Archive for the ‘torture’ Category

The tragedy of Baha Mousa

July 13, 2009
Morning Star Online, Sunday 12 July 2009
Paddy McGuffin

When 26-year-old Baha Mousa, a newly widowed father of two, was arrested along with six other Iraqi men by British troops in September 2003, he should have been entitled to be treated with decency and basic humanity in accordance with the British army’s much-boasted sense of fair play.

Tragically, Mousa and his co-detainees came face to face with the brutal reality of the army, as previously experienced by thousands of innocent Catholics interned in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and countless others before and since.

Like them, Mousa was branded a “terrorist” and subjected to horrific violence and sadistic torture.

The seven Iraqis were detained during an army raid on the Ibn al-Haitham hotel where they worked, following reports that weapons were being kept there.

The soldiers found assault rifles and pistols in a safe. Hotel staff insisted that they were used for security, but Mousa and several of his colleagues were taken to the British military base at Darul Dhyafa.

The Iraqi captives were hooded, bound, held in stress positions and deprived of sleep, kicked and beaten – in Mousa’s case, fatally.

“The military initially attempted to brush the death under the carpet and, in a move which added insult to injury, offered the Mousa family a paltry £3,000 in exchange for Mousa’s life”

So-called “conditioning methods” of this type were banned by the Geneva Convention, the Laws of Armed Combat, a 1972 government inquiry into interrogation in Northern Ireland and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Yet on the evidence of this case and many others in recent years, these techniques would appear to still be widely used by the British army with, it is argued, at least the tacit approval of the government.

When Mousa’s body was put before his stunned and grieving father for identification, it was found that he had suffered 93 separate injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken nose.

Mousa’s father, a colonel in the Iraqi police, had last seen his son alive lying on the floor of the lobby of the hotel, his hands behind his head.

He had reassured his son after a British officer, who called himself Lieutenant Mike, told him that it was a routine investigation which would be over in a couple of hours.

Three days later, Colonel Daoud Mousa was visited by military policemen who told him his son had died in custody.

The next time he saw him was on a slab, his face so battered and bruised that he was barely recognisable to the man who had known and loved him all his life.

At a High Court hearing in 2004, Col Mousa described his horror at the state of his son’s body.

“I was asked to accompany them to identify the corpse,” he said.

“When I saw the corpse I burst into tears and I still cannot bear to think about what I saw. Every time I tell this story I break down.”

One of those who survived the brutal detention described what happened.

“They were kick-boxing us in the chest and between the legs and in the back. We were crying and screaming,” he said.

“They set on Baha especially and he kept crying that he couldn’t breath in the hood. He kept asking them to take the bag off and said he was suffocating.

“But they laughed at him and kicked him more. One of them said: ‘Stop screaming and you will be able to breathe more easily’.”

It has previously been reported that the soldiers gave the detainees the names of footballers as they repeatedly kicked them.

As with countless other cases, the military initially attempted to brush the death under the carpet and, in a move which added insult to injury, offered the Mousa family a paltry £3,000 in exchange for Mousa’s life.

Seven soldiers faced a court martial at Bulford Camp in Wiltshire on war crimes charges relating to the receptionist’s death.

All but one were cleared on all counts in March 2007.

The Ministry of Defence eventually agreed in July last year to pay £2.83 million in compensation to the families of Mousa and a number of other Iraqi men mistreated by British troops.

The public inquiry, due to begin today, will not only look into Mousa’s death and the mistreatment of a number of others but it will also look at the continued use of torture by the British army.

This is not a one-off case. Nor is it even exceptional.

The Ministry of Defence has been forced to concede an inquiry into the alleged torture and murder of 20 Iraqis and mistreatment of a number of others at Camp Abu Naji in 2004.

Phil Shiner, the solicitor for Col Mousa and all the victims in the Baha Mousa inquiry said: “What happened in this incident must never happen again. This inquiry starts hot on the heels of the government agreeing to a second major inquiry into the events of Camp Abu Naji on May 14-15 2004.

“The Baha Mousa inquiry has a golden opportunity to ensure that the techniques banned from Northern Ireland in 1971 can never be used again by the UK and to expose the systemic failings that allowed this to happen.

