated the group had killed innocent people. The officials said, however, that
labeling the group as terrorists had no effect on Uighurs already in U.S.
custody, who were believed to be cooperating with the Taliban and al-Qaeda near
Tora Bora, Afghanistan.
Then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage met with Chinese officials
in Beijing in late August 2002 and discussed the Iraq situation with them.
He said at the time that ETIM was placed on the foreign terrorist list after
months of discussions with China. He also said he made clear that China needed
to respect the minority Uighur population.
"They had been after us to put ETIM on the list," Armitage said in a recent
interview. He said the decision did not have anything to do with winning
China's tacit approval on the Iraq invasion. "But at the time, we didn't know when
we were going to invade Iraq. It was done in response to information
gathered by the intelligence group."
The Uighurs have been a diplomatic headache for the United States. U.S.
officials working to negotiate the release of five other Uighurs held at
Guantanamo who were determined not to be a threat to U.S. interests refused to return
them to China out of concern they could be tortured or killed. More than two
dozen countries declined requests to take them in, and the United States has
been unwilling to allow them to come here.
Earlier this year, those five Uighurs were released to a U.N. compound in
Albania, where they remain virtual prisoners.
Pierre-Richard Prosper, who formerly led U.S. negotiations with other
countries over Guantanamo detainees, said that China wanted custody of the Uighurs
but that the United States staved off Beijing because of human rights
concerns. "We tried for many months to reach an understanding with China regarding
the fate of the Uighurs and were unable to do so," he said.
More than a dozen Uighurs are still in Guantanamo. U.S. officials have
determined them to be enemy combatants because of their participation in an
alleged terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, which all fled when the United
States started bombing the area after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The Uighurs have told military court officials they were not allied with the
Taliban and are sympathetic to the United States, which they view as a
liberator. They said they were living in a small community in Afghanistan after
fleeing oppression in China.
According to military tribunal records and court filings, the men were lured
to a mosque in Pakistan, where they were arrested and later turned over to
Pakistani authorities. Willett said he believes the men were sold to the United
States for sizable bounties and were sent to Guantanamo along with many
other detainees captured there.
The lawyers challenge the way the Uighurs were determined to be enemy
combatants, arguing that their encampment in Afghanistan did not make them a party
to hostilities. The Uighurs have said the United States allowed a Chinese
delegation to visit and interrogate them after their capture, and that the
Chinese threatened them. A U.S. official confirmed that the Chinese were allowed
to question the Uighurs.
"It is amazing to me that the U.S. has agreed to, in effect, hold political
prisoners for China in exchange for anything," Manning said. "That goes
against everything that we, I thought, stood for in this country."
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
December 3, 2006
U.S. Supreme Court refuses to consider case involving professor and his FBI file
Cherif Bassiouni is one of the most important figures in international human rights and humanitarian law. He's the former Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan, appointed by the UNHCHR. He's been in a number of UM Human Rights Commissions. He has even been nominated for the Nobel Prize. And he's being watch by the FBI. And according to an appeals court, at least, well they should. A view that the US Supreme Court seems to agree with.
If Bassiouni, as important as he is, and as open as his work is (after all, he is reporting to the UN) is under constant observation - what can be said about the rest of us? We've heard about police departments infiltrating local peace organizations, and most of us in the human rights world, I imagine, assume are being observed as well. The FBI probably knows an awful lot about my fights with my husband, my frustrations with my kids and my views on local politics. They probably know much less about my actual sources and work - PGP is a wonderful tool -, but still, it could be never wracking to know they are watching you. And they are doing so while you pursue perfectly legal, morally imperative activities.
Apparently there isn't much we can do about it, at least legally.
The Associated Press
27 November 2006
U.S. Supreme Court refuses to consider case involving professor and his FBI file
WASHINGTON, Nov 27 (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to
consider the case of a Nobel Peace Prize-nominated law professor who wants the U.S. government to expunge his FBI file.
A federal appeals court found that information the government gathered
on Cherif Bassiouni is pertinent to authorized law enforcement activity
as part of President George W. Bush's campaign against terror. The records are important for evaluating the reliability of FBI intelligence sources, the appeals court found.
The government argued in the lower courts that even though Bassiouni
is not a member of any terror organization, agents probably will
continue to receive information about him because of his travels
in the Middle East.
