Denounce Torture

Senator Lindsey Graham (R), a former military lawyer and current reserve judge on the air force court of criminal appeals, has proven to be one of the Senate's leading experts in the debate over the rights of terror suspects. He has advocated for the use of the extant military court- martial system to try suspects and has declared the system legally and militarily secure. Graham has consistently opposed the use of torture by helping pass a ban against torture last year. Last week, he questioned the judicial renomination of Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes who helped issue a memo allowing the torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. According to the International Herald Tribune:

Graham has insisted that only a system grounded in the military code and the Geneva conventions will reaffirm the reputation of the United States abroad and protect U.S. troops if they are captured.

In an interview, Graham stated:

What I'm trying to do with my time in the Senate during this whole debate we're having is to remind the Senate that the rules we set up speak more about us than it does the enemy. The enemy has no rules. They don't give people trials, they summarily execute them and they're brutal, inhuman creatures. But when we capture one of them, what we do is about us, not about them.

John McCain, a fellow military veteran and Republican senator, has sided with Graham in condeming the use of torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" on terror suspects.

See: "A key Republican holds out on detainees"

Tags: Abu Ghraib | General Counsel William Haynes | Guantanamo | Senator Lindsey Graham | torture

Save this post to del.icio.us

In a WaPo op-ed, Joseph Margulies writes that SCOTUS's Hamdan decision may not establish a "sweeping change" in the administration's policy toward terror suspects. The Supreme Court ruling upheld Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which bars torture and cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners in the war on terror. And though the Pentagon issued a memo pledging U.S. adherence to Common Article 3, the impact of the decision lies in the administration's interpretation of the statement and Hamdan decision.

Gordon England, the Pentagon official who issued the memo, insisted that the U.S. military, "aside from the military commission procedures," currently abides by Common Article 3 and treats detainees humanely. However, there have been accounts of severe inhumane treatment of prisoners including solitary confinement until hallucination, 18 to 20 hours of daily interrogation in eight- week series, forced enema and extreme sleep deprivation.

England's memo also refered to the 1992 Army field manual, which complies with the Geneva Conventions, but failed to mention that the administration abandoned the field manual in the war on terror and that the guidelines are being amended with pressure from senior administration officials for controversial interrogation techniques. Margulies wrote:

The critical question in last week's developments -- and the one that has so far escaped the notice of commentators -- is whether England's memo signals the end of this internal debate. If the administration finally concedes that interrogators cannot use techniques that violate Common Article 3, then perhaps it will give up trying to plant that power in the field manual.

But this administration does not give up power easily, and it could be that the White House will simply shift gears and claim that its long-running battle with the Pentagon was merely hypothetical -- that the interrogation techniques it has in mind for the new field manual don't really violate Common Article 3 after all. Giving interrogators the power to use them, therefore, would not run afoul of the Supreme Court's ruling.

If the administration finally gives up the attempt to use techniques that are cruel, humiliating or degrading, then we really have a change that could justify the headlines. But if not, then the announcement means nothing.

Joseph Margulies was the lead counsel in the case Rasul v. Bush, which concerned the imprisonment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

See his book: "Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power"

See: "Wiggle Room on Cruelty"

Tags: Geneva Conventions | Guantanamo | Hamdan v. Rumsfeld | Common Article 3 | Gordon England | Pentagon

Save this post to del.icio.us

Last Wednesday, Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes testified about his involvement in administrative policies allowing the torture of detainees at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Despite the Senate Judiciary Committee's reluctance to approve Haynes, President Bush renominated him to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

In 2002, Haynes sent a "torture memo" disregarding Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The document sanctioned "stress positions," "waterboarding" ( simulated drowing), forced nudity, attack dogs and threats to the families of detainees. The memo was not repealed until the mistreatment of Abu Ghraib detainees was exposed. According to The Salt Lake Tribune:

He (President Bush) should jettison Haynes and pick someone whose confirmation would be a credit, not a blot, on the federal judiciary.

See: "Torture advocate: Senate committee should reject Bush nominee"

Tags: Abu Ghraib | Guantanamo | General Counsel William Haynes | Common Article 3 | Geneva Conventions | Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Save this post to del.icio.us

Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's Executive Director, issued the following statement in response to the Department of Defense's (DoD) announcement that all detainees in its custody are entitled to protections under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions:

Amnesty International welcomes today's announcement that DoD has accorded detainees under its control protection under Common Article Three. The Supreme Court's recent decision to nullify President Bush's military commissions was clear: that all detainees must be given fundamental human rights protection. Amnesty International urges the administration not to gut these protections by narrowly defining what constitutes outrages on personal dignity. Today's action is a significant step; however, we urge that these basic protections apply to all detainees including those in secret CIA custody. As Amnesty International has stated before, it is important to adhere to U.S. and international laws.