“The second inquiry shortly to be announced needs to be into the human rights violations while the UK detained the Iraqis. There are simply too many incidents for the government to consider fighting each one on a case-by-case basis.”

The inquiry, chaired by Sir William Gage, will also look at the historic use of torture and interrogation by British forces, including those used during internment in 1971 in Northern Ireland which were banned by the European Court of Human Rights as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The inquiry has been divided into four “modules” which will deal in turn with the history of conditioning techniques used by British troops while questioning prisoners from Northern Ireland in the early 1970s to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, what happened to Baha Mousa and other Iraqi detainees, training and the chain of command, what has happened since 2003 and any recommendations for the future.

Dick Cheney ‘silenced CIA over spy plan’

July 12, 2009
Al Jazeera, July 12, 2009

Cheney has advocated the use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding [EPA]

Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, deliberately withheld details of a secret CIA spy programme from the US congress for eight years, a US senator has said.

Cheney, who was vice-president to George Bush until January this year, ordered the CIA not to tell congress of a new “counter-terrorism” programme in 2001.

Cheney’s role in stifling the information was revealed by Leon Panetta, who now heads the CIA and who ordered the programme to be stopped in June.

Senator Diane Feinstein, the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, speaking on a US television show on Sunday, said: “Director Panetta did brief us two weeks ago … and tell us that he was told that the vice-president had ordered that the programme not be briefed to the congress.”

Amid calls for an investigation, senator Dick Durbin said Cheney’s actions had been “inappropriate”.

“To have a massive programme that is concealed from the leaders in congress is not only inappropriate; it could be illegal,” he said.

The details of the intelligence programme, launched after the attacks on the US in September 2001, remain secret.

Covert operations

A spokesman for the CIA said it was not policy to discuss classified briefings, but added: “When a CIA unit brought this matter to Director Panetta’s attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with congress.

“That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect.”

Under US law, the president is required to make sure intelligence committees are fully informed about covert operations.

The newspaper did not name its sources and said it had been unsuccessful in reaching Cheney for comment.

Cheney has been criticised in the past for supporting controversial interrogation techniques such as waterboarding (where a detainee is made to feel as if he is drowning), sleep deprivation, long periods of standing and exposure to cold.

Many critics have described the methods as being torture.

Controversial move

Eric Holder, the US attorney general is reported to be considering assigning a prosecutor to investigate interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects by the government of George Bush, the former US president.

Such an appointment could lead to a criminal inquiry into the treatment of prisoners by the CIA following the 2001 attacks in New York.

The move is seen as being controversial as Barack Obama, the US president, had previously said he wanted to leave the issue “in the past”.

An official from the US justice department said Holder planned to “follow the fact and the law”.

Holder’s decision is expected to be made in the next few weeks.

Obama admin: No grounds to probe Afghan war crimes

July 12, 2009

No legal rights to investigate Taliban deaths – or Bush admin. refusal to do so, officials say

LARA JAKES
AP News,

Antiwar Newswire, Jul 11, 2009 06:48 EST

Obama administration officials said Friday they had no grounds to investigate the 2001 deaths of Taliban prisoners of war who human rights groups allege were killed by U.S.-backed forces.

The mass deaths were brought up anew Friday in a report by The New York Times on its Web site. It quoted government and human rights officials accusing the Bush administration of failing to investigate the executions of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of prisoners.

U.S. officials said Friday they did not have legal grounds to investigate the deaths because only foreigners were involved and the alleged killings occurred in a foreign country.

The Times cited U.S. military and CIA ties to Afghan Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, whom human rights groups accuse of ordering the killings. The newspaper said the Defense Department and FBI never fully investigated the incident.

Asked about the report, Marine Corps Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said that since U.S. military forces were not involved in the killings, there is nothing the Defense Department could investigate.

“There is no indication that U.S. military forces were there, or involved, or had any knowledge of this,” Lapan said. “So there was not a full investigation conducted because there was no evidence that there was anything from a DoD (Department of Defense) perspective to investigate.”

A Justice Department official said the FBI had no jurisdiction to investigate. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. Separately, Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller declined to comment.

A spokesman for former President George W. Bush did not have an immediate comment Friday night.

