Torture Camp Watch

[ska invita]

From that same thing/Bush speach:

ON SECRET PRISONS

A small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.

-It sounds very innocent, don't it?

 

[ska invita]

They have an unknown number of secret prisons in different countries, but only 14 prisoners altogether??? I doubt it.

as Private Eye points out:

14:
Number of terrorist suspects George W Bush had admitted were detained in CIA prisons in Europe since 9/11

1000:
Number of undeclared CIA flights European Parliament concluded took place over Europe since 2001

 

[ska invita]

What a great chance for the EU to put the boot in...

Actually the EU investigation is unlikely to be anything other than a whitewash - unless they "dig deep" enough to find that:

Document proves European Union agreed to CIA rendition flights

Attempts by European governments to deny knowledge their airports were used by the CIA to fly detainees to facilities where they could be tortured has unravelled. A document obtained by the civil rights group Statewatch confirms that the European Union (EU) agreed to such flights as part of a wider programme of joint security operations with the Bush administration in 2003.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/rend-d17.shtml

 

[zion]

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

In light of ZAMB's question as to whether the Bush administration is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the answer is: not quite.

The ruling in that case stated that the Bush administration's military tribunal system - not yet in operation - would only be constitutional if specifically authorized by Congress. What we are seeing now is the process of Congress deciding whether to authorize military tribunals and under what circumstances. The Bush administration has admitted that, if Congress decides not to authorize military tribunals along the lines the administration wants, then the administration will have to comply. I doubt that in practice they would comply willingly or fully, but nominally at least they will have to do so. I am pleased to see that the Senate Armed Services Committee has rejected the administration's proposals, and sad to see that the House has accepted them. Bill Frist, the Republican leader of the Senate, may well decide to try and circumvent the recommendation of the Armed Services Committee and bring legislation directly to the Senate floor, but legislation brought in that way is much less likely to pass. Given that the difference is one of principle, I think that the most likely outcome is that Congress will as a whole fail to pass legislation authorizing military tribunals, which will prevent military tribunals from coming into operation.

I am certain that secret prisons continue to exist. The ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did not address them.

Americans appear to be ambivalent about the occasional need for torture. And with ambivalence, perhaps, comes a preference for not wanting to know.

I was listening to a discussion today about it on right-wing talk radio ("The O'Reilly Factor"). The argument that right-wing Americans seem to be making is that, in extremis, with the clock ticking, torturing someone might save thousands of lives. This may be so, but under those circumstances I still think that the person doing the torturing should be punished for it. The end does not justify the means, and anyone who decides that it does should be willing to accept the full punishment for that decision.

Even on right-wing talk radio, though, the level of discomfort with what the administration is arguing was very high. Over the past year I have come to see some very right-wing people believe that it would be best for them and for the country as a whole for the Bush administration to go. We will see whether the Democrats can seize control of Congress this fall. If they do, Bush will be effectively crippled for the remainder of his presidency.

the Indian island base of Diego Garcia

I thought Diego Garcia was owned by Britain?

 

[laptop]

In light of ZAMB's question as to whether the Bush administration is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the answer is: not quite.

The ruling in that case stated that the Bush administration's military tribunal system - not yet in operation - would only be constitutional if specifically authorized by Congress.

That's spin, though, isn't it?

Consider this sequence of events:

• President Robertson introduces slavery by executive order
  
• Supreme Court says "fuck off, you can't do that"
  
• Presient Robertson introduces Bill do do the slavery thing

Someone would be trying to spin that as President Robertson complying with SCUSA, wouldn't they?

The interesting bit comes next:

• Congress passes bill
• Supreme Court says the new law is unconsitutional too

 

[zion]

Hi laptop,

No, that's not spin. I toiled through the entire ruling, so I know what it says. However, my statement was incomplete. Though the ruling did not explicitly state this, most legal analysts have concluded that if Congress passes a law approving military tribunals that violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions without explicitly repudiating the United States' signature of those Conventions, then that law will not be constitutional. Of course, that would probably take further litigation to determine. Dont'cha just love it?

Or, in plainer English, this is the core of the ruling: if you don't like the Conventions, take the US out of them up front. Otherwise, suck it up and obey them.

Is that clearer?

