Those Pursuing Torture Issue, Consider Reading & Bookmarking This Article

[G_j]

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050718&s=holtzman

Torture and Accountability
by ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN

from the July 18, 2005 issue of The Nation

Although the terrible revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib hit the front pages in April 2004, no senior officials in the US military or the Bush Administration have yet been held accountable. The scandal has shamed and outraged many Americans, in addition to creating a greater threat of terrorism against the United States. But it has prompted no investigative commission (in the manner of the 9/11 commission) with a mandate to find the whole truth, or full-scale bipartisan Congressional hearings, as occurred during Watergate. Indeed, it is as though the Watergate investigations ended with the prosecution of only the burglars, which is what the cover-up was designed to insure, instead of reaching into the highest levels of government, which is what ultimately happened.

In just the latest sign of the current Administration's nose-thumbing at accountability for higher-ups, Lieut. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq when the Abu Ghraib abuses occurred, is reportedly under consideration for promotion.

Nonetheless, higher-ups can be held to account. Difficult as it may be to achieve, our institutions of government can be pressured to do the right thing. If the public and the media insist on thorough investigations and appropriate punishments for those implicated--all the way up the chain of command--they can prevail.

<snip>
The War Crimes Act of 1996

No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales, then-White House counsel to George W. Bush and now US Attorney General, expressed deep concern about possible prosecutions under the War Crimes Act of 1996 for American mistreatment of Afghanistan war detainees.
..more..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


END TORTURE NOW
http://action.humanrightsfirst.org/human_rights_first/learn.html

The United States has long been a leading defender of freedom and human rights around the world. Unfortunately, in a misguided approach to fighting terrorism, the United States has trampled on human rights guaranteed by our own Constitution and by the Geneva Convention treaties we have observed since World War II. In addition to being ineffective, this approach endangers the lives of U.S. soldiers who may be captured in this and future conflicts.


The United States may be holding hundreds, even thousands of secret or 'ghost detainees,' not just in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, but also in other secret locations around the world. That is why we are calling for the United States to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to meet with individuals in U.S. custody. We are also calling for an independent commission to investigate the hundreds of allegations of torture, abuse, and other illegal detention practices that appear to have been imposed upon individuals held in U.S. custody.


End Unjust Security Detention and Abuse: 10-Point Strategy

Since the revelation of the disturbing photographs of abuse at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the Secretary of Defense and others have rightly condemned and apologized for the shocking behavior the photos revealed. But the United States has much work to do to repair the damage done – to America's reputation and to those who have wrongly suffered. An apology is only the first step. Human Rights First has proposed a 10-point plan of action to ensure that no one is tortured in America's name.

<snip>
http://action.humanrightsfirst.org/human_rights_first/learn.html

[G_j]

1. more?

<snip>
Prosecuting US Misconduct in Iraq

Whatever its applicability to Afghanistan, the War Crimes Act is unquestionably applicable to detainee abuse in Iraq. Under Gonzales's logic, the War Crimes Act applies whenever Geneva applies. And as President Bush repeatedly stated, the Geneva Conventions apply to Iraq (although he has since claimed that foreign fighters captured in Iraq are not covered by Geneva). Thus, US personnel found guilty of serious mistreatment of detainees in Iraq face severe criminal penalties under the Act.

Prosecutions under the War Crimes Act for violations in Iraq do not need to challenge the legality of "opting out of the Geneva Conventions," as would be the case for Afghanistan war detainees. Nor do they need to contend with the Administration's convoluted definition of torture. War Crimes Act violations in Iraq can consist of inhuman treatment alone--whether torture took place or not.

<snip>
Moreover, there are tantalizing suggestions that Bush may have condoned or possibly authorized coercive interrogation techniques. For example, a May 22, 2004, FBI agent's memo about interrogations in Iraq, made public under the Freedom of Information Act, repeatedly cites an executive order issued by President Bush that authorized "sleep deprivation, stress positions, loud music, etc." (The administration denied this and the FBI refused to comment.)

