By Peter Finn Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December 4, 2008; A04
"They are very much in listening mode," Elisa Massimino, the executive director of Human Rights First, said of the Obama transition team. "It's significant they wanted to hear from this group on these issues." (Excerpt)
A group of retired military officers opposed to harsh interrogation techniques sanctioned by the Bush administration met with members of President-elect Barack Obama's transition team yesterday to press the incoming administration to establish a single, internationally accepted standard for the treatment of detainees by all U.S. government agencies.
At the request of the Obama team, the officers declined to say whom they met with or detail the contents of the meeting. But they said their agenda has long been clear. The group of retired generals and admirals are opposed to interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that they describe as torture and that have been employed by the CIA during the questioning of al-Qaeda suspects. President Bush vetoed legislation that would have forced the CIA and other agencies to conform to interrogation methods laid out in military guidelines.
"Fundamentally, those kinds of techniques are ineffective," said John D. Hutson, a retired Navy rear admiral and former judge advocate general. "If the goal is to gain actionable intelligence, and it is, and if that's important, and it is, then we have to use the techniques that are most effective. Torture is the technique of choice of the lazy, stupid and pseudo-tough."
Hutson said the new administration should stick to what he called the "golden rule": "What would we want the enemy to inflict on us or not inflict on us?" Any deviation from norms such as the Geneva Conventions, he said, undermines the ability of the United States to insist on the proper treatment of any captured American soldiers and damages the standing of the United States around the world.
The group of nearly 50 retired officers was brought together three years ago by Human Rights First, a New York-based advocacy group, partly to oppose arguments by the Bush administration that the United States was adhering to a ban on the cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners. Fourteen retired officers met with the transition team yesterday.
Obama has said that he will outlaw torture, and Joseph Hoar, a retired Marine Corps general and former commander of the U.S. Central Command, said that the meeting with "key members" of the transition team was "productive."
The officers also want closure of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and an end to the practice of extraordinary rendition, the extralegal transfer of terrorism suspects to third countries where they could be tortured.
"They are very much in listening mode," Elisa Massimino, the executive director of Human Rights First, said of the Obama transition team. "It's significant they wanted to hear from this group on these issues."
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
After Sharp Words on C.I.A., Obama Faces a Delicate Task
By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE - The New York Times
WASHINGTON — For two years on the presidential campaign trail, Barack Obama rallied crowds with strongly worded critiques of the Bush administration’s most controversial counterterrorism programs, from hiding terrorism suspects in secret Central Intelligence Agency jails to questioning them with methods he denounced as torture.
Now Mr. Obama must take charge of the C.I.A., in what is already proving to be one of the more treacherous patches of his transition to the White House.
Last week, John O. Brennan, a C.I.A. veteran who was widely seen as Mr. Obama’s likeliest choice to head the intelligence agency, withdrew his name from consideration after liberal critics attacked his alleged role in the agency’s detention and interrogation program. Mr. Brennan protested that he had been a “strong opponent” within the agency of harsh interrogation tactics, yet Mr. Obama evidently decided that nominating Mr. Brennan was not worth a battle with some of his most ardent supporters on the left.
Mr. Obama’s search for someone else and his future relationship with the agency are complicated by the tension between his apparent desire to make a clean break with Bush administration policies he has condemned and concern about alienating an agency with a central role in the campaign against Al Qaeda.
Mark M. Lowenthal, an intelligence veteran who left a senior post at the C.I.A. in 2005, said Mr. Obama’s decision to exclude Mr. Brennan from contention for the top job had sent a message that “if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted,” and had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency’s clandestine service.
One of the first issues Mr. Obama must grapple with is the future of C.I.A. detention: will the agency continue to hold prisoners secretly, question them using more aggressive methods than allowed for military interrogators, and transfer terrorism suspects to countries with a history of using torture?
During the presidential campaign, a constant theme for Mr. Obama was the need to restore “American values” to the fight against terrorism. He pledged to banish secret C.I.A. interrogation rules and require all American interrogators to follow military guidelines, set out in the Army Field Manual on interrogation.
In a speech last year, Mr. Obama cast the matter as a practical issue, as well as a moral one. “We cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side,” he said. “But because the administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies.”
On Wednesday, a dozen retired generals and admirals are to meet with senior Obama advisers to urge him to stand firm against any deviation from the military’s noncoercive interrogation rules.