Of course, there is ONE example in US history of a US president consciously violating a Supreme Court decision, which is Worcester v. Georgia. The date is June 24, 1832. Reverend Samuel Worcester has been arrested, and convicted of living, and working, among the Cherokees without having a state permit or having sworn an oath of allegiance to the state of Georgia. Before the trial, President Andrew Jackson has officially stated that he has no intention of supporting the Cherokees over the state of Georgia. The Supreme Court rules that the state of Georgia has unfairly tried to exercise control over the Cherokees, contrary to federal law and treaties. The court strikes down most of the anti-Indian laws passed by Georgia, including those seizing their lands and nullifying tribal laws. President Jackson is quoted as saying, "John Marshall has rendered his decision; now let him enforce it." Jackson would ignore the Supreme Court ruling and continue in his efforts to move the Cherokees out of the south and into the Indian Territory, which caused terrible suffering to the Cherokee Nation.

George W Bush clearly cares very desperately about his military tribunals, and about preventing detainees from seeing the evidence before them. If legislation comes through from Congress that he doesn't like, he will probably veto it. The result will be no legislation, no court case and no military tribunals. This is why he didn't bring it before Congress in the first place. However, if matters change from where they are now, and Congress passes a law he likes, there may well be a future Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of that new law. Bush does not, frankly, have the balls or the support to ignore the Supreme Court on this.

 

[laptop]

No, that's not spin.

I still think it is - not necessarily your spin, but a Prez-friendly take on the fact that SCUSA told the Prez "no, you can't do that".

Though the ruling did not explicitly state this, most legal analysts have concluded that if Congress passes a law approving military tribunals that violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions without explicitly repudiating the United States' signature of those Conventions, then that law will not be constitutional.

That's the sort of thing I have in mind for the next steps. (Plural.)

Of course, that would probably take further litigation to determine. Dont'cha just love it?

I had wondered about retraining as a lawyer, but I doubt I'd get a visa, let alone right of audience

Of course, there is ONE example in US history of a US president consciously violating a Supreme Court decision, which is Worcester v. Georgia. ... The court strikes down most of the anti-Indian laws passed by Georgia, including those seizing their lands and nullifying tribal laws. President Jackson is quoted as saying, "John Marshall has rendered his decision; now let him enforce it." Jackson would ignore the Supreme Court ruling and continue in his efforts to move the Cherokees out of the south and into the Indian Territory, which caused terrible suffering to the Cherokee Nation.

Interesting.... 'course there are many more silent violations of Indian treaties (Four Corners...)...

[/DERAIL]

George W Bush clearly cares very desperately about his military tribunals,

But does he?

Seems to me, in broad-brush terms, that the purpose of Guantánamo - and even more of the ghost camps - is deterrence.

"Do any shit the USA doesn't like - just look at us funny - and you will be disappeared."

From that point of view, the unconstitionality of the camps is a major advantage. Append after "disappeared": ", and we will do what the fuck we want to you".

This, as posters have noted, may raise problems with the re-electability of Republicans. But that's largely fixed by creating the appearance of trying to regularise the situation. Very many potential Republican voters will see the news spot "President wants to make it all legal" and not inquire any further.

and about preventing detainees from seeing the evidence before them.

That he cares about. Or, more precisely, preventing detainees' lawyers seeing the evidence, or lack thereof. Not because of any effect on the outcome of the putative tribunals - he could always copy Tony Blair and introduce detention for the acquitted Rather, because the lawyers have access to the US media and hence to the re-electability.

It's an interesting balance - trying to convince potential R voters that he is the Prez of a nation of laws, and the rest of the world that he's a loose cannon.

Bush does not, frankly, have the balls or the support to ignore the Supreme Court on this.

It may not get anywhere near SCUSA during his term anyway.

Poisoned chalice for his successor, either way.

 

[ska invita]

New book out on the subject:
Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights

An interview with the author here:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/15/1342250

AMY GOODMAN: And what about the secret prisons around the world? There was a huge to-do when Human Rights Watch said that these secret prisons were in Romania, were in Poland. A.C., what's your understanding of where they are?

A.C. THOMPSON: You know, the thing that's interesting is that when you start tracking the CIA flights, you can start getting an idea that these facilities are moving. So for a while the flights are going into Romania and Poland. And then, when news starts trickling out, then the next thing you notice is that there's more flights going to someplace like Morocco, and that's the interesting thing, is that the locations seem to be moving.

