Categories
Join Us At:
|
10 Years Later: Our First Step Toward Torture Our country’s embrace of torture after 9/11 may have seemed like a quick one: one day we didn’t torture, and the next we did, with the so-called “torture memos” to blame for the rapid shift. But the reality is that proponents of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (and other euphemistically titled cruelties) had to overcome substantial barriers in their efforts to justify torture. The first major barrier fell 10 years ago, today—many months before the torture memos were issued. On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum, Humane Treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda Detainees, that became his administration’s opening volley against the laws prohibiting abusive interrogations. In it, he concluded that the Geneva Conventions—which specify minimum standards of humane treatment for everyone in times of armed conflict—somehow did not protect al Qaeda members detained by the United States. That legal sleight of hand paved the way for the more notorious torture memos that would follow, and it all but ensured a break from our country’s tradition of treating captives humanely. The February 7, 2002, memo is important for another reason. Together with the later memos that built upon its twisted logic, the February 7 memo created a golden shield for the senior officials who authorized torture. When later confronted in court by the victims of their unlawful policies, senior officials could simply hide behind their legal memos. Unfortunately, that tactic has worked so far. Courts have refused to rule on the legality of the cruel interrogation “techniques” used in the years after 9/11, and there has yet to be a criminal investigation of those who authorized torture. The only criminal investigation of the CIA to date has been of low-level interrogators who exceeded the torture memos’ guidance, resulting in the death of two detainees. Although the attorney general himself stated that interrogators involved in those deaths did “things . . . that were antithetical to American values [and] that resulted in the death of certain people,” recent reports suggest that the investigation may end soon without any indictments and without any accountability. We hope that doesn’t turn out to be true if there is credible evidence to prosecute. Our nation’s reputation for upholding the human rights of detainees is already in tatters; a failure to provide accountability even for deaths would further shred it. A decade after our government first committed us to a path including torture and other abuses, it is essential that we pause now to reflect on those policy decisions. To its credit, the Obama administration has rejected the Bush administration’s narrow understanding of the Geneva Conventions, which essentially read them out of existence in our fight against al Qaeda. But if we are truly a country committed to the rule of law, we must insist that our laws criminalizing torture and abuse be applied, and that they be applied equally to all who bear responsibility for official cruelty. Learn more about accountability for torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: accountability for toture, Torture
The Internal Investigations on Abuse the CIA Doesn't Want Anyone to See Two and a half years ago, the government released a damning report by the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) relating to the “enhanced interrogation” program of the CIA. The report was released in response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. It made headlines because of its criticism of the CIA’s program and because it is said to have prompted Attorney General Eric Holder to launch a criminal investigation into some of the CIA’s abuses. We’ve known for some time that there were more CIA OIG reports about the torture and detention program, but a new revelation by the government confirms just how many: 11. Over the years, we’ve counted references (in both government documents and the media) to at least six additional OIG reports, several of which relate to the deaths of detainees in CIA custody. So, in April 2011, we filed a FOIA request for those and any other reports that analyzed the CIA’s detention and interrogation programs. In November, the government confirmed to us (in this index) that there were indeed eleven additional reports. Based on the minimal information we have so far, among the most interesting are reports on the deaths of two CIA prisoners, Abid Hamad Mahawish Al-Mahalawi and Manadal Al-Jamaidi, which are reportedly being investigated by the Justice Department. Also notable is a report on the “nonregistration” of detainees, which relates to the CIA’s practice of holding “ghost” (or unacknowledged) detainees. Unfortunately, although the government disclosed the number of OIG reports it has, it withheld every single one, claiming that releasing any part of them would endanger national security. (To see more about the government’s arguments, see its recently filed brief and supporting declaration.) If that excuse sounds familiar, it is because the government gave the same one before releasing a heavily redacted version of the original CIA OIG “enhanced interrogation” report in 