In addition, President Bush's oft-quoted executive order of February 7, 2002, calling for detainees to be treated humanely, by its very terms does not apply to the CIA. That leaves open the question of what standards of interrogation the President laid out for the CIA and whether his failure to impose the requirement of humane treatment on the CIA signaled permission for that agency to engage in torture or inhuman treatment of detainees. The possibility that the CIA engaged in torture or inhuman treatment of detainees was given greater substance when CIA director Porter Goss testified in March that the CIA was not at that time using torture against detainees but refused to testify about past practices except behind closed doors. (It was also given further substance by reports that some CIA personnel were dismayed at the Administration's change in the torture definition, since they may be exposed as a result to liability under the anti-torture act.)
<snip>

[Karenina]

2. Look what Uppityperson posted!!!

Pentagon Defies Order to Release Photos; 2,000 Veterans Call for Independent Commission

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=50803
WASHINGTON, July 25 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Veterans for Common Sense (VCS), a nonpartisan veterans' organization with 12,000 members, called for a commission to investigate torture allegations today, in response to the Pentagon refusal to release photos and videos from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

In an open letter, signed by more than 2,000 veterans and supporters (including 5 flag-rank officers and more than 200 commissioned officers), the veterans urged Congress and the President to "commit -- immediately and publicly -- to support the creation of an independent commission to investigate and report on the detention and interrogation practices of U.S. military and intelligence agencies deployed in the war on terror."

Charles Sheehan-Miles, a 1991 Gulf War veteran and the group's executive director, said, "Once again the administration is fighting to prevent any possible public accountability for its policies, instead choosing to blame it all on the troops. To court-martial privates while high ranking officials get promoted is damaging to the very principle of command responsibility and undermines the U.S. military." Veterans for Common Sense is co-plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of human rights and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of documents in the last year documenting torture, abuse and in some cases murder in U.S. detention centers.

Individuals who have seen the photos and videos, including some members of Congress and journalist Seymour Hersh, have reported they include scenes far worse than anything released from Abu Ghraib thus far, including rape and the videotaped beating of a prisoner. The courts had ordered the Pentagon to release the photos by Friday, July 22, but the Pentagon filed a last minute brief attempting to block their release.

More at link

[G_j]

3. that is significant (& including 5 flag-rank officers!)

and I sure wish there was a way to compel Congress members who saw the tapes to at least describe in detail what they saw to the American public.

[Karenina]

4. How about EVERY Congress member???

CNN/FAUX/EVERY NETWORK SIMULCAST!!! :evilgrin:

[Solly Mack]

5. Something to consider as well

With the UCMJ, soldiers can only be charged for KNOWN offenses (at the time they are charged). They can continually be charged for crimes committed in a single incident as long as NEW evidence of OTHER crimes comes to light. (that happened during that single incident) This also applies to multiple separate incidents....as is the case at Abu Ghraib.

What this means in relation to Abu Ghraib is:

1 - Either the military court saw ALL the evidence and treated the rape and torture of children exactly the same as the crimes the public have already seen in the released photos.

OR

2 - The military court was NOT privy to ALL the photos and evidence.


Now, if the military court saw ALL the photos and videos of rape and other acts worse than what the public has already seen...then a person might wonder why the military court isn't being investigated...I'm sorry, but if the court tried those soldiers based on ALL the evidence...then the sentences would have been greater and MORE names would have come out.

Yet I don't recall any of the soldiers being charged with rape, along with the other charges. And we know from the comments of Congress that rape did occur.



If the military court didn't see ALL the evidence? WHY?

Is it because much of the not yet released photos and video contain NEW soldiers and OTHER people? (contractors, etc.)


So either the military court saw all the evidence and did NOT act on it....or the military court did not get all the evidence.

WHY?




I've heard that during one video where England is having sex with multiple soldiers (in front of the detainees), that one detainee is seen banging his face against the wall so hard that the wall and his face was a bloody mess.

[G_j]

6. you are right

either way there is something dreadfully amiss.
At this point, I think the military courts are worthless. I mean why has Sanchez been allowed to lie to Congress with impunity? The Sanchez memo should have been evidence also in the trials. The Pentagon has a miserable track record. Telling the truth is not their strong point (understatement), they are famous for their lies and cover ups. Did you see the recent story where they accidentally used identical quotes in accounts of two completely different incidents? oops!

[Solly Mack]

7. I saw that.

psyops is slipping...

[Karenina]

8. Indeed!

:hi:

[Solly Mack]

10. I don't know if they're getting sloppy or just don't care anymore

if people catch them in lies.

If they don't care, that's sinister...

[Karenina]

11. Check it out...

[Solly Mack]

13. Oh, I know he doesn't care...was talking about actual psyops

they're usually a bit better about not crossing their wires...

[Karenina]

14. They got a rat's nest

of incompatible cables. ;-)

[Solly Mack]

9. Here's another link: regarding dog attacks/soldiers involved

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4195687&mesg_id=4195687

[Karenina]

12. Kick!

:kick: