Archive for November, 2007

California AFSC : California Professional Must Not Engage in Torture

The American Friends Service Committee in California has an initiative to get the state to notify all California Licensed professionals that participation or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is illegal and could result in prosecution:

Tell State Legislators: CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONALS MUST NOT ENGAGE IN TORTURE

In 2002, for the first time in American history, the Bush administration initiated a radical new policy allowing the torture of prisoners of war and other captives. Reports confirm that California licensed physicians, psychologists, and nurses have participated in these acts. Additionally, some California professionals have also failed to notify authorities when acts of torture have taken place.

As professional licensure and codes of ethics are regulated by states, California has the obligation to notify members of laws concerning torture that may result in their prosecution.

A broad coalition of medical, human rights and legal organizations are petitioning the State of California to inform its licensees of legal prohibitions against torture.

Please add your name to this effort:

We, the undersigned, urge the State of California to notify all professional licensees via newsletter, email and web-site about legal and professional obligations under Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and the amended War Crimes Act which prohibit the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of detainees in US custody.

We, the undersigned, further urge the State of California to direct the all relevant California agencies to notify California licensed health professionals that those who participate in torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may one day be subject to prosecution.

We, the undersigned, further urge the State of California request that U.S. Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency remove all California-licensed health professionals, including physicians and psychologists from participating in prisoner interrogation.

Sign here.

Add comment November 9th, 2007

Pete Seeger & Arlo Guthrie: Union Maid

In honor of the Writers Guild strikers and of the “Personal Care Assistants” (Home Health Aids) in Massachusetts who have just voted to unionize:

[h/t Crook & Liars]

Add comment November 9th, 2007

Avian flu and public health’s Maginot Line

I haven’t mentioned avian influenza for a long time. But that doesn’t mean that the threat is gone. As Revere points out at Effect Measure, the threat is the same it always was. As in all things human, it’s a matter of probabilities ad possibilities, never certainties. Revere today points out that the appropriate public health response our government should be taking would be good for all of us:

Public health’s Maginot Line

Influenza A/H5N1 (bird flu) bubbles away this year much as in past years and public health professionals continue to wait with bated breath for the other shoe to drop. It could happen this year, next year or not at all. That’s the way the world is. Betting on “not at all” isn’t considered prudent by most people in public health, despite the fact that it’s possible. So given the uncertainty, what is the best strategy?

It is a bit disconcerting to see that the overwhelming preponderance of resources to pandemic preparedness resources are going into influenza-specific counter-measures, particularly vaccines and antivirals. If a pandemic doesn’t materialize not all of it is wasted. The boost that the threat of a pandemic has given to vaccine technology is real and significant and will pay off in the long run for diseases other than influenza for which vaccination is a reasonable preventive. So that’s good. Antivirals are more narrowly specific to influenza. Both are narrowly conceived, however, and are framed in terms of an uncertain event. But they are not the only reasonable response, nor even the ones where, if we were gaming out the possibilities, the likelihood of biggest pay-off would come. What are we suggesting?

In our view the biggest benefit comes with investment in public services which strengthen the community’s response to health threats of all kinds. Investment in routine public health — vital data and surveillance, substance abuse, elder care, maternal and child health, infectious disease control, human resources, social service support for the ill in the community and all the rest of it — is the place where we would put most of the money. If national planners are reluctant to give up the “magic bullet” approach of vaccines and antivirals then we are talking about additional investment. Given that every dollar invested in infrastructure is almost certain to pay off in multiple dollars of saved expense, we can afford this. And if a pandemic does come, it will pay off handsomely there, too. Vaccines and antivirals still depend upon the public health system. They don’t work at a distance.

We’ve been saying this for three years. It is not a change in attitude occasioned by a new threat assessment. On the contrary, our threat assessment has not changed at all. Only the virus changes. Whether the viral changes we are seeing is bringing us closer to a pandemic, farther away from one or are neutral in that regard we don’t know. So we have to respond in the most rational way.

