Anyone who thinks they have all the Answers before they've even heard the Question - is Dangerously Deluded! Real Truth Requires Vigilance, Perseverance and Courage, regardless of Party and who wields Power. Left, Right, Center, Corporations, Government, Unions, Criminals or the Indifferent.
Rock Band Mr. Mister played a Chilean festival in 1988, they probably did know that speaking up for other artists who were being repressed by Dictator Augusto Pinochet might lead to being held under House Arrest, and even their Lives threatened. They did it anyway. Ten years later a Spanish Judge would issue an arrest warrant for Pinochet, that same Judge may soon indict "The Bush Six".
Besides my own long-time involvement in music, my wife was a Rock journalist at this time, friends with members of the band. as well as active with Amnesty International. She actually met them backstage in San Diego not long after this incident and could feel the tension in the aftermath.
The truth is that Richard is really underplaying what happened in this interview. They were held under house arrest and only because of the outcry from Amnesty International were they released. Their guitar tech Dallas Shue's life was threatened, the experience was so intense and terrifying that guitarist Steve Farris later talked of suffering from PTSD, and eventually left the band at least partially because of the incident. (He later joined Whitesnake). Dallas was also the Guitar Tech for Dave Evans (aka "The Edge" from U2).
When Richard made his statement from the stage, the front rows of the audience which were mostly filled with Pinochet supporters booed and made a "cut-throat" motion. Richard was handed a note later in the set which was intended to be his "apology/alibi" for making the statement - he let it fall to with a word.
Pinochet was eventually tried, convicted and died under House Arrest in England as a War Criminal, but it's interesting to not that in 1998 Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon issued a warrant for his arrest under the "Universal Jurisdiction" of War Crimes.
Today that same Spanish judge may soon decide to issue a similar warrant against the "Bush 6", including Alberto Gonzales and Donald Rumsfeld for their involvement with the unlawful detention, "disappearing" of people, and torture.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
If you don't know Mr. Mister's music besides the ballad "Broken Wings", here's a track from the movie "Stand and Deliver" (which is exactly what they did in Chile) featuring Edward James Olmos and Lou Diamond Phillips.
Contrary to the claims that the Bush Administrations internal decision conspiracy to implement a policy of War Crimes and Torture had always been smooth and without dissent, the New York Times reports today that besides the ignored and even covered-up memos from State Dept Counsels William Howard Taft IV (pdf) and Phillip Zelikow - we now have information that indicates that the CIA's own Inspector General argued forcefully against the techniques as not only illegal, but ineffective.
The consensus of top administration officials about the C.I.A. interrogation program, which they had approved without debate or dissent in 2002, began to fall apart the next year. Acutely aware that the agency would be blamed if the policies lost political support, nervous C.I.A. officials began to curb its practices much earlier than most Americans know: no one was waterboarded after March 2003, and coercive interrogation methods were shelved altogether in 2005. Yet even as interrogation methods were scaled back, former officials now say, the battle inside the Bush administration over which ones should be permitted only grew hotter. There would be a tense phone call over the program’s future during the 2005 Christmas holidays from Steven J. Hadley, the national security advisor, to Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director; a White House showdown the next year between Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney; and Ms. Rice’s refusal in 2007 to endorse the executive order with which Mr. Bush sought to revive the C.I.A. program.
The real trouble began on May 7, 2004, the day the C.I.A. inspector general, John L. Helgerson, completed a devastating report. In thousands of pages, it challenged the legality of some interrogation methods, found that interrogators were exceeding the rules imposed by the Justice Department and questioned the effectiveness of the entire program.
This IG report completely contradicted the legal analysis and rationales that had been provided by Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury and helped lead to the shutdown of the program, even prior to the passage of the McCain sponsored Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 in the wake of the Abu Ghraib Scandal.
Yet amazingly, even after Abu Ghraib and passage of the DTA, Cheney and Bradbury attempted to revive the program over the objections of Rice and NSA Counsel John Bellinger III.
Still, Mr. Cheney and top Justice Department officials fought to revive the program. Steven G. Bradbury, the head of the department’s Office of Legal Counsel and author of the recently declassified 2005 memorandums authorizing harsh C.I.A interrogations, began drafting another memorandum in late 2006 to restore legal approval for harsh interrogation. Mr. Bradbury noted that Congress, despite the public controversy, had left it to the White House to set the limits. Early drafts of the memorandum, circulated through the White House, the C.I.A. and the State Department, stunned some officials. Just months after the Supreme Court had declared that the Geneva Convention applied to Al Qaeda, the new Bradbury memorandum gave its blessing to almost every technique, except waterboarding, that the C.I.A. had used since 2002.
Forced as secretary of state to defend the C.I.A. program before angry European allies, Ms. Rice and her aides argued that it had outlived its usefulness. In February 2007, Mr. Bellinger wrote to the Justice Department challenging Mr. Bradbury’s position. He called Mr. Bradbury’s memorandum a “work of advocacy” that gave a twisted interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and told colleagues he might resign.
In 2007 President Bush - possibly exploiting a loophole in the DTA which allowed CIA personnel and contractors to exceed the Army Field Manual - re-instituted the interrogation program, despite the CIA IG Report and the Hamdan v Rumsfeld which had reinstated Geneva protections to detainees. In this go-around the Waterboarding and nudity which had previously been authorized were prohibited, but various other methods remained.
Bellinger's indictment of Bradbury's memo and Bush's decision to ultimately ignore the law and knowingly implement a plan that both the CIA and NSA doubted was either legal or effective may ultimately prove to be the final, sad, shameful CRIMINAL epitaph of his administration.
With the release of the Yoo/Bybee memos and the Armed Services Committee report much has been made lately of the involvement of top U.S. Officials in the use of techniques which could be considered Torture.
John Yoo has blasted Obama for release of these memos. Jay Baybee has argued that his conclusions represent a "Good Faith" analysis of the law. But does it?
Is this simply a matter of a difference in policy, a difference in legal opinion and perspective or is it something far worse? Where these memos and conclusions specifically requested and provided to enable the execution of War Crimes and Torture?
18 USC 2340(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
Besides the individual acts which have been well documented as occurring in various detention facilities world-wide the real question is whether or not a Criminal Conspiracy Case could potentially be brought against Bush Administration Officials, and if so, which ones?
To determine this we must look at the chain of evidence we have so far.
The first official action begins with this Jan 9, 2002 Memo (pdf) from John Yoo to William J. Haynes, General Counsel for the DoD which argues that Geneva does not apply to Taliban Fighters in Afghanistan.