But even some senior Democratic lawmakers who are vehement critics of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will take over as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, led the fight this year to force the C.I.A. to follow military interrogation rules. Her bill was passed by Congress but vetoed by President Bush.
But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.
Afterward, however, Mrs. Feinstein issued a statement saying: “The law must reflect a single clear standard across the government, and right now, the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual. I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new administration to consider them.”
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.
C.I.A. officials have long argued that publishing a list of interrogation techniques only allows Al Qaeda to train its operatives to resist them. But they say the secrecy has led to exaggeration and myth about the agency’s detention program.
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama’s aides said he would consider allowing the C.I.A to continue holding prisoners in overseas jails, but would insist that inspectors from the International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed to visit them. They also said he would end the practice of “rendering” terrorism suspects to countries that have used torture.
One of the retired generals meeting with the Obama team on Wednesday, Paul D. Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi forces for the Army in 2003 and 2004, said in an interview Tuesday that it was crucial for leaders to send the right message on the treatment of prisoners.
General Eaton pointed out that Vice President Dick Cheney once dismissed waterboarding, the near-drowning tactic considered by many legal authorities to be torture, as a “dunk in the water” and said such statements influenced rank-and-file soldiers to believe that brutality was not really prohibited.
“This administration has set a tone problem for the military,” General Eaton said. “We’ve had eight years of undermining good order and discipline.”
It is widely expected that Mr. Obama will replace Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director. Among those mentioned as possible candidates for the job are Stephen R. Kappes, a C.I.A. veteran who is the deputy director; Tim Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana who was a member of the Sept. 11 commission; Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican who is retiring from the Senate in January; and Jack Devine, a former head of the agency’s clandestine service who left the C.I.A. before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The flap over Mr. Brennan, who served as a chief of staff to George J. Tenet when he ran the C.I.A., was the biggest glitch so far in what has been an otherwise smooth transition for Mr. Obama. Some C.I.A. veterans suggest that the president-elect may have difficulty finding a candidate who can be embraced by both veteran officials at the agency and the left flank of the Democratic Party.
A. B. Krongard, the C.I.A.’s third-ranking official under Mr. Tenet when the detention and interrogation program was created, called Mr. Brennan a “casualty of war” and said he believed C.I.A. tactics were being second-guessed for political purposes. The demise of Mr. Brennan’s candidacy, Mr. Krongard said, “is a huge loss to the country.”
But Mr. Krongard said he believed that ultimately, under a new director and a new set of policies, the agency would find common ground with Mr. Obama.
“The C.I.A.’s no different than any other place,” he said. “Probably 25 percent of the people there really like him, 25 percent don’t like him, and 50 percent are open-minded.”
H
WASHINGTON — For two years on the presidential campaign trail, Barack Obama rallied crowds with strongly worded critiques of the Bush administration’s most controversial counterterrorism programs, from hiding terrorism suspects in secret Central Intelligence Agency jails to questioning them with methods he denounced as torture.
Now Mr. Obama must take charge of the C.I.A., in what is already proving to be one of the more treacherous patches of his transition to the White House.
Last week, John O. Brennan, a C.I.A. veteran who was widely seen as Mr. Obama’s likeliest choice to head the intelligence agency, withdrew his name from consideration after liberal critics attacked his alleged role in the agency’s detention and interrogation program. Mr. Brennan protested that he had been a “strong opponent” within the agency of harsh interrogation tactics, yet Mr. Obama evidently decided that nominating Mr. Brennan was not worth a battle with some of his most ardent supporters on the left.
Mr. Obama’s search for someone else and his future relationship with the agency are complicated by the tension between his apparent desire to make a clean break with Bush administration policies he has condemned and concern about alienating an agency with a central role in the campaign against Al Qaeda.
Mark M. Lowenthal, an intelligence veteran who left a senior post at the C.I.A. in 2005, said Mr. Obama’s decision to exclude Mr. Brennan from contention for the top job had sent a message that “if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted,” and had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency’s clandestine service.
One of the first issues Mr. Obama must grapple with is the future of C.I.A. detention: will the agency continue to hold prisoners secretly, question them using more aggressive methods than allowed for military interrogators, and transfer terrorism suspects to countries with a history of using torture?
During the presidential campaign, a constant theme for Mr. Obama was the need to restore “American values” to the fight against terrorism. He pledged to banish secret C.I.A. interrogation rules and require all American interrogators to follow military guidelines, set out in the Army Field Manual on interrogation.