The strategy of vaccines and antivirals appears to us a public health Maginot Line. Effective if the enemy comes that way. But if it goe

Add comment November 9th, 2007

The “Water Cure” as a cure for unruly “natives” in the Philippines

In the recent discussion of waterboarding, we’ve been reminded that the US punished Japanese and other soldiers who used it on Americans. But largely ignored is the long history of its use by US forces in their manifold “counterinsurgency” battles (aka “colonial wars”), from the Philippines to Vietnam. William Lorenz Katz in CounterPunch describes its Philippines use, and the rewarding of those ordering the torture:

Waterboarding in American History
Using the “Water Cure” in the Philippines

By William Lorenz Katz

Some high U.S. officials claim not be aware of it, and Judge Michael Mukasey, the President’s choice for attorney general, prefers to equivocate, but water boarding has long been a form of torture that causes excruciating pain and can lead to death. It forces water into prisoner’s lungs, usually over and over again. The Spanish Inquisition in the late 1400s used this torture to uncover and punish heretics, and then in the early 1500s Spain’s inquisitors carried it overseas to root out heresy in the New World. It reappeared during the witch hysteria. Women accused of sorcery were “dunked” and held under water to see if they were witches.

In World War II Japan and Germany routinely used water boarding on prisoners. In Viet Nam U.S. forces held bound Viet Cong captives and “sympathizers” upside down in barrels of water. Water boarding also has been associated with the Khmer Rouge.

An extensive record of its use by the United States land forces exists in the records of the invasion and occupation of the Philippines that began in 1898. As the U.S. encountered armed resistance by the liberation army of Filipino General Emilio Aguinaldo, and sank into a 12-year quagmire on the archipelago, U.S. officers routinely resorted to what they called “the water cure.” Professor Stuart C. Miller’s study of the Philippine war, “Benevolent Assimilation,” reveals this sordid story through Congressional testimony, letters from soldiers, court martial hearings, words of critics and defenders, and newspaper accounts. The pro-imperialist media of the day justified the “water cure” as necessary to gain information; the anti-imperialist media denounced its use by the U.S or any other civilized nation.

Fresh from their recent victories in the Indian wars, the Philippine invasion of 1898 began with a big war whoop. U.S. forces landed in the Philippines in 1898 led by American officers such Pershing, Lawton, Smith, Shafter, Otis, Merritt, and Chafee, who had fought “treacherous redskins.” At least one officer had taken part in the infamous 1891 massacre of 350 Lakota men, women and children at Wounded Knee. A U.S. media that had supported the Army’s brutal Indian campaigns rhapsodized about this new opportunity for distant racial warfare. The influential San Francisco Argonaut spoke candidly: “We do not want the Filipinos. We want the Philippines. The islands are enormously rich, but unfortunately they are infested with Filipinos. There are many millions there, and it is to be feared their extinction will be slow.” The paper’s solution was to recommend several unusually cruel methods of torture it believed “would impress the Malay mind.”

President William McKinley dispatched Admiral Dewey to the Philippines with a pledge to bestow civilization and Christianity on its people, and promise eventual independence. Perhaps he was unaware that most Filipinos were Catholics. Perhaps he did not know that General Aguinaldo and his 40,000 troops were poised to remove Spain from the islands. Dewey supplied Aguinaldo with weapons and encouraged him, but that soon changed.

From the White House and the U.S. high command to field officers and lowly enlistees the message became “these people are not civilized” and the United States had embarked on a glorious overseas adventure against “savages.” Officers and enlisted men - and the media — were encouraged to see the conflict through a “white superiority” lens, much as they viewed their victories over Native Americans and African Americans. The Philippine occupation unfolded at the high tide of American segregation, lynching, and a triumphant white supremacy ideology.

U.S. officers ordered massacres of entire villages and conducted a host of other shameful atrocities as the Philippine quagmire dragged on for more than a decade. “A white man seems to forget that he is human,” wrote a white soldier from the Philippines.

Atrocities abounded. To produce “a demoralized and obedient population” in Batangas, General Franklin Bell ordered the destruction of “humans, crops, food stores, domestic animals, houses and boats.” He became known as the “butcher” of Batangas. General Jacob Smith, who had been wounded fighting at Wounded Knee, said his overseas campaigns were “worse than fighting Indians.” He promised to turn Samar province into a “howling wilderness.” Smith defined the enemy as anyone “ten years and up” and issued these instructions to Marine Commander Tony Waller: “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me.” He became known as “Howling Jake” Smith.

The “water cure” was probably first instituted when U.S. forces encountered local resistance. Professor Miller states that General Frederick Funston in 1901 may have used it to capture the Filipino General Emilio Aguinaldo. A New York World article described the “water cure” as forcing “water with handfuls of salt thrown in to make it more efficacious, is forced down the throats of patients until their bodies become distended to the point of bursting . . ..” This may have been only one on the versions used.