Reacting to the Times’ report, human rights group Physicians for Human Rights called for the Justice Department to begin a criminal investigation into whether the Bush administration blocked inquiries into the Taliban deaths.

“For U.S. government officials to claim that there is no legal basis to investigate this well-documented mass atrocity is absurd,” said the groups deputy director, Susannah Sirkin.

The allegations date back to November 2001, when as many as 2,000 Taliban prisoners died in transit after surrendering during one of the regime’s last stands, according to a State Department report from 2002.

Witnesses have claimed that forces with the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance placed the prisoners in sealed cargo containers over the two-day voyage to Sheberghan Prison, suffocating them and then burying them en masse using bulldozers to move the bodies, according to the State Department report. Some Northern Alliance soldiers have said that some of their troops opened fire on the containers, killing those within.

Dostum, the Northern Alliance general who is accused of overseeing the atrocities, has previously denied the allegations.

A former U.S. ambassador for war crimes issues, Pierre Prosper, told the Times that the Bush administration was reluctant to investigate the deaths, even though Dostum was on the payroll of the CIA and his soldiers worked with U.S. special forces in 2001.

Dostum was suspended from his military post last year on suspicion of threatening a political rival, but Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently rehired him, the Times reported.

Source: AP News

CIA: We Lied to Congress

July 11, 2009

John Nichols | The Nation, July 9, 2009

In May, at a point when congressional Republicans and their amen corner in the media were attempting to defend the Bush-Cheney administration’s torture regime, their primary defense was: Pelosi knew.

The spin held that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, had in 2002 been secretly briefed about the use of harsh interrogation techniques on terror suspects.

Pelosi said the Central Intelligence Agency had failed to inform her about the character and extent of the harsh interrogations.

Pelosi accused the CIA of “misleading the Congress of the United States.”

Republican senators screamed.

“It’s outrageous that a member of Congress should call a terror-fighter a liar,” howled Missouri Senator Kit Bond, the vice chair of the Senate intelligence committee. “It seems the playbook is, blame terror-fighters. We ought to be supporting them.”

CIA officials denied lying to Congress and the American people, and that seemed to be that. “Let me be clear: It is not our practice or policy to mislead Congress,” said CIA Director Leon Panetta. That is against our laws and values.”

But, now, we learn that, in late June, Panetta admitted in secret testimony to Congress that the agency had concealed information and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001.

Some of the details of Panetta’s testimony are contained in a letter from seven House Democrats to Panetta that was released Wednesday morning.

In the letter, the members (Anna Eshoo of California, Alcee Hastings of Florida, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Adam Smith of Washington, Mike Thompson of California and John Tierney of Massachusetts) wrote: “Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week.”

The letter continued: “In light of your testimony, we ask that you publicly correct your statement of May 15, 2009.”

Pelosi’s critics are claiming that Panetta’s admission does not resolve the debate about whether the speaker was lied to in briefings about harsh interrogations.

What does the CIA say?

That’s where things seem to get confusing — but, as we’ll see, not too confusing.

Panetta “stands by his May 15 statement,” CIA spokesman George Little claimed after the letter from the House members was released.

The problem is that Little also said: “This agency and this director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. Director Panetta’s actions back that up. As the letter from these … representatives notes, it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees.”

So, officially, CIA director Panetta stands by his statement that: “It is not our practice or policy to mislead Congress.”

But…

Panetta’s spokesman is seemingly rather proud that “it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees” that the agency had in the words of the House members “misled members for a number of years from 2001.”

Can we reconcile these statements?

Yes.

Panetta, who has only headed the CIA since February of this year says that “it is not our practice or policy to mislead Congress.”

But he tells Congress that it was in fact the consistent practice of the CIA to lie to Congress during the Bush-Cheney years.

So what are we left with?

Perhaps a measure of vindication for Pelosi, but the speaker’s wrangling with the Republicans is a distraction from the fundamental revelation.

Far more important is Panetta’s reported admission that his agency has “concealed significant actions” and “misled members of Congress.”

No matter what anyone thinks of Pelosi or waterboarding, there is a clear case for dramatically expanding congressional oversight of the CIA. Of course, more House and Senate members should have access to briefings — and should have the authority to hold CIA officials (and their White House overseers) to account for deliberate deceptions. But that ought not be the first response to the latest news.

