Archive for October, 2008

Will Britain try CIA officers?

An article in the Independent raises the possibility that there may be some accountability for US torture in Britain, if not at home. Perhaps the era of impunity for torture will end with the Bush administration:

CIA officers could face trial in Britain over torture allegations

Attorney General to investigate abuse claims

By Robert Verkaik

Senior CIA officers could be put on trial in Britain after it emerged last night that the Attorney General is to investigate allegations that a British resident held in Guantanamo Bay was brutally tortured, after being arrested and questioned by American forces following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.

The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has asked Baroness Scotland to consider bringing criminal proceedings against Americans allegedly responsible for the rendition and abuse of Binyam Mohamed, when he was held in prisons in Morocco and Afghanistan.

The development follows criticism of US prosecutors by British judges who have seen secret evidence of torture committed against Mr Mohamed, including allegations his torturers used a razor blade to repeatedly cut his penis. The Attorney’s investigation is expected to include allegations that MI5 colluded in Mr Mohamed’s rendition. Mr Mohamed, 30, an Ethiopian national and British resident, was arrested in Pakistan in 2002, when he was questioned by an MI5 officer.

On Tuesday, Government lawyers wrote to the judges hearing Mr Mohamed’s case against the UK government in the High Court. In the letter they said “the question of possible criminal wrongdoing to which these proceedings has given rise has been referred by the Home Secretary to the Attorney general for consideration as an independent minister of justice”. Baroness Scotland has been sent secret witness statements given to the court and public interest immunity certificates for the proceedings.

Mr Mohamed, 30, accuses MI5 agents of lying about what they knew of CIA plans to transfer him to a prison in north Africa, where he claims he was subjected to horrendous torture. Mr Mohamed, who won asylum in the UK in 1994, has been charged with terrorism-related offences. He awaits a decision on whether he is to face trial at the US naval base. He is officially the last Briton at Guantanamo. Last night his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, said: “This is a welcome recognition that the CIA cannot just go rendering British residents to secret torture chambers without consequences, and British agents cannot take part in US crimes without facing the music. Reprieve will be making submissions to the Attorney General to ensure those involved, from the US, Pakistan, Morocco, Britain, are held responsible.”

Richard Stein, of Leigh Day, representing Mr Mohamed in the High Court proceedings, said: “Ultimately the British Government had little choice once they conceded that a case had been made that Binyam Mohamed was tortured. The Convention Against Torture imposes an obligation on signatory states to investigate torture.”

In August two judges ruled allegations of torture were at least arguable and that MI5 had information relating to Mr Mohamed that was “not only necessary but essential for his defence”.

The judges have read statements and interviews with Mr Mohamed between 28 and 31 July, 2004 when he says he was forced to confess to terrorism. The judges said: “This was after a period of over two-and-a-half years of incommunicado detention during which Binyam Mohamed alleges he was tortured.”

He was first held in Pakistan in 2002, where a British agent interrogated him; he was then sent to Morocco by the CIA and allegedly tortured for 18 months. He was rendered to the secret “Dark Prison” in Afghanistan, where his torture is alleged to have continued. Since September 2004, he has been in Guantanamo Bay.

Add comment October 31st, 2008

New York Times discusses Drew Westen’s impact on Democratic messaging

The New York Times yesterday had an interesting article on psychologist Drew Westen’s attempts to transform the way Democratic candidates communicate. [See his Message Handbook for Progressives From Left to Center.]

A Psychologist Helps Repackage Democrats’ Message

By Shaila Dewan & Robbie Brown

ATLANTA — Democrats up and down the ballot have been trying to reverse the Republican rhetorical dominance that made “liberal” an unsavory label, and many have found help in a slender document percolating through their party’s hierarchy.

It is called the “Message Handbook for Progressives From Left to Center,” and, along with a companion piece on health care, it was created by Drew Westen, a psychology professor at Emory University here who was virtually unknown in political circles before this election cycle. Several Democratic consultants say it is the first systematic, data-driven effort to mold the language of the left to fit the sensibilities of the center.

Dr. Westen’s advice can be heard when Alisha Thomas Morgan, running for re-election to the Georgia House in a conservative suburb of Atlanta, uses the word “leadership” in place of “government” and speaks about the middle class instead of the poor.

Or when Andrew Gillum, a city commissioner in Tallahassee, Fla., who is fighting a ballot initiative against same-sex marriage, tells members of his predominantly black church of the human desire for dignity and respect instead of lecturing them on the evils of discrimination.

Democrats of higher office who have heard Dr. Westen have also shifted their rhetoric, as when Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, fending off a Republican challenger, not only says that “health care is a right for every citizen” but pointedly adds, “Particularly citizens who are working hard every day.”

Dr. Westen advises jettisoning wonkish 12-point plans in favor of direct emotional appeals that can compete with those evoked by Republicans using terms like “family values” and “the war on terror.”

“We are a centrist nation,” he said in an interview, “but people prefer center-left to center-right, even in conservative parts of the country, if they hear equally strong messages on both sides.”

Liberal candidates, especially those running in not-so-liberal territory, have latched on to his approach.