The water cure became front-page news when William Howard Taft, appointed U.S. Governor of the Philippines, testified under oath before Congress and let the cat out of the bag. The “so called water cure,” he admitted, was used “on some occasions to extract information.” The Arena, an opposition paper, called his words “a most humiliating admission that should strike horror in the mind of every American.” Around the same time as Taft’s admission a soldier boasted in a letter made public that he had used the water cure on 160 people and only 26 had survived. The man was compelled by the War Department to retract his damaging confession. But then another officer stated the “water cure” was being widely used when he reported, “the problem of the ‘water cure’ is in knowing how to apply it.” Such statements leave unclear how often the form of torture was used for interrogation and how often it became a way to exhibit racial animosity or display contempt.

During a triumphal U.S. speaking tour General Frederick Funston, bearing a Congressional Medal of Honor and harboring political ambitions, bellicosely promoted total war. In Chicago he boasted of sentencing 35 suspects to death without trial and enthusiastically endorsed torture and civilian massacres. He even publicly suggested that anti-war protestors be dragged out of their homes and lynched.

Funston’s words met far more applause than criticism. In San Francisco he suggested that the editor of a noted anti-imperialist paper “ought to be strung up to the nearest lamppost.” At a banquet in the city he called Filipinos “unruly savages” and (now) claimed he had personally killed fifty prisoners without trial. Captain Edmond Boltwood, an officer under Funston, confirmed that the general had personally administered the water cure to captives, and had told his troops “to take no prisoners.”

President Theodore Roosevelt reprimanded Funston and ordered him to cease his inflammatory rhetoric. Facing a political challenge from General Nelson Miles based in the Philippines, TR, who rode into the White House on his heroic exploits at San Juan Hill, did not intend to nourish more competition. The President privately assured a friend the water cure was “an old Filipino method of mild torture” and claimed when Americans administered it “no body was seriously damaged.” But publicly TR was silent about the “water cure.”

In an article, “The ‘Water Cure’ from a Missionary Point of View,” Reverend Homer Stunz justified the technique. It was not torture, he said, since the victim could stop it any time by revealing what his interrogators wanted to know. Besides, he insisted, it was only applied to “spies.” The missionary also justified instances of torture by pointing out that U.S. soldiers “in lonely and remote bamboo jungles” faced stressful conditions.

Mark Twain, a leading anti-imperialist voice, offered this view of the water cure:

“Funston’s example has bred many imitators, and many ghastly additions to our history: the torturing of Filipinos by the awful ‘water- cure,’ for instance, to make them confess — what? Truth? Or lies? How can one know which it is they are telling? For under unendurable pain a man confesses anything that is required of him, true or false, and his evidence is worthless. Yet upon such evidence American officers have actually — but you know about those atrocities which the War Office has been hiding a year or two….”

U.S. military trials for what are now known as war crimes all resulted in convictions. Waller was acquitted because he followed the orders of Smith, and later retired with two stars. “Howling Jake” Smith was convicted, but he returned to a tumultuous citizens’ welcome in San Francisco. When the convicted U.S. war criminals received only slaps-on-the-wrist U.S. prestige abroad sunk to new lows.

A San Francisco park was named after General Funston. TR appointed General Bell of Batangas infamy as his chief of staff. And the President continued to wave the banner of aggressive imperialism. In 1903 he flagrantly seized a broad swath of Columbia’s Isthmus of Panama so he could link the Pacific and Atlantic oceans under U.S. control. This boosted his popularity and splintered the anti-imperialist movement. TR also worked to undermine efforts to grant the Philippines independence, which finally took place after World War II.

TR easily won a return to the White House in 1904, and in 1908 he chose Taft as his successor. By the time Taft left the White House in 1913, military resistance in the Philippines had ended, and so presumably had the “water cure.” TR had become a Mount Rushmore-size American icon.

The “water cure” was accepted as a necessary embarrassment in wartime. Appeals to muscular patriotism had exonerated the “water cure” and reduced a crime of torture to a misdemeanor. Is the U.S. headed the same way in 2007?

William Loren Katz is the author of Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage. His new, revised edition of The Black West [Harlem Moon/Random House, 2005] also includes information on the Philippine occupation, and can now be found in bookstores. This essay is based on his latest book, “The Cruel Years: American Voices at the Dawn of the 20th Century” [Beacon Press, 2003] and even more heavily draws on Stuart Creighton Miller, “Benevolent Assimilation” [Yale University Press, 1982. He can be reached through his website: www.williamlkatz.com

1 comment November 8th, 2007

Leaked Guantanamo SOP

Just leaked, via Wikileaks, is the Guantanamo Standard Operating Procedure (SOP dated March 28, 2003. I have only read a little bit so far, but here is what Wikileaks says [note that "Major Miller" is in fact Maj. General Geoffrey Miller, the  man infamous for "Gitmoizing" Abu Ghraib]:

Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) standard operating procedures (SOP) for Camp Delta (Guantanamo Bay prison). This is the primary document for the operation of Guantanamo bay, including the securing and treatment of detainees. The document is extensive and includes, in addition to its text, forms, identity cards and even muslim burial diagrams. It is signed by Major Miller, who Donald Rumsfeld later sent to Abu Ghraib to “Gitmoize it”. It is the subject of an ongoing legal action between the ACLU, who has been trying to obtain the document, and the Department of Defense, who has withheld it in full.

1 comment November 8th, 2007

Frontline: Extraordinay Rendition

This week’s Frontline film, Extraordinary Rendition can be watched at the PBS site here.

Here is the PBS synopsis:

In a crowded city in northern Egypt, FRONTLINE/World investigative reporter Stephen Grey tracks down a man who was once one of the CIA’s “ghost prisoners.” The bulky, bearded man he finds is Abu Omar al-Masri, an Egyptian cleric who had moved to Milan, Italy.

“I was kidnapped on the 17th February, 2003,” he tells Grey. “Then I disappeared from history.”

Abu Omar had been preaching at a mosque in Milan. The Italian police began to suspect that he was recruiting young Muslims to wage jihad against Americans. The CIA put him under surveillance, believing he was plotting a bomb attack on a school bus of American children. One day, CIA agents suddenly snatched him off the streets of Milan and loaded him on to a secret Gulfstream jet. The next thing he knew, he was back in Egypt, where he says he was interrogated and tortured.

“They started to beat me,” says Abu Omar, “with their fists, with sticks, with truncheons.”

Abu Omar says his torture lasted 14 months; the worst of it taking place at the secret police headquarters in Cairo. To date, more than 60 prisoners are believed to have been sent there by the United States.

This is the dark story of “extraordinary rendition,” says Grey, a secret program in which the United States captures terror suspects around the world and flies them to countries like Egypt, Syria or Morocco, where, critics say, torture is routine.

“We cannot deny that there could be some excesses, some acts of cruelty by security officers,” Egyptian General Ahmad Omar tells Grey. But he denies that torture is state policy and he insists that Egyptian and U.S. intelligence agencies are justified in taking action against those suspected of terrorist activities.

Now released from jail, Abu Omar maintains his innocence, saying he’s willing to defend himself in court if the Egyptians or the Americans ever charge him with a crime. Guilty or not, Abu Omar and his rendition have become a disaster for the CIA. Italian police investigating the case were able to identify the CIA agents involved. They are set to go on trial, in absentia, on charges of conspiracy to kidnap — a rare and politically embarrassing instance of a U.S. ally in Europe trying CIA agents in court.

For the last four years, Stephen Grey has been investigating stories of extraordinary rendition like Abu Omar’s. The Bush administration hasn’t spoken about Abu Omar, but under increasing pressure to reveal information about terror suspects apprehended and jailed secretly, they’ve officially acknowledged dozens of cases like his. They claim that when they send terror suspects to other countries, they get assurances they won’t be tortured, but even former CIA officials admit those claims are worthless.

“You can say we asked them not to do it, but you have to be honest with yourself and say there’s no way we can guarantee they are going to do that,” says Tyler Drumheller, who ran CIA operations in Europe at the time Abu Omar was kidnapped and “rendered” to Egypt. “Once you turn them over you have no control over that.”

Drumheller had mixed feelings about renditions abroad, but he was even more concerned about a plan put forward after 9/11 for the CIA to hold prisoners themselves in secret jails.

“We are an intelligence service, an espionage service,” insists Drumheller. “Not jailers, not a policeman, not interrogators. We debrief people; we don’t interrogate them. Everything that the military didn’t want to do or felt uncomfortable doing ended up in the lap of the CIA.”

After the war began in Afghanistan in 2002, the CIA set up its first secret jails or “black sites.” One of them, located just outside Kabul, was known as the “dark prison.”

“The dark prison was run by the Americans,” a former inmate, Bisher al-Rawi, tells Grey. “It wasn’t Afghani people flying the aircraft, it wasn’t Afghani people who sort of shackled me and did whatever they did to me. It was Americans.”

Bisher al-Rawi is an Iraqi-born British resident, who once acted as a messenger between an al Qaeda suspects in London and British intelligence. In 2002, while he was on a business trip to Gambia in West Africa, the CIA had al-Rawi and several colleagues arrested. Bound, gagged and hooded by American agents, al-Rawi was drugged and put on a plane to Afghanistan.

Transferred to the “dark prison,” al-Rawi says he was confined to a cell where, “You can’t see the end of your nose” and where he was subjected to continuous eerie music.

Eventually, he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where he spent four years before being released without charge in early 2007. Al-Rawi believes he was held, like many others, just on the hope he’d offer new intelligence.

The “dark prison” in Afghanistan was one of the first CIA “black sites,” but not the last.

By early 2003, the United States was negotiating secret agreements with governments in Eastern Europe to set up black sites on their territory. A report this summer by the Council of Europe declared it had proof of two CIA black sites, one on the east coast of Romania, the other at an airbase in Poland.

“Methods of interrogation were ‘enhanced’, which is a euphemism.  It’s totally unacceptable,” says Dick Marty who led the European investigation of the CIA black sites. “There was waterboarding, when you pretend to drown someone, and you only stop when he’s unable to breathe. Sleep deprivation, bright lights, loud noise. These are all methods of torture.”

The CIA went to great lengths to cover up evidence of the flights that brought men to the Polish black site, but Grey obtains the flight plan of a Gulfstream jet that left three passengers there, including, it appears, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.

The problem for the CIA was what to do with such prisoners in the long term, since they were being detained outside the U.S. legal system. Under pressure, President Bush announced in September 2006 that the CIA black sites were finally being emptied.

The plan was to bring the al Qaeda prisoners before military tribunals, but their prosecutions may be compromised because they were held for years in CIA secret prisons and subjected to interrogations using extreme techniques.

“We really have created a mess here, a terrible mess,” says Lawrence Wilkerson, who served in the U.S. State Department during the Bush administration. “For the people who are involved in it.  For the legal system that will have to sort it out, under a new president.  For the country.  For our reputation.  For our prestige around the world.  This has been incredibly damaging.”

New questions about the future of extraordinary rendition have now surfaced a world away in East Africa. Grey travels to Mombasa, Kenya, a Muslim city on the Indian Ocean to chase down a rumor of a rendition that took place earlier this year.

This is also the region where al Qaeda declared war on America in 1998 with simultaneous bombings on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed more than 200 people, mostly Africans. The man accused of coordinating the attacks, Fazul Abdullah, alias Harun, has never been caught.

Fazul was said to be hiding in Somalia. Last December, when Ethiopia moved its army into Somalia, the United States went after him, launching bombing raids against the country’s suspected al Qaeda hideouts. Thousands fled for the Kenyan border. Some were picked up in a dragnet by the Kenyan anti-terrorist police and disappeared without a trace.

Outraged Muslims in Mombasa began to protest and a Kenyan human rights lawyer took up the cause. The activist, Alamin Kimathi, shows Grey a flight manifest he obtained as part of the court case. It is rare documentary evidence of an extraordinary rendition. The Kenyans had taken a page out the CIA’s handbook. Eighty-five people, including 11 children, had been put on the planes. The passenger list includes Fazul Abdullah’s wife and daughters.

Kimathi tells Grey he believes the wife and children were “hostages…pure and simple,” detained in an effort to “smoke out” Fazul Abdullah. The tactic did not work.

A former FBI agent involved in anti-terrorist work, Jack Cloonan, says he believes the Kenyans would not have acted without the knowledge and support of the U.S. “It would be naïve frankly in this day and age to think that the FBI or the CIA, primarily the CIA, is not witting of what’s going on. In point of fact I’d suggest to you that they probably were witting and they were the power brokers behind the scenes pushing this forward.”

The prisoners were “rendered” on a Kenyan plane to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, a U.S. ally, which has its own conflicts with neighboring Muslim countries.

Grey believes this could be an indication of a new way in which renditions are being carried out by third countries, while U.S. officials remain in the shadows.

“It’s disappointing,” says former FBI special agent Jack Cloonan.  “The thing that you saw in Africa, where people are being held incommunicado and have no legal representation and potentially abused, is unacceptable. You’re setting up yourself for revenge by al Qaeda and other Islamists.”