But the President says, ‘Okay, we're going to take 14 guys, and we're going to take them out of the secret prisons. We've finally admitted there are secret prisons, and we're going to try them before these military commissions.’ I don't think that gives you an idea of the scale of the situation. I mean, most experts on this, most human rights activists and journalists who've followed it think at least 150 people have been dumped into these secret prisons. And so that kind of vastly understates the scale of the problem.

A.C. THOMPSON: We wanted to go to Afghanistan, because that seems to be one of the hubs for extraordinary rendition,[...]

And when we got there, we kind of learned to a certain extent that we were only looking a tiny piece of the story. We were interested in the CIA prisons and what was happening in them. And people in Afghanistan said, “You need to look at all of the military detention facilities in the country” -- and there's more than 20 -- because basically people are being held incommunicado. They're being tormented. They are not being -- they can't be visited by the UN or by human rights experts or even by the government of Afghanistan. And now it seems that some of these extraordinary rendition victims are getting mixed up with the military prisoners and getting moved over into military facilities from the CIA's secret facilities.

 

[ZAMB]

I thought Diego Garcia was owned by Britain?

Theoretically - it is mostly populated by a US base. Yet another crime against humanity by the UK and US to get rid of the population. John Pilger's video about it is at link below

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1027.htm

 

[zion]

I still think it is - not necessarily your spin, but a Prez-friendly take on the fact that SCUSA told the Prez "no, you can't do that".

I suggest that if you haven't done so already, you read the ruling itself. It is a very complex ruling, but it is fair to say that one of their major concerns was that Congress had not specifically authorized the military tribunals. It is possible that the ruling would have gone the other way if Congress had provided specific authorization, because the Justices would have been much less uncomfortable with it from a constitutional perspective.

'course there are many more silent violations of Indian treaties

Of course there are - at least two hundred - but this was the only time that it reached the Supreme Court and their ruling was disregarded.

I appreciate that Bush has an incentive to seem irrational to the world in terms of deterring opposition. Reagan tried the same thing, and from a game theoretical perspective it makes some sense. But he has invested significant political capital, against opposition even from within his own party to get these tribunals approved in some sense.

 

[ska invita]

U.S. war prisons legal vacuum for 14,000

Associated Press

In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law.

[...]

Human rights groups count dozens of detainee deaths for which no one has been punished or that were never explained. The secret prisons - unknown in number and location - remain available for future detainees. The new manual banning torture doesn't cover CIA interrogators. And thousands of people still languish in a limbo, deprived of one of common law's oldest rights, habeas corpus, the right to know why you are imprisoned.[more]

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15543206.htm

regarding Iraq, this is an interesting point

officials of Nouri al-Maliki's 4-month-old Iraqi government say the U.S. detention system violates Iraq's national rights.

"As long as sovereignty has transferred to Iraqi hands, the Americans have no right to detain any Iraqi person," said Fadhil al-Sharaa, an aide to the prime minister. "The detention should be conducted only with the permission of the Iraqi judiciary."

whens it going to end?

The U.S. government has contended it can hold detainees until the "war on terror" ends - as it determines.

"I don't think we've gotten to the question of how long," said retired admiral John D. Hutson, former top lawyer for the U.S. Navy. "When we get up to 'forever,' I think it will be tested" in court, he said.

whats the difference between idefinitely and forever?

 

[ska invita]

For prosperity:

Exerpts of this were shown on Democracy Now recently. Here is the whole documentary.

Outlawed
Extraordinary Rendition, Torture and Disappearances in the "War on Terror"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14989.htm

 

[ZAMB]

More today from Democracy Now on extraordinary rendition and torture. I didn't attempt to paste them because the first part, especially is quite a long interview. But you can find transcripts or watch at the links below.

The Canadian government has acknowledged for the first time that one of the most well-known victims of CIA 'extraordinary rendition' is a completely innocent man. On Monday, a judge concluded a major investigation into the case of Maher Arar. The Syrian-born Canadian was detained nearly four years ago by U.S. authorities at JFK airport and was sent to Syria where he was jailed for a year and repeatedly tortured. We speak with Arar's attorney, Maria LaHood. [includes rush transcript]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1348206

As the debate on Capitol Hill continues over the Bush administration's plan for the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, we take a look at what is not being discussed: how both proposed bills in the Senate strip away the right to habeas corpus and cut back the ability of rape survivors of to hold their perpetrators accountable. We speak with Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. [includes rush transcript]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1348212

