torture

By the Geneva definition, not Yoo's asinine definition

Recommended measures to establish protections for human rights in the United States of America

Third Revision

Abstract

The detention and interrogation policies adopted by the United State's government in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks have raised several questions about its commitment to international law and human rights. Initially a bipartisan issue, the instances of torture and prisoner abuse brought before the public were condemned by both Democrats and Republicans, and both party's presidential candidates promised to shut down the illegal prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Likewise, with the exception of foreign government officials who participated in the Central Intelligence Agency's “extraordinary rendition” program, much of the international community has called on the U.S. government to comply with its treaty obligations.

Democrats look the other way

First printed in Socialist Worker on 22 November 2009

THE STUBBORN refusal of the Democrats in both Congress and the White House to deliver on their promise to hold the Bush administration responsible for torture offers a sobering reminder of the party's ability to hide conservative politics behind liberal rhetoric.

Public opinion has been demanding answers on this issue for more than five years now. In August, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration's latest concession to this public pressure would be an independent review into specific interrogations conducted by the CIA.

While the mainstream media may have wanted to ignore all this, public sentiment has forced it to keep the issue alive. Much of the credit for this goes to individuals and people working with groups like the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which kept a spotlight on the issue of torture and the U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo Bay. Likewise, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh's articles detailing abuses at Abu Ghraib and other revelations have added to the public questioning.

According to a USA Today/Gallup poll earlier this year, 62 percent of the population wants an investigation into "the possible use of torture while interrogating terrorism suspects" (38 percent wanted a criminal investigation by the Justice Department, while 24 percent wanted an independent panel that would investigate, but not necessarily prosecute).

Join an Amnesty International Delegation to Shut Down Guantanamo

Amnesty International is encouraging concerned citizens throughout the Untied States to meet with their Congresspeople to discuss steps to shut down the illegal detention centres in Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere around the world. The plan they're proposing involves an immediate transfer of prisoners to proper facilities in the United States, prompt trials for the prisoners accused of crimes, release of the prisoners who will not be charged and legislation to prevent further abuses and incidents of torture. Go to the Signup Page to find a local delegation and join it. Even if no delegation is available in your area, you can still meet with your Representative and/or Senators to discuss the issue and share your concerns with them.

What exactly is 'torture'?

Politicians, human rights activists, citizens and soldiers around the globe are debating whether the treatment of prisoners by U.S. forces is consistent with international and national laws. Although the U.S. government refuses to extend Constitutional protections or treat them as 'prisoners of war' or 'civilians under enemy control', officials repeatedly claim that they are treating prisoners in a manner 'consistent with international law'. Conversely, repeated reports of abuses and illegal practices from soldiers, FBI agents, prisoners and foreign governments have created serious doubts about whether the U.S. government is being entirely truthful in these claims. Given the current administration's history of misrepresentation, the fact that many reject claims that the government is in compliance with international human rights laws as outright lies is not at all surprising.

Congressman Buyer's Position on Torture Allegations

Originally posted on A contrario on 27 May 2008

On 2 May, I received a response from Congressman Steve Buyer to my 16 April letter requesting an independent investigation into the abuse and torture of prisoners by U.S. forces. He included an 'Issue Position Statement' with his response, which I have reproduced in its entirety below1:

  1. 1. To the best of my knowledge, a position statement is by definition intended for public distribution, and can therefore be freely distributed. As it claims to reflect the views of its original author, however, any intentional alteration to such a statement could probably be construed as libel.

A Citizen's Subpoena to Impel the House to Investigate Torture Charges

Originally posted on A contrario on 5 May 2008

The letter requesting that certain politicians be subpoenaed for testimony that is quoted below was sent by the ACLU on my behalf to the House Judiciary Committee and several other members of Congress on 5 May. The ACLU provided the introductory paragraph, and I wrote the rest of the letter. This letter was one of many petitions delivered to Congress as part of the ACLU's 'Citizen's Subpoena' campaign. Hopefully, the Judiciary Committee's call for testimony marks the beginning of a serious investigation into Executive policies on the use of torture or 'aggressive interrogation techniques'.

I demand to know the truth about torture. It's time to conduct a full investigation to determine what laws may have been broken and whether war crimes or other torture crimes were committed. John Ashcroft, John Yoo, George Tenet, Douglas Feith and others must testify. It's time to legally compel Bush's torture team to tell the truth.

A Request to Representative Buyer to Stop Torture

Originally posted on A contrario on 16 April 2008

In the letter quoted below, I request that Steve Buyer, the U.S. Representative for Indiana's 4th district, take the necessary steps to stop the U.S. government's use of torture and to identify and reprimand the officials responsible for this obscene policy. This letter is in response to Bush's latest statement that he personally approved the use of torture (see the Washington Post's summary of the interview), and the structure of this letter is based loosely on the form letter that ACLU is hosting over here. If you wish, you are welcome to use any part or all of the below text (except my signature!) in your own letter. According to the House web site, all physical mail is currently being screened for biological agents, so the fastest way to contact your Representative is probably through the House's Write Your Representative form.

Human Rights Violations in the Name of Security in the United States

Originally posted on A contrario on 22 March, 2008

This is the extended and original version of a letter I submitted to the editor of the local paper. It is the first of a growing series of documents to come out of my research into the human rights violations that are being committed by or in the United States. While I am disgusted by my government's behavior, I am even more incensed by the general public apathy (at least in my area) toward the issue . I wrote this letter in an attempt to dissolve that apathy and implore people to start attending to what the U.S. government is doing in our name. Democracy will not survive in this nation if we do not monitor our own government at least as vigilantly as it seems to be monitoring us.

Guantánamo Bay and Torture in the United States

What does the decision to operate an illegal prison camp without Congressional or judicial oversight say about the US government's commitment to international humanitarian law? Very few spokespersons in the media seem to be willing to address this question directly, despite its apparent importance. Although the detention and interrogation policies implemented by the Bush administration were not particularly new in terms of the tactics employed by the U.S. government, the blatant arrogance with which they were implemented was unprecedented. While it initially indicated that he would at least superficially break with the Bush administration's policies, the Obama administration has repeatedly perpetuated and tried to legitimize some of its predecessor's most egregious abuses. While this issue occasionally appears in the headlines, the media has thus far done little more than try to pass off its parroting of the establishment's "hawks" and "doves" as objective journalism. In contrast to the more extreme examples such as FOX News---which has given up on "objective" journalism altogether and instead produces wholesale propaganda designed to terrify the public into believing that they're on the verge of being swarmed by masses of bloodthirsty terrorists hell-bent on destroying freedom, justice, and the American way---mainstream journalism does appear to possess a certain level of objectivity. The range of this objectivity, however, is always circumscribed by the interests of the eight or so major corporations that own almost all the mass media in the US. In the case of illegal incarceration and torture, this means that much of the debate has been about whether these tactics help to further the United States' foreign policy objectives, and not what those objectives are, or what harms or benefits they will bring to the US and world public. I have collected the resources listed here in an effort to present this larger context of the debate.

Syndicate content