In a speech last year, Mr. Obama cast the matter as a practical issue, as well as a moral one. “We cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side,” he said. “But because the administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies.”
On Wednesday, a dozen retired generals and admirals are to meet with senior Obama advisers to urge him to stand firm against any deviation from the military’s noncoercive interrogation rules.
But even some senior Democratic lawmakers who are vehement critics of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will take over as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, led the fight this year to force the C.I.A. to follow military interrogation rules. Her bill was passed by Congress but vetoed by President Bush.
But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.
Afterward, however, Mrs. Feinstein issued a statement saying: “The law must reflect a single clear standard across the government, and right now, the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual. I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new administration to consider them.”
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.
C.I.A. officials have long argued that publishing a list of interrogation techniques only allows Al Qaeda to train its operatives to resist them. But they say the secrecy has led to exaggeration and myth about the agency’s detention program.
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama’s aides said he would consider allowing the C.I.A to continue holding prisoners in overseas jails, but would insist that inspectors from the International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed to visit them. They also said he would end the practice of “rendering” terrorism suspects to countries that have used torture.
One of the retired generals meeting with the Obama team on Wednesday, Paul D. Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi forces for the Army in 2003 and 2004, said in an interview Tuesday that it was crucial for leaders to send the right message on the treatment of prisoners.
General Eaton pointed out that Vice President Dick Cheney once dismissed waterboarding, the near-drowning tactic considered by many legal authorities to be torture, as a “dunk in the water” and said such statements influenced rank-and-file soldiers to believe that brutality was not really prohibited.
“This administration has set a tone problem for the military,” General Eaton said. “We’ve had eight years of undermining good order and discipline.”
It is widely expected that Mr. Obama will replace Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director. Among those mentioned as possible candidates for the job are Stephen R. Kappes, a C.I.A. veteran who is the deputy director; Tim Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana who was a member of the Sept. 11 commission; Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican who is retiring from the Senate in January; and Jack Devine, a former head of the agency’s clandestine service who left the C.I.A. before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The flap over Mr. Brennan, who served as a chief of staff to George J. Tenet when he ran the C.I.A., was the biggest glitch so far in what has been an otherwise smooth transition for Mr. Obama. Some C.I.A. veterans suggest that the president-elect may have difficulty finding a candidate who can be embraced by both veteran officials at the agency and the left flank of the Democratic Party.
A. B. Krongard, the C.I.A.’s third-ranking official under Mr. Tenet when the detention and interrogation program was created, called Mr. Brennan a “casualty of war” and said he believed C.I.A. tactics were being second-guessed for political purposes. The demise of Mr. Brennan’s candidacy, Mr. Krongard said, “is a huge loss to the country.”
But Mr. Krongard said he believed that ultimately, under a new director and a new set of policies, the agency would find common ground with Mr. Obama.
“The C.I.A.’s no different than any other place,” he said. “Probably 25 percent of the people there really like him, 25 percent don’t like him, and 50 percent are open-minded.”
H
Top 20 Guantánamo Articles (November 2008)
From Andy Worthington - Visit the following to find many hyper-links and to read the full articles described briefly below as well as to find out more about Andy's book and ongoing, interactive work -
Here
Another busy month, as the architects of America’s moral collapse (primarily Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff David Addington, but also the figurehead of the seven-year Torture Nation, President George W. Bush) were swept from power by Barack Obama, a non-WASP, non-Halliburton candidate promising change. As a result, the closure of Guantánamo figures prominently in the following list of the Top 20 Articles based on site traffic in November, although there are also several articles detailing the manifest failures of the “War on Terror” experiment.
As usual, this analysis does not take into account the large numbers of readers who found the articles on other sites on which they were published: primarily, the Future of Freedom Foundation, for whom I have recently started writing, the Huffington Post, Antiwar.com, CounterPunch and ZNet, and also Cageprisoners and others who regularly cross-post my articles, including, of late, Lew Rockwell, Global Research and Information Clearing House. It also does not include visitor stats for my book The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (available from Amazon here), or the first eight of 12 additional online chapters of The Guantánamo Files, available in the column on the left (with two new chapters added last month). Note: Figures in brackets indicate the positions last month.