2009. That explanation is just as overbroad and insupportable now as it was then. There is no obvious security justification for withholding information about the CIA’s use of unlawful and unauthorized interrogation techniques, and we are especially troubled by the CIA’s continued practice of keeping secret the names of the prisoners it detained. Even now, a decade after 9/11, we still don’t know all of the prisoners held by the CIA, why they were held, for how long, or what happened to those released. The lack of any meaningful accountability for torture and abuse committed in America’s name is unacceptable, as are the government’s latest efforts to hide what happened. We’re planning to challenge the withholding of the reports in the next few weeks. Stay tuned. Learn more about accountability for torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Accountability for Torture Still the Goal, Still Elusive A pair of developments Monday made abundantly clear the lack of accountability for U.S.-sponsored torture after 9/11. In a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department, former CIA officer John Kiriakou was charged with disclosing classified information to journalists and lying to the CIA’s Publications Review Board. ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero declared, “It remains troubling that the government has failed to indict the CIA agents who participated in torture and who have thus far not been held accountable for these atrocities.” The same day in Richmond, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an ACLU lawsuit against current and former government officials for their roles in the unlawful detention and torture of U.S. citizen José Padilla. The lower court had ruled in February that an American citizen designated an "enemy combatant" by the executive branch and tortured by government officials could not bring suit to vindicate his constitutional rights. ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner, who argued the appeal in court, said: “Today is a sad day for the rule of law and for those who believe that the courts should protect American citizens from torture by their own government. By dismissing this lawsuit, the appeals court handed the government a blank check to commit any abuse in the name of national security, even the brutal torture of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. This impunity is not only anathema to a democracy governed by laws, but contrary to history’s lesson that in times of fear our values are a strength, not a hindrance.” Learn more about accountability for torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: accountability for torture, John Kiriakou, Jose Padilla, Torture
ACLU Studio: The Torture Report Sometimes the truth is buried in front of us. That is the case with more than 140,000 pages of government documents relating to the abuse of prisoners by U.S. forces during the “war on terror,” brought to light by the ACLU. Since 2004, the ACLU has requested and received thousands of documents on the Bush administration’s torture program. The task of extracting a narrative from this intimidating pile of documents was left to Larry Siems, Director of Freedom to Write at the PEN American Center. First started as an ongoing online report (TheTortureReport.org), Siems’ new book — The Torture Report: What the Documents say about America’s Post 9/11 Torture Program — isnow available in print and online. The book presents an array of eyewitness and first-person reports — by victims, perpetrators, dissenters, and investigators — of the CIA’s White House-orchestrated interrogations in illegal, secret prisons around the world, and of the Pentagon’s “special projects” in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to tell the story of the Bush administration’s torture program. While Siems was upset by the stories he discovered of the systematic abuse of detainees, he was also inspired by how many “American servicemen and servicewomen, intelligence officers recognized immediately that this was torture and tried to stop it.” In the latest episode of ACLU Studio, Alex Abdo, ACLU National Security Project Staff Attorney, talks with Siems about the new book. Next week on January 11 at 7 p.m. in New York City, the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer will join Siems and others in New York City to launch the book. For more information about the event and how to attend, click here. Subscribe to our podcast feed in iTunes, or subscribe via RSS. Learn more about accountability for torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: accountability for torture, ACLU Studio, Larry Siems, podcast, The Torture Report, Torture