 

[ZAMB]

Surely the time has come for any remaining civilised nations to stand up to the US and say "NO MORE!!" to the US govt's Kafkaesque treatment of prisoners, denial of habeas corpus, and reinterpretation of the Geneva convention regarding prisoners. It makes me sick that the British government is not standing up for the rights of the British residents still held in Guantanamo [it took them long enough to act even with regard to our citizens]. Consider the case of Shaker Aamer, a British resident who has been tortured to the extent that he talks to the insects in his cell, and considers them his friends. How could someone so physically, mentally and emotionally damaged speak in his own defence, even in the best of courts? He was working for a charity in Afghanistan when captured. If this was happening in Iran to a US resident, the press in the US and the UK would be shouting from the rooftops for justice. Double standards yet again - even the rebels in Bush's own party are not insisting that habeas corpus - one of humanity's most basic human rights, is be restored to these prisoners.

Judge, jury, and torturer
By James Carroll | September 18, 2006

``TRUST US. You're guilty. We're going to execute you, but we can't tell you why." That is how Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, characterized the Bush administration's recent proposal for a draconian new trial system to deal with accused terrorists. The plan includes a reinterpretation of prisoner protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. Graham was joined in opposition last week by other Republicans, including Colin Powell. Remarkably , lawyers in the Pentagon also raised objections. But the White House argument is straightforward: terrorists are such a mortal threat that established due process must be suspended. In particular, the classified secrets of anti terrorist operations must be so closely held that the most basic pillar of jurisprudence -- the accused's right to know and respond to evidence -- must be discarded. The legislation was drafted by Franz Kafka.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/18/judge_jury_and_torturer/

 

[ska invita]

If this was happening in Iran to a US resident...

Iran would be bombed as a result.

 

[ZAMB]

I couldn't post whole article.

Lost in a Bermuda Triangle of Injustice

The Facts on the Ground: Mini-Gulags, Hired Guns, Lobbyists, and a Reality Built on Fear

By Tom Engelhardt

09/22/06 "TomDispatch" --- - This August, a site of shame, shared by Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush, was emptied. Abu Ghraib prison is the place where Saddam's functionaries tortured (and sometimes killed) many enemies of his regime, and where Bush's functionaries, as a series of notorious digital photos revealed, committed what the U.S. press still likes to refer to as "prisoner abuse." Now, there are no prisoners to abuse and the prison itself is to be turned over to the Iraqi government, perhaps to become a museum, perhaps to remain a jail for another regime whose handling of prisoners is grim indeed. The emptying was clearly meant as a redemptive moment or, as Nancy A. Youssef of the McClatchy Newspapers put it, "a milestone" for the huge structure. After all the bad media and the hit American "prestige" took around the world, Abu Ghraib was finally over.

Of course, its prisoners who remained generally uncharged and without access to Iraqi courts, weren't just released to the winds. Quite the opposite, over 3,000 of them were redistributed to two other U.S. prisons, Camp Bucca in Iraq's south and Camp Cropper at the huge U.S. base adjoining Baghdad International Airport, once dedicated to the holding of "high-value" detainees like Saddam Hussein and top officials of his regime.

Camp Cropper itself turns out to be an interesting story, but one with a problem: While the emptying of Abu Ghraib made the news everywhere, the filling of Camp Cropper made no news at all. And yet it turns out that Camp Cropper, which started out as a bunch of tents, has now become a $60 million "state-of-the-art" prison. The upgrade, on the drawing boards since 2004, was just completed and hardly a word has been written about it. We really have no idea what it consists of or what it looks like, even though it's in one of the few places in Iraq that an American reporter could safely visit, being on a vast American military base constructed, like the prison, with taxpayer dollars.

Had anyone paid the slightest attention – other than the Pentagon, the Bush administration, and whatever company or companies had the contract to construct the facility – it would still have been taken for granted that Camp Cropper wasn't the business of ordinary Americans (or even their representatives in Congress). Despite the fact that the $60 million dollars, which made the camp "state of the art," was surely ours, no one in the United States debated or discussed the upgrade and there was no serious consideration of it in Congress before the money was anted up – any more than Congress or the American people are in any way involved in the constant upgrading of our military bases in Iraq.

While Iraq and future Iraq policy are constantly in the news, almost all the American facts-on-the-ground in that country – of which Camp Bucca is one – have come into being without consultation with the American people or, in any serious way, Congress (or testing in the courts).