Amnesty International continues to call for an independent commission to investigate all aspects of U.S. detention policies, including the use of secret detention sites and the practice of extraordinary rendition. For more information, visit http://www.amnestyusa.org/.

Lawyers for Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr expressed hope for his better treatment at Guantanamo Bay after the Supreme Court decision for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The ruling declared Guantanamo military tribunals unconstitutional last month. U.S. lawyer Muneer Ahmed said:

I do have some confidence that Omar and others will be treated better. You need to have clear standards from the top down. It's the grey areas that allowed the abuse to happen.

Khadr, 19, faces life in prison for allegedly killing a U.S. soldier in battle four years ago. Amnesty International has protested his miliary commission trial which began in April 2002 despite a pending Supreme Court decision about the legality of the trial. Amnesty stated:

Amnesty International is particularly concerned that Omar Khadr is facing trial by military commissions on the basis of alleged acts committed when he was a child and that throughout his detention he has been treated in violation of international standards which recognize that children are entitled to special care and protection.

During his trial, Khadr claimed that he was being treated inhumanely even though he had been cooperating with the commissions’ process. The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a report stating that Khadr, along with several other detainees, had been treated inhumanely in Guantanamo.

See Amnesty International's report on the Guantanamo Bay military commission trials.

See: "Khadr lawyers hope for better conditions at Guantanamo"

Tags: amnesty international | Center on Constitutional Rights | Guantanamo | Hamdan v. Rumsfeld | Omar Khadr

Save this post to del.icio.us

The Center on Constitutional Rights' (CCR) "Report on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba" reveals that the Guantanamo Bay detainees have been "systematically tortured." The report is a compilation of statements by current detainees and their American attorneys. Many of the accounts reveal the frequency of physical, psychological, sexual and religious abuse which violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions . According to the Financial Times, the article prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial that would apply to all detainees held in US military custody.

CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said:

I think the torture and abuse detailed here will shock Congress and the American public because it reveals a lawless, immoral and ineffective detention facility and undermines the administration's increasingly desperate attempts to lie about what is happening down there.

See: "Report: US 'systematically' violates Geneva, Supreme Court"

Tags: Guantanamo | Geneva Conventions | Center on Constitutional Rights | torture

Save this post to del.icio.us

According to WashingtonPost.com, the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision has presented a new course of action for the Bush administration. The decision gives Bush the opportunity to execute the Sept. 11 commission's recommendation of globally- determined anti- terrorism policies and to move towards an "international rule of law." The commissoin advised:

The United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists.

The administration has strayed away from collaboration on anti- terrorist rules since then. However, Columnist David Ignatius has written that the Hamdan case opportunes fulfilling the Sept. 11 commission's proposal of centralized anti- terrorism policies:

Administration officials recognize that they face a fork in the road after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , in which the Supreme Court rejected the administration's plan for military tribunals with limited rights for defendants. They can craft a minimalist response, which would seek congressional authority for the tribunals or amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to provide rules for a system of courts-martial. Or they could try a broader approach, which would seek to ground detention and trial of suspected terrorists within Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

See: "A Way Out of Guantanamo Bay"

Tags: amnesty international | Hamdan v. Rumsfeld | anti- terrorism policy | September 11

Save this post to del.icio.us

According to the Associated Press, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recognized and defended the U.S. practice of extraordinary rendition, the transportation of terror suspects to countries known to torture. However, he did not confirm reports that Egypt had received suspects although detainees have alleged that they were transferred from the U.S. to secret prisons in Egypt. Gonzales also stated:

We have procedures in place to ensure that those at Guantanamo in fact deserve to be at Guantanamo. We're looking for ways to deal with terrorists other than at Guantanamo if we can _ the U.S. has no intention and no desire to be the world's jailers.

Amnesty International has denounced extraordiary rendition as a violation of U.S. law and international treaties, including the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT). CAT prohibits nations from deporting persons to a country where it is more likely than not that s/he will be tortured.

See: "Gonzales Backs Handling of Terror Suspects"

Tags: amnesty international | Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales | Convention Against Torture | extraordinary rendition | Guantanamo

Save this post to del.icio.us

Wednesday marked the first time that foreign officials were arrested for involvement in the CIA's alleged practice of extraordinary rendition, the transportation of terror suspects to countries known to torture. Two Italian intelligence officials were arrested for aiding the CIA's kidnapping of a Abu Omar and transferring him from Milan to Egypt. If the claims are substantiated, it would support the Council of Europe's June report that charged 14 European countries of aiding the CIA's extraordinary rendition of detainees. The European Parliament also adopted a resolution supporting the Council of Europe's claims. The resolution stated that it was "implausible ... that certain European governments were not aware of the activities linked to extraordinary rendition taking place on their territory."