You have asked for our Office's views concerning the effect of international treaties and federal laws on the treatment of individuals detained by the U.S. Armed Forces during the conflict in Afghanistan. In particular, you have asked whether the laws of armed conflict apply to the conditions of detention and the procedures for trial of member of al Qeada and the Taliban militia. We conclude that these treates do not protect members of the al Qeada organization, which as a non-State actor cannot be a party to the international agreements governing war. We further conclude that that [sic] these treaties do not apply to the Taliban militia. This memorandum expresses no view as to whether the President should decide, as a matter of policy, tha tht U.S. Armed Forces should adhere to the standards of conduct in those treaties with respect to the treatment of prisoners.
It may be important to note that this memo does not recommend deviating from the standing rules contained in the Army Field Manual (which comports with Geneva). George Bush applied this rationale and denied POW status to the Taliban on Jan 18th. It's interesting to note how this relatively neutral argument that Geneva doesn't apply to AQ & Taliban was amped up to a whole new level by this following memo from Alberto Gonzales on Jan 25th (pdf) which provided his recommendation on whether to reverse the Jan 18th decision and voluntarily abide by Geneva (accepting the assumption that it didn't apply) or not.
Positives (to denying Geneva protections)
Flexibility: In my judgment this new paradigm renders Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of it's provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms and scientific instruments.
Substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)
o That statute, enacted in 1996; prohibits the commission of a "war crime" by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. "War Crime" for these purposes is defined to include any grave breach of GPW (Geneva POW Conventions) or any violation of common Article 3 thereof (such as "outrages against personal dignity"). Some of these provisions apply (if the GPW applies) regardless of whether the individual being detained qualifies as a POW. Punishments for violations of Section 2441 Include the death penalty. A determination that the GPW is not applicable to the Taliban would mean that Section 2441 would not apply to actions taken with respect to the Taliban.
o Adhering to your determination that GPW does not apply would guard effectively against misconstruction or misapplication of Section 2441 for several reasons. First, some of the language of the GPW is undefined (it prohibits, for example, "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment") and it is difficult to predict with confidence what actions might be deemed to constitute violations of the relevant provisions of GPW. Second, it is difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism. Third, it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441. Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would provide a solid defense against any future prosecution.
Reading this is like reading a note from a mob lawyer to his client describing how to commit murder and get away with it! First of all, it's clear from this memo that Gonzales isn't making an argument that various techniques are or aren't a potential breach, he's attempting to "maintain flexibility" to use options "outside the box" and NOT GET PROSECUTED FOR IT. This indicates a knowing awareness that he feels that the law, as strictly written may appear to be violated, and that his recommendation to deny Geneva Protections is as much driven by a desire to avoid the death penalty as to pursue the war. Secondly, what is or isn't a "War Crime" and permisable in treating detainees, isn't "difficult to predict" at all - it has long been outlined in the Army Field Manual and the Uniform Code of Military Justice which considers any "Maltreatment" of a detainee to be a Courts Martial Offense.
"Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Elements.
(1) That a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused; and
(2) That the accused was cruel toward, or oppressed, or maltreated that person.
Explanation.
(1) Nature of victim. "Any person subject to his orders" means not only those persons under the direct or immediate command of the accused but extends to all persons, subject to the code or not, who by reason of some duty are required to obey the lawful orders of the accused, regardless whether the accused is in the direct chain of command over the person.
(2) Nature of act. The cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment, although not necessarily physical, must be measured by an objective standard.Assault, improper punishment, and sexual harassment may constitute this offense. Sexual harassment includes influencing, offering to influence, or threatening the career, pay, or job of another person in exchange for sexual favors, and deliberate or repeated offensive comments or gestures of a sexual nature. The imposition of necessary or proper duties and the exaction of their performance does not constitute this offense even though the duties are arduous or hazardous or both.
The Army Field Manual, which is designed to be consistent with Geneva, contains a LIST of prohibited interrogations techniques, which specifically includes Waterboarding!
5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to— • Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner. • Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes. • Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain. • “Waterboarding.” • Using military working dogs. • Inducing hypothermia or heat injury. • Conducting mock executions. • Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care. 5-76. While using legitimate interrogation techniques, certain applications of approaches and techniques may approach the line between permissible actions and prohibited actions.
Logic dictates that all of these techniques likely "Maltreatment" under the UCMJ, but are they War Crimes? The 4th Geneva Convention defines "Grave Breaches" as the following:
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
So even if you ignore the torture and coercive actions prohibited under the AFM and UCMJ, actions such as creating the Secure "Black Sites", and Extraordinary Renditions which were implemented are themselves Grave Breaches of Geneva and War Crimes.
By the way, exactly when did the President gain the power to "Establish Law"? Constitutionally that is a power given exclusively to Congress, while the Judiciary has the power to interpret the law in regards to the Constitution. Certainly there may be grey areas where legal analysis needs to be made by the executive branch which is charged with enforcing the law - but this memo, and those that follow it - seem to deliberately ignore previous case law and previous judicial decisions in favor a predetermined outcome to violate Geneva and knowingly allow the commision of what would otherwise absolutely be considered War Crimes, up to and including torture.
This direction was followed despite the vocal objections of then Secretary of State Colin Powell and his Counsel William Howard Taft IV (pdf)
The President should know that a decision that the Conventions do apply is consistent with the plain language of the Conventions and the unvaried practice of the United States in introducing its forces into conflict over fifty years. It is consistent with the advice of DOS lawyers and, as far as is known, the position of every other party to the Conventions. It is consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1193 affirming that "All parties to the conflict (in Afghanistan) are bound to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law and in particular the Geneva Conventions.
Ignoring both Powell, Taft and relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, Bush signed a memo denying Article 3 protections to Al Qeada and the Taliban on Feb 7.
At this point in time the legal theory in effect as a result of Bush's decision is that since the Taliban and Al Qaeda are are not themselves recognized internationally as legitimate governments they are not included within Geneva, and even though America has the option of treating them in a manner that is consistent with Geneva - IT WILL NOT - therefore indicating that War Crimes CAN be committed against them.
The problem with this decision is that Geneva does cover them. First off, because the fact that they haven't signed the Treaty is irrelevant - since we have. Geneva Article II
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
Under Article IV, Militia's such as the Taliban are included under coverage.
Section A. 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
You could also include them under Section A.6.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
And even if the Taliban - which even Gonzales in his memo called a "Militia" - were not covered by this Section, all potential combatants are covered in the following section.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."
In other words, any non-American on a battle field is protected by the conventions once they become a captive or detainee. There is NO OTHER VALID INTERPRETATION of this document. This makes it crystal clear that the decision as to whether someone is a POW, Non-combatant or Criminal is not something that can be made with a blanket statement, it has to be determined in a case-by-case basis by a legal and competent tribunal. It's not something a President can decide with the stroke of a pen anymore than he can declare that bank-robbery will no longer be illegal with a signing statement, just because someone needs the money for their sick mother.