This fall, President Bush was forced once more to defend rendition and secret detention. “I have put this program in place for a reason,” Bush told reporters. “When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them.”

Despite criticism of “extraordinary renditions” by many CIA insiders, the president has now signed a new executive order that clears the way, once again, for the CIA to interrogate terrorist suspects in secret black sites.

Add comment November 7th, 2007

Panties for Burmese freedom

Jim Hightower informs us of an innovative protest whereby women around the world are sending panties to Burmese embassies. It seems that the junta leaders have this superstition that even touching a woman’s panty will sap their energy. I’ll let Jim explain the rest:

[h/t Alternet.]

Add comment November 7th, 2007

Colin Powell presented torture-extracted fantasies to the UN

Stephen Grey, reporter for last night’s Frontline on Extraordinary Rendition (I only saw part of it, so I don’t know if this was included) informs us that a crucial piece of information that Colin Powell presented to the UN was not only false, like Powell’s entire presentation, but extracted by Egyptian torture. [This was the claim that Saddam provided chemical weapons training to al Qaeda] This insight provides confirmation for Keith Olbermann’s idea that the purpose of torture never was “intelligence” gathering, but the creation of elaborate, fantasies to scare the public into supporting the Administration’s plans for war and the creation of an authoritarian state.

CIA Rendition: The Smoking Gun Cable

Sometimes the music was American rap, sometimes Arab folk songs. In the CIA prison in Afghanistan, it came blaring through the speakers 24 hours a day. Prisoners held alone inside barbed-wire cages could only speak to each other and exchange their news when the music stopped: if the tape was changed or the generators broke down.

In one such six-foot-by-10-foot cell in February 2004, equipped with a low mattress and a bucket as a toilet, sat a man in shackles named Ibn al Sheikh al Libi, the former al Qaeda camp commander described by former CIA director George Tenet in his autobiography last year as “the highest ranking al-Qa’ida member in U.S. custody” just after 9/11.

In this secret facility known to prisoners as “The Hangar” and believed to be at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, al Libi told fellow “ghost prisoners,” one recalled to me for a PBS “Frontline” to be broadcast tonight, an incredible story of his treatment over the previous two years: of how questioned at first by Americans, by the FBI and then CIA, of how he was threatened with torture. And then how he was rendered to a jail cell in Egypt where the threats became a reality.

In his book, officially cleared for publication, Tenet confirms how the CIA outsourced al Libi’s interrogation. He said he was sent to a third country (inadvertently named in another part of the book as Egypt) for “further debriefing.”

The Bush administration has said that terrorists are trained to invent tales of torture.

Yet, on this occasion, the CIA believed al Libi’s tales of torture — an account that has proved to be one of the most serious indictments of the agency’s practice of extraordinary rendition: sending suspected Islamic terrorists into the hands of foreign jailers without legal process.

In a CIA sub-station close to al Libi’s jail cell, the CIA’s “debriefers,” who had been talking to al Libi for days after his return from Cairo, were typing out a series of operational cables to be sent Feb. 4 and Feb. 5 to the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va. In the view of some insiders, these cables provide the “smoking gun” on the whole rendition program — a convincing account of how the rendition program was, they say, illegally sending prisoners into the hands of torturers.

Under torture after his rendition to Egypt, al Libi had provided a confession of how Saddam Hussein had been training al Qaeda in chemical weapons. This evidence was used by Colin Powell at the United Nations a year earlier (February 2003) to justify the war in Iraq. (”I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al Qaeda,” Powell said. “Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.”)

But now, hearing how the information was obtained, the CIA was soon to retract all this intelligence. A Feb. 5 cable records that al Libi was told by a “foreign government service” (Egypt) that: “the next topic was al-Qa’ida’s connections with Iraq…This was a subject about which he said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story.”

Al Libi indicated that his interrogators did not like his responses and then “placed him in a small box approximately 50cm X 50cm [20 inches x 20 inches].” He claimed he was held in the box for approximately 17 hours. When he was let out of the box, al Libi claims that he was given a last opportunity to “tell the truth.” When al Libi did not satisfy the interrogator, al Libi claimed that “he was knocked over with an arm thrust across his chest and he fell on his back.” Al Libi told CIA debriefers that he then “was punched for 15 minutes.” (Sourced to CIA cable, Feb. 5, 2004).

Here was a cable then that informed Washington that one of the key pieces of evidence for the Iraq war — the al Qaeda/Iraq link — was not only false but extracted by effectively burying a prisoner alive.