In Germany, controversy has erupted over the treatment of terror suspects by German security officials in Guantanamo Bay and Syria. According to WashingtonPost.com:

Critics charge that this amounts to collusion with abusive practices or torture, and the episodes are due to come under scrutiny from a parliamentary panel investigating the German security services.

Amnesty International's report, Partners in Crime: Europe's Role in U.S. Renditions, also accused the UK of colluding with the U.S. governemnt in extraordinary rendition. In the report, Amnesty urges the Council of Europe to continue its work toward uncovering this practice by setting up a commission of inquiry and working to ensure that any shortcomings in legislation are addressed regionally and by states individually.

See: "Pressure mounts over Europe-CIA collaboration"

Tags: amnesty international | cia | Council of Europe | extraordinary rendition | Abu Omar | Guantanamo

Save this post to del.icio.us

During his cross- examination by the Commons Liaison Committee, Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that a country's promise to not torture deportees would be a good enough assurance for British courts to return detainees to their countries. Blair called the present system "absurd" and said that it should not be the UK's responsibility to "prove absolutely" the safety of detainees who had broken the rules of society. He stated that the problem was with the interpretation of the Human Rights Act rather than the act itself. Blair continued:

We should be able to get an assurance from the particular government that they will not abuse or torture an individual.Our obligation is to get that assurance from that government, but our obligation does not extend to say in all circumstances we have got to protect you when you are causing mayhem in our country.We should go as far as we can to get assurances from other governments but it's absurd we can't return somebody to a country where they might have a problem in respect of, where this individual is inciting terrorism, or even committing acts of terrorism.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the Association for the Prevention of Torture, have issued a joint statement: Twelve Steps to End Renditions and Secret Detentions in Europe. The statement encourages European nations to prevent international violations of human rights:

In light of the available evidence on renditions and secret detentions, European states must now take positive steps to ensure that international counter-terrorism measures do not lead to further human rights violations on their territory, and to ensure that no one is rendered from the state to face violations of their human rights abroad.

See: "'No torture' promise is good enough, says Blair "

Tags: amnesty international | extraordinary rendition | Tony Blair | torture | Commons Liaison Committee | Human Rights Act

Save this post to del.icio.us

Amnesty International USA's Advocacy Director for International Justice and Domestic Human Rights Jumana Musa released the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision today in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case. Ms. Musa, an international law attorney, has been Amnesty International's legal observer at the military commission hearings in Guantanamo Bay for the last two years and has monitored the proceedings in person on five occasions. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and found the "military commissions" illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva conventions:

Today's ruling is a triumph for the rule of law and sends a clear message to President Bush that he cannot act unilaterally to create a system of law from thin air. This decision should be a crucial step in returning the United States to principles of due process and fundamental rights.

The Court's decision reflects many of the criticisms that Amnesty International, based on firsthand observations, has made of the commissions. A return to due process and fair trials standards is not just a victory for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, but a victory for justice and human rights. The Court has clearly stated that the president cannot invoke wartime powers to circumvent U.S. laws and international treaties that the United States has ratified.

Save this post to del.icio.us

Manfred Nowak, the United Nations (U.N.) Special Rapporter on Torture, called on the Jordanian government to criminalize torture and close special courts that protect police, prison and intelligence officials who practice torture. After a two- day investigation in Jordan, Nowak said:

On the basis of all the evidence gathered, including serious allegations substantiated by forensic expertise, and taking into account the efforts of both authorities to obstruct the fact-finding mission, I cannot but conclude that torture is systematically practiced at both the GID and CID.

Nowak identified the General Intelligence Department (GID) and the Central Investigation Department (CID) as "notorious" centers of torture. He also stated that he would file a detailed report to the U.N. General Assembly and U.N. reformed Human Rights Council, of which Jordan is vice- chair.

See: "Jordan must outlaw torture: rapporteur"; "U.N. official raps alleged torture"

Tags: Manfred Nowak | Jordan | United Nations

Save this post to del.icio.us

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration's military tribunals of Guantanamo detainees were unconstitutional and unauthorized under the Uniform Code of Miltary Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld stated that President Bush did not have constitutional authority to establish the military commissions which prosecute suspected terrorists as war criminals.Thedecision for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden, has great relevance for the 40 to 80 Guantanamo detainees expected to be charged.

The court stated that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was applicable in all trials and required Hamdan to be tried by a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Based on the Detainee Treatment Act, the court also denied the government the option of dismissing the case.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate" the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Council of Europe Secretary General Terry Davis called the ruling "a victory for justice in the campaign against error, ineptitude and hypocrisy."

See: "Court declares Guantanamo tribunals illegal"

Tags: amnesty international | Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 | Geneva Conventions | Guantanamo | Salim Ahmed Hamdan

Save this post to del.icio.us