Camp Bucca is a story you can't read anywhere – and yet it may, in a sense, be the most important American story in Iraq right now. While arguments spin endlessly here at home about the nature of withdrawal "timetables," and who's cutting and running from what, and how many troops we will or won't have in-country in 2007, 2008, or 2009, on the ground a process continues that makes mockery of the debate in Washington and in the country. While the "reconstruction" of Iraq has come to look ever more like the deconstruction of Iraq, the construction of an ever more permanent-looking American landscape in that country has proceeded apace and with reasonable efficiency.

First, we had those huge military bases that officials were careful never to label "permanent." (For a while, they were given the charming name of "enduring camps" by the Pentagon.) Just about no one in the mainstream bothered to write about them for a couple of years as quite literally billions of dollars were poured into them and they morphed into the size of American towns with their own bus routes, sports facilities, Pizza Huts, Subways, Burger Kings, and mini-golf courses. Huge as they now are, elaborate as they now are, they are still continually being upgraded. Now, it seems that on one of them we have $60 million worth of the first "permanent U.S. prison" in Iraq. Meanwhile, in the heart of Baghdad, the Bush administration is building what's probably the largest, best fortified "embassy" in the solar system with its own elaborate apartment complexes and entertainment facilities, meant for a staff of 3,500.

A Bermuda Triangle of Injustice

Recently, speaking of the Bush administration's urge to publicly redefine and so abrogate the Geneva Conventions, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "If you just look at how we are perceived in the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions, whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards."

It's a comment not atypical of the present debate in Washington and possibly of feelings in the country. The media plays up the courageous stands of Republican Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner in bringing us back to those "high standards." In the process, the details of how much of what we can use in questioning whomever and what modest protections prisoners might or might not receive in our offshore prison system are hashed out. But no matter what is decided on any of these matters, in the real, on-the-ground world our "high standards" are quite beside the point – the point being the globally outsourced penal system being created.

For example, the President recently announced that the United States was emptying other prisons as well – previously officially unacknowledged "secret prisons" around the globe – of 14 "high value" al-Qaeda detainees. "There are now no terrorists in the CIA program," he said, though that is unlikely to be the actual case.

Looked at another way, however, that secret CIA detention system, which seems to consist of makeshift or shared or borrowed facilities around the world, sits in place, ever ready for use. It's not going anywhere and in the most basic sense it probably cannot be shut down. Nor it seems are the almost 14,000 prisoners we hold in Iraq, the 500 (or more) in Afghanistan, and the nearly 500 in Guantanamo going anywhere. Even with Abu Ghraib empty and the secret prison system officially emptied, nearly 15,000 prisoners are being held by the U.S. essentially incommunicado, most beyond the eyes of any system of justice, beyond the reach of any judges or juries. In many cases, as in the case of Bilal Hussein, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Iraqi photojournalist, who has been held, probably at Camp Cropper, without charge or trial "on suspicion of collaborating with insurgents" for the last five months, even that most basic right – to know exactly why you are being held, what the charges are against you – is lacking.

Whatever arguments may be going on in Washington over which "tools" or "interrogation techniques" the CIA is to be allowed to use or over exactly how the 14 al-Qaeda detainees just transferred to Guantanamo will be tried, this set of facts-on-the-ground adds up to our own global Bermuda Triangle of Injustice into which untold numbers of human beings can simply disappear. The "crown jewel" of our mini-gulag is, of course, Guantanamo. And again, whatever the fierce arguments here may be about Guantanamo "methods" or what kinds of commissions or tribunals (if any) may finally be chosen for the run-of-the-mill prisoners there, one fact-on-the-ground points us toward the actual lay of the land. A little publicized $30-million maximum-security wing at Guantanamo is now being completed by the U.S. Navy, just as at the American prison at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, there has been an upgrade.

In all-too-real worlds beyond our reach, everything tends toward permanency. Whatever the discussion may be, whatever issues may seem to be gripping Washington or the nation, whatever you're watching on TV or reading in the papers, elsewhere the continual constructing, enlarging, expanding, entrenching of a new global system of imprisonment, which bears no relation to any system of imprisonment Americans have previously imagined, continues non-stop, unchecked and unbalanced by Congress or the courts, unaffected by the Republic, but very distinctly under the flag "for which it stands."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15068.htm

 

[ska invita]

a++ ç+p. thanx.

