In the News – 9/25/07

Back and neck trouble produced the long break between updates, but I’m back now and there’s a few things to catch up on.

Way back in August I mentioned a little noticed fact about Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article: That Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) had put John Rizzo, President Bush’s nominee for CIA general counsel, on hold because of his views on torture. Today, the news was quietly released that Rizzo had asked for his name to be withdrawn. It’s fortunate to know that the CIA won’t end up with him as their lawyer, but there is a down side to this news. The battle over Rizzo’s nomination would have pulled torture back into the political spotlight, which is now completely dominated by the debate over withdrawing from Iraq.

Following up again on Sameh Khouzam’s story, the White House has actually come out and publicly criticized Egypt for cracking down on human rights organizations within its borders. White House official Dana Petrino said, “These latest decisions appear to contradict the Egyptian government’s stated commitment to expand democratic rights.” It’s possible that this change in stance toward Egypt will have a positive effect on Khouzam’s case. Remember that the White House argument for deporting Khouzam to Egypt is that they naively believe that Egypt won’t torture him when he’s returned. Hard to for them to still say that after having just condemned the country.

Lastly, I feel dumb for missing this story when it broke about a month ago, but sure enough there it was in the New York Times Torture section, right next to the above articles. The only officer to be charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal was found innocent of any involvement or responsibility for the incident. He was instead charged with the lesser crime of disobeying an order not to discuss the case publicly (which, actually, could earn him five years in prison — who knew?).

Coming soon, I’ll have a new feature up as we try to start profiling fellow anti-torture organizations around the country.

In the News – 9/10/07

A few small pieces of news to follow-up on previous posts.

Human Rights Watch published a report last week about two Tunisian men who were detained in Guatanamo then released and sent back to Tunisia where they were tortured. Tunisia has a history of torture, but they promised the US government that they wouldn’t do it this time. So the US sent them home and Tunisia simply broke its promise. This is why the ACLU is trying to keep Sameh Khouzam from being returned to Egypt.

Speaking of which, the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights has issued a report detailing hundreds of cases where they claim torture has been used in their country. The government denies the allegation and has, of course, promised the US that no such violent tactics will be used on Khouzam, and the government is satisfied with that.

Also, remember the Catholic priests on trial in Arizona? Well, they suffered a major setback in their attempt to draw public attention to torture during their hearings. A judge ruled that they can’t bring up anything related to torture in their defense.

20th Hijacker Recants Confession, Claims Torture

According to new documents obtained by the Associated Press, Mohammed al-Qahtani, often referred to as the 20th hijacker on September 11th, recanted the confession he made previously on the grounds that he was tortured. The documents referred to in the article are in fact transcripts of a closed court hearing for Al-Qahtani’s case. This really doesn’t come as much of a shock, since MSNBC journalists predicted this as early as last November. Both the AP article and the MSNBC one reference the Pentagon investigation into accusations of misconduct at Guantamo. The conclusion of the report demonstrates how much perspective we have lost on our understanding of torture.

The investigation led by Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt confirmed, among other things, that al-Qahtani was forced to wear women’s underwear, was threatened with dogs, and kept in solitary confinement for 160 days. At one point, he was interrogated for 18-20 hours per day on 48 of 54 days.

Schmidt concluded, however, that while the treatment was abusive it was within policy and not torture because he was not denied food, water or medical care, and interrogators did not inflict physical pain on him.

It’s hard not to get snarky when reading something like this. How can allowing someone less than 4-6 hours of sleep a day for 48 out of 54 days not cause any physical pain? If you did that to yourself wouldn’t most people say that you should stop, that you were harming your body?

Or if those simple questions are too difficult, the Pentagon could always take a look at the international law.

Convention Against Torture: “[T]he term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession”.

Third Geneva Convention: “[Combatants and non-combatants] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

White House Trying to Violate Anti-Torture Treaty

It’s a bit complicated, but here’s the layman’s summary:

A man named Sameh Khouzam flees Egypt eight years ago and the US detains him for deportation back to Egypt. He spends eight years arguing that he shouldn’t be deported because it’s illegal under the United Nations Conventions Against Torture Treaty to deport someone to a country where they will likely be tortured. He wins the case, but three months after he’s finally freed, the government seizes him again and tries to deport him again, completely ignoring the United Nations treaty. The ACLU has come to Khouzam’s defense, but DOJ lawyers are trying to argue that no judge can stop the deportation or even question the executive branches interpretation of the UN treaty, and that the executive branch essentially gets to do whatever it wants.

Here’s the portion of the CAT treaty (google cache) that the Bush Administration has chosen to ignore

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

If you want to help Khazoum, you can go here find out about petitions and who to contact. For more information on Khazoum, read this Huffington Post article.