Although there have been claims about torture inflicted on those rendered by the CIA to countries like Egypt, Syria, Morocco and Uzbekistan, this is the first clear example of such torture detailed in an official government document.

The information came almost one year before the president and other administration members first began to confirm the existence of the CIA rendition program, assuring the nation that “torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” (New York Times, Jan. 28, 2005)

Last September, these red-hot CIA cables were declassified and published by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but in, a welter of other news, one of the most important documents in the history of rendition had passed almost without notice by the media. As far as I can tell, not a single newspaper reported details of the cable. (Senate Intelligence Committee, page 81, paragraph 2)

A spokesman of the intelligence committee told me last month: “We were not able to establish definitively who was told about the cable or its contents or who read it.” Other members of Congress may soon be taking up this story to find out just who at the White House was told about the cable.

Meanwhile, al Libi, who told fellow prisoners in Bagram he was returned to U.S. custody from Egypt on Nov. 22, 2003, has disappeared. He was not among the “high-value prisoners” transferred to Guantanamo last year.

*Stephen Grey is the reporter for the documentary “Extraordinary Rendition” broadcast on Frontline/World, Tuesday, Nov. 6 on PBS. He is the author of “Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA’s Rendition and Torture Program” (St Martin’s Press). He is an award-winning investigative reporter who has contributed to the New York Times, BBC, PBS and ABC News among others.

Add comment November 7th, 2007

Mesage from Dana Siegelman, daughter of jailed former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

Followers of Scott Horton’s No Comment blog at Harpers are well aware of the travesty of justice involved in the politically-motivated prosecution and conviction (along with seven-year sentence) of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman by the Gonzales Injustice Department, apparently orchestrated by Karl Rove and aided by the state’s largest newspaper. This prosecution was apparently designed to help the Republican Party maintain control of the state. Those unfamiliar with this travesty can follow it in the 41 blog posts Horton has written on this case.

Today I received the following email from Siegleman’s daughter Dana, which she asked me to post here:

Dear Friends,

For those of you who have been concerned about my dad, I am writing to update you on his condition and to ask for your help again.

After visiting my dad in prison, I have observed this: They do not feed him nearly enough. He has no privacy. He works as a janitor everyday from 7-4. He is allowed few personal belongings, and he lives with real criminals (duh). However, despite the negative conditions he is under, his spirit remains positive, and he retains his hope in coming justice.

My goal in writing this letter is to incite your frustration toward our current political state. Politics has adopted the Mafia’s modus operandi. It thrives on power, money, and loyalty (i.e. being loyal to one’s own, versus the client), and aborting those who refuse to comply. Contrarily, we have a judiciary committee in the House of Representatives that cares and wants partisan prosecution to end. The conspirators, (for this is what they truly are), have been doing everything they can to crush the investigation in Congress before it reveals the truth. Our role is to petition these representatives to persevere and fight for justice.

“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable… Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Having my dad in prison has sharply awakened me to the many brutalities alive in this world. For years I tried to hide from politics and salvage my naiveness. This was a futile attempt. Hiding from and denying the injustices served to our people and the world is anything but empowering. We have the ability to face these problems and do something productive to stop them. Please join me in encouraging this committee to fight for the truth, to seek justice with all its power, and to rekindle the hope that we ought to have in our government.

With all my heart I thank you for your incredible help, prayers, and love.

Sincerely,

Dana Siegelman
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. ” MLK Jr.

SPECIFICS ON WRITING

Your letter may be as short or long as you like. My advice is to shoot for one or two strong paragraphs. Do not worry about making ach letter personal. Just send the same letter to each
representative. Keep in mind, they want to know why the issue is important to you. A few examples may be: I knew Don Siegelman as an honorable man, I believe our justice system has been corrupted, someone needs to hold this administration accountable, or I’m friends with the Siegelmans so I feel inclined to write. Speak from the heart. We are working for the betterment of all, not the punishment of a few, so keep your letters positive! If you don’t want to send a letter to each representative, then I suggest at least mailing to the first four listed. You also have the option of sending them emails on their personal websites. Thank you again for everything you have done and are doing to help!

Congressman Artur Davis (D)
208 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2665 (phone)
(202) 226-9567 (fax)

Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D)
1222 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D)
102 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone (202) 225-3072
Fax (202) 225-3336

Congressman Bobby Scott (D)
1201 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-8351 Phone
(202) 225-8354 Fax

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D)
2344 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2201
Fax: (202) 225-7854

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D)
2435 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3816
(202) 225-3317 Fax

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D)
2446 Rayburn Building
Washington DC 20515
(202) 225-2906
(202) 225-6942 Fax

Congressman Dan Lungren (R)
2448 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Congressman Chris Cannon (R)
2436 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-7751
Fax: (202) 225-5629
Email: cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov

Congressman Tom Feeney (R)
323 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2706 (202) 226-6299 fax

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R)
2449 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4905
Telephone: (202) 225-5101

Congressman Howard Coble (R)
2468 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3306
Phone: (202) 225-3065

Congressman Steve Chabot (R)
129 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2216
(202) 225-3012 (fax)

9 comments November 6th, 2007

There’s a third secret torture memo!

A press release today from the ACLU reveals the existence, but not the contents, of yet a third “torture memo” from the Alberto Gonzales’ Department of Torture:

ACLU Learns of Third Secret Torture Memo by Gonzales Justice Department

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org; (212) 549-2666

Group Presses for Release of Memos in Pending Lawsuit; Hearing Scheduled for November 13

NEW YORK – Legal papers filed in federal court Monday in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations disclose that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for the Department of Justice issued three secret memos in May 2005 relating to the interrogation of detainees in CIA custody. Until now, the existence of only two of those memos had been reported and it was not known precisely when the memos had been written. The memos are believed to have authorized the CIA to use extremely harsh interrogation methods including waterboarding.

“These torture memos should never have been written, and it is utterly unacceptable that the administration continues to suppress them while at the same time declaring publicly that it abhors torture,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It is now obvious that senior administration officials worked in concert over a period of several years to evade and violate the laws that prohibit cruelty and torture. Some degree of accountability is long overdue.”

On October 4, 2007, The New York Times published a front-page article disclosing that the OLC authored two memoranda in 2005 relating to the interrogation of prisoners held by the CIA. The Times reported that the first was issued “soon after” February, when Alberto Gonzales assumed the post of attorney general, and explicitly authorized interrogators to use combinations of psychological “enhanced” interrogation practices including waterboarding, head slapping, and stress positions. The second memo, according to The Times, was dated “[l]ater that year” and declared that none of the CIA’s interrogation methods violated a law being considered by Congress that outlawed “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment.

The memos should have been – but were not – identified and processed for the ACLU as part of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit requesting information on the treatment and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. In response to legal papers filed by the ACLU on October 24 objecting to that omission and requesting the release of the two memos, the government filed papers Monday stating:

“OLC has reviewed its opinions from that time frame and has determined that there were in fact three opinions issued to CIA relating to the interrogation of detainees in CIA custody … Two of the opinions were issued on May 10, 2005 … the third was issued on May 30, 2005 … OLC has not located any legal opinions issued to CIA from January 31, 2005 through May 9, 2005 that relate to the interrogation of detainees in CIA custody.” (emphasis added)

In addition to neglecting to provide the relevant memos to the ACLU as part of its FOIA lawsuit, the government has also withheld the documents from key senators in a congressional inquiry.

“The Justice Department’s failure to identify and disclose these memos is yet another example of its efforts to thwart public inquiry into its authorization of illegal interrogation methods,” said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The memos must immediately be disclosed, and high ranking officials must be held accountable for authorizing torture.”

The OLC memos – and the possibility of others that might remain unknown – take on particular meaning as the confirmation process continues today in Congress regarding the nomination of Michael Mukasey for attorney general. Mukasey has been the subject of intense criticism over his refusal to identify waterboarding as torture.

A hearing regarding the ACLU’s request for the release of OLC torture memos is scheduled for November 13, 2007 at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time in federal court in New York.

A copy of the ACLU’s brief requesting production of outstanding documents is online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/32572lgl20071024.html

The government’s response to the ACLU’s brief is online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/32573lgl20071105.html

More information on the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody and an index of documents received by the ACLU in its FOIA lawsuit can be found online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia

Many of these documents are also contained and summarized in a recently published book by Jaffer and Singh, Administration of Torture. More information is available online at:
www.aclu.org/administrationoftorture

Attorneys in the FOIA case are Lawrence S. Lustberg and Melanca D. Clark of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C.; Jaffer, Singh and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the New York Civil Liberties Union; and Shayana Kadidal and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights

Add comment November 6th, 2007

Next Posts Previous Posts


Pages

Calendar

November 2007
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category