Bassiouni, an Egyptian who teaches in the United States, is
serving the United Nations as an independent expert on human rights
in Afghanistan and was chairman of the U.N. Security Council's
commission to investigate war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.
In 1999, Bassiouni was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for
his work on international criminal justice and for his contribution
to the creation of the International Criminal Court.
Bassiouni was among the U.N. human rights experts expressing
concern about possible irreversible psychiatric symptoms insome
terrorism suspects from virtual solitary confinement at the
U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The case is Bassiouni v. FBI, 06-142 ____________________________________________________________________
BASSIOUNI, MAHMOUD C. v. FBI
06-142
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
November 27, 2006, Decided
JUDGES: [*1] Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito.
OPINION: The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
###
November 14, 2006
German Prosecutor Asked to Investigate Rumsfeld
November 14, 2006
NYT
German Prosecutor Asked to Investigate Rumsfeld
By MARK LANDLER FRANKFURT, Nov. 14 -- Emboldened by the resignation
last week of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, lawyers today
asked a German prosecutor to investigate Mr. Rumsfeld on allegations
of war crimes, stemming from the treatment of prisoners held in
military jails in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The 220-page lawsuit, filed with the German federal prosecutor in
Karlsruhe, names 11 other current and former American officials,
including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whom it alleges
either ordered the torture of prisoners or drafted laws that
legitimated its use.
The suit, filed by civil rights legal groups on behalf of 12
detainees -- 11 Iraqis and a Saudi -- alleges they were subjected to
beatings, sleep deprivation, withholding of food, and sexual
humiliation.
"Even if we never put Rumsfeld on trial in a German court, he will be
harassed and publicly stamped as a torturer," said Wolfgang Kaleck, a
Berlin attorney who filed the complaint, together with the Center for
Constitutional Rights, an American group, and other legal organizations.
Mr. Kaleck acknowledged that Germany would be reluctant to prosecute
top American officials. But he described a protracted legal
procedure, during which he suggests Mr. Rumsfeld might encounter
trouble traveling to Germany or other European Union countries.
Lawyers, he said, were also ready to file complaints in Spain,
Belgium, Argentina and other nations.
For Mr. Rumsfeld, who is soon to lose the legal protection of his
Cabinet post, the prospect of foreign lawsuits could be an irritant
when he travels overseas as a private citizen, according to legal
experts.
A spokeswoman for the Pentagon, Cynthia Smith, declined to comment on
the lawsuit because she had not seen it. The Pentagon denies
torturing detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad or at
Guantanamo.
The German prosecutor's office confirmed it had received the document
and said it would begin reviewing it.
This is the second time lawyers have asked German prosecutors to
investigate Mr. Rumsfeld. Prosecutors turned down a request in
February 2005, saying that German courts should not assert
jurisdiction in a case that would be better handled by prosecutors in
the United States.
The lawyers contend that almost two years later, the United States
has done little to investigate the role of senior Bush administration
officials in the treatment of prisoners who are suspected terrorists.
Moreover, they contend, the Military Commissions Act, passed by
Congress in September, will make it harder to prosecute American
officials at home for alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions.
The act provides retroactive immunity dating to the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001.
"We've had two years of complete inaction by the Bush
administration," said Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human
Rights Watch, which is supporting the case. "They've been very good
at prosecuting lower-level officials, but done nothing to investigate
high-level officials."
The lawsuit is ambitious, naming not only Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr.
Gonzales, but also John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, two former Justice
Department lawyers who helped draft the Bush administration's legal
arguments for treatment of suspected terrorists. It also names Lt.
Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the military's former commander in Iraq.
Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, who commanded Abu Ghraib and was
punished for the abuses there, has offered to testify.
While the first lawsuit focused on Abu Ghraib, this one includes as a
plaintiff Mohammed al- Qahtani, a Saudi who is believed by many to
have participated in the planning of the Sept. 11 attacks. A lawyer
for Mr. al-Qahtani, who is being held in Guantanamo, alleges that his
client was subjected to abuse authorized by Mr. Rumsfeld.
The lawyers said they chose to file the suit in Germany for legal and
political reasons. German law has the principle of universal
jurisdiction, under which courts are entitled to prosecute people for
war crimes, regardless of where they live or where the crimes were
committed.
