United States: ‘CIA, Torture & Governmental Immunity’…

HUMAN RIGHTS

From the desk of MD

THIS TIME LAST MONTH human rights groups and former detainees held in US custody expressed disappointment with the decision by President Barack Obama not to prosecute CIA operatives who used interrogation practices described by many as “torture”.

President Obama sought to turn a page on what he called a “dark and painful chapter” along with his announcement not to prosecute those who may have carried out culpable acts. Mr. Obama condemned the aggressive techniques – including waterboarding, shackling and stripping – that were used on terror suspects, but his policy of ‘turning a blind eye’ continues to raise serious concerns among human rights organisations as to why the United States will not legally pursue the perpetrators of acts that are deemed serious and grave.

The decision left some bitterness in the Muslim world, where there was widespread anger over abuse of detained terror suspects.

It could tarnish somewhat Obama’s growing popularity among Arabs and Muslims, who have applauded his efforts and promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities and withdraw US troops from Iraq.

Before being released last year, Jomaa al-Dosari, a Saudi, had spent six years in US custody at the Guantanamo military camp. His views whilst in detention are now well known:

… All of us in Guantanamo never had hope or faith in the American government.

… We only ask God for our rights and to demand justice for the wrongs we experience in this life. There will be a time in history when every person who committed a wrong will be punished.

Saudi based media outlets, such as the Arab News daily, said that the decision not to prosecute “sends the wrong message”.

… They destroyed people’s lives … unfortunately, they’re allowed to go scot-free.

 

PRIOR to President Obama’s public announcement that the US will not be pursuing CIA operatives in torture cases, the Obama administration released secret CIA memos detailing interrogation tactics sanctioned under the Bush regime. As well as waterboarding – simulated drowning until a confession has been made – the memos authorised keeping detainees naked, in painful standing positions and in cold cells for long periods of time. Other techniques included depriving detainees of sleep and slapping them, actions that are in direct breach of the Geneva Convention and international rules of conduct when holding prisoners.

Mr. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, offered CIA operatives legal help in the event of anyone else taking them to court, although the administration’s offer of help did not extend to those outside the CIA who approved the so-called “enhanced interrogation methods” or any CIA officers who may have gone beyond what was allowed.

Human rights groups continue to condemn the line being taken by the Government of the United States, saying it is necessary to have a full accounting record of what took place.

In a statement on its website, Amnesty International said:

… The release of CIA memos on interrogation methods by the US Department of Justice appears to have offered a get-out-of-jail-free card to people involved in torture.

 

Moazzam Begg, a British resident who spent more than two years in Guantanamo custody said he wasn’t surprised by the revelation of tactics.

… It’s the unwritten things – the things that happened in the heat of the moment on the “battlefield” like tying people up with chains and dragging them around – that are worrying and will likely never come out.

Saad Iqbal Madni, from Pakistan, was released from Guantanamo Bay last summer after being held by US authorities for seven years. Speaking in Islamabad, recently, Mr. Madni said sleep deprivation techniques were used on him. For months, he said, he was moved from cell to cell every two hours while shackled in an attempt to keep him awake.

 

OPINION

WE SHOULD NO LONGER need to mince words following the release, recently, of US memos released by the Obama administration. The chilling contents detailing techniques and procedures used during Bush-era CIA interrogations suggests, by implication, the US government was notoriously involved in torture. Now, the English language has acquired another unpalatable verb to add to the simulation of drowning known as waterboarding: “walling” was the officially sanctioned technique of slamming detainees repeatedly into false walls to create sound and shock.

Bringing the architects of US action to account is known as the Nuremberg Defence: the notional concept that the defendant (i.e. CIA employee) was “only following orders” and is thus not responsible for his crimes, carried out in the name of the US government. The defence was infamously employed during the Nuremberg Trials but also featured in the court martial of William Caley after the 1968 My Lai massacre and to defend soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

President Obama is open and clear where he stands on such techniques. He believes they betray American core values and endanger American security. In recognising how easily interrogation methods generate bad information, as opposed to good intelligence, one of Barack Obama’s first moves on taking office was to ban such practices. That was admirable. What was even more so was in acceding to requests to publish the memos.

But, in doing so, Mr. Obama created a caveat by assuring CIA agents and operatives who used such techniques would not be prosecuted. Creating ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ cards, though, in the manner in which it has been attempted has created an implicit acceptance of the Nuremberg Defence by the United States government.

 

APOLOGISTS are at pains to point out that the charged atmosphere following 9/11 was one in which Americans felt themselves under imminent attack from a force and threat they barely understood. Yet, it could be argued with conviction that only the morally bankrupt would abandon human rights in the name of defending a country that claims to uphold such rights. The controversial argument that torture is justifiable if the lives of thousands are in immediate danger was never applicable.

Politically and legally, there are two important questions: what led to this appalling situation, and how can we ensure it never happens again? Even if the torturers themselves are not to be indicted, the same immunity must not be extended to those who authorised and devised these unruly and inhumane policies. It is not about retribution, either, but accountability.

What is also needed is a commission of inquiry in helping us to better understand how a country’s intelligence services can so conveniently dispose, at will, its moral compass.

 

Related:

• Guardian, Ken Gude (Thursday, 14 May 2009): “Obama can’t keep torture under wraps”

… “Withholding photos of prisoner abuse won’t end the torture debate. We need a formal investigation of Bush’s policies.”

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com