1 (1): Six in Guantánamo Charged with 9/11 Murders: Why Now, and What About the Torture? (February 2008)
Still on top (because it’s now on Page 1 of “Google Images” for 9/11, and probably because the world is full of conspiracy theorists), this article followed the announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five others had been put forward for trial by Military Commission at Guantánamo, and provides a detailed background to their stories, and to their treatment (i.e. torture) in US custody. For links to other articles chronicling my assiduous coverage of the Commissions, see the bottom of the article, and for the latest on the trials, see 18 below.
2 (4): Sami al-Haj: the banned torture pictures of a journalist in Guantánamo (April 2008)
An overview of the experiences of al-Jazeera journalist Sami al-Haj, which was published just before he was released from Guantánamo, this features five powerful drawings (based on censored drawings by Sami), which were commissioned by Sami’s lawyers at the British legal action charity Reprieve. An archive of articles about Sami is here, and UK readers should know that Sami is on a UK tour with Moazzam Begg (former Guantánamo prisoner) and Chris Arendt (Iraq war resister), which starts in January. Details from Cageprisoners.
3 (-): Guilt by Torture: Binyam Mohamed’s Transatlantic Quest for Justice (November 2008)
The latest twists and turns in the case of British resident Binyam Mohamed, tortured for nearly two years — in Morocco and the CIA’s “Dark Prison” in Afghanistan — to produce a confession that he took part in a non-existent “dirty bomb” plot. Judges in the US and the UK have been examining his case, and all are distressed by the actions of their governments. For a detailed history of Binyam’s rendition and torture, see 20, below, and for an analysis of his UK court case, see High Court rules against UK and US in case of Guantánamo torture victim Binyam Mohamed. Also see US Justice Department Drops “Dirty Bomb” Plot Allegation, Meltdown at the Guantánamo Trials, and Torture cannot be hidden forever. For an archive of articles about Binyam, see here.
4 (-): Life Sentence for al-Qaeda Propagandist Fails to Justify Guantánamo Trials (November 2008)
Al-Qaeda member Ali Hamza al-Bahlul is given a life sentence on the eve of the Presidential elections in a one-sided show trial that would have shamed a dictator, after he refused to take part in the trial and did not mount a defense. Final score in the Propaganda League: Al-Qaeda 1, US 0. It’s time to scrap the Military Commissions. For three recent articles about the Commissions’ inbuilt corruption, see The Dark Heart of the Guantánamo Trials, New Evidence of Systemic Bias in Guantánamo Trials, and Corruption at Guantánamo: Military Commissions Under Investigation.
5 (10): Torture allegations dog Guantánamo trials (March 2008)
Examining the problems facing the US administration in its attempts to conceal evidence of torture, this article focuses in particular on misguided attempts to prosecute two juveniles: Omar Khadr (see 14, below) and Mohamed Jawad.
6 (-): 20 Reasons To Shut Down the Guantánamo Trials (November 2008)
From David Hicks to the Kuwaitis charged in October (also profiled here), this handy guide dissects the problems with all 20 of the cases put forward for trial by Military Commission — and the six that were dropped. A cut-out-and-keep guide to the Western world’s most monstrously flawed military trial system.
7 (-): Why Guantánamo Must Be Closed: Advice for Barack Obama (November 2008)
Since Barack Obama’s extraordinary election victory, it seems that everyone and their keypad has an opinion about closing Guantánamo. This article examines the critical errors that were made by the administration, which led to the prison holding innocent men and low-level foot soldiers unconnected to al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, and how torture was introduced in an attempt to extract “actionable intelligence” from prisoners with no knowledge of terrorism. Also see the follow-up article, How Guantánamo Can Be Closed: More Advice for Barack Obama, in which I specifically propose solutions to the problems of the three categories of prisoners still held.
8 (7): Dick Cheney: More Horrors from the “Vice President for Torture” (June 2007)
A detailed analysis of Dick Cheney’s role as the actual Commander-in-Chief of the Bush administration, this article followed the publication of a ground-breaking Washington Post series on Cheney by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker.
9 (-): A bright new day, but what now, President Obama? (November 2008)
A post-election salute, a farewell to Cheney and Addington, and a reminder of the constitutional pledges that the President-Elect needs to keep if he is to restore America’s moral standing.