“There’s almost a rebirth, or a pride, that we can really talk about what we believe and not do so shamefully,” Mr. Gillum said, adding that Dr. Westen’s advice had given him the confidence to speak his mind even on conservative talk radio. “If we communicate it through our stories and our real-life examples, if they don’t agree with you then they can at least understand where you come from.”

Dr. Westen’s ideas began to catch on when he was writing “The Political Brain,” a scientific explanation of the central role of emotion in politics, published in 2007, that urged Democrats to stop cowering and fight back.

Among those with whom he has had audiences are Howard Dean, the Democratic national chairman, and Young Elected Officials, a national group of left-leaning city council members and state legislators. During the primaries, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., now Senator Barack Obama’s running mate, recommended “The Political Brain” to his campaign staff. Bill Clinton is a fan.

Even Frank Luntz, the architect of many Republican rhetorical successes, says Dr. Westen is fostering a sea change.

“It’s as though the Republicans have fallen back 15 years in their communication,” Mr. Luntz said, “at the very moment when Democrats vaulted ahead 15 years.”

Mr. Luntz said the Obama campaign often mirrored Dr. Westen’s approach. Though Dr. Westen has not worked for the campaign in an official capacity, he has offered guidance, both directly and in his Huffington Post columns.

Instead of using euphemisms like “pro-choice” and “reproductive health,” his handbook suggests, liberal candidates might insist that it is un-American for the government to tell men and women when to start a family or what religious beliefs to follow, arguments that test well in focus groups with conservatives and independents. On illegal immigration, he recommends, candidates who have said their plan would “allow” immigrants to become citizens should instead say they will “require” it.

“The idea,” Dr. Westen said, “is to start to rebrand progressives using language that’s as evocative as the language of the other side, and stop using phrases that just turn people off.”

The handbook does not offer a script so much as a menu of options, each of which was poll-tested against conservative arguments. On economics, for example, one message begins with “I want to see the words ‘Made in America’ again.” Another reads, “We need leaders who don’t just talk about family values but actually value families.”

Celinda Lake, a prominent Democratic strategist in Washington, said of the handbook: “I think people have been overjoyed to have it. I don’t think we have rooted our message in the kind of systematic understanding of values and networks of values that Drew uses.”

Dr. Westen is not the first to try to whip Democratic messaging into shape. But several political consultants said his scientific approach — based largely on recent advances in the study of how the brain reacts to political speech — and his advocacy of plain talk made him more effective.

Bill Jones, a moderate Democrat in a conservative, wealthy section of suburban Atlanta, said talking to Dr. Westen had helped him make the decision to run for Congress against the Republican incumbent, Representative Tom Price.

Among other recommendations, Dr. Westen encouraged Mr. Jones to make his background as an Air Force veteran a prominent part of his biography. “It wasn’t a contrived approach like ‘how can we create a persona?’ ” Mr. Jones recalled. “It’s ‘be the person you are.’ ”

In a candidates’ forum at a church on a recent Saturday afternoon, Bobbie Smith, 77, listened while her husband, a veteran, exchanged war stories with Mr. Jones. Ms. Smith, who identified herself as a conservative-leaning independent, said she had seen Mr. Jones’s television commercials, co-produced by Dr. Westen. “I liked the down-to-earth talk,” she said. “Common words for common people.”

Not everyone has jumped wholeheartedly onto the Westen bandwagon. Though praising Dr. Westen’s work, Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the research wing of the Democratic Leadership Council, said he worried that it focused too much on the message rather than substance.

But Paul Begala, a commentator and Democratic strategist who was an adviser to President Clinton, said that with candidates like Mr. Jones, Dr. Westen was helping to shape the future of the party.

“The fact that they’re doing this in Georgia is really, really, really important,” Mr. Begala said. “Great politicians often come out of enemy territory. Ronald Reagan came from Hollywood, and it made him tougher and smarter.”

Add comment October 31st, 2008

Wasilla justice sale, Palin style


From the YouTube description:

If youre cruel enough to charge women for rape kits, youre probably tacky enough to put them on sale. And its true: Sarah Palin allowed charging for rape kits as Mayor of Wasilla. They introduced..

Add comment October 31st, 2008

Translation from Clarín: Thin Red Line: Psychologists at Guantanamo

Yesterday I posted an article from the Argentine paper Clarín on the APA referendum victory.  Especially interesting was a rough translation of the first paragraph indicating how different coverage was in Argentina than was mainstream coverage in the US. Reader Telma Alencar kindly responded to my request for a  translation of the whole piece.

From the translation we can see the sympathetic coverage. But we also see a misperception of the role of the Jawad case in the APA struggle. While the mistreatment of Jawad at the direction of a BSCT psychologist was important, this was only one of many important revelations that contributed to changes in APA policy.

Here is the translation. Thanks Telma Alencar

Translation Spanish - English
________________________

Thin Red Line: Psychologists at Guantanamo

By Gustavo Sierra

October 21, 2008

Clarín.com – Argentina

US psychologists decided, after 7 years, that it’s not good to help military personnel in interrogation and torture sessions in the GTMO prisoner camp. And the decision was not unanimous. Through an Internet-based referendum, the APA succeeded by 8,792 votes to 6,157 in incorporating a prohibition on working at the naval base, where thousands of prisoners from the war against terror have come through. That means that over 6,000 American psychologists think that it is useful for one of their kind to help interrogators.