Don't Open the Door to Torture Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) is pursuing a deeply misguided effort that threatens to reopen the door to torture. At the most recent Republican presidential debates on national security, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has said President Obama had “outsourced” public policy on torture to the ACLU – a misrepresentation if ever there was one. To be sure, the ACLU is opposed to the use of torture – but so, too are CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and many other high level current and former military and national security officials. The ACLU strongly believes that our use of torture makes it more likely that our soldiers will be tortured when captured and that its use undermines core American values. An amendment offered by Ayotte to the defense spending bill will likely come to a vote today. It seeks to roll back the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which prohibited the military from using interrogation techniques not allowed in the Army Field Manual. A Republican-controlled Senate overwhelmingly supported the prohibition by a vote of 90-9 in 2005. Ayotte’s effort should be rejected by at least the same margin. Our military and intelligence agencies have made clear they do not want this issue revisited. In 2009 they unanimously reported they had all the authority they needed to effectively interrogate. Responding to calls to bring back “enhanced interrogation techniques,” when he was commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan last year, General Petraeus unequivocally stated “we should not go there.” While Ayotte and several of the GOP presidential candidates seem unclear on whether waterboarding is actually torture, McCain, himself a victim of torture while a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has been more forthright. “It's torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Conventions, of the international agreement on torture, treaty of torture signed during the Reagan administration,” he said. The practice was used by Japanese prison camp guards (who were later prosecuted for war crimes) and by the Khmer Rouge during their reign of terror. The Ayotte amendment would also overturn an executive order that strengthened the DTA by requiring all U.S. interrogators, not just those in the military, to abide by the Army’s interrogation manual. By allowing some interrogators to evade established protocols and requiring the creation of a secret annex of approved techniques, Ayotte threatens to muddy the waters and hinder U.S. military operations. Even the Bush administration rejected the idea of an interrogation annex because of concerns that the resulting lack of clarity would obstruct training and ally collaboration. Our intelligence professionals also see abusive techniques as likely to produce false or misleading information. “Most military and FBI people say that you can gain better results through other techniques because once you hurt someone badly enough, they're going to tell you whatever they want you to hear in order to make it stop,” McCain said. ”We can gain better information through using different techniques, which are not in violation of any of the treaties or obligations, not to mention our image as a nation.” McCain’s final point bears emphasis. Reconsideration of torture resurrects harmful images of Abu Ghraib and the serious damage that abusive practices have done to America’s standing in the past. Our position as a nation grounded in the rule of law has always been one of our greatest strengths. When we stray from those values, we diminish that standing and create additional obstacles for our troops trying to win hearts and minds in their missions abroad. Ayotte’s amendment and the recent statements by Republican candidates on torture seek to reopen old wounds, flatly reject the best advice of military and intelligence professionals and offend America’s core values. Any one of those alone should be a sufficient reason to oppose the amendment and reject calls for a return to torture. Learn more about torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: David Petraeus, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, Torture
Seriously? Senate Considering Repeal of Anti-Torture MeasuresYesterday, the ACLU and over 30 other organizations sent a letter to the Senate asking them to oppose an effort in Congress that threatens to revive the use of torture and other inhumane interrogation techniques. If passed, an amendment introduced by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) to the Defense Authorization bill would roll back torture prevention measures that Congress overwhelmingly approved in the 2005 McCain Anti-Torture Amendment, as well as a 2009 Executive Order on ensuring lawful interrogations. It would also require the administration to create a secret list of approved interrogation techniques in a classified annex to the existing interrogation field manual. In a related development, republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann renewed her attack on the prohibition of waterboarding and other forms of torture in her claim that the ACLU runs interrogations. But in fact, the director of the CIA, General David Petraeus and the Secretary of Defense (and former CIA Director) Leon Panetta have both said that the 2009 Executive Order applying the Army Field Manual government-wide and the 2005 McCain Anti-Torture Amendment work and are consistent with good national security. Such a move to undermine these protections in the Senate would fly in the face of American values and U.S. legal obligations, and would obstruct U.S. military missions and endanger troops deployed abroad. The ACLU is far from alone in opposing the use of torture. Senior