Step one must be to get to the bottom of exactly what the CIA was lying about.

Did it have anything to do with the case for invading and occupying Iraq? Afghanistan? Torture?

CIA defenders will claim that some secrets must be kept. Perhaps. But the Congress and the American people have a right to know the broad outlines of the deception — and the extent to which it may have warped, and may continue to warp, U.S. policy.

Is Texas Harboring a Torture Decider?

July 9, 2009

The Buck Stops Where It Began

By Ray McGovern | Counterpunch, July 8, 2009

Editor’s Note: Prior to giving a series of talks in Texas later this week, the author offered the following op-ed to the Dallas Morning News and the Fort-Worth Star-Telegram. Both newspapers in George W. Bush’s home state turned it down.

Seldom does a crime scene have so clear a smoking gun. A two-page presidential memorandum of Feb. 7, 2002, leaves no room for uncertainty regarding the “decider” on torture. His broad-stroke signature made torture official policy.

This should come as no surprise. You see, the Feb. 7, 2002, memorandum has been posted on the Web since June 22, 2004, when then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales mistakenly released it, along with other White House memoranda.

Continued >>

Letter from an Israeli Jail, by Cynthia McKinney

July 5, 2009

Cynthia McKinney, Free Gaza Team

uruknet.info, Saturday, 04 July 2009 13:47

Original audio message available here:
http://freegaza.org/it/home/56-news/984-a-message-from-cynth
ia-from-a-cell-block-in-israel

This is Cynthia McKinney and I’m speaking from an Israeli prison cellblock in Ramle. [I am one of] the Free Gaza 21, human rights activists currently imprisoned for trying to take medical supplies to Gaza, building supplies – and even crayons for children, I had a suitcase full of crayons for children. While we were on our way to Gaza the Israelis threatened to fire on our boat, but we did not turn around. The Israelis high-jacked and arrested us because we wanted to give crayons to the children in Gaza. We have been detained, and we want the people of the world to see how we have been treated just because we wanted to deliver humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.

Continued >>

Amnesty asks India to end torture in Kashmir

June 30, 2009

Daily Times, June 29, 2009

ISLAMABAD: International human rights watchdog Amnesty International (AI) has said the Indian government must take immediate steps to end torture and other human rights violations in Indian-held Kashmir (IHK).

In a letter to Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram, AI Asia Pacific Programme Director Sam Zarifi said AI continued to receive reports of torture and ill-treatment of individuals in custody in IHK. “I am writing to express AI’s concerns that torture and other cruel inhuman treatment or punishment are still inflicted widely throughout India,” Zarifi said, asking India to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. app

Bagram Detainees Treated ‘Worse Than Animals’

June 27, 2009
by William Fisher, Antiwar.com, June 27, 2009

An investigation by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has revealed that former detainees at the U.S. Bagram airbase in Afghanistan were beaten, deprived of sleep and threatened with dogs.

The BBC’s conclusions are based on interviews with 27 former detainees who were held at Bagram between 2002 and 2006. None of these men were ever charged with a crime. Hundreds of detainees are still being held in U.S. custody at the Afghan prison without charge or trial.

Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, told IPS, “The BBC investigation provides further confirmation of the United States’ mistreatment of prisoners at Bagram.”

“These abuses are the direct consequence of decisions made at the highest levels of the U.S. government to avoid the Geneva Convention and forsake the rule of law. For too long, the unlawful detention and mistreatment of prisoners at Bagram has gone on outside the public eye,” he said. “Hopefully, this investigation will help change that.”

“When prisoners are in American custody and under American control, no matter the location, our values and commitment to the rule of law are at stake,” Hafetz said.

In April, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records pertaining to the detention and treatment of prisoners held at Bagram, including the number of people currently detained, their names, citizenship, place of capture and length of detention.

The ACLU is also seeking records pertaining to the process afforded those prisoners to challenge their detention and designation as “enemy combatants.”

“The U.S. government’s detention of hundreds of prisoners at Bagram has been shrouded in complete secrecy,” said Melissa Goodman, an ACLU staff attorney. “The American people have a right to know what’s happening at Bagram and whether prisoners have been tortured there.”