Until now, APA’s Ethics Code allows its members, who were not always present at the time they applied some of the 19 coercive procedures as the torture known as “water drowning” (waterbording), to participate in interrogations related to the search for information relevant to national security.

The debate that led to the vote came after the lawyers of prisoner Mohammed Jawad revealed that he had suffered isolation and other forms of torture on the advice of a psychologist. Jawad was transferred to Guantanamo from Afghanistan when he was 15 .

Accordingly to the transcript of some of the interrogation sessions, the boy suffered serious psychological consequences during his detention which resulted in several suicide attempts. Despite this, the psychologist recommended continuing the interrogations. When the lawyers wanted to take this professional to court, the psychologist got shelter in Article 31 of the Military Code of Justice and ensured that his name was not involved.

From the ranks of the Army, there is a persistent insistence that the participation of psychologists in the so-called “Behavioral Science Consultation Team ” (known in prison slang as “BSCT”) is essential to hold such meetings “safe, effective and legal.”

From now on, any psychologist who wants to continue exercising their profession may not participate in any torture session neither in Guantanamo nor in any other military center. “This was a fight for the continuation of the same profession,” said the new president of the APA Alan Kazdin. “We managed to recover the ethics that we should never have lost.”

From Argentine paper shocked that some American psychologists support helping interrogations,

Add comment October 30th, 2008

Republicans run torturer as Congressional candidate

It takes Johann Hari in the British newspaper the Independent to inform us that the Republicans are running a know torturer for Congress in Florida. Col. Allen West took Iraqi Yehiya Hamoodi and threatened to kill him, a clear unambiguous violation of the Convention Against Torture. When Hamoodi did not give up the information he was believed to have, West again threatened to kill him and shot a pistol a foot from his head. For torture, West was fined $5,000. Now he’s running for Congress

At National Review Online, Jed Babbi, a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, argued in December 2003 that what Col. West did was no big deal, not heroic, but not criminal either. Such is the right wing today. Torture is simply no big deal, even long before Abu Ghraib shed a harsh light upon officially-sanctioned torture.

If John McCain’s opposition to torture still had any substance, he would be denouncing Col. West’s support within the Republican Party.

Here is Hari’s article:

The Republicans’ dirty secret… torture
Allen West oversaw the brutal treatment of an Iraqi. Now he is running for Congress

By Johann Hari

So what will be left of the Republican Party after next week’s US election? The answer lies in the sands of Florida, where the sunshine-state Republicans have nominated an unrepentant torturer as their candidate for Congress. They view his readiness to torture an innocent Iraqi not as a source of shame, but as his prime qualification for office. This is American conservatism in the dying days of Bush – and it points out the direction that Sarah Palin would like to take it in 2012.

In August 2003, Colonel Allen West – commanding a US unit in Baghdad – heard a rumour that one of the Iraqi policeman he was working with was a secret insurgent. He ordered his officers to go and seize Yehiya Hamoodi, a thin, bespectacled 31-year-old, from his home. They dragged him into a Humvee, beat him, and then handcuffed, shackled and blindfolded him. In a dank interrogation room, they told him he had better start talking.

Perplexed and terrified, Yehiya explained he didn’t know what they were talking about: why was he here? So West was called in. He told Yehiya he was going to be killed. While his men beat him again, he explained he had one last chance to save his life – by talking.

Yehiya protested: I am innocent! What are you talking about? So West took him outside, had him pinned down, and began to shoot. First he fired into the air. Then he ordered his men to ram Yehiya’s head into a barrel used for cleaning weapons – and fired right next to his head. Then he began to count down from five. Finally Yehiya began to scream out names – any name he could think of, just to make it stop.

The men he named were seized and roughed up in turn. No evidence was found of any plot, and after another 45 days of terror, Yehiya was released. Today, he is severely traumatised, and collapses when he sees a Humvee approaching. The story only came to light after one of West’s soldiers began to protest against these practices, and the Pentagon launched an investigation. At a pre-trial hearing, West was fined $5,000, and now concedes grudgingly: “It’s possible I was wrong about Mr Hamoodi.” But he says he would do it again, and again, and again.

West has even taken to joking about it, gaining applause for telling Republican audiences: “It wasn’t torture. Seeing Rosie O’Donnell naked would be torture.” But the 1994 Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, is explicit: “Threat of imminent death” is the third form of torture it outlaws. There are reams of studies showing it can traumatise a person for life.

Yet the Republican Party has rallied to the defence of this torturer, and of torture in general. The Bush administration has ordered the simulated drowning of “high-value” suspects, and set up secret black ops sites across the world where it is practiced. After Afghan detainees were hanged from the ceiling and beaten to death, the officers responsible were merely given a “letter of reprimand”.

West’s “toughness” is fawned over; one leading conservative magazine has even named him its Man of the Year. And Sarah Palin, the Party’s darling, mocks Barack Obama’s opposition to torture. She complains: “Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America [and] he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.” Palin is fond of saying that she “won’t blink when it comes to terror”, but if you don’t blink, your corneas dry out, and you go blind.

