By Jim Lobe* | Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb 19 (IPS) – Eighteen U.S. human rights groups Thursday joined a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a retired top diplomat in calling on President Barack Obama to appoint a non-partisan commission of leading citizens to examine and report on the treatment of detainees held by the United States during President George W. Bush’s “global war on terror.”
In a joint statement, the groups, which included Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Human Rights First (HRF), said members of such a commission “should be persons of irreproachable integrity, credibility, and independence” with “reputation for putting the truth and the respect for our nation’s founding principles ahead of any partisan advantage.”
Such a commission should also report on the consequences of alleged abuses committed by U.S. officials against detainees and “make recommendations for future policy in this area,” according to the statement, which was also signed by ret. Maj. General Antonio Taguba, the senior military officer whose 2004 report and subsequent Congressional testimony on abuses committed by U.S. soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq drew headlines and outrage around the world.
The statement comes amid a growing public clamour, particularly from Obama’s Democratic base, for some forum that will determine responsibility for some of the more notorious abuses sanctioned or committed by U.S. official personnel during Bush’s war on terror and help inform the detention and interrogation policies of the new administration.
“The abuses carried out over the past eight years have not only undermined America’s moral authority, but also jeopardised its national security,” said Jennifer Daskal, senior counter-terrorism counsel at HRW. “We need to understand exactly what happened in order to protect our fundamental freedoms and keep the country safe.”
To date, Obama and his top officials, including his attorney general, Eric Holder, have been ambiguous about their views on the question. Obama has said he believes that “nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that, generally speaking, I’m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.”
Democratic lawmakers, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, have made a number of suggestions, including creating a “truth commission” that could summon witnesses, including high-ranking Bush administration officials who authorised interrogation techniques that rights groups consider to be torture, and make recommendations, but could not bring criminal charges.
The plan appears, at least in theory, to enjoy not insubstantial public support. A Gallup poll conducted late last month found that nearly two-thirds of respondents favoured some form of investigation into alleged administration abuses, including the torture of detainees. While a quarter of respondents said they favoured investigations without criminal charges, almost 40 percent indicated support for criminal prosecutions if the investigations found evidence that laws had been violated.
“There’s a growing sense both in Washington and the country at large that people don’t want these abuses swept under the carpet,” said Tom Parker, policy director for terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights for Amnesty International USA, one of the statement’s signatories. “They want to know what’s been done in their name; and, if they don’t approve of what was done in their name, they want to see people held accountable.”
Republicans, however, appear united in strongly opposing the creation of any independent forum, least of all one that could result in criminal prosecutions.
They have argued that Congress has already held a number of hearings on detainee abuse and that appointing an independent commission would amount to a “political vendetta” that would not only make bipartisanship more difficult but could also set a damaging precedent.
“If every administration started to re-examine what every prior administration did, there would be no end to it,” warned Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee who had himself frequently complained about the Bush administration’s denial of habeas corpus and authorisation of aggressive interrogation techniques for detainees, last month. “This is not Latin America,” he added.
But rights groups have long claimed that Congress’s hearings that have looked into the alleged abuses have been far too limited in their scope and have provided only a partial picture of how specific policies authorising the alleged abuses were derived and implemented. Moreover, the hearings were mostly conducted in a highly politicised context.
The signatories of the new statement stressed that the president should solicit recommendations from both parties’ Congressional leaders before choosing members of the commission.
Among the kinds of members who should be considered, according to the statement, are “leading academics, retired judges and government officials, retired military officers and intelligence officials, and human rights experts.”
“We need people of the stature of John McCain or John Kerry who have knowledge of military service, people with a great deal of experience with the intelligence community,” said Parker. “It isn’t just about morality; it’s about the right policy, whether these kinds of methods worked. We don’t think they do,” he added.
In addition to Taguba, who last year accused the Bush administration of having committed war crimes in its treatment of detainees, individual signatories of the statement included ret. U.S. Amb. Thomas Pickering, who served as Washington’s envoy to the United Nations under President George H.W. Bush and is among the highest-ranking and most-decorated diplomats of his generation; and Judge Williams Sessions, who served as FBI director under both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Also signing was Juan Mendez, president of the New York-based International Centre for Transitional Justice and former president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organisation of American States. Mendez, an Argentine native who gained asylum in the United States, has advised truth commissions that were established in Latin America and elsewhere around the world to investigate abuses committed by military and other authoritarian governments.
In addition to HRW, HRF, and AIUSA, other institutional signatories included the National Institute of Military Justice, the Centre for Victims of Torture, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Open Society Institute, and Physicians for Human Rights, among others.
The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) also called this week for the Obama administration to conduct an investigation into abuses against terrorism suspects.
“Seven years after 9/11 it is time to take stock and repeal abusive laws and policies enacted in recent years,” former Irish President Mary Robinson told reporters. “Human rights and international humanitarian law provide a strong and flexible framework to address terrorist threats.”
Robinson was one of several members of an ICJ panel that looked into abuses committed during the war on terror. The panel also included Stella Rimington, the former head of Britain’s MI5.