10 (-) Release of three prisoners highlights failures of Guantánamo (November 2008)
A Kazakh teenager, who may or may not have grown vegetables for the Taliban, an Uzbek taxi driver who once drove a regional Taliban leader, and a 63-year old Somali refugee kidnapped for no reason from his home in Pakistan. Prisoners like this are still in Guantánamo. Here are a few more stories from the last few months: Three prisoners released from Guantánamo, including the brother of US “enemy combatant” Ali al-Marri, Clearing Out Guantánamo: Two More Algerians Transferred, Rendered to Egypt for torture, Mohammed Saad Iqbal Madni is released from Guantánamo, and Two Afghans released from Guantánamo: a farmer and a teenager.
11 (14): Book review: Road From Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía (January 2008)
The story of the first deserter from the Iraq war, Camilo Mejía, capturing the camaraderie of the soldiers, the deranged incompetence of many of their leaders, and the encounters with brutality, including his own, that led him to desert. Also see On Veterans Day, my correspondence with Brandon Neely, Iraq war resister and former Guantánamo guard. A few other articles about Iraq are here.
12 (13): A critical overview of Salim Hamdan’s Guantánamo trial and the dubious verdict (August 2008)
A comprehensive account of the first US war crimes trial since Nuremberg, this article highlighted many of the problems that have plagued the Commissions since their conception in November 2001. Also see 13, below.
13 (-): Bin Laden’s Driver To Be Released From Guantánamo; Government Defeated (November 2008)
How Salim Hamdan’s repatriation to Yemen to serve out the last month of the meager sentence he received after a trial in the summer (see 12, above) spells the end of the whole malign Guantánamo project. Also see The End of Guantánamo.
14 (8): The trials of Omar Khadr, Guantánamo’s “child soldier” (November 2007)
A detailed account of Omar’s story, from his capture (at the age of 15) to pre-trial hearings in his Military Commission, including psychological analysis, legal challenges to the Commissions, the shame of putting forward a child for a “war crimes” trial, and the disgraceful suppression of evidence. For two other recent articles about juveniles at Guantánamo, see The Pentagon Can’t Count: 22 Juveniles Held at Guantánamo, and Trampling The Rights Of The Child: The Treatment Of Juveniles In Guantánamo. An archive of articles about Omar is here.
15 (16): In a Legal Otherworld, 9/11 Defendants Cry Torture at Guantánamo (June 2008)
Following 1, above, and preceding 17, below, this article looked at the arraignment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants in June, and, in particular, at Mohammed’s sly mentions of his torture by US forces. For an analysis of possible false confessions made by Mohammed, see Guantánamo’s tangled web: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Majid Khan, dubious US convictions, and a dying man.
16 (2): Dick Cheney Shreds Secret Documents (September 2008)
A bit of fun drawn from Philip Toledano’s new online installation, America: The Gift Shop, featuring clever takes on the “War on Terror” imagined as merchandise, this was largely picked up through a picture link on the last page of the news aggregator Cursor. For a more heavyweight take on Dick Cheney’s role, see 8, above.
17 (18): Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Running the 9/11 Trials? (September 2008)
The pre-trial hearings of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four alleged 9/11 co-conspirators, in which another facet of the Commissions’ extraordinary ineptitude was highlighted when Mohammed was allowed to use his right to self-representation as a platform to mock the judge and toy with the administration.
18 (-): Silence on war crimes as the US election campaign ends (November 2008)
A pre-election salvo analyzing the Bush administration’s war crimes, blasting John McCain for his flip-flopping on torture, lamenting Barack Obama’s refusal to mention war crimes on the campaign trail, and also lamenting the inability of swathes of the population to recognize the criminal regime that has been occupying the White House.
19 (-): Why Jose Padilla’s 17-year prison sentence should shock and disgust all Americans (January 2008)
Part of a profound and underreported story: the Bush administration’s insistence that the President can, if he wishes, imprison US citizens on the US mainland without charge or trial as “enemy combatants,” torture them so that they lose their minds, and then prosecute them in dubious trials in which all mention of torture is prohibited. See here for Padilla’s full story and here for more.
20 (-): Guantánamo: Torture victim Binyam Mohamed sues British government for evidence (May 2008)
A Londoner’s transformation from janitor to al-Qaeda operative. All it takes is 22 months of torture. The horrors of “extraordinary rendition,” in one case study.
Th-th-th-that’s all for this month, folks — except to say, Don’t Forget the Uighurs.