At first, the rise of John McCain looked like a repudiation of torture. McCain was tortured by the Viet Cong for three years, and the beatings were so vicious that even today he can’t raise his arms to brush his own hair. For a time, he was a loud, proud opponent of torture – but then he caved. In February 2008, he voted to allow the CIA to be excluded from the ban on torture – when he knows the CIA who are the prime American torturers today.

Then, when the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have basic habeas corpus rights, McCain called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of the country.” If McCain will compromise on this, he will compromise on anything. He has tried to flip-flop back, saying he would ban torture after all, but if he tried now, he would face mass rebellion from his own party and Vice-President. It is unthinkable he would permit war crimes tribunals of the Party colleagues who ordered this torture.

The advocates of torture love to wheel out the ticking bomb scenario served up every week on 24. But think about what it requires. You have to (a) be certain you have captured a bomber in the very brief window between him planting a bomb and it blowing up, yet (b) have no idea where the bomb is. This has never happened, anywhere in the world, ever.

No: what happens in reality is Yehiya Hamoodi. You get a man you kinda-sorta suspect; you torture him; and you get junk intelligence leading you up wrong paths. What would you confess to if I put a gun to your head and started counting down from five?

Once you start to torture it doesn’t just stay in the neat mind-experiments favoured by philosophers. After the Israeli supreme court approved torture in very limited circumstances, soldiers were soon torturing two thirds of the Palestinians they held captive. Professor David Luban explains: “Escalation is the rule, not the aberration. Abu Ghraib is the fully predictable image of what a torture culture looks like.”

There are no recorded instances of getting useable intelligence from torture – but even if in some freak instance after you have tortured a thousand Yahiyas you finally did, would it outweigh the damage of handing al Qaeda a thousand new recruits, vindicating Bin Laden’s hate-talk and breaching the most basic moral codes?

The gap between the Republican and Democratic Parties is too narrow, but on this issue it is hefty. The Republicans have curdled into the Party of Torture, bullying their torture-victim nominee into backing their barbarism, and proudly picking a torturer as their candidate for Congress. That sound of screaming from inside the Palin-drome isn’t just from fawning Republicans – it’s from men like Yehiya.

1 comment October 29th, 2008

Argentine paper shocked that some American psychologists support helping interrogations

I’ve been sent this article in Clarín, which I’ve been told is one of the top two newspapers in Argentina:

My correspondent provided a rough translation of the first paragraph:

US psychologists decided, after 7 years, that it’s not good to help military personnel in interrogation and torture sessions in the GTMO prisoner camp. And the decision was not unanimous. Through an internet-based referendum, the APA succeeded by 8792 votes to 6157 in incorporating a prohibition on working at the naval base, where thousands of prisoners from the war against terror have come through. That means that over 6000 american psychologists think that it’s useful for one of their kind to help interrogators.”

Quite different than the US mainstream media coverage! Are any of my readers willing to translate the complete article?

Here is the full Spanish article:

Psicólogos de Guantánamo

Por Gustavo Sierra

Los psicólogos estadounidenses decidieron, después de siete años, que no es bueno ayudar a los militares en los interrogatorios y sesiones de tortura en el campo de prisioneros de Guantánamo. Y la decisión no se tomó por unanimidad. En una votación realizada a través de Internet la American Psychological Association logró incorporar la prohibición de trabajar en la base naval, por donde pasaron miles de prisioneros de la guerra antiterrorista, por 8.792 contra 6.157 votos. Es decir que más de seis mil psicólogos estadounidenses piensan que es útil que uno de ellos ayude a los interrogadores.

Hasta ahora, el código de ética de la APA permitía a sus asociados participar de interrogatorios relacionados con la búsqueda de información relevante para la seguridad nacional siempre que no se estuviera presente en el momento en que se aplicaban algunos de los 19 procedimientos cohercitivos como la tortura conocida como “el submarino”.

El debate que llevó a la votación se produjo después de que los abogados del prisionero Mohammed Jawad revelaran que había sufrido aislamiento y otros tormentos por consejo de un psicólogo. Jawad fue trasladado a Guantánamo desde Afganistán cuando tenía 15 años. De acuerdo a la transcripción de algunos interrogatorios, el chico sufrió graves consecuencias psicológicas durante su detención hasta terminar intentando el suicidio en varias oportunidades. A pesar de eso, el psicólogo recomendó continuar con los interrogatorios. Cuando los abogados quisieron llevar al profesional ante los tribunales, éste se amparó en el artículo 31 del código de justicia militar y logró que su nombre no trascendiera.

Desde las filas del ejército se insiste en que es fundamental la participación de los psicólogos en los llamados “grupos de consulta del comportamiento” (conocidos en la jerga carcelaria como “galletas”) para mantener esas sesiones “seguras, efectivas y legales”.

A partir de ahora, ningún psicólogo que quiera seguir ejerciendo su profesión podrá participar de ninguna sesión de tortura ni en Guantánamo ni en ningún otro centro militar. “Esta fue una lucha por la continuidad de la profesión misma”, dijo el nuevo presidente de la APA Alan Kazdin. “Logramos recuperar la ética que nunca debimos perder”.

2 comments October 29th, 2008

Did McCain use a Bermuda naval base as his family’s resort?