Germany, despite its opposition to the war in Iraq, also has a web of
connections to the United States military. Several military officials
implicated in the mistreatment at Abu Ghraib were stationed at
American bases in Germany; some returned to Germany after their tours
in Iraq.
American air bases in Germany are used for military flights to and
from Iraq. The German Parliament is investigating whether some of
those flights included transfers of suspected terrorists to secret
prisons -- the so-called rendition program run by the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The lawsuit comes at an awkward time for Chancellor Angela Merkel,
who has been trying to put German-American relations on a firmer
footing after the deep mistrust generated by the Iraq war.
Prosecuting high-level officials for war crimes in foreign countries
has a patchy record, according to legal experts. A Spanish judge was
unable to win the extradition of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean
dictator, to face trial there for crimes against humanity. But
General Pinochet was held in London, and later returned to Chile.
Last month, the 90-year-old was put under house arrest in Santiago on
charges including kidnapping, torture and murder at a secret
detention center in the early years of his rule.
Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, has been sought for
questioning by courts in numerous countries about American
involvement with various Latin American dictatorships in the 1970's.
"If I were Rumsfeld's travel agent, I would advise him to choose some
other part of 'old Europe,' " said Detlev F. Vagts, emeritus
professor of international law at Harvard Law School. "There is some
danger out there."
The timing of today's lawsuit was not directly tied to Mr. Rumsfeld's
resignation, according to Mr. Kaleck. The lawyers waited until the
week after the elections in the United States to avoid being labeled
political. Still, they said, Mr. Rumsfeld's departure gives the
lawsuit an extra edge.
"Rumsfeld now seems to be less protected than he was before," said
Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional
Rights, which is paying for part of the legal campaign.
Neil A. Lewis contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/2931264/
Center for Constitutional Rights
Background Brief on the case against Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others.
Filed in Germany on Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Executive Summary of the Complaint’s Allegations:
From Donald Rumsfeld on down, the political and military leaders in charge of ordering, allowing and implementing abusive interrogation techniques in the context of the “War on Terror” since September 11, 2001, must be investigated and held accountable. The complaint alleges that American military and civilian high-ranking officials named as defendants in the case have committed war crimes against detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the U.S.-controlled Guantánamo Bay prison camp.
The complaint alleges that the defendants “ordered” war crimes, “aided or abetted” war crimes, or “failed, as civilian superiors or military commanders, to prevent their commission by subordinates, or to punish their subordinates,” actions that are explicitly criminalized by German law. The U.S. administration has treated hundreds if not thousands of detainees in a coercive manner, in accordance with “harsh interrogation techniques” ordered by Secretary Rumsfeld himself that legally constitute torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in blatant violation of the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1984 Convention Against Torture and the 1977 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- to all of which the United States is a party. Under international humanitarian treaty and customary law, and as re-stated in German law, these acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment constitute war crimes.
The U.S. torture program that resulted in war crimes was aided and abetted by the government lawyers also named in this case: former Chief White House Counsel (and current Attorney General) Alberto R. Gonzales, former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, and General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II. While some of them claim to merely have given legal opinions, those opinions were false, or clearly erroneous, and given in a context where it was known and foreseeable to these lawyers that torture would be the result. Not only was torture foreseeable, but this legal advice was given to facilitate and aid and abet torture as well as to attempt to immunize those who tortured. Without these opinions, the torture program could not have occurred. The infamous “Torture Memo” dated August 1, 2002, is the key document that redefined torture so narrowly that such classic and age old torture techniques as
wate
r-boarding were authorized to be employed and were employed by U.S. officials against detainees.
Why Germany?
The complaint is being filed under the Code of Crimes against International Law (CCIL), enacted by Germany in compliance with the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court in 2002, which Germany ratified. The CCIL provides for “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes, crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. It enables the German Federal Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes constituting a violation of the CCIL, irrespective of the location of the defendant or plaintiff, the place where the crime was carried out, or the nationality of the persons involved.
No international courts or personal tribunals in Iraq were mandated to conduct investigations and prosecutions of responsible U.S. officials. The United States has refused to join the International Criminal Court, thereby foreclosing the option of pursuing a prosecution in international courts. Iraq has no authority to prosecute. Furthermore, the U.S. gave immunity to all its personnel in Iraq from Iraqi prosecution. All this added to the United States’ unquestionable refusal to look at the responsibility of those of the very top of the chain of command and named in the present complaint, and the recent passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (see below) aimed at preventing war crimes prosecutions against Americans in the U.S., German courts are seen as a last resort to obtain justice for those victims of abuse and torture while detained by the United States.
The Plaintiffs in the Case:
The complaint is being filed on behalf of 11 Iraqi citizens who were victims of gruesome crimes at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. They were severely beaten, deprived of sleep and food, sexually abused, stripped naked and hooded, and exposed to extreme temperatures.
Another plaintiff in the case is Mohammed al Qahtani, a Saudi citizen detained at Guantánamo since January 2002. At Guantánamo, Mr. al Qahtani was subjected to a regime of aggressive interrogation techniques, known as the “First Special Interrogation Plan,” that were authorized by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and implemented under the supervision and guidance of Secretary Rumsfeld and the commander of Guantánamo, defendant Major General Geoffrey Miller. These methods included fifty days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory over-stimulation.
None of these plaintiffs -- and the hundreds of other detainees subjected to similar abuses -- has seen justice, and none of those who authorized these techniques at the top of the chain of command have been held liable for it, or even seriously and independently investigated.
The Defendants in the Case:
The U.S. high-ranking officials charged include:
-- Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
-- Former CIA Director George Tenet
-- Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Stephen Cambone
-- Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez
-- Major General Walter Wojdakowski
-- Major General Geoffrey Miller
-- Colonel Thomas Pappas
-- Former Chief White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales
-- Former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee
-- Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo
-- General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II
-- Vice President Chief Counsel David S. Addington
The 2004 Complaint:
In November 2004, the previous German Federal Prosecutor failed to prosecute an earlier complaint against many of these same defendants filed by CCR with the support of FIDH and RAV. The U.S. pressured Germany to drop the case, saying not doing so would jeopardize U.S.-German relations, and the complaint was ultimately dismissed in February 2005 on the eve of a visit by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Munich, Germany. In dismissing the case, the Prosecutor stated: “there are no indications that the authorities and courts of the United States of America are refraining, or would refrain, from penal measures as regards the violations described in the complaint.” The passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 immunizing officials and others from prosecution and much new evidence shows this is not the case.
The Impact of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:
The Military Commissions Act was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and it protects U.S. officials and military personnel by:
1) narrowing the grounds of criminal liability under the War Crimes Act and making those revisions retroactive to November 26, 1997; and by
2) retroactively extending a defense for criminal prosecutions related to detentions and interrogations back to September 11, 2001.
These immunizing provisions essentially grant an amnesty for international crimes, including war crimes and torture. The retroactivity provision directs that prosecutions of war crimes committed since 1997 will fall under the new, narrowed range of standards and interpretations of war crimes, which would protect civilians from being prosecuted for committing acts that would have been considered war crimes under the old definition -- thereby explicitly aiming at immunizing American officials and others from prosecution in their country.
How the 2006 Complaint Is a Stronger Case:
The grounds for the 2005 dismissal are no longer justified:
The prosecutor’s original decision to dismiss the case was solely based on the assumption that an ongoing investigation was being carried out in the U.S. regarding the Abu Ghraib scandal. We now have extensive evidence that demonstrates that this investigation was directed only towards the criminal culpability of the lowest ranking military personnel. Indeed, some of these very defendants have been, or are being, rewarded with higher-level appointments and medals. The investigative and prosecutorial functions in the United States are currently directly controlled by the ones involved in the conspiracy to perpetrate war crimes and named in this complaint, which politically blocks possible investigations and criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is unquestionably the clearest illustration of such unwillingness to prosecute Americans for war crimes.
New evidence:
Extraordinary new materials, documentation and testimonies that have come to light over the past two years -- about what the plaintiffs went through (Mr. al Qahtani is a new plaintiff to the case), about the signed memos that led to the justification and practice of torture, and about the defendants’ personal involvement -- only strengthen the case.
In addition, former U.S. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, a defendant in the earlier complaint as the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib, is now providing testimony and will testify on behalf of the plaintiffs.