Why you committed the crime doesn't matter, particularly when under the UN Convention Against Torture, all arguments - such as those provided by Gonzales that these techniques may have provided "useful information" - are irrelevant.
Article 2.2 No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
The advice given by both Yoo and Gonzales to ignore Geneva and the State Dept. at this point were completely irrevocably invalid, and Gonzales own further argument concerning 2441 shows that this wasn't just a "mistake" - it was a deliberate attempt to avoid likely prosecution for an impending premeditated crime.
In March of 2002, one month later, Abu Zubaydah was captured by U.S. forces in Pakistan. He became the test case for this new policy, but although 2441 had essentially been neutered another U.S. law still presented a problem. 18 U.S. 2340 - Torture
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
According to the FBI, Zubaydah cooperated and provided information which helped identify and capture both Khallid Sheik Mohammed and Jose Padilla during the following months, but as the Levin Reports shows, some members of the administration weren't hearing what they wanted to hear. They weren't hearing how Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11 and linked to Al Qeada. They decided Zubaydah was being uncooperative, and that Harsher Measures were needed. They looked to use techniques developed by the S.E.R.E. (the Torture Resistance Program developed by U.S. Special Forces after communist governments attempts to illicit false confessions from their citizens and our Troops) Not exactly a brilliant idea unless you want to gain false information.
Hardball w/Turley & Buchannan on Rice and the Legality of Torture
In May of 2002 Condoleeza Rice advised George Tenet that S.E.R.E developed techniques such as Waterboarding could be used on Zubaydah and other high-value Al Qeada detainees. At this point in time although Geneva was effectively disabled, 18 USC 2340 was still in effect.
In order to address this problem another OLC memo from Jay Baybee was issued which attempted to redefine torture literally out of existence. It claimed 10 techniques (attention grasp, wailing, facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivations, insects place in a confinement box and the waterboard) would not cause severe physical or mental pain.
In this memo Bybee argued:
The goal of the facial slap is not to inflict physical pain that is severe or lasting. Instead, the purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation. Wall standing is used to induce muscle fatigue. The individual stands about four to fie feet from a wall, with his feet spread approximately to shoulder width. His arms are stretched out in front of him, with his fingers resting on the wall. You have informed us that these positions are not design to produce the pain associated with contortions or twisting of the body, Rather somewhat like wailing, they are designed to produce the physical discomfort associated with muscle fatigue.
You have informed us that he (Zubaydah) appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box) Finally, you would like to use a technique called the "waterboard". This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produced the perception of "suffocation and incipient panic," i.e., the perception of drowning.
Any pain associated with muscle fatigue is not of the intensity sufficient to amount to "sever physical pain or suffering" under the statute, nor, despite it's discomfort, can it be said to be difficult to endure. As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning--even though the subject is well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain.
Parsing through whether the pain is "severe" or not completely misses the point that pain is entirely subjective, and that with repetition and duration such techniques over time can indeed become torturous. "Increased Carbon Dioxide" and experiencing the "sensation of drowning" can spike a subjects blood pressure, induce a stroke or heart-attack. Prolonged stress position scan indeed cause muscle fatigue, but that fatigue can eventually induce renal failure and cause a subject kidneys' to shutdown - leading to death. Zubaydah was ultimately waterboarded 83 Times. Rather than seeking information from a broad array of medical information and opinion, Bybee clearly ignored a great deal of information on the effects of torture from sources such as Amnesty International and also completely ignored to objections of the experienced S.E.R.E. program operation themselves.
"The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture," the document said. "In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption."
There was no consideration within the National Security Council that the planned techniques stemmed from Chinese communist practices and had been deemed torture when employed against American personnel, the former administration official said. The U.S. military prosecuted its own troops for using waterboarding in the Philippines and tried Japanese officers on war crimes charges for its use against Americans and other allied nationals during World War II.
The reasoning in the JPRA document contrasted sharply with arguments being pressed at the time by current and former military psychologists in the SERE program, including James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who later formed a company that became a CIA contractor advising on interrogations. Both men declined to comment on their role in formulating interrogation policy. The JPRA attachment said the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained. "A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," it said.
As it turns out most of the information that was received from Zubaydah after his waterboarding has been considered dubious at best by the FBI. The techniques employed against him were repeated against Khallid Sheik Mohammad who was ultimately waterboarded 183 times. In December of 2002 Donald Rumsfeld authorized the use of 15 similar "aggressive techniques" against detainees in GTMO and at Bagram AFB. Eventually these techniques were exported to Abu Ghraib by General Geoffrey Miller on Rumsfeld's order in an effort to "Gitmo-ize" it. Although "Waterboarding" was prohibited, the use of nudity, stress position, humiliation and dogs was included.
The world watched with horror, shock and outrage the graphic pictures of Iraqi prisoners being tortured in Abu Ghraib Prison. Prisoners were severely beaten and repeatedly sexually humiliated by US soldiers. They were forced to eat pork and drink alcohol. They were assaulted, threatened with rape, forced to masturbate in front of female soldiers, and forced to wear women's underwear. They were kept naked, sometimes for several days. They were also forced to walk like dogs on their hands and knees and bark like dogs. The US military investigation in Iraq headed by Major General Antonio Taguba found "systemic" and "illegal abuse of detainees" in Abu Ghraib Prison between August 2003 and February 2004, and concluded that soldiers had "committed egregious acts and grave breaches of international law at Abu Ghraib…". Amnesty International condemned the latest reports of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib as war crimes. The organization called on the US Government to fully investigate them in order to ensure that there is no impunity for anyone found responsible, regardless of position or rank.
The final nail in the coffin for Bybee's defenses is the condition that Zubaydah is in now after all of this "not severe, not painful" treatment.
Partly as a result of injuries he suffered while he was fighting the communists in Afghanistan, partly as a result of how those injuries were exacerbated by the CIA and partly as a result of his extended isolation, Abu Zubaydah's mental grasp is slipping away.
Today, he suffers blinding headaches and has permanent brain damage. He has an excruciating sensitivity to sounds, hearing what others do not. The slightest noise drives him nearly insane. In the last two years alone, he has experienced about 200 seizures.
But physical pain is a passing thing. The enduring torment is the taunting reminder that darkness encroaches. Already, he cannot picture his mother's face or recall his father's name. Gradually, his past, like his future, eludes him.
Let me reiterate that Zubaydah was only 31 years old when he was captured by U.S. Forces - he's not even 40 yet. It seems obvious that this was a crimnial act, particularly when the tapes of Zubaydah's inerrogations were illegally destroyed in violationi of a court order. Similar reports are that Jose Padilla - who is an American Citizen - has been rendered essentially catatonic with severe PTSD and memory loss by his treatment in U.S. custody.