Ross Tuttle at the Nation describes yet another of the multitude of John McCain’s “ethical lapses.” Evidently McCain views the US military as his private golf club and family resort. This episode, coming as it does only six months after McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee, suggests that, when it comes to abuse of his office, John McCain is incapable of learning:

McCain’s Bermuda Triangle

By Ross Tuttle, The Nation, October 28, 2008

Just six months after being rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising “poor judgment” when he interfered with federal regulators on behalf of a wealthy donor, Senator John McCain engaged in activities that may have constituted an abuse of his office for personal gain. In August 1991, McCain hosted a family reunion at the Bermuda Naval Air Station (BNAS) for at least seven days at taxpayer expense. McCain’s entourage of eleven included his wife, Cindy, and several of his children. The trip took place as Washington was still dealing with the fallout from the Keating Five scandal, an episode that involved other improper luxury Atlantic-island trips for McCain.

McCain’s junket to BNAS was first reported by ABC’s Primetime Live in a postscript to a December 1992 story on Senior Petty Officer George Taylor, the whistleblower who exposed the use of the Navy base by top officials for nongovernmental purposes. A March 1993 Navy Inspector General report, precipitated by the Primetime Live segment, as well as a BNAS log record and a new interview with Taylor corroborate and amplify the substance of ABC’s story.

The Navy IG report, obtained by The Nation and never before made public, redacts the name of the “one U.S. Senator” who used BNAS as a “vacation site.” But in an interview with The Nation, Taylor, who was stationed at BNAS from May to November 1992, confirms that the senator in question was John McCain. A log book from BNAS, also obtained by The Nation, lists McCain as the only senator to have stayed on the island between 1989 and 1992.

In his interview, Taylor now recounts a conversation he had with a military psychiatrist who examined Taylor in 1992 for a psychiatric evaluation ordered by his supervisor in the wake of the Primetime Live show, in an apparent act of retaliation for his whistleblowing. The anecdote raises the disturbing possibility that McCain’s Senate office attempted to influence the outcome of Taylor’s psychiatric evaluation.

In his 2002 memoir, McCain declared that he had learned from his mistakes in the Keating Five affair, writing, “I have carefully avoided situations that might even tangentially be construed as a less than proper use of my office.” But this most recent disclosure casts doubt on that claim.

“It was a family reunion…and the guests included grown children from a prior marriage…and minor children…a baby and a nanny,” the IG report says of the McCain family vacation–some aspects of which may have violated the law.

Taylor, who had been highly decorated for his service aboard the USS Antietam, was the chief of military police at BNAS, commanding a staff of about seventy MPs. Shortly after his arrival at BNAS, he came to recognize that rather than serving a strategic military purpose, the base functioned mainly as a taxpayer-subsidized vacation spot for high-ranking officials.

“We’re not running a military installation,” Taylor told ABC. “We’re running a Howard Johnson’s.”

In accordance with Taylor’s claims, the IG report counted an inordinately high number of officer and VIP visits for a base that had one plane and no ships, and that was, according to ABC, “a cold war military relic that has outlived its usefulness.”

“The tally for our two-year period was 80 flag/general officers [admirals and generals] and 99 0-6’s [captains or colonels],” the IG report said, in addition to a number of other VIP visitors, one of whom was McCain.

According to the report, McCain’s trip was likely also the largest to the installation, as it was “the only identifiable case in which a visiting VIP…and guests required accommodations over and above the quarters” normally made available to visitors.

The operation at “Club Fed,” as it was called by the MPs, was not cheap. The IG report estimates the cost for military flights to the island at about $6,000, but Taylor and other MPs say this doesn’t account for indirect costs like maintenance, salaries and hangar space, which they believe bring the expense closer to $40,000 per flight. Taylor also learned that funds were diverted from security operations and poured into hospitality, and the Primetime Live segment reported that $53,000 was used to redecorate one of the guest cottages on the base in 1992.

Both the IG report and the Primetime Live segment make clear that military officers or military retirees–like McCain–and their dependents had been entitled to stay in BNAS guest quarters on a space-available basis. But their visits crossed the line when other military resources were used for nonofficial purposes.

And that’s what happened on just about every trip, according to Taylor. “Once they arrive they have the government vans here, which provide the transportation. They have the drivers, maid service,” Taylor told ABC in 1992.

“Sailors had been assigned to be [Cindy McCain's] driver, and they carried her bags after she went shopping at the expensive shops on the island,” says Taylor now. “It’s like they were her servants.” Taylor, who was not at the base when McCain visited but had been extensively briefed about it by subordinates, said this situation was not unique to Mrs. McCain. “That was the case for admirals and generals and other high-ranking officials that were coming into the installation for supposed military and governmental purposes.”

Taylor believes that this use of military resources violated the law. According to Title 31 USC 1349 Section B, it is illegal if an officer or employee of the US government “willfully uses or authorizes the use of a passenger motor vehicle or aircraft owned or leased by the United States Government (except for an official purpose…).”

Taylor told The Nation that he spoke up in part about the waste and abuse in Bermuda because he had seen a disturbing pattern. “They were closing all these bases stateside–like in Alabama, where I’m from, and good people were losing their jobs. And then, here’s one that everyone’s using, going to do their golfing weekends.”

The conclusions in the IG report are also redacted, and it is not clear what the consequences of the report were or if McCain faced any reprimands or sanctions. Calls to McCain’s campaign were not returned. But because of Taylor’s disclosure and the ABC report, BNAS was shuttered in 1995 after the Navy conducted another investigation that showed that the base was not serving any military purpose.

There was other fallout as well. Shortly after Taylor blew the whistle, he was removed from his duties on the island. One month before the Primetime Live episode aired, he was ordered by his commanding officer to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

Taylor had been a stellar serviceman, having received multiple commendations and superior evaluations and having exhibited no symptoms of psychological distress. He believes that the psychiatric evaluation was a punitive measure. “I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all,” he told ABC. But his commanding officer, Capt. James Arnold, denied this to ABC.

In fact, the military had used psychiatric evaluations to discredit and stifle whistleblowers before. At the time, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) had been pushing Congress for years to address this type of abuse. According to GAP lawyer Tom Devine, “Taylor’s ordeal was the straw that broke the camel’s back”; in late 1992 Congress passed the Boxer Amendment to curb the use of mental health evaluations as retaliation against whistleblowers, though the practice still occurs.

In November 1992, Taylor was packed onto a jet and ordered to appear at the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia, to see psychiatrist Peter True and undergo a “fitness for duty examination.” Dr. True evaluated Taylor on November 13 and arrived at the following diagnosis: “No psychiatric diagnosis at this time. 1) Patient is psychiatrically fit for duty. 2) He is fully responsible for his actions. 3) This is not a psychiatric problem. This is a problem between this member and his employer and needs to be worked out as such. There are no psychiatric contraindications to any administrative or legal action. 4) No psychiatric follow-up indicated.”

According to Taylor, True also told him at the time, “You’ve really upset a lot of people.” When Taylor asked the doctor what he meant, True replied, “I’ve been contacted before, but never in advance by a fleet commander’s staff, a senator’s staff and the secretary of the Navy’s staff to try and influence my evaluation.”

Neither McCain’s office nor True responded to The Nation’s requests for an interview to determine whether McCain’s staff contacted True and attempted to influence the outcome of Taylor’s psychiatric evaluation. But it was McCain’s office that had reason to intervene.

According to the official “VIP Log Book” on the island, McCain was the only senator to have stayed on the island between 1989 and 1992.

McCain had also been a classmate at the Naval Academy of Adm. Henry Mauz, who was heavily implicated in the BNAS scandal. Admiral Mauz had used the excuse that he’d been conducting official business on the island, but a Pentagon official said of one of Mauz’s junkets, “It was a golfing trip. That’s why he got in trouble. It was allegedly a training trip, but they ended up golfing the whole time.”

Tom Devine, one of Taylor’s lawyers from the Government Accountability Project, speaking in an independent capacity, hopes for a more comprehensive and transparent inquiry into McCain’s involvement in the matter.

“It was Senator McCain who made character an issue for the election. He says that Senator Obama should answer questions about associations from his distant past so that we can make a fair assessment about his character. But Senator McCain has some troubling questions to answer about his own behavior,” says Devine. “It’s one thing to go on a junket. It’s another thing to have taxpayers finance a family reunion.”

Add comment October 29th, 2008

Amy Goodman interviews Michael Ratner

Amy Goodman interviews the Center for Constitutional Rights’ Michael Ratner on the trials at Guantanamo. [This was before today's dramtaic action I reported on.] The last topic they discuss is the APA’s cozy relationship with Guantanamo, the recent referendum victory, and the Reisner campaign for President of the APA:

Here is the transcript:

Weeks After Prosecutor’s Resignation, US Drops Charges Against 5 Gitmo Prisoners—But Won’t Release Them

The US military has dropped all charges against five men held at Guantanamo Bay prison, but has no plans to release them. The news came just weeks after the resignation of Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, who was the prosecutor in all five cases. He had accused the military of deliberately withholding evidence that could have helped clear them. We speak to Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

AMY GOODMAN: The US military announced Tuesday it’s dropped all charges against five men held at Guantanamo, but added it had no plans to release them. The news came just weeks after the resignation of Lieutenant Colonel Darrel Vandeveld. He was the prosecutor in all five cases. He had accused the military of deliberately withholding evidence that could have helped clear them.

One of the five men is the Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed. His lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, said, “Far from being a victory for Mr. Mohamed in his long-running struggle for justice, this is more of the same farce that is Guantanamo.” He said the military has already said it plans to file new charges against Mohamed within a month.

Meanwhile, the White House has confirmed reports President Bush has no plans to close the prison at Guantanamo before leaving office. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday it was an issue for the next administration and Congress to take up.

We’re joined now by Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. He has been closely following developments in Guantanamo. He joins me here in the firehouse studio.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

MICHAEL RATNER: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s start with these five prisoners, who they are, charges dropped, but they remain in prison.

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, they were people tried by the military commissions. And I think people want to be aware, there’s sort of two things going on. There’s the military commissions, and there’s the habeas corpus. Military commissions are what try people; the habeas corpus proceedings are what test the detention, even without trial. And I actually think that while there’s lots going on within the administration, lots of suppression, that what’s going on is they’re trying to put out all of these fires that people have caused them that try and give people rights, both with habeas as well as rights in the courts.

