|
[Previous entry: "...What military music is to music"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Sci-fi/fantasy and libertarianism"] 14 July 2003: "A not entirely satisfactory pledge"While I'm on the topic of the ends versus means regarding the "War on Terror," June 26th was Torture Victims Recognition Day on the UN calendar. President Bush took the occasion to proclaim that The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.The previous day, William J. Haynes II, general counsel of the DoD, declared in a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) that the United States does not use torture, use "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" falling short of torture, or transfer people to other countries to be tortured. Mr. Haynes also stated on June 26th that anyone who might be found to have broken the law regarding the deaths of two Afghan prisoners at Bagram airbase, which occurred last December and were classed as homicides in March, would be prosecuted. (See "U.S. Pledges to Avoid Torture", Washington Post, 27-Jun-2003; and "The pledge", The Economist, 03-Jul-2003) Human rights organisations have welcomed this announcement, and justifiably so, since it unequivocally signals the US government's policy on torture, that is to say, its rejection of it. US military and intelligence personnel will not be able to claim they thought they had the tacit approval of the higher echelons of government. Haynes writes: Should an individual be transferred to another country to be held on behalf of the United States, or should we otherwise deem it appropriate, United States policy is to obtain assurances from the receiving country that it will not torture the individual being transferred to that country.This would seem to rule out the possibility on which I commented in April that the term "extraordinary rendition" might be employed to duck the letter of Article 3 of the Convention against Torture. Nevertheless, some questions continue to niggle. For starters, these announcements came a full six months after the WaPo ran the article "U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations" describing the use of "stress and duress" techniques at Bagram, and commenting on the policy of "extraordinary renditions" of prisoners to various countries which the US State Department had criticised in its annual human rights report as recently as 2001 for being suspected of using torture in interrogations. Why has it taken the White House and the DoD this long to come out and state explicitly that US government officals do not use torture? Admittedly, Haynes was writing in response to a letter which Senator Leahy faxed to Condoleezza Rice on 02-Jun-2003, but his language leaves one wondering whether the policy he describes was formulated before June, or between June 22nd and June 25th. In other words, had everyone who could usefully be "rendered extraordinarily" by that time already been handed over to Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan et al. to have—to paraphrase the words uttered by one official to the Post—"the [expletive] kicked out of them"? Moreover, Haynes' language in assuring Leahy that those responsible for the deaths of the two prisoners at Bagram would be prosecuted is remarkably non-committal: Should any investigation indicate that illegal conduct has occurred, the appropriate authorities would have a duty to take action to ensure that any individuals responsible are held accountable in accordance with the law.According to the Post, those deaths were classed as homicides, and to me that indicates an unlawful killing (see Title 18, Part I, Chapter 51 of the US Code). So why the conditional clause ("Should any investigation...")? Evidently, there's been an investigation, and it concluded illegal conduct did occur. Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but given the administration's record of "strategic ambiguity," I think my suspicions are understandable. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