The link from Yoo, to Gonzales, Bush, Bybee, Rice, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Gen Miller to Abu Ghraib is an unbroken chain. Potentially what could be called a chain conspiracy.
Conspiracy is the term for a broad category of crimes involving multiple actors coming together to engage in criminal activity. Specific federal anti-conspiracy statutes are found throughout federal law. The two key elements in proving a conspiracy are an agreement and an act in furtherance of the conspiracy by one of the actors:
* A key element in prosecuting a defendant for conspiracy is proving the agreement. The agreement that forms the basis for conspiracy need not be written, oral, or even explicit, but is often inferred from the facts of the specific case. If the parties meet and reach an understanding to work for a common purpose, there is an agreement. * Most criminal conspiracy statutes also require that at least one of the parties has committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
A chain conspiracy involves several parties as links in one long criminal chain. Defendants in chain conspiracies are responsible for the actions of all participants in the chain, even if they never met some of the other participants in the chain.
As I noted at the beginning of this discussion, Conspiracy under 2340 (Torture) is punishable to the same degree as the underlying crime. In this case estimates are currently that approx 35 detainees have died as the result of Homicide, most likely while being interrogated - that would mean, excluding the death penalty, up to 20 years in prison for each and all members of the conspiracy.
Oh, and by the way, ignorance of the law is No Excuse.
Do you Waste (Waste) All the time that you have Do you Take (Take) Everything you can get Do you Fake (Fake) Every feeling you show Do you Hate (Hate) Everyone that you know
(Chorus 1) I can't change you Unless you change yourself I can't make you Into someone you don't wannabe? Who do you Wannabe?
Will you Fight (Fight) For what you believe in? Do you Share (Share) Everything you don't need? Do you Make (Make) All the luck that you get? Do you Love (Love) Even those that don't love you?
(Chorus 2) I can't change you Unless you change yourself I can't make you into Something Your Not I can't love you Unless you love yourself I can't make you into Someone you don't Wannabe? Who do you Wannabe?
Do ya wanna?
(Break)
(Repeat Chorus 2) Nothin' but a Wannabe?
Visit vyan.chyweb.net for Downloads, Ringtones, Widgets and more.
For those who are curious about all the photos in the video:
Artist Rendition of Statue of Liberty in the "Vietnam" Stress Position (Hooded with false electrial wires dangling to make subject believe that if they don't remain upright, they'll be electrically shocked)
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Osama Bin Laden
Damage taken by the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 when Bombed by Al Qaeda
List of Casualties of the Cole Bombing
Richard Clarke former head of Counter Security with the National Security Council who warned desperately that Al Qeada would attack again.
Condoleeza Rice National Security Director/SecState who ignored and demoted Clarke
Tower 2 WTC Being Hit by the Second Hijacked Plane
NY Firefighter collapsing in exhaustion
NY Policeman in grief at memorial to victims
Pat Tillman former Carolina Panther who joined Special Forces to Fight Al Qeada. KIA in Afghanistan by "Friendly Fire"
More U.S. Troops ready for the fight.
John Yoo author of the "Torture Memos"
David Addington, Counsel and COS for VP Dick Cheney, alleged architect of the "Unitary Executive" Doctrine
Judge Jay Bybee, who signed off on various Yoo Torture Memos
Waterboarding Demonstration
Waterboarding Reality in Vietnam (U.S. Soldier on Left was Prosecuted)
Abu Zubaydah (Sources for info on Jose Padilla & Khallid Shiek Mohammad *before* undergoing torture, suffers from Multiple Personalities)
Khallid Sheik Mohammad ("Mastermind" of 9-11, Waterboarded 183 Times in one month)
Abu Ghraib (Dogs being used to terrorize naked detainee)
Abu Ghraib (Photo taken with deceased detainee)
Abu Ghraib (The Naked Pyramid)
"Real Torture" wounds of person held by Al Qeada
Former SecState Colin Powell
Former Vice President Richard Cheney
Former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld
"Baghdad Bob"
Saddam Hussein (During his Trial)
Shock and Awe 1
Shock and Awe 2
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Maher Arar (Innocent Canadian citizen detained in NYC, then extraodinarily "rendered" to Syria where he was torture for two years)
Jack Bauer (Fictional Torture Hero!)
George W. Bush (Fictional Navy Fighter Pilot)
Donald Rumfeld greets Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein after his capture
Saddam Hussein at his Execution
George W. Bush (Mission Accomplished)
Mohamar Quaddafi (Former Vicious Dictator of Libya- Now Trusted Ally of Libya)
Mahatma Ghandi
Bishop Desmond Tutu
Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, Former Chief of Staff for VP Cheney
Valerie Plame-Wilson, Former Covert CIA Operative (until Libby blabbed to Judith Miller) and husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson
Natalee Holloway (Blonde Victim)
Meghan McCain
Katrina Vanden Heuveal (Editor of The Nation Magazine)
Alexander Rodriguez (NY Yankees)
Barry Bonds (Ex-SF Giants)
Ron Artest and Others (Malice at the Palace 2004)
Michael Vick (Former Quaterback Atlanta Falcons - Convicted Dog Fighter)
Artists Rendition Vick : Vengence is for the Dogs
Pacers/Pistons Brawl 2004
Steve Nash (South Africa Ex-pat, Canadian, Pheonix Suns 2 Time MVP, Activist, Philanthropist)
Current TV Reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee: Held by North Korea Gov for Espionage
Jeremy Scahill (Reporter for The Nation, Author of "Blackwater")
Bill O'Reilly (Blowup over the Teleprompter)
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (Mug Shot)
KFed
Britney Spears w/Baby Bump (Little did we all know....)
Paris Hilton (Mug Shot)
Carrie Prejean, Miss California 2009 (Bigot/Biblical Truth-Sayer)
Cesar Chavez (Activist)
Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenburger (Hero Pilot)
Roberto Clemente (Hall of Fame 3rd Baseman for the Pittsburg Pirates, Activist, Hero, Martyr)
Bernard Goldberg (Fox News Analyst, Hate-Monger)
Lisa Nowak (Diaper wearing Stalker/Astronaut)
Fred Barnes (Editor The Weekly Standard, Fox News Analyst, Asshat)
Sean Hannity (Fox News Fucktard)
Pvt. Jessica Lynch (After the "Rescue")
Jessica Lynch (Cover Shot)
Pvt. Shoshana Johnson (One of the *other* not blonde "Rescuees")
The Late Anna Nicole Smith (aka "Vickie Lynn Marshall")
Senator John McCain (And the "Little Woman")
Keith Olbermann (MSNBC)
Jon Stewart (Comedy Central)
Stephan Colbert (Comedy Central)
Kim Kardashian and her enormous Ass (E!)
Charles Krauthhammer (Fox News Fascist)
Michelle Malkin (!!!!!!!)
Teresa Schiavo (Alive)
Terasa Schiavo (Brain Dead)
Hurrican Katrina
And then the Levee Breaks
George Bush Parties w/Country Band
New Orleans Flooded ("Looters")
New Orleans Finest ("Flooded")
NOPD Meet a "Looter"
NOLA Residents "Liberate" some Food
Blackwater USA (On the Streets of NOLA)
George W. Bush at John McCain's Birthday Party in Arizona
U.S. Coast Guard Rescue
Coast Guard over NOLA
Sean Penn during Katrina
Superdome
Above the Superdome
In front of the Superdome
Michael "Heckavajob" Brownie w/Bush and Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff
FEMA Trailers (Formaldehyde Ready!)
Valerie Plame-Wilson Testimony
Monica Goodling Testimony
Miley Cyrus
Lindsey Lohan (Will Testify!)
Jennifer Willbanks (The Runaway Bride with X-Ray Eyes)
Gary Busey (Mug Shot)
Mel Gibson (Anti-Semetic Rant Mug Shot)
Bill and Hillary (College Lovers)
Ashley Todd (Backwards "B" Girl)
Bill O'Reilly (Older, not Wiser - Still Angry)
Governor Sarah Palin
John Lennon (Musician, Activist, Shit-Stirrer, Peace-Monger, Martyr)
Naomi Klein (Author of "The End of America")
The March on Selma
Barack Obama welcomed in Germany
Barack Obama accepts Presidency
Capital Mall at Inaguration
The Obama's and the Biden's.
Tiger Woods
Rush Limbaugh
Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama (Pirate Hostage, Hero, Survivor)
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC/Air America)
Former Covert CIA Agent Bob Baer
Artist Rendition Black Site Sleep Deprivation
Steven Biko (South African, Hero, Martyr)
Nelson Mandela (Political Prisoner, President, Survivor)
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Rev. Jerry Fallwel
Rev. Pat Roberts
Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias (Now head Prosecutor at GTMO)
Former CIA Operative Bob Baer, whose story formed the basis for George Clooney's Syriana appearing Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss the fact that Torture Doesn't Work - and he should know, he was tortured.
In this interview he points out yet again the FBI director Mueller has stated that Torture has Not Saved American Lives, and that even the Israelis have refrained from using it for years - even when they had Hamas Rocket's raining down on them - because it simply doesn't generate good information.
He even points out, as I have many times that real life isn't like "24" - and the decision to employ tactics such as these always have consequences.
When the CIA was asked to resume hostile interrogations after Sept. 11, some agency leaders were dead set against it, arguing that the military was better equipped for the task. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted the job belonged to the CIA. We now know that Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month. His interrogator, a former CIA colleague of mine, admits he had almost no training in the technique and knew nothing about how the cumulative effect of waterboarding might affect the quality of the information he was trying to extract.
...
The use of torture has come at huge costs to American credibility and the morale and psychology of our intelligence agencies. If we're going to pay those costs, we ought to know what we're getting. A thorough clearing of the air will help discredit the idea that we either torture terrorists or become victims. This false choice is played out on shows like 24, leaving people with the notion that had the FBI somehow caught one of the hijackers in the hours leading up to Sept. 11, torture would have led to the arrests of the 18 others before those planes took off. The truth is less sensational and more unsettling--but ultimately one that Americans should learn to accept. There are ticking time bombs out there. But torture won't get us any closer to discovering when they're going to go off.
Toward the end of this second portion from her interview with Nora O'Donnell this week, Liz Cheney proclaimed that there was "No Connection" between the policies endorsed by her Father for "Enhanced Interrogation" Torture and the tragic events at Abu Ghraib Prison.
Following Bush's determination that "Geneva Doesn't Apply" and various memos from Gonzales, Yoo and Bybee authorizing and justifying the use of a variety of harsh interrogation methods which were first tested on Zubaydah in Thailand, were exported in response to requests from the commanders at GTMO. Following that request in Dec of 2002 SECDEF Rumsfeld authorized new techniques such as hooding, stress positions, nudity, the use of phobias, dogs, sensory deprivation, environmental controls (hypothermia), sexual humiliation as a way to "soften up" detainees.
On that memo Rumsfeld handwrote... "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" Rumsfeld used a "standing desk" for doing his work, the problem with his argument is that he has freedom to move and shift positions, but in a standing stress position the subjects movements are limited which can over the coarse of time induce renal failure and death. That's why the 4-hour limit.
In January of 2003 the commander at Bagram AFB, Afghanistan officially implemented the new Rumsfeld's techniques going far beyond the Army Field Manual, which is written to be consistent with Geneva. This ultimately results in the death of several detainees (A clear violation of even the "Bybee Standard").
In August of 2003 on recommendations from Lt. Gen Sanchez, Rumsfeld sent the commander of Guantanamo (Gen. Miller) to Abu Ghraib to Gitmo-ize it. The new commander removed the authority of the standard base commander Gen. Kaprinski over the "Hard Site" and positions the MP's handling prisoners there under the command of Military Intelligence, then proceeded to implement The same tactics Rumsfeld had previously approved for GITMO and Bagram
The pictures that we all saw at Abu Ghraib, the hooding, the nudity, and stress positions were all authorized by Rumsfeld and exported to the Hard Site on his orders. The argument has long been that this wasn't an "Intelligence Mission" because those who were mistreated clearly were not high-value members of al Qaeda, but using his sources journalist Sy Hersh (who first broke the Abu Ghraib story) has found the explanation for all this. In his book "Chain of Command" he argues that this treatment was intended to be used a s blackmail (hence all the pictures and photos) against low-value targets who would them be released and coerced into becoming spies against the insurgency.
The original idea behind the sexually humiliating photos taken at Abu Ghraib, Hersh said he had heard, was to use them as blackmail so that the newly released prisoners - many of whom were ordinary Iraqi thieves or even civilian bystanders rounded up in dragnets - would act as informants. "We operate on guilt, [Muslims] operate on shame," Hersh explained. "The idea of photographing an Arab man naked and having him simulate homosexual activity, and having an American GI woman in the photographs, is the end of society in their eyes."
Abu Ghraib was no boating accident, it was a Covert Op.
This is why even in while putting together the Taguba Report, investigators into Abu Ghraib were prohibited from looking at the actions and motivations of higher-ups, and instead told to focus on scapegoats like Grainer and England who were for the most part only doing what Un-ranked Military Intelligence Officers had instructed them to do.
In this performance on MSNBC Liz Cheney, daughter of the Former Vice President, was absolutely stunning in her delivery of rapid-fire talking points in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that under her Father and President Bush this country engaged in Totalitarian Methods and War Crimes - and in the process still failed to protect America by using false intelligence and false confessions to begin an unwarranted invasion of Iraq.
Point by Point...
False Claim 1: The Program was Widely Approved and Legal
The first act by President Bush in this matter, on recommendation from John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales, was to deny that Geneva protections applied to al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. This temporarily invalidated the War Crimes Act (18 USC 2441), but did not make Torture (18 USC 2340) Legal. This action was later overturned by the SCOTUS in Hamdan v Rumsfeld which found that Geneva absolutely *did* apply, meaning that Bush's original determination was wrongly reached.
This conflict between FBI and CIA led to Director Mueller's pulling all of his agents out of future CIA directed interrogation efforts. If all of this was so legal, why did the FBI run like scared rabbits away from it?
Several attorney's within DOJ and the State Dept dissented with OLC memos which legitimized the use of SERE-tactics as legal interrogation methods. THESE ATTORNEY'S WERE RETALIATED AGAINST FOR THEIR VIEWS. The Zelikow Memo was ordered to be destroyed. Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith was forced to resign by Cheney's Counsel David Addington after ordering the Yoo memos rescinded. General Counsel to the Navy, Alberto Mora wrote a memo detailing the abuse at GTMO and rebutting the Yoo Memos, he was forced to retire.
False Claim 2: President Obama and AG Holder have ignored evidence of the program effectiveness.
Key information from Zubaydah was gathered by the FBI before harsh methods were used, such as confirming the identity of KSM. Information gathered after these methods were applied remain dubious and have appeared to be false.
The actual capture of KSM came from other sources besides Zubaydah.
When asked FBI Director Mueller has stated that to his knowledge No Terrorist Plots were thwarted using coerced information.
Lastly "It Worked" is no excuse - under the UN Convention Against Torture which was signed by President Reagan and ratified by a Republican Congress in 1995, which forms the basis for 18 USC 2340...
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
False Claim 3: These tactics weren't torture because they are used in SERE in the training of our own troops.
SERE was developed in response to torture tactics used against our troops in the Korean war by Communist forces. The techniques are identical to those which led to the execution of Japanese soldiers in WWII and prosecution of American soldiers in Vietnam. The Communist used them to illicit False Confessions, not the truth. S.E.R.E. attempts to prepare our Special Forces Troops for undergoing Illegal Tactics used by totalitarian regimes, and is completely voluntary. (UPDATE via Wapo: The Officers who run S.E.R.E. - Call it TORTURE!) The difference between a voluntary program meant to protect our troops and using those techniques on unwitting and unwilling detainees is like the difference between a consensual act and a violent rape. It's obscene.
False Claim 4: Two of the people who were Waterboarded gave us information that saved American Lives.
Yet again the key information supposedly gleaned from Zubaydah, was the identity of KSm - however that was *before* waterboarding was used. The key piece of information from KSM was the Library Tower attack, yet that attack had already been stopped
Further, this isn't just about "Waterboarding" - Geneva prohibits "All Affronts to Personal Dignity" and all forms of torture including psychological torture. Exceeding this is a War Crime. Stress positions, sleep deprivation, hypothermia and the exploitation phobias and fears (dogs, insects) can lead to a psychotic break in the subject (as may have occurred with Jose Padilla) renal failure, heart-attack, stroke and/or death. Autopsy reports of detainees all across the various theater's of conflict indicate that in 2005 over 40 detainees had died in custody, largely as a result of mistreatment and that at least 20 of those appeared to have died as a result of HOMICIDE, most likely while being interrogated by CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence.
False Claime #5: Our Intellegence Gathering and Nation has been hurt by release of these memos.
Cheney refers to this Op-ed, by former Bush AG Mukasey and former CIA Chief Hayden which claims:
Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens.
This claim is directly contradicted by the in-the-field experience of interrogator Matthew Alexander who was able to establish a rapport with an Iraqi insurgent within a few hours and managed to use that information to take down Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the head of AQI.
I refused to participate in such (brutal) practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.
Exactly what Cheney, Mukasey and Hayden claim won't work - Does Work! Further, what they claim is "so effective" has according Alexander directly led to the death of American soldiers.
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.
False Claim #6: The Techniques were limited and carefully controlled
The clear goal of using doctors and psychiatrist during the interrogation process was not to keep them from being in discomfort, it was clearly to prevent them from dying too quickly so that the interrogations could continue on and on and on. Far from being Limited, KSM was waterboarded 183 Times within 30 days and Zubaydah over 83 times.
False Claim #7: The Program had Broad-based Support within the Higher-ups of the Administration, including all members of the National Security Council
False Claim #8: These techniques were done to our own people (via S.E.R.E.) and they are not "Tortureed".
S.E.R.E. was developed from Torture done to our own people by the communists as mentioned above, but a review of CIA prisons by the International Red Cross, which is the entity empowered by Geneva to identify torture, clearly shows - We Tortured Them.
The Red Cross found that detainees were held for up to four years in secret prisons, were frequently made to stand for several days in positions evidently intended to cause pain, and were threatened with "electric shocks, infection with HIV, sodomy of the detainee and … being brought close to death."
We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution. [...]
False Claim #9: Revealing these techniques will allow our enemies to train to withstand them
First off, if the techniques are so effective - how can you train to withstand them? Further, since the techniques have been effectively banned not only by Obama's adoption of the Army Field Manual for the CIA, but also the Detainee Treatment Act - why should it matter what they train for, when we aren't using these techniques anymore anyway?
False Claim #10: Al Qeada doesn't follow Geneva so why should we?
Geneva doesn't require that those you are fighting against, also abide by Geneva - it applies to the actions of the signers, not the actions of the non-signatories. Also, Al-Qeada might not be the only enemy we ever face in the future, and if we can choose not to abide by Geneva just because we don't feel like it anymore - what is there to stop anyone else from doing the exact same thing, including current signatories? Future despots can and *will* use Cheney-esque argument to mistreat and abuse our soldiers and the soldiers of our allies, and because we've abdicated our authority on the matters, there's little we can do to stop it other than to say "Stop" and look ridiculous.
All taken together this is a devastating array of lies at worst, and deluded denial of facts and truth at best which has helped enable and continue a world-wide atrocity. It can't be allowed to stand, any repetition of these baseless talking points need to be taken down and taken down Hard.
Rahm Emmanuel on This Week: "This is not a time for Retribution or Anger"
Via Thinkprogress
The UN Special Rapporteur stated in a recent interview with Australia's Der Standard
STANDARD: CIA torturers are according to U.S. President Obama not to be prosecuted. Is that decision supportable?
NOWAK: Absolutely not. The United States has, like all other Contracting Parties to the UN Convention Against Torture, committed itself to investigate instances of torture and to prosecute all cases in which credible evidence of torture is found.
Word!
Despite what Rahm or Obama says, this is not about "Retribution or Anger" it's simply about Justice and the Law.
STANDARD: In other words, by making this announcement, Obama has violated international law?
NOWAK: Correct. It is a violation of binding international treaty law in this case, because this is an international law convention — and it provides unequivocally that states are not merely obligated to make torture a crime, but also to prosecute any incidents of which credible evidence can be found.
The UN Convention Against Torture, which was signed by Ronald Reagan and ratified by a Republican Congress in 1995 says this.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
No exceptions, in plain English means - NO EXCEPTIONS.
This is the Law, ignorance of the Law - is NO EXCUSE!
This is something that someone really needs to tell GOP Torture shills like Frank Gaffney
Despite what Frank says the fact is that the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Tortue aren't just some irrelevant "International Law" that has nopower within the sovereign United States. These are Treaties that WE SIGNED and Ratified and as such have the full force and binding aspect of our own Constitution as noted under Hamdan v Rumsfeld (pdf).
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III)Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,Aug. 12,1949, [1955 ] 6 U..S.T.3316,3318,T.I.A.S.No.3364. The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law.See id.,at 3316. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses,when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U.S.C.§2441. There should be no doubt,then,that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.
These treaties are executed under U.S. law as 18 USC 2340 (Torture) and 18 USC 2441 (War Crimes).
Nothing in these statutes says the U.S. should only prosecute "when it's politically convenient" - in fact, I suspect Obama's open refusal to persue these charges may have left himself and A.G. Holder vulnerable to legal action by those who have been tortured under U.S. policy or their surviving families.
Suites like those already in progress against Donald Rumsfeld.
Oct. 27, 2004 – Four men, who were formerly detained at the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay, filed a lawsuit today against numerous pentagon officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for allegedly authorizing torture and other human rights violations during their detention.
The plaintiffs, Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith -- all British citizens -- claim they were arbitrarily detained and suffered abuse and mistreatment while in US custody. They are each seeking $10 million in damages from those responsible in their individual capacities. This is the first case of its kind. .
Chances are, it won't be the last.
There is also a compelling argument to made that as signatories to these treaties we are Obligated to oblige by Universal Jurisdiction (a concept that has already been employed by These states include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.)
"All states parties to the Convention against Torture and the Inter-American Convention are obliged whenever a person suspected of torture is found in their territory to submit the case to their prosecuting authorities for the purposes of prosecution, or to extradite that person. In addition, it is now widely recognized that states, even those which are not states parties to these treaties, may exercise universal jurisdiction over torture under customary international law."[10]
So, yes, Frank - Spain can prosecute Americans for Torture, even if Obama doesn't.
Oddly enough one of the few people whose got this issue right - except for his desire to keep the truth hidden so that America won't be "embarrassed" - is John McCain.
The arguement that tools such as Waterboarding are "neccesary and effective" is done and over - something isn't effective when you have to do it 183 times to get results. The CIA says that got "good information", the FBI (who had to go out and verify that info says they didn't - I trust the FBI on this one, since the same CIA said Saddam had mobile WMD labs! (A false allegation that also came about via Torture)
We have to come to realize that prosecuting criminals, especially War Criminals, is not "vindictive" - it's our responsibility as a civilized nation - if we fail at that, we fail as a society and force the hand of others to do what needs to be done.
Vyan
Update: There is some dispute as to whether or not the UN Conventions would override Prosecutorial Descretion since they were not Self-Executing and Congress choose to ignore the automatic provisions. I think that's a fair debate to have. Would the courts really reject a Civil Suit like the one I suggest (considering the fact they have already accept several including Hamdan, Hamdi and Boumedine already?) if it's sole purpose was primarily to argue that the failure to investigate and prosecute would be a clear violation of treaty obligations or would this have to be addressed in a Foreign Court (like Spain) or International Tribunal such as the Hague?
One other point I want to make is that Obama's argument against prosecution doesn't really follow the U.S. or the DOJ's own guidelines. He absolutely does have "credible evidence" that War Crimes took place, most of the arguments put forth in the Bybee/Yoo memos have been roundly defeated by the SCOTUS - and there are various memos, particularly those from then White House Counsel Gonzales that indicates willful knowledge that these policies may have been in violation of 18 USC 2441, and thereofore subsequent arguements were made to subvert the law such as President Bush's baseless claims that Geneva didn't apply to Al Qeada, when it clearly did and still does. Obama's choosing not to prosecute for political reasons, not criminal ones.
Obama's choosing not to prosecute for political reasons, not criminal ones.
Obama speaking today at CIA!
Not a very inspiring speech IMO. It doesn't matter whether our Enemies are constrained by the "Rule of Law" or not - WE ARE! It might be true that the AG has prosecutorial descretion not to persue these charges based on a reasonable legal analysis, but does the President have the ability to block an thorough investigation for Politics?
It's hard to put into words how GORGEOUS this is to hear, but what's even better is watching Rush's pained expressions as he gets pummeled for his support of Bush's Torture Policy by a Republican who voted for McCain who also happens to be a Vet from both the Marines and the Army.
Full Transcript of call
LIMBAUGH: We're going to go to Chicago. This is Charles. Charles, thank you for waiting and for calling. Great to have you here. Hello.
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Rush, listen, I voted Republican, and I didn't -- really didn't want to see Obama get in office. But, you know, Rush, you're one reason to blame for this election, for the Republicans losing.
First of all, you kept harping about voting for Hillary. The second big issue is the -- was the torture issue. I'm a veteran. We're not supposed to be torturing these people. This is not Nazi Germany, Red China, or North Korea. There's other ways of interrogating people, and you kept harping about it -- "It's OK," or "It's not really torture." And it was just more than waterboarding. Some of these prisoners were killed under torture.
And it just -- it was crazy for you to keep going on and on like Levin and Hannity and Hewitt. It's like you're all brainwashed.
And my last comment is, no matter what Obama does, you will still criticize him because I believe you're brainwashed. You're just -- and I hate to say it -- but I think you're a brainwashed Nazi. Anyone who could believe in torture just has got to be - there's got to be something wrong with them.
LIMBAUGH: You know --
CALLER: And I know Bush wanted to keep us safe and all of that, but we're not supposed to be torturing these people.
LIMBAUGH: Charles, if anybody is admitting that they're brainwashed it would be you.
CALLER: No, no, no, Rush. I don't think so.
LIMBAUGH: Charles. Charles, Charles --
CALLER: You, Hannity, Hewitt, and Levin are all brainwashed and you know it.
LIMBAUGH: -- you said -- you said at the beginning of your phone call --
CALLER: Yeah.
LIMBAUGH: -- that you didn't want Obama in there --
CALLER: That's right.
LIMBAUGH: -- but you voted for him because of me.
CALLER: I didn't vote for him. I voted for McCain. I voted Republican.