 

[ZAMB]

a++ ç+p. thanx.

Sorry it was only a c+p - but the original article was so long it took me ages to cut it down, paragraph at a time, to an acceptable length, and I was afraid that anything I'd write would push it over the edge again. Apart from the torture camps, it is also significant that they exist in such huge American camps. It makes me wonder about the sincerity of US reconstruction plans for Iraq - when whole cities have been destroyed and the Iraqi people still haven't got basic services restored, I wonder if all the 'reconstruction' efforts are going into the building of these bases and prisons

First, we had those huge military bases that officials were careful never to label "permanent." (For a while, they were given the charming name of "enduring camps" by the Pentagon.) Just about no one in the mainstream bothered to write about them for a couple of years as quite literally billions of dollars were poured into them and they morphed into the size of American towns with their own bus routes, sports facilities, Pizza Huts, Subways, Burger Kings, and mini-golf courses. Huge as they now are, elaborate as they now are, they are still continually being upgraded. Now, it seems that on one of them we have $60 million worth of the first "permanent U.S. prison" in Iraq. Meanwhile, in the heart of Baghdad, the Bush administration is building what's probably the largest, best fortified "embassy" in the solar system with its own elaborate apartment complexes and entertainment facilities, meant for a staff of 3,500.

Surely this money would be much, much better spent on Iraqi reconstruction - the Iraqi people don't have the opportunity to live in this luxury - they're lucky if they can get power and water for a few hours every day. Surely living in such conditions is another form of torture for the Iraqis.

The "freedom" and "democracy" that Bush claimed to be bringing to Iraq look more and more like oppression, tyranny and misery every day, regardless of US media spin - but at least we can comfort ourselves that the torturers and looters of the Iraqi people want for nothing as they make Iraq safe for its takeover by corporate America.

 

[ZAMB]

David Corn, of The Nation, has posted photos of waterboarding apparatus on his blog - to give the US a better idea of the techniques which thier government wishes to retain at their president's wishes. The link to the pics is below the quoted part of the article.

This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like
As Congress has debated legislation that would set up military tribunals and govern the questioning of suspected terrorists (whom the Bush administration would like to be able to detain indefinitely), at issue has been what interrogation techniques can be employed and whether information obtained during torture can be used against those deemed unlawful enemy combatants. One interrogation practice central to this debate is waterboarding. It's usually described in the media in a matter-of-fact manner. The Washington Post simply referred to waterboarding a few days ago as an interrogation measure that "simulates drowning." But what does waterboarding look like?

You can see here. Jonah Blank, an anthropologist and foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff of the US Senate, was in Cambodia last month and came across an actual waterboard at a former prison turned into a museum that chronicles the horrors of the Khmer Rouge regime. Blank took photos of the waterboard and a painting depicting its use. I cannot post photos in this space, but I've published his photos on my own blog at www.davidcorn.com.

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php

 

[ska invita]

Sorry it was only a c+p -

I wasnt complaining! it really was an interesting link, as is the waterboard thing

 

[ZAMB]

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)

That a bill such as this could pass makes me wonder whether, in fact, a "Democratic" govt would change the US policy regarding torture? Some people, like Senator Patrick Leahy, spoke out strongly against it, but the majority went along like sheeple, and are now, IMO, complicit in Bush's war crimes and deserve to be tried next to him and his buddies. They were given an opportunity to stand up against this evil and they blew it.

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)

By Molly Ivins

With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta.

09/29/06 "TruthDig" -- -- AUSTIN, Texas—Oh dear. I’m sure he didn’t mean it. In Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, of planning to “cut and run” on Iraq.

Duckworth is a former Army major and chopper pilot who lost both legs in Iraq after her helicopter got hit by an RPG. “I just could not believe he would say that to me,” said Duckworth, who walks on artificial legs and uses a cane. Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?

The legislative equivalent of that remark is the detainee bill now being passed by Congress. Beloveds, this is so much worse than even that pathetic deal reached last Thursday between the White House and Republican Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The White House has since reinserted a number of “technical fixes” that were the point of the putative “compromise.” It leaves the president with the power to decide who is an enemy combatant.

This bill is not a national security issue—this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies. Perhaps this could be considered if we knew the administration would use the power with enormous care and thoughtfulness. But of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place.