military officers and interrogation experts agree that U.S. interrogators need not and should not resort to so-called enhanced methods of interrogation because they are unnecessary and counterproductive. Even the Bush Defense Department opposed the inclusion of a secret annex to the military’s interrogation manual because such secrecy would inhibit training and obstruct collaboration with our allies in the field. Our letter argues that we “cannot afford to return to practices that degraded our country in the eyes of the general public,” and asks the Senate to oppose the Ayotte Amendment. You can join our call by asking your Senators to oppose Amendment 1068. The Senate will return to the Defense Authorization bill next week (we’re also fighting indefinite detention provisions tucked inside the bill — you can read more details here). Learn more about torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, Torture
Rendition Victims Seek Justice Before International TribunalFour victims of “extraordinary rendition” — a Bush administration CIA-run program of abduction, enforced disappearance, and torture — are demanding justice in a case filed yesterday against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. On behalf of our clients — Binyam Mohamed, Bisher al-Rawi, Abou Elkassim Britel, and Mohamed Bashmilah — the petition seeks an apology for and acknowledgment of their forced disappearance and torture. The case also challenges the U.S. government’s misuse of the “state secrets” privilege in its effort to block the victims’ cases for redress from being heard in U.S. courts. The government used the “state secrets” privilege to persuade U.S. courts to dismiss the case previously brought in the federal courts by the ACLU on behalf of the same victims against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a flight logistics company that facilitated CIA “torture flights” across the globe. “I want to get justice for what the American CIA did to me, because they were responsible for everything that happened,” said Mohamed Bashmilah, when asked about his decision to pursue a claim before the human rights Commission. After 9/11, the CIA devised and implemented a program involving abduction, secret detention and torture of individuals it suspected of having links to terrorism. Many of these men were held for years — before being released without charge or explanation. Our clients recounted the torture they experienced in the CIA-run program as part of their federal suit against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. The men were beaten, kicked, cut with scalpels, chained to the walls and floors of filthy cells, left naked for extended periods in frigid temperatures, and deprived of sleep for days on end. These abuses all violate the most basic human rights protections that the United States government is obligated to uphold. Although the Obama Administration has ended the practice of “extraordinary rendition” and shut down secret prisons, the U.S. government has waged a legal battle to keep survivors from having their day in U.S. court. As in the earlier cases of Maher Arar and Khaled El-Masri, the United States used claims of national security and the “state secrets” privilege to torpedo the litigation immediately after it had begun. Claiming that U.S. national security interests would be undermined if the government were forced to discuss the issues of these cases in court (despite the whole world being aware of much of the information related to their rendition and torture), the government has successfully blocked any U.S. court from ruling on the legality of the Bush administration’s torture program. The Inter-American Commission case offers another opportunity for Mohamed Bashmilah, Binyam Mohamed, Bisher al-Rawi, and Abou Elkassim Britel to have their day in court, and for the United States to finally acknowledge and apologize for their abduction and years of secret detention and torture. Stay tuned for more information about their case. Learn more about extraordinary rendition: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Abou Elkassim Britel, accountability for torture, Binyam Mohamed, Bisher al-Rawi, CIA, Jeppesen Dataplan, Khaled el-Masri, Maher Arar, Mohamed Bashmilah, Rendition, Torture
ACLU: If We Ran the CIA... In what surely came as news to both venerable institutions, Michele Bachmann announced on Saturday night that the ACLU is “running the CIA.” In a campaign full of absurd moments, this one managed to stand out, and it got us thinking: What would the ACLU do if we did run the CIA? First and foremost, we’d stop suing ourselves! We would stop filing lawsuits on behalf of victims of the CIA’s programs of extraordinary rendition and abusive interrogation. We would stop arguing that the CIA’s use of drones to kill suspected terrorists far from any battlefield should be reviewed by federal courts. And we would stop demanding the release of still-secret CIA documents about waterboarding, the “black sites,” and the use of drones. Of course, we wouldn’t really end these lawsuits, but we would change the policies that we’ve sued over, because each of those policies undermines the rule of law, taints the reputation of our country, and creates a dangerous precedent