Did Chertoff Lie to Congress about Torture?

With the resignation of Alberto Gonzalez, the Democrats will have a chance to grill Bush’s next appointment to attorney general, and one of the top issues for discussion should be the nominee legal opinion on and history with torture.

Chertoff, already a questionable choice due to his history with Katrina, doesn’t fair any better on torture. Before becoming secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Chertoff was head of the criminal division at the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003. When he was being confirmed as secretary before the Senate, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) questioned him on a series of meetings that took place between FBI officials and members of Chertoff’s division. In the meetings, FBI officials asked about the legality of the interrogation techniques used. All of them agreed that the techniques would be an issue when it came to prosecuting these prisoners. Chertoff, using the very phrase that Gonzales’s has made famous, told Levin

I do not recall having any discussion about techniques that the Defense Department was using in Guantanamo other than simply the question of whether interrogations or questioning down there was effective or not. I was never informed or I had no knowledge at the time … about any use of techniques in Guantanamo that were anything other than what I would describe as kind of plain vanilla.

So, in short, Chertoff’s position is that he doesn’t remember ever having been told about any discussion of this issue. But after Chertoff was confirmed, Levin found new copies of an internal FBI email that listed the DOJ members who attended the meeting. Two of them were Alice Fisher, Chertoff’s top deputy and David Nahmias, Chertoff’s counsel. Salon’s Mark Benjamin has the full story on this as well as xeroxed copies of the FBI email that lists Chertoff’s underlings in attendance at the meeting. For further context, here’s an article that Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman wrote just after Chertoff’s hearings.

Now, just to clearly connect the dots, this leaves us with evidence that people very close to Chertoff were fully aware of FBI objections to the use of inappropriate and/or illegal interrogation techniques at Guatanamo by the Department of Defense. It is difficult to believe that Chertoff’s counsel and top deputy would not have told him about these FBI objections. Either Fisher and Nahmias were terrible employees and never mentioned the meetings to Chertoff or Chertoff was lying. Something for Congress to look into.

Padilla Developed Mental Illness During Detention

The big news today is that Padilla has finally been convicted, but an important fact will probably go undiscussed in the AP articles that detail the court’s findings. This article published a few days ago by the Christian Science Monitor reports that two psychiatrists and a psychologist examined Padilla on behalf of his defense lawyers and all three concluded that he had developed mental illness during his detention in Charleston, S.C., suggesting that he had been abused during the nearly four years he was held without charges (despite being a US citizen) as an enemy combatant. The three health professionals assert that an independent panel could review their findings and question Padilla and confirm that the source of his illness was abuse. The military has detained that there was any torture used on Padilla. I’m currently trying to find the testimony on Miami’s public records database and I’ll post it if I manage to locate it.

Proving the point linked to in a previous post, Padilla is not able to discuss his treatment in the prison because “Padilla’s treatment in the brig is classified as a state secret.”

APA to Condemn Torture

The American Psychological Association is set to vote on a resolution condemning torture this weekend. The resolution will strongly discourage participation in practices that qualify as torture, but some members want the proposal to go further and ban the participation of psychologists in any CIA interrogations that qualify as torture. Members who due participate might face the possibility of losing their license. Similar measures have already been passed by doctor’s and psychiatrist’s associations, leaving psychologists as the only medical profession to still permit cooperation with the CIA’s black sites. Opponents argue that psychologists need to participate in order to prevent worse abuses by the CIA.

The history of this political struggle within the American Psychological Association can be read about here, thanks to Salon’s reporting. The APA has previously passed other resolutions that only condemn torture in words without providing any real consequences. Passing a stronger resolution could potentially be important as it might have serious consequences for any psychologist proven to be assisting the CIA in torture. The CIA has said that they will be using psychological techniques in their interrogation, techniques that would presumably rely on professionals to be properly carried out.

If you are a member of the APA or know one, please encourage them to attend the conference in San Francisco, particularly the programming on Monday. Even if you don’t know a psychologist, you can email the APA to voice your support for a stronger resolution by sending comments to ppo@apa.org (Public Policy Branch of the American Psychological Association).

In the News – 8/10/07

This morning, The American Bar Assocation proposed a resolution calling on Congress to overturn President Bush’s July 20th executive order that allows the CIA to continue using “enhanced techniques” for interrogation. President Karen Mathis told reporters that “the CIA should not be exempted from rules that guide even our armed forces.” The resolutions will be voted on by delegates of the ABA next week and is expected to pass.

Click to see the resolution and it’s accompanying report and explanation, which has a great history of the Geneva Accords and US compliance with them. Here’s the report’s conclusion, to whet your appetite.