*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
Peace and Justice Post 
Afghanistan, the Next US Quagmire?
February 20, 2009The United States is planning to send an additional 17,000 troops to one of the world’s most battle-scarred nations – Afghanistan – long described as “a graveyard of empires.”
First, it was the British Empire, and then the Soviet Union. So, will the United States be far behind?
“With his new order on Afghanistan, President (Barack) Obama has given substantial ground to what Martin Luther King Jr., in 1967 called ‘the madness of militarism,'” Norman Solomon, executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy, told IPS.
“That madness should be opposed in 2009,” said Solomon, author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
The proposed surge in U.S. troops will bring the total to 60,000, while the combined forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including troops from Germany, Canada, Britain and the Netherlands, amount to over 32,000.
When in full strength, U.S.-NATO forces in Afghanistan could reach close to 100,000 by the end of this year.
Still, in a TV interview Tuesday, Obama said he was “absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban (insurgency), the spread extremism in that region solely through military means.”
“If there is no military solution, why is the administration’s first set of decisions to continue drone attacks and increase ground troops?” Marilyn B. Young, a professor of history at New York University, told IPS.
She said the uncertainty around Afghan policy seems to be spreading even while the Obama administration announces an increase in troops.
“This is one of the ways events seem to echo U.S. escalation in the Vietnam War,” said Young, author of several publications, including “Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam: Or, How Not to Learn From the Past.”
On Tuesday, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) released a report revealing that in 2008, there were 2,118 civilian casualties in Afghanistan, an increase of almost 40 percent over 2007.
Of these casualties, 55 percent of the overall death toll was attributed to anti-government forces, including the Taliban, and 39 percent to Afghan security and international military forces.
“This is of great concern to the United Nations,” the report said, pointing out that “this disquieting pattern demands that the parties to the conflict take all necessary measures to avoid the killing of innocent civilians.”
During his presidential campaign last year, Obama said the war in Iraq was a misguided war.
The United States, he said, needs to pull out of Iraq, and at the same time, bolster its troops in Afghanistan, primarily to prevent the militant Islamic fundamentalist Taliban from regaining power and also to eliminate safe havens for terrorists.
But most political analysts point out that Afghanistan may turn out to be a bigger military quagmire for U.S. forces than Iraq.
Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy said Obama’s moves on Afghanistan have “the quality of a moth toward a flame.”
In the short run, Obama is likely to be unharmed in domestic political terms. But the policy trajectory appears to be unsustainable in the medium-run, he added.
“Before the end of his first term, Obama is very likely to find himself in a vise, caught between a war in Afghanistan that cannot be won and a political quandary at home that significantly erodes the enthusiasm of his electoral base while fueling Republican momentum,” Solomon argued.
Dr. Christine Fair, a senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation and a former political officer with UNAMA in Kabul, told IPS she is doubtful that more troops will secure Afghanistan.
“Perhaps several years ago more troops would have been welcomed. My fear is that more troops means more civilian losses and further erosion of good will and support for the international presence,” Fair said.
“I would personally prefer a move from kinetics and towards using this increased capacity to help build Afghan capacity,” she noted.
“I also think greater support from the international community for reconciliation is needed. Afghans need to own this process,” said Fair, a former senior research associate with the Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention at the U.N. Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington.
However, she said, the international community has legitimate interests in remaining in some capacity to ensure that Afghanistan does not again emerge as a safe haven for al-Qaeda and other international terrorist groups.
Fair also co-authored (along with Seth Jones) a USIP report released early this week, titled “Securing Afghanistan,” which spelled out the reasons why international stabilization efforts have not been successful in Afghanistan over the last seven years.
“Security issues in Afghanistan are extraordinarily complex, with multiple actors influencing the threat environment – among them, insurgent groups, criminal groups, local tribes, warlords, government officials and security forces,” the report said.
Afghanistan also presents a multi-front conflict that includes distinct security challenges in the northern, central and southern parts of the country, the study declared.
In Afghanistan, Solomon argued, the U.S. president is proceeding down a path that can only be too steep and not steep enough.
The basic contradiction of his current position – asserting that the situation cannot be solved by military means yet taking action to try to solve the problem by military means – signifies that Obama is bargaining for short-term wiggle room at the expense of longer-term rationality, he added.
“In a very real sense, Obama is kicking a bloody can down the road, unable to think of any other way to confront circumstances that will grow worse with time in large measure because of his actions now,” he said.
Even while disputing some thematic aspects of the “war on terrorism” at times, Obama is reinvesting his political capital – and re-dedicating the Pentagon’s mission – on behalf of a U.S. war effort that is probably doomed to fail on its own terms, Solomon said.
“Reliance on violence is a chronic temptation for a commander-in-chief with the mighty U.S. military under its command. We’ve seen the results in Iraq – or, more precisely, the people of Iraq and many American soldiers have seen and suffered the results,” he added.
(Inter Press Service)
Share this:
Tags:Afghanistan, civilian casualties, militarism, more troops to Afghanistan, NATO, President Barack Obama, United States
Posted in Afghanistan, Commentary, imperialism, Uncategorized, US policy | Leave a Comment »