And finally, in mopping up neglected corners of the website, here’s another one that got away: Treachery at Guantánamo (or, Shameless Attempts To Send Unwanted Gitmo Prisoners Back to Torture).
find out more about Andy's book and ongoing, interactive work -
Here
US, Russia, China Refuse to sign Cluster-Bomb Ban
NATO backs U.S. plans to install anti-missile defenses in Europe (Wires headline)
--- On Wed, 12/3/08, HREA wrote:
From: HREA
Subject: [headlines] Nations to sign landmark ban on cluster bombs
(Oslo, December 2, 2008) - The new international treaty banning the use of cluster munitions, to be signed in Oslo on December 3 by about 100 nations, will save thousands of lives, Human Rights Watch said today. The ban, the most significant arms control and humanitarian treaty in a decade, is supported by the overwhelming majority of NATO members but was opposed by the Bush administration.
"The cluster bomb treaty will save countless lives by stigmatizing a weapon that kills civilians even after the fighting ends," said Steve Goose, director of the Arms division at Human Rights Watch. "President-elect Barack Obama should make joining the cluster ban treaty a top priority."
The Convention on Cluster Munitions opens for signature on December 3, 2008, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities and anniversary of the 1997 signing of the treaty banning antipersonnel landmines. The two-day signing conference will start with countries affected by cluster bombs, including Laos, which still suffers the effect of US Vietnam-era bombings, and Lebanon, target of Israeli cluster bombs during the 2006 war with Hezbollah. The "core group" that led the Oslo Process, which produced the treaty, will also be among the first signatories (Norway, Austria, Holy See, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Zambia).
Many of the world's past users, producers, exporters, and stockpilers will sign, as well as many of those contaminated from past use.
The convention prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. It commits nations to clear affected areas within 10 years, declare and destroy stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years, help affected nations with clearance, and provide comprehensive assistance to victims of the weapon. The treaty will go into effect after 30 nations have signed and ratified it.
Cluster munitions can be fired by artillery and rocket systems or dropped by aircrafts, and typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds, of tiny bomblets over an area the size of a football field. Used in urban areas, they invariably kill and wound civilians. Used in any circumstance, they can harm civilians decades after the war is over, as "duds" on the ground act like landmines, exploding when touched by unwitting civilians.
Both governments and nongovernmental organizations campaigning for the treaty intentionally built on the precedent set by the 1997 Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty, which proved to have an effect beyond the nations that signed it. Although the United States has still not signed the Mine Ban Treaty, for example, it has not used, exported, or produced any antipersonnel landmines since the treaty was negotiated 11 years ago.
Nongovernmental organizations, deminers, and cluster victims are attending the signing ceremony in Oslo City Hall, along with dozens of foreign ministers and other government officials. A delegation from Human Rights Watch is attending, along with its partners in the Cluster Munition Coalition, which it helped found and co-chairs. In 1999, Human Rights Watch was the first nongovernmental organization to call for a global halt to the use of cluster munitions.
"We'd love to see Washington, Moscow, and the others sign the treaty, but we think the ban will so stigmatize cluster bombs that even those who don't join now will be deterred from using the weapon," Goose said. "But a US decision to sign would certainly signal President Obama's commitment to multilateral action after the go-it-alone Bush era."
HREA - www.hrea.org
Human Rights Education Associates (HREA) is an international non-governmental organisation that supports human rights learning; the training of activists and professionals; the development of educational materials and programming; and community-building through on-line technologies.
--- On Wed, 12/3/08, HREA
From: HREA
Subject: [headlines] Nations to sign landmark ban on cluster bombs
(Oslo, December 2, 2008) - The new international treaty banning the use of cluster munitions, to be signed in Oslo on December 3 by about 100 nations, will save thousands of lives, Human Rights Watch said today. The ban, the most significant arms control and humanitarian treaty in a decade, is supported by the overwhelming majority of NATO members but was opposed by the Bush administration.
"The cluster bomb treaty will save countless lives by stigmatizing a weapon that kills civilians even after the fighting ends," said Steve Goose, director of the Arms division at Human Rights Watch. "President-elect Barack Obama should make joining the cluster ban treaty a top priority."
The Convention on Cluster Munitions opens for signature on December 3, 2008, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities and anniversary of the 1997 signing of the treaty banning antipersonnel landmines. The two-day signing conference will start with countries affected by cluster bombs, including Laos, which still suffers the effect of US Vietnam-era bombings, and Lebanon, target of Israeli cluster bombs during the 2006 war with Hezbollah. The "core group" that led the Oslo Process, which produced the treaty, will also be among the first signatories (Norway, Austria, Holy See, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Zambia).