[A]s a nation long pledged to the rule of law, we cannot sanction interrogation rules or practices that constitute official cruelty. Condoning such abuses under any circumstances erodes one of the most basic principles of international law and human rights, places captured U.S. personnel at inordinate risk, and contradicts the basic values of a democratic state. Moreover, these violations feed terrorism by painting the United States as an arrogant nation, above the law. The American Bar Association must go on record as supporting adherence to the rule of law as a fundamental principle, for, when the rule of law is subjugated to a claim of “necessity”, all who claim its benefits are less secure.

For reference and background, see this post and this one.

Not so much news, but in response to Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article mentioned earlier this week, Balkinization’s Marty Lederman posted some great analysis of the weird logic behind secret interrogation techniques. The key graf is below.

I have repeatedly argued here that there is no justification for keeping secret what interrogation techniques the CIA is permitted to use. In particular, it is absurd to “classify” something that is revealed to people outside the government who have no duty of confidentiality, i.e., to the detainees on whom the techniques are used. Those persons are free to disclose the information to others, as they have now done to Red Cross interviewers. Because of this, it becomes necessary to detain these persons, in isolation, presumably forever, in order to impose a prior restraint on their speech concerning their knowledge of what our government has done to them. In a strange sort of circular logic, the interrogation becomes the justification for indefinite detention, even long after the interrogation ends. Thus, as Jane writes, “[t]he utter isolation of these detainees has been described as essential to America’s national security,” so that they cannot reveal what happened to them.

Two Catholic priests will be on trial soon for trespassing on a military base in Arizona last November. They came there to personally deliver a protest letter to Major General Barbara Fast, who was the senior military intelligence officer in Iraq during Abu Ghraib. Since then she was transferred to Fort Huachua, an isolated base in Arizona, and since the priests’ arrest, she’s been transfered again to Virginia where she is deputy director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that that’s a demotion from her former post.

Lastly, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture has alsospoken out against Bush’s recent executive order.

Report on CIA Black Sites

Jane Mayer has penned an article for the New Yorker on CIA black sites, secret prisons outside the United States. It’s a must-read for anyone following the subject, but a few points in particular are worth noting.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), a member of the Intelligence Committee, has apparently put a hold on the confirmation of John Rizzo as general counsel for the CIA. Rizzo had been “deeply involved in establishing the agency’s interrogation and detention policies,” which obviously concerns Senator Wyden. The Senator should be applauded and recognized for this (since it isn’t common knowledge as far as I can tell). Rizzo is still the acting general counsel for the CIA, but with his confirmation on hold by Wyden and with the Senate in Democratic control for the rest of Bush’s term, his chances of ever being confirmed aren’t good.

The article also makes clear that unlike the cases of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the “treatment of high value detainees [in the CIA's secret program] has been directly, and repeatedly, approved by President Bush.” The article goes on to describe how the program used, and may still use, practices such as waterboarding and extreme exposure to heat or cold. The accusation is implicit: that the President has personally ordered the use of torture.

Lastly, the article mentions the Red Cross’s report on CIA detention policy, which was filed last year. The Red Cross pledges confidentiality on all its reports, so the specifics of their findings are not available, but the article cites sources who have read it. Predictably, these sources say that the report “describe[s] the agency’s detention and interrogation methods as tantamount to torture…and warn[s] that [government officials] may have committed ‘grave breaches’ of the Geneva Conventions.” According to the article, the CIA public-affairs office would not acknowledge that the report even exists.

“Leave No Marks”

Yesterday Human Rights First and Physicians for Human Rights issued a joint report entitled “Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality”. This is a landmark report for two reasons:

First, it categorically addresses and refutes the excuses used to condone “enhanced interrogation” techniques, i.e., stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory bombardment, temperature manipulation, prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation. In graphic and frequently disturbing detail, drawing upon medical research and documented accounts of torture by numerous regimes, it describes the psychological and physical consequences of these techniques. The report shows that these “torture lite” techniques are, in fact, simply torture.

Second, the report shows this not only in terms of the dictionary definition of the word, but also in its definition as a criminal act under U.S. law.  The report gives the lie to the administration’s attempts to draw a distinction between “torture” and “cruelty,” or to protect torture so long as it is done with the intention of gaining information, rather than of inflicting severe pain and suffering.  The report makes clear that any use of these techniques would have to be with the expectation that they would cause severe pain and suffering. Therefore legally they would also have the intention of causing severe pain and suffering. In addition to this well-supported line of argument, through this report PHR and HRF have done the work that any prosecuting attorney or civil litigant would need to pursue charges of torture under U.S. criminal law.  The report is filled with precedents from American court rulings on the subject of torture, which demonstrate the strong bases for prosecution or civil suit.  In this sense it should serve as a helpful warning to American personnel engaged in torture.

This is an important report and should be read carefully by all involved in anti-torture campaigning.