These five, of course, were before a military commission. They were two weeks away from a hearing. Typically of the Bush administration, they go and, right before a hearing, they try and change everything, because they cannot sustain a court hearing in any of their cases, really. And as you’ll see, that’s a pattern they followed. Of course, the fact that one of half a dozen prosecutors resigned in this case, claiming that they weren’t giving all the evidence they should have been to defendants, is obviously very significant here, as well. So, within the military commissions, you have those five.

You also have, of course, the administration now saying with Hamdan, the so-called bin Laden driver, that they are now going to ask for a higher sentence for him than he was given, five years and five months—six months. He’s supposed to be out December 31st. They’re going to ask to keep him in. Underlying that, of course—and I think it’s being destroyed right now—is the administration’s belief that the executive can do whatever he wants in the so-called war on terror, hold people forever and try them in kangaroo courts. So the military commissions system, the kangaroo courts, is really coming apart.

But I should also say, the habeas system is also coming apart, which is to say it—we won, after three Supreme Court victories, finally, the right to go into a court and challenge detentions. And what happened just in the last couple of days was, in the Boumediene case, which is the lead case in the Supreme Court, six people charged with allegedly a conspiracy to bomb an embassy in Sarajevo, the administration is no longer depending on those charges, charges which have been depending for years. And again, that’s right before the hearing of the habeas case in the district court. So you’re seeing, really, the administration policy, I think, coming apart, coming apart in the kangaroo courts, coming apart in trying to hold people.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the resignation of Lieutenant Colonel Darrel Vandeveld?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, you know, this is one of a half a dozen prosecutors. You’re not even talking about just the courts going after this administration, as sort of hard as it has been to get them to move. There’s been five—I think five or six prosecutors who have resigned, because the entire system is one in which the President decides, or the Pentagon, what they like and what they don’t like. I mean, if someone is pushed to do a prosecution or someone is pushed to withhold evidence, military prosecutors who are trained in the law are not going to accept it, and they resign. His resignation was a big one, because he basically said, we are not giving people what we lawyers call exculpatory evidence, evidence that might show their non-guilt.

AMY GOODMAN: What about President Bush, it being reported by the New York Times, saying he privately decided not to close Guantanamo, or Robert Gates saying it’s going to be up to the next administration?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it’s certainly going to be up to the next administration. That’s a given, you know. But what—President Bush has been saying for a long time that he would close Guantanamo. Both presidential candidates have said they would close Guantanamo. And I remember promises, when I litigated the Haitian cases at Guantanamo, of President Clinton saying he would close Guantanamo. That didn’t happen. And the question in this next administration, will it really happen? Will they really close—will either of the candidates really close Guantanamo?

AMY GOODMAN: Do you have any indication, for example, that Obama would or that McCain would?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, they’ve said they would close it. And, of course, there was an interesting reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision, the Boumediene decision, which gave habeas rights to people at Guantanamo. And McCain called it one of the worst decisions in American history; Obama celebrated the decision as an important decision. And that’s the same case, that I’ve just described, in which now the administration has withdrawn its charges about Sarajevo. So that’s an indication that at least one candidate may feel more strongly about fundamental constitutional rights than the other. But until they take office and until they act, it’s too difficult to say. I can only say that we’re going to have to keep pushing on all of these issues, no matter who takes office.

AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of the recent referendum that was passed overwhelmingly by members of the American Psychological Association, over the objections of the leadership there, a movement that’s been going on for a while, approving a landmark measure banning members, psychologists, from taking part in interrogations at Guantanamo, and now this historic election for the APA, where the leading dissident psychologist, Steve Reisner, a New York psychoanalyst, is, as we speak, being voted on? The vote is being taken place for the next president of the American Psychological Association. They’re voting by email.

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I give Democracy Now! tremendous credit for this whole change in the American Psychological Association. You went after these people really early and got them into very embarrassing positions about their cooperation in interrogations at Guantanamo and probably in other places around the world. The fact that it took them seven years to get there is pretty outrageous to me. The fact that they have psychologists drawing up interrogation plans for people, finding their weaknesses, finding the ways they exploit people, is a 1984 all the way. And so, it’s about time they pass that resolution. But I just want to credit DN! again for that.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Michael Ratner, thank you very much for joining us, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Add comment October 28th, 2008

Jawad confession inadmissable

Major Frakt at Guantanamo has had a busy day. After the previous posting I heard that the judge in the trial of Mohammed Jawad has ruled that the main evidence against Jawad, a confession given to Afghan police, was extracted under torture and is therefore inadmissable as evidence. While this doesn’t automatically lead to dismissal of the war crimes charges, it is hard to see how the prosecution can continue.

Here is a Reuters report:

Guantanamo man tortured into confessing: U.S. judge

By Jane Sutton

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) – A young Guantanamo prisoner’s confession to Afghan police was obtained through torture and cannot be used as evidence in his trial on charges of wounding U.S. soldiers with a grenade, a judge in the U.S. war crimes court ruled on Tuesday.