New additional defendants:
The new complaint charges the government lawyers alleged to be the legal architects of the Bush Administration’s practice of torture.
Rumsfeld can no longer claim sovereign immunity:
Rumsfeld’s resignation on November 8, 2006, means that he cannot claim either the functional or personal immunity of sovereign officials from international prosecution for war crimes. Functional immunity -- related to acts performed in the exercise of a person’s official functions -- does not, since the Nuremberg trials in 1945, apply to international crimes such as war crimes. As to personal immunity -- covering officials’ private acts accomplished while in office -- it only applies during the individual’s term of office.
Unprecedented support for the case:
When filing a complaint to the Federal Prosecutor, any group may join the complaint as a “co-plaintiff,” which demonstrates the support of these groups and their common request for the opening of an investigation. Co-plaintiffs in the present case include:
Individuals
1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aldolfo Perez Esquirel (Argentine),
2002 Alternative Nobel Peace Prize winner Martín Almada (Paraguay),
Theo van Boven, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture,
Sister Dianna Ortiz, (Torture survivor, Executive Director of TASSC)
International and Regional NGOs
FIDH: International Federation for Human Rights
The International Peace Bureau (Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1910)
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA)
European Democratic Lawyers
European Democratic Jurists,
International Association of Democratic Lawyers
National NGOs
Argentina: Comité de Acción Jurídica (CAJ)
Argentina: Liga Argentina por los Derechos del Hombre
Bahrain: Bahrain Human Rights Society (BHRS)
Canada: Lawyers against the War (LAW)
Colombia: Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo
Democratic Republic of Congo: Association Africaine des Droits de l’Homme (ASADHO)
Egypt: Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR)
France: Ligue Française des Droits de l'Homme (LDH)
Germany: The Republican Attorneys' Association (RAV)
Jordan: Amman Center for Human Rights Studies (ACHR)
Mexico: Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH)
Mexico: Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (LIMEDDH)
Nicaragua: Centro Nicaraguense de Derechos Humanos (CENIDH)
Palestine: Palestinian Center for Human Rights
Tchad: Association Tchadienne pour la Promotion et la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (ATPDH)
Senegal: Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO)
USA: The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
USA: National Lawyers’ Guild (NLG)
USA: Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC)
USA: Veterans for Peace
US: Immigrants May Be Held Indefinitely
US: Immigrants May Be Held Indefinitely
- By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on
suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in
civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new
legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.
In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism
law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to
foreigners captured and held in the United States.
Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001
while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy
combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips
foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.
That law is being used to argue the Guantanamo Bay cases, but Al- Marri represents the first detainee inside the United States to come
under the new law. Aliens normally have the right to contest their
imprisonment, such as when they are arrested on immigration
violations or for other crimes.
"It's pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can
be denied this right," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al- Marri. "It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can
be whisked off at night and be put in detention."
The new law says that enemy combatants will be tried before military
commissions, not a civilian judge or jury, and establishes different
rules of evidence in the cases. It also prohibits detainees from
challenging their detention in civilian court.
In a separate court filing in Washington on Monday, the Justice
Department defended that law as constitutional and necessary.
Government attorneys said foreign fighters arrested as part of an
overseas military action have no constitutional rights and are being
afforded more legal rights than ever.
In its short filing in the Al-Marri case, however, the Justice
Department doesn't mention that Al-Marri is being held at a military
prison in South Carolina — a fact that his attorneys say affords him
the same rights as anyone else being held in the United States.
The Justice Department noted only that the new law applies to all
enemy combatants "regardless of the location of the detention."
The Bush administration maintains that al-Marri is an al-Qaida
sleeper agent. The Defense Department ordered a review of Al-Marri's
status as an enemy combatant be conducted if, as requested, the case
is thrown out of court.
October 26, 2006
VP Cheney confirms detainees subjected to water-boarding
The US administration is responding to allegation of torturing prisoners, by admitting the actions but claiming they are not torture. Torture is defined under the International Convention Against Torture as:
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession..."
The UN Committee Against Torture has already condemned the use of waterboarding as constituting torture or cruel or degrading treatment, and a violation of the Convention against Torture, to which the US is a part.
Waterboarding, called submarino in Spanish, is a common torture technique. The victim has their face introduced in water until he is almost close to drowning.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/15847911.htm
McClatchy News Wire
Wed, Oct. 25, 2006
Cheney confirms that detainees were subjected to water-boarding
By Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON, Oct 25 (MCT) - Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed
that U.S. interrogators subjected captured senior al Qaida suspects
to a controversial interrogation technique called "water-boarding,"
which creates a sensation of drowning.
Cheney indicated that the Bush administration doesn't regard water-boarding
as torture and allows the CIA to use it. "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney
said at one point in an interview.
Cheney's comments, in a White House interview on Tuesday with a conservative
radio talk show host, appeared to reflect the Bush administration's view that
the president has the constitutional power to do whatever he deems necessary
to fight terrorism.
The U.S. Army, senior Republican lawmakers, human rights experts and many
experts on the laws of war, however, consider water-boarding cruel, inhumane
and degrading treatment that's banned by U.S. law and by international treaties
that prohibit torture. Some intelligence professionals argue that it often
provides false or misleading information because many subjects will tell their
interrogators what they think they want to hear to make the water-boarding stop.
Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey
Graham of South Carolina have said that a law Bush signed last month prohibits
water-boarding. The three are the sponsors of the Military Commissions Act,
which authorized the administration to continue its interrogations of enemy
combatants.
Graham, a military lawyer who serves in the Air Force Reserve, reaffirmed
that view in an interview last week with McClatchy Newspapers.
"Water-boarding, in my opinion, would cause extreme physical and psychological
pain and suffering, and it very much could run afoul of the War Crimes Act,"
he said, referring to a 1996 law. "It could very much open people up to
prosecution under the War Crimes Act, as well as be a violation of the
Detainees Treatment Act."
A revised U.S. Army Field Manual published last month bans water-boarding
as "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."
"There is a disconnect between the president and the vice president
and on the other side leading proponents from their own party and
leading experts on the laws of war," said Neal Sonnett, the chairman of
the American Bar Association's Task Force on Enemy Combatants.
The radio interview Tuesday was the first time that a senior
Bush administration official has confirmed that U.S. interrogators
used water-boarding against important al Qaida suspects, including Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Mohammed was captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003, and turned over to the CIA.
Water-boarding means holding a person's head under water or pouring water
on cloth or cellophane placed over the nose and mouth to simulate drowning
until the subject agrees to talk or confess.
In an interview on Tuesday, Scott Hennen of WDAY Radio in Fargo, N.D.,
told Cheney that listeners had asked him to "let the vice president know
that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it
saves American lives."
"Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face,
would you agree?" Hennen said.
"I do agree," Cheney replied, according to a transcript of the interview
released Wednesday. "And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with
respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be
able to secure the nation."
Cheney added that Mohammed had provided "enormously valuable information
about how many (al Qaida members) there are, about how they plan, what their
training processes are and so forth. We've learned a lot. We need to be able
to continue that."
"Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?"
asked Hennen.
"It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized
as being the vice president 'for torture.' We don't torture. That's not
what we're involved in," Cheney replied. "We live up to our obligations
in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is,
you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we
need to be able to do that."
Lee Ann McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, denied that Cheney had confirmed
that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding or endorsed the technique.
"What the vice president was referring to was an interrogation program
without torture," she said. "The vice president never goes into what may or
may not be techniques or methods of questioning."
The interview transcript was posted on the White House Web site
( whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/ ).
CIA spokeswoman Michelle Neff said, "While we do not discuss specific
interrogation methods, the techniques we use have been reviewed by the
Department of Justice and are in keeping with our laws and treaty obligations.
We neither conduct nor condone torture."
/McClatchy correspondents James Rosen and Marisa Taylor contributed to
this report./
###
October 24, 2006
France, Germany complicit on grave human rights violations
An investigation is starting into France's alledge role in the Rwandan genocide. Survivors of the genocide claim to have witnessed French soldiers allowing Hutu extremists to enter Tutsi camps.
Meanwhile, AFP reports that German authorities learned a few
weeks after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001
that terror suspects were held and mistreated at a US base
in Bosnia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6079428.stm
France probed on Rwanda genocide
An investigation into France's alleged role in the genocide in Rwanda is
due to begin.
France has been accused by government officials in Rwanda of being complicit
in the killing of 800,000 people.
A panel of respected Rwandans will hear claims that French soldiers stationed
in Rwanda allowed or even encouraged the killings of thousands of Tutsis.
France has denied playing any role in the 100-day frenzy of killing that
took place in 1994.
The panel is headed by former Justice Minister Jean de Dieu Mucyo.
It is to start to hear evidence in public from 25 survivors of the genocide
who claim to have witnessed French involvement.
"This is an important inquiry that should be witnessed by everyone interested
in this important episode of our history," Mr Mucyo was quoted as saying by the
AFP news agency.
French deployment
The panel will determine whether or not to refer the allegations to the
International Court of Justice.
Its findings are expected within six months.
The Rwandan government has alleged that France trained and armed some of
the Hutus who carried out the killing spree in which 800,000 Tutsis and
moderate Hutus died.
French soldiers were deployed in parts of Rwanda in the final weeks of the
genocide under a United Nations mandate to set up a protected zone.
But Rwanda says the soldiers allowed Hutu extremists to enter Tutsi camps.
A French military court is conducting a separate investigation into claims
that French soldiers played a part in the genocide.
Separately, some of Rwanda's most high-profile genocide cases have already
been tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), based
in the Tanzanian town of Arusha.
Twenty-five ringleaders have been convicted since 1997, but the Rwandan
government has expressed frustration at the slow legal process.
Agence France-Presse
24 October 2006
Germany had early warning of US prison abuse in Balkans: press
HAMBURG, Germany, Oct 24 (AFP) - German authorities learned a few
weeks after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001
that terror suspects were allegedly held and mistreated at a US base
in Bosnia, the news weekly Stern reported on Tuesday.
Two officers from the federal police (BKA) and a translator for
the German foreign intelligence service (BND) discovered during
a visit to the US military base in Tuzla, in northeastern Bosnia,
that suspects held there were beaten savagely, the magazine said
in an early extract from its latest edition.
Stern said the German investigators recorded what they saw in
an intelligence document, on which the magazine based its report.
It said that a 70-year-old terror suspect needed 20 stitches to his
scalp after he was repeatedly hit over the head with a rifle butt
while being held at "Eagle Base", as the US camp is called.
The soldier who had beaten him was "visibly proud" of his conduct,
the magazine quoted the report as saying.
It added that one of the German police officials compared what he had witnessed at the US base at Tuzla in late 2001 to Serbian war crimes committed during the Bosnian war.
Neither the BKA nor the BND would comment on the report on Tuesday.
The German government has been accused of colluding with US agents
in the detention of two German citizens, one of Lebanese and one
of Turkish origin.
They were both held in Afghanistan. They have been released and have since their return home claimed that they were visited by German officials while in US detention.
The government of Chancellor Angela Merkel has sternly criticised
the so-called rendition programme of terror suspects and has denied
that there were secret US prisons in Germany, which is home to almost
100 US military facilities.
October 20, 2006
Bush Signs Un-American Military Commissions Act
Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when President Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The president now has Congress's blessing to hold people indefinitely without charge, take away protections from horrific abuses, use hearsay to put people on trial, authorize death penalty trials based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for those accused, lifting our time-honored habeas corpus rules.
"Nothing separates America more from our enemies than our commitment to fairness and the rule of law," said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "But the bill signed today is an historic break because it turns Guantánamo Bay and other U.S. facilities into legal no-man's-lands."
Americans across the political spectrum have serious concerns about this unconstitutional law. From now until the November elections, the ACLU is urging everyone who cares about justice and liberty to tell Congress we need them to stand up to the administration—not rubberstamp these abuses of power.
And voters in four battleground states have voiced a strong preference for House and Senate candidates who will oppose the president's policies on Guantánamo detainees, torture and CIA kidnapping, and secret searches of Americans' private records. Last week the ACLU announced the findings of a poll conducted in Connecticut, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania, four states that will play a strong role in the makeup of the next Congress.
What the poll found is heartening: Those of us who care about liberty and justice are not the minority. For most voters, no matter their party, protecting the civil liberties of all Americans and upholding the Constitution are key issues in the mid-term election. Now, it is essential that concerned citizens speak out as they head to the polls this November. You can take action today to help make civil liberties one of the top issues as people head to the polls next month. Sign our "This November, I'm Voting My Values" pledge and please ask your friends to sign as well.