Many of the world's past users, producers, exporters, and stockpilers will sign, as well as many of those contaminated from past use.
The convention prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. It commits nations to clear affected areas within 10 years, declare and destroy stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years, help affected nations with clearance, and provide comprehensive assistance to victims of the weapon. The treaty will go into effect after 30 nations have signed and ratified it.
Cluster munitions can be fired by artillery and rocket systems or dropped by aircrafts, and typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds, of tiny bomblets over an area the size of a football field. Used in urban areas, they invariably kill and wound civilians. Used in any circumstance, they can harm civilians decades after the war is over, as "duds" on the ground act like landmines, exploding when touched by unwitting civilians.
Both governments and nongovernmental organizations campaigning for the treaty intentionally built on the precedent set by the 1997 Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty, which proved to have an effect beyond the nations that signed it. Although the United States has still not signed the Mine Ban Treaty, for example, it has not used, exported, or produced any antipersonnel landmines since the treaty was negotiated 11 years ago.
Nongovernmental organizations, deminers, and cluster victims are attending the signing ceremony in Oslo City Hall, along with dozens of foreign ministers and other government officials. A delegation from Human Rights Watch is attending, along with its partners in the Cluster Munition Coalition, which it helped found and co-chairs. In 1999, Human Rights Watch was the first nongovernmental organization to call for a global halt to the use of cluster munitions.
"We'd love to see Washington, Moscow, and the others sign the treaty, but we think the ban will so stigmatize cluster bombs that even those who don't join now will be deterred from using the weapon," Goose said. "But a US decision to sign would certainly signal President Obama's commitment to multilateral action after the go-it-alone Bush era."
HREA - www.hrea.org
Human Rights Education Associates (HREA) is an international non-governmental organisation that supports human rights learning; the training of activists and professionals; the development of educational materials and programming; and community-building through on-line technologies.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
A Team of Whizzes By Bob Herbert "So why do I have this uneasy feeling?"
Bob Herbert Op-Ed Columnist The New York TimesBarack Obama appears to have put together an extraordinarily competent team to cope with the crises abroad and at home — and to begin cleaning up the mess of the past eight years.
So why do I have this uneasy feeling?
Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers ...
Competence is clearly trumping ideology in the next administration, and lord knows after two terms of Bush & Co. it’s time to get back to the idea of smart, capable people advising the president and executing his policies.
What I wonder is whether the members of this team, in addition to their grasp of the issues and success at achieving power, have a real feel for the needs of the people they are supposed to be representing.
I don’t doubt that they have the best of intentions. But the people at the pinnacle of power in Washington are encased in a bubble that makes it extremely hard to hear the voices of those who aren’t already powerful themselves.
On Monday, the president-elect introduced a national security team that will face a nightmarish array of challenges: the promised drawdown in Iraq; a worsening situation in Afghanistan; the crisis unfolding in India and Pakistan; and so on.
But it also has a responsibility to look out for the members of the military who are exhausted from years of valiant service. Many have served three and four (or more) tours in combat, and many thousands have been wounded in mind and body and are having a difficult time putting their lives back together.
So a challenge as important as the challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan is to send the message — and make it stick — that more Americans need to share in the sacrifices required to keep the nation and its interests secure.
President-elect Obama campaigned on the mantra of change. For years the federal government catered increasingly to the interests of the wealthy and the powerful. This reached a destructive crescendo when the ideologues and incompetents of the Bush administration came to power.
That is what needs to change.
Will this new Obama team, as brilliant as it appears to be, begin addressing on day one the interests of those who are not rich and who have not had the ear of those in power?
I think about the cops and firefighters and factory workers and schoolteachers and hospital aides and bank tellers and truck drivers who are having trouble making ends meet, hanging onto their homes, sending their children to college.
Will this new administration really be looking out for them?
One of the reasons the economy is so deeply in the tank is that ordinary Americans have not received a fair share of the economic advances of the past several years. You don’t hear much about this. Americans have been working harder and harder, and more and more efficiently (we are now the hardest working people on the planet, having passed the Japanese in this category), but ordinary workers have not been paid for this enhanced productivity.
As my colleague at The Times, Steven Greenhouse, pointed out in his book “The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker,” published earlier this year:
“Even though corporate