Amnesty International said it was “shocked” by the Bagram claims. It noted that a new detention center is currently under construction at the camp.

Another prominent human rights organization, the British-based Reprieve, called on the British government to take action concerning two Pakistanis who it says the U.K. helped render there from Iraq.

“The legal black hole in Bagram underlines the British government’s moral black hole when it comes to rendering two Pakistani prisoners there in 2004,” said Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve. “These men were in British custody in Iraq, were turned over to the U.S., and have now been held for five years without any respect for their legal rights.”

In February 2009, British Defense Secretary John Hutton announced to the House of Commons that Britain had handed two anonymous Pakistani men over to the U.S., and they had subsequently been rendered to Afghanistan, where they were still being held.

“We have been assured that are held in a humane, safe and secure environment, meeting international standards consistent with cultural and religious norms,” Hutton said at the time.

“As we have said all along, beating people and holding them incommunicado is not humane, safe and secure,” Stafford Smith told IPS. “Britain has a moral duty to identify these men, so that we can reunite them with their legal rights, yet Mr. Hutton refuses to do this.”

No prisoner in Bagram has been allowed to see a lawyer, or challenge his detention. According to the BBC, the U.S. justice department argues that because Afghanistan is an active combat zone it is not possible to conduct rigorous inquiries into individual cases and that it would divert precious military resources at a crucial time.

“These men were never in Afghanistan until the UK and the U.S. took them there,” said Stafford Smith. “It is the height of hypocrisy to take someone to Bagram and then claim that it is too dangerous to let them see a lawyer. Even Guantánamo Bay is better than this.”

The Pentagon has denied the BBC’s charges of harsh treatment and insisted that all inmates in the facility are treated humanely.

The Bagram Airbase built by the Soviet military in the 1980s. The approximately 600 people held there are classified as “unlawful enemy combatants.” None was charged with any offence or put on trial — some even received apologies when they were released.

Many allegations of ill-treatment appear repeatedly in the BBC interviews: physical abuse, the use of stress positions, excessive heat or cold, unbearably loud noise, being forced to remove clothes in front of female soldiers.

In four cases detainees were threatened with death at gunpoint.

“They did things that you would not do against animals let alone to humans,” said one inmate.

“They poured cold water on you in winter and hot water in summer. They used dogs against us. They put a pistol or a gun to your head and threatened you with death,” he said.

“They put some kind of medicine in the juice or water to make you sleepless and then they would interrogate you.”

The BBC said its findings were shown to the Pentagon. Lt. Col. Mark Wright, a spokesman for the U.S. secretary of defense, insisted that conditions at Bagram “meet international standards for care and custody.” He said the U.S. Defense Department has a policy of treating detainees humanely.

But he acknowledged that, “There have been well-documented instances where that policy was not followed, and service members have been held accountable for their actions in those cases.”

Since coming to office, U.S. President Barack Obama has banned the use of torture and ordered a review of policy on detainees, which is expected to report next month. But unlike its detainees at the U.S. naval facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, the prisoners at Bagram have no access to lawyers and they cannot challenge their detention.

(Inter Press Service)

U.N. Asked to Probe CIA Rendition

June 27, 2009

By William Fisher | Inter Press Service

NEW YORK, Jun 26 (IPS) – Human rights groups are asking United Nations officials to investigate the case of an Italian citizen and victim of the “extraordinary rendition” programme of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency who is currently being held in a Moroccan prison based on a confession coerced from him through torture.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Geneva-based Alkarama for Human Rights have requested that two U.N. Special Rapporteurs investigate the circumstances of Abou Elkassim Britel’s forced disappearance, rendition, detention and torture, and raise his case with the governments of the United States, Morocco, Pakistan and Italy.

The requests were made to the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture and the on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism.

Continued >>

Obama and the Torturers

June 25, 2009

Celebrate Torture Day by Punishing the Torturers

By James Bovard | Counterpunch, June 25, 2009

Since 1997, every June 26 has been formally recognized as the International Day of Support for Victims of Torture. Political leaders around the globe take the occasion to proclaim their opposition to barbarism.

On June 26, 2003, President George W. Bush proudly declared“The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.”

Continued >>