for future administrations and other countries around the world. Here’s how we would change a few of those policies: We would publicly acknowledge that the CIA’s experiment with the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” (including waterboarding) was illegal, immoral, and ineffective. We would also publicly acknowledge the victims of the CIA’s torture and mistreatment and not stand in the way of their lawsuits. Some of those men are now free, including innocent victims of mistaken identity. Others are still imprisoned and accused of monstrous crimes. Even in the case of the latter, official acknowledgment of mistreatment is profoundly important. We are a nation of laws, strengthened by our commitment to our ideals. We deserve leadership courageous enough to abide by those ideals when they are most imperiled and to confess error when errors are made. If the ACLU ran the CIA, we would take the agency out of the business of killing individuals (including U.S. citizens) far from any battlefield. Except in the narrowest circumstances, the extrajudicial killing of an individual far from any battlefield is illegal under domestic and international law. Moreover, the danger in empowering a covert agency (as opposed to the military) to engage in targeted killing is that the CIA operates largely in secret, with little meaningful oversight or accountability. To this day, the CIA refuses to acknowledge what the entire world already knows: that it uses drones to kill suspected terrorists. This official denial has allowed the agency to shut down lawsuits about its use of drones, including a challenge to its authority to engage in targeted killing and a suit seeking the legal justification for the program. Finally, we would allow meaningful public scrutiny of the CIA’s practices through increased transparency. Secrecy is sometimes necessary, but evidence of torture and the CIA’s legal justification for its targeted killing program should not be kept secret. Keeping this information secret erodes public confidence, impedes democratic oversight, and allows abuse to go undetected and unpunished. * * * If these policies were adopted anytime soon, then there might be something to the notion that the ACLU is running the CIA. Don’t hold your breath. Tags: accountability, CIA, Michele Bachmann, Torture
Fighting for a Day in Court for an American Tortured on U.S. SoilThe ACLU was in court yesterday trying to hold officials accountable for the torture of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. In 2002 he was taken from a New York jail by the military, declared an "enemy combatant," and secretly transported to a Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina. He was imprisoned without charge for nearly four years, subjected to extreme abuse, and unable to communicate with his lawyers or family for two years. The illegal treatment included forcing Padilla into stress positions for hours on end, punching him, depriving him of sleep and threatening him with further torture and death. In February 2007, Padilla filed a lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials. Earlier this year the U.S. District Court in South Carolina ruled that the defendants were entitled to "qualified immunity" for their roles in the arbitrary detention and brutal abuse of Padilla because no "clearly established" law prohibited the torture of an American citizen designated an "enemy combatant" by the executive branch. Yesterday ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to reinstate the case. Here's are some highlights from the arguments, reported by the Associated Press: Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III asked whether the court should open the door to… litigation for several reasons, including the possibility that government officials tasked with interrogating or detaining terrorism suspects might be deterred from taking some actions that could protect public safety and human lives. The courts have dismissed other lawsuits brought by victims of the Bush administration's torture policy, but Padilla's is unique. As Wizner puts it, "If the law does not protect Jose Padilla — an American citizen arrested on American soil and tortured in an American prison — it protects no one." Learn more about torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: accountability, accountability for torture, Donald Rumsfeld, Jose Padilla, Torture
ACLU Studio: A Fall from Grace, or Business as Usual at Guantánamo? Many people saw the torture and abuse of prisoners and indefinite detention at Guantánamo Bay in the wake of 9/11 as a fall from grace. Harvard Historian, Jonathan Hansen disagrees. “America,” he says, “scarcely has any grace to fall from.”
In this episode of ACLU Studio, ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director, Ben Wizner talks with Hansen about his new book, Guantánamo, An American History. Listen and learn how Guantánamo is a reflection of America; revealing the good, the bad and the ugly. Learn more about indefinite detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: ACLU Studio, Close Gitmo, guantanamo, indefinite detention, interrogation, Jonathan Hansen, podcast, Torture, waterboarding |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