Death by torture by Americans was first reported in 2003 in a New York Times article by Carlotta Gall. The military had announced the prisoner died of a heart attack, but when Gall saw the death certificate, written in English and issued by the military, it said the cause of death was homicide. The “heart attack” came after he had been beaten so often on this legs that they had “basically been pulpified,” according to the coroner.

The story of why and how it took the Times so long to print this information is in the current edition of the Columbia Journalism Review. The press in general has been late and slow in reporting torture, so very few Americans have any idea how far it has spread. As is often true in hierarchical, top-down institutions, the orders get passed on in what I call the downward communications exaggeration spiral.........

Fellow citizens, this bill throws out legal and moral restraints as the president deems it necessary—these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law.

I’d like those supporting this evil bill to spare me one affliction: Do not, please, pretend to be shocked by the consequences of this legislation. And do not pretend to be shocked when the world begins comparing us to the Nazis.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15163.htm

 

[ska invita]

Can someone explain this Guantanamo development ot me?

-The US wants to give back 9 British detainees

-Britain refuses

-THe US wants teh detainees to be monitored 24hr

-Britain says there is no evidence against them, and that monitoring is unworkable

As well as arguing that none of the former residents has a legal right to return to the UK, British officials are concerned that human rights legislation would forbid the deportation of any who are permitted to return. However, the supreme court ruling means that it may be impossible for the US to return them to the countries of their birth if there is a risk of them facing persecution. "The result is that the arguments are going around and around like a washing machine cycle," said one official familiar with the talks.

link
If there is no evidence against them why can't they be returned home? Makes no sense to me...

 

[ska invita]

Interesting piece by a brother of one of the detained that "explains" Labour's negligence in this situation:
link...

 

[ZAMB]

Interesting piece by a brother of one of the detained that "explains" Labour's negligence in this situation:
link...

I was sickened by most of the comments posted under that article. It seems to have attracted the most racist types who don't seem to be able to see that, regardless of nationality, we should be against Guantanamo because torture is illegal and we do have shared humanity. Yuck!!!!

 

[ska invita]

Pretty good book "Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program"

interview with author, here:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/19/1347246

 

[ZAMB]

Pretty good book "Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program"

interview with author, here:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/19/1347246

I watched that this evening. Interesting topic. C4 did a pretty good programme about a year ago on rendition flights too - I think I'll do a search to see if it's available online.

 

[ZAMB]

Can't find the specific documentary, but there a a lot of news reports on these 'ghost planes' at
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/rendition.html

To watch them [on my computer anyway] click on the picture for the story, right click on 'watch this report', and go to 'save target as' and save them into a file. They just take a minute or so to download.

The earliest one, called 'CIA plane spotting' mentions the case highlighted on Democracy Now tonight.

[Edit] I found the documentary, and posted it on the political documentaries thread

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That a bill such as this could pass makes me wonder whether, in fact, a "Democratic" govt would change the US policy regarding torture? Some people, like Senator Patrick Leahy, spoke out strongly against it, but the majority went along like sheeple, and are now, IMO, complicit in Bush's war crimes and deserve to be tried next to him and his buddies. They were given an opportunity to stand up against this evil and they blew it.




http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15163.htm

You really have to wonder about what the future holds when the richest and most powerful country on earth, that calls itself a democracy, suspends the right of habeas corpus.

The import of such a move is hard to overestimate. The balance of power just skewed in favour of the government like a teeter-totter rideoff between Tiny Tim and Big Bertha.

Maybe the US is trying to become more like China or something.

Imagine that; the future will be controlled by either a currently existing totalitarian state, or another state that is rapidly heading in that direction.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

All I can say is 'thank god for Foley'. Maybe due to him, the Republicans will lose a lot of seats in this upcoming election.

I read something today that said, the democrats aren't stopping them, the courts aren't stopping them.

All that's left is for the voters to stop them, and if they don't, the voters can't say they haven't been warned about what is to come.

 

[ZAMB]

All that's left is for the voters to stop them, and if they don't, the voters can't say they haven't been warned about what is to come.

I don't think things will be a lot better under the dems - too many of them vote with the repubs to give Bush anything he asks for - even to the point of legalising torture and disposing of habeas corpus. Olbermann did a tragically funny bit which showed that the only right left to Americans under the bill of rights was the one which didn't allow soldiers to be quartered in their houses.