LIMBAUGH: Oh, so --
CALLER: I voted Republican.
LIMBAUGH: -- you're saying I turned people off to --
CALLER: You turned people off with all your -- all this "vote for Hillary" and all this BS, because you must think people are really stupid.
LIMBAUGH: That was Operation Chaos. That was to keep the --
CALLER: You -- no. It didn't work.
LIMBAUGH: -- chaos in the [unintelligible] of the Democrat primaries.
CALLER: It didn't work. And now what we have with you Hannity, Levin, and Hewitt: sour grapes. That's all we have. And believe me, I'm not -- I'm more to the right than I am to the left.
LIMBAUGH: Oh, of course, you are.
CALLER: I am, and that's --
LIMBAUGH: Of course, you are. You wouldn't be calling here with all these sour grapes if you weren't.
CALLER: Well, I'm so tired of listening to you --
LIMBAUGH: Oh, of course, you are.
CALLER: -- go on and on with this -- you've been brainwashed.
LIMBAUGH: I don't know of anybody who died from torture. I do not ever --
CALLER: We are not supposed to torture people.
LIMBAUGH: I do not ever --
CALLER: Do you remember World War II, the Nazis? The Nuremberg Trials?
LIMBAUGH: I --
CALLER: Do you remember the Nuremberg Trials?
LIMBAUGH: Charles --
CALLER: Klaus Barbie?
LIMBAUGH: Charles, let me say --
CALLER: Huh?
LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama --
CALLER: What's the matter with you?
LIMBAUGH: Barack --
CALLER: You never even served in a military.
LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama is --
CALLER: I served in the Marine Corps and the Army.
LIMBAUGH: Charles, Barack Obama is president of the United States today because of stupid, ignorant people who think like you do. You pose -- you and your ignorance are the most expensive commodity this country has. You think you know everything. You don't know diddly-squat.
You call me a Nazi? You call me somebody who supports torture and you want credibility on this program? You know, you're just plain embarrassing and ludicrous. But it doesn't surprise me that you're the kind of Republican that our last candidate attracted. Because you're no Republican at all based on what the hell you've said here.
Just for the record there's plenty of evidence of people being tortured to death by U.S. Forces.
Newly declassified Defense Department documents describe a pattern of “abusive” behavior by U.S. military interrogators that appears to have caused the deaths of several suspected terrorists imprisoned at a detention center in Afghanistan in December 2002, just two days after former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques against prisoners in that country.
The previously secret pages were part of a wide-ranging report into detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay known as the Church Report, named after Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, the former Naval inspector general, who conducted the investigation at the request of Rumsfeld. That report, released in March 2004, said there was "no policy that condoned or authorized either abuse or torture," which critics of the Bush administration believed was a cover-up.
But the declassified Pentagon documents, coupled with a report issued last December by the Senate Armed Services Committee, tell a different story and lend credence to claims by civil libertarians and critics of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that refusal to release a fully classified version of the Church Report several years ago amounted to a cover-up.
Yes, we - the U.S. - tortured people TO DEATH.
Don't worry folks, this isn't the last we've heard of this - Limbaugh will probably spend all day tomorrow trying to re-habilitate himself after this one. Just Watch.
I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. Not surprisingly. You know, I think that-- Vice President Cheney has been-- at the head of a-- movement whose notion is somehow that we can't reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we don't torture, with our national security interests. I think he's drawing the l-- wrong lesson from history.
The facts don't bear him out. I think he is-- that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage-- to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many-- how many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of-- Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.
Obama's comments have to be looked at in the context not only of self-serving ramblings of John Yoo, but also Col Larry Wilkerson - Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff at the State Department who states that Cheney and Rumsfeld knoew that only 24 detainees at Gitmo were actual terrorists and that over 700 innocent people held for years without reason or justice.
Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand. Falling back on "sources and methods" and "intelligence secrets" became the Bush administration's modus operandi to camouflage this grievous failing.
...
In addition, it has never come to my attention in any persuasive way--from classified information or otherwise--that any intelligence of significance was gained from any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay other than from the handful of undisputed ring leaders and their companions, clearly no more than a dozen or two of the detainees, and even their alleged contribution of hard, actionable intelligence is intensely disputed in the relevant communities such as intelligence and law enforcement.
So not only were the vast majority of the people held in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram AFB completely innocent - even the little information we received from the "real" terrorist was bogus.
What a waste.
Particularly since this system, this treatment, has been the number one thing Al Qaeda has been using to recruit more fighters according to the interrogator who took out Abu Zarqawi.
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. ... It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.
Former Gitmo Prosecutor Col Vandeveldt's experience completely supports Wilkersen and Obama - not Cheney.
What Cheney doesn't understand - or apparently care about - is that THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. This system can't be allowed to stand and doesn't make us "safer" - it does the exact opposite.
A series of Canadian attorney's are seeking to have George W. Bush either Prosecuted or Banned from entering Canada because of the credible information that he was involved in Torture.
Bush is scheduled to speak in Calgary March 17, but Vancouver lawyer Gail Davidson says that because Bush has been “credibly accused” of supporting torture in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Canada has a legal obligation to deny him entry under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The law says foreign nationals who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, including torture, are “inadmissible” to Canada. ”The test isn’t whether the person’s been convicted, but whether there’s reasonable grounds to think that they have been involved,” says Davidson, who’s with Lawyers Against the War (LAW). “
This is Bush said in 2006 about Torture:
"We do not torture"...he says.
Yet when Bush finally left office he said this:
Bush claims that what he did was "Legal" based on opinions he received from the OLC, yet those very opinions have since been under review and the prelimarily indication is that the attorney involved - John Yoo, Jay Bybee - may just be DISBARRED for offering them.
Late last year a Gitmo Prosecutor openly ruled that WE DID TORTURE detainees.
The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
As Congress dithers on weather or not a Truth Commission will take place, and questions continue on whether AG Holder will truly investigate the crimes of the Bush Administration and address torture via a Special Counsel it may fall to the nations of the world to finally bring Bush and his nest of torturers, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Cheney - to justice.
But whether it will be St. Patricks Day in Canada - remains a mystery.
The (Canadian) federal government is keeping silent on the upcoming visit. “We have no comments to offer on the visit of Mr. George W. Bush to Calgary,” said Foreign Affairs spokesperson Alain Cacchione in an e-mail. When told about Davidson’s letter, a spokesperson with the Canadian Border Services Agency said “we wouldn’t comment on something like that.” Davidson is one of many voices around the world calling for Bush’s prosecution. Earlier this year, Manfred Nowak, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, said the U.S. has a “clear obligation” to prosecute Bush and former secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld for authorizing torture — a violation of the UN Convention on Torture.
Regardless of what Canada does or doesn't do - the ball is truly in our court, if only we choose to run with it.