To see the detailed results of our voter poll, answer the questions yourself and compare your answers to official poll results online at: www.aclu.org/poll
August 2, 2006
United States: The UN Human Rights Committee criticises the US human rights record
OMCT urges the U.S. Government to implement the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee
Geneva, July 31, 2006
The United Nations Human Rights Committee adopted on July 28 2006, strong Concluding Observations after the consideration of United States report on human rights in the U.S. under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was submitted seven years late.
This report issued following consideration of the initial U.S. report contained blatant refusal to comply with many of these recommendations and denotes a complete unwillingness to cooperate with the United Nations and more precisely with the Human Rights Committee said Patrick Mutzenberg from the World Organization Against Torture - OMCT.
During the dialogue with the U.S. Delegation, the Committee sought clarification of various human rights issues, including aspects of the war on terror, minority rights, the death penalty and abuses committed in prison and by police.
Despite the ICCPRs plain language as well as published opinions of the International Court of Justice and the Committee itself, the U.S. maintains that the ICCPR does not apply during times of war or to persons outside its physical territory. The U.S. Delegation repeatedly stated that the interpretation and jurisprudence of the Committee and the International Court of Justice are not binding on the U.S.
Although the U.S. responded as a courtesy to some Committee questions regarding extraterritorial activity, the U.S. failed to address certain serious allegations of violations of Covenant rights, such as secret detention and extraordinary renditions, on the grounds of extraterritorial non-applicability or because the U.S. does not comment on alleged intelligence operations.
In its Concluding Observations, the Committee noted that the U.S. provided only limited information regarding implementation of the ICCPR at the state level. The Committee report strongly criticizes the U.S. human rights record. Among its specific recommendations, the Committee has urged the U.S. Government to immediately abolish all secret detention and ensure () effective recourse against abuses committed by the authorities. Moreover the Human Rights Committee was particularly concerned by the fact that Guantnamo detainees are not permitted to seek review of their treatment or conditions of detention, which is a patent violation of the ICCPR.
The Human Rights Committee also raised concerns about conditions of detention as well as about the application of the death penalty, which is reportedly disproportionately imposed on ethnic minorities and low-income population groups and requested that the US place a moratorium on capital sentences.
OMCT urges the U.S. Government to implement the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee and recall that already in May 2006, the UN Committee Against Torture already recommended the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities.
Background information
All States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) are obliged to submit regular reports to the Human Rights Committee on the implementation of the ICCPRs provisions. States must report initially one year after acceding to the Covenant and thereafter at the Committees request (usually every four years). The Committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of Concluding Observations.
The Human Rights Committee is the body of independent experts that monitors State implementation of the ICCPR. The Committee meets in Geneva or New York and normally holds three sessions per year.
For more information: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/index.htm
World Organisation Against Torture
P.O. Box 21 - 8, rue du Vieux-Billard
CH 1211 Geneva 8, Switzerland
Tel. +41-22-809.49.39 Fax +41-22-809.49.29
February 27, 2006
Photos from the Civil Rights Movement Published
The Alabama newspaper Birmingham News has published a collection of photographs taken by Birmingham News photographers during the civil rights movement and previously unpublished. The photographs, which were found in a forgotten cardboard box in a closet at the newspapers offices, depict the history of the movement in Alabama from 1956 to 1965 and include images that the editors thought too controversial to publish back then.
In all 5,000 photographs were found. The newspaper published over 30 of the photographs in its print edition and has set up a multi-media website where many more of the images appear, along with explanatory captions and interviews with photographers and other protagonists of the era.
Photos from the Civil Rights Movement Published
The Alabama newspaper Birmingham News has published a collection of photographs taken by Birmingham News photographers during the civil rights movement and previously unpublished. The photographs, which were found in a forgotten cardboard box in a closet at the newspapers offices, depict the history of the movement in Alabama from 1956 to 1965 and include images that the editors thought too controversial to publish back then.
In all 5,000 photographs were found. The newspaper published over 30 of the photographs in its print edition and has set up a multi-media website where many more of the images appear, along with explanatory captions and interviews with photographers and other protagonists of the era.