High-ranking Afghan government officials threatened to kill Mohammed Jawad and his family unless he admitted throwing the grenade that wounded the soldiers and their Afghan interpreter at a bazaar in Kabul in December 2002, the judge found.

Jawad was 16 or 17 at the time and appeared to have been drugged, said the judge, Army Col. Stephen Henley. The Afghan officials who interrogated Jawad at the Kabul police station were armed and the death threat was credible, he ruled.

Jawad was turned over to U.S. forces after confessing and, two months later, was sent to the detention center at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The judge ruled that extracting a confession under threat of death met the definition of torture under the Guantanamo trial rules — an “act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain and suffering.”

Trial rules allow the use of evidence obtained via coercion but not torture and leave it up to the individual judges to determine which is which.

“While the torture threshold is admittedly high, it is met in this case,” Henley said in his ruling.

The ruling casts further doubt on the wobbly case against Jawad, who is scheduled for trial at Guantanamo on January 5.

The military prosecutor in the case quit last month, alleging the U.S. government was suppressing evidence that cast doubt on Jawad’s guilt. And a U.S. general who supervised the prosecutors was reassigned after fellow officers accused him of pushing for charges in the Jawad case prematurely because he felt it would excite the interest of U.S. citizens.

Jawad’s military lawyer, Air Force Maj. David Frakt, said the suppressed evidence indicated Jawad was drugged by Afghans who recruited him for a purported mine-clearing operation and that he was one of three people who confessed to throwing the same grenade.

At a hearing in August, he presented testimony that Jawad was beaten and chained to the wall while in U.S. custody in Afghanistan then subjected to extreme isolation and sleep deprivation at Guantanamo even after the sleep deprivation program was ordered halted.

About 255 suspected members of al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated groups are now detained at Guantanamo. A total of more than 750 foreigners have been held without trial at the base in the seven years since President George W. Bush began a war against terrorism.

The two candidates for the U.S. presidential election on November 4 — Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain — have said they will close the Guantanamo prison, which is widely seen as a stain on the reputation of the United States.

Add comment October 28th, 2008

Prisoner and dfense attorney refuse to participate in Guantanamo war crimes farce

Maj. David Frakt, Guantanamo defense attorney, is again making waves. When the judge refuse to allow his client, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, to represent himself, Maj. Frakt asked to be relieved from the case, as his client wishes. The judge refused. So Maj. Frakt announced that he is joining his client in sitting silently at the defense  table.

The war crimes trials are rapidly sinking to a level well below farce. We need a new term.

AP reports:

Guantanamo prisoner and lawyer boycott trial

By David McFadden

UANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – Al-Qaida’s former media director and his Pentagon-appointed lawyer refused to talk Monday, but their boycott didn’t stop a military judge from beginning Guantanamo’s second war crimes trial.

Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, facing a possible life sentence, sat silently at his defense table in a tan prison jumpsuit. His lawyer, Air Force Maj. David Frakt, said al-Bahlul was boycotting Guantanamo’s second war-crimes trial because he rejects a military attorney and has been barred from representing himself. Frakt then declared he would also remain silent in respect of al-Bahlul’s wishes.

Frakt refused to respond when asked by the judge if he wished to question a pool of 13 potential jurors — all U.S military officers flown in from other U.S. bases over the weekend.

More than half the jury pool told a Marine prosecutor, Maj. Charles Hale, that they had previously served in the military commission process for former Guantanamo detainee David Hicks, who wound up serving a nine-month prison sentence in his native Australia under a plea deal before the case went to trial here.

The judge, Air Force Col. Ronald Gregory, questioned prospective jurors about their previous commission experience or attitudes toward Islam, among other topics, then ordered a recess before a panel nine jurors is selected.

The war-crimes trials — which admit hearsay evidence and testimony obtained under harsh interrogations — have created many critics, including several former Guantanamo prosecutors.

Early in the session, Frakt asked Gregory to be allowed to leave in deference to his client’s boycott, but the judge said Frakt was obligated to attend the hearings even if he stays silent.

“I will be joining Mr. Al-Bahlul’s boycott, sitting silently at the table,” Frakt responded.

Prosecutors plan to introduce up to 31 witnesses for a trial Gregory said would last through this week. The list includes Navy interrogator Robert McFadden, who testified for prosecutors in the case of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan.

The trial of Al-Bahlul on charges of conspiracy, supporting terrorism and solicitation to commit murder is the second of the military commission system. The first trial — for former bin Laden driver Hamdan — ended in August with a conviction and a 5 1/2-year sentence.

Al-Bahlul said at a pretrial hearing earlier this year that he wanted nothing to do with his trial and would attend only for the announcement of the verdict and sentence. He called the proceedings at this isolated U.S. Navy base a “legal farce.”

The 39-year-old from Yemen allegedly created a recruiting video glorifying al-Qaida’s attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen that killed 17 American sailors in October 2000. He also is accused of arranging for lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta to swear a loyalty oath to bin Laden.

Al-Bahlul, who has been held at Guantanamo since 2002, has acknowledged working for bin Laden but said he does not agree that his actions constitute crimes.

Eighteen Guantanamo prisoners are currently facing charges.

Add comment October 28th, 2008

Previous Posts


Pages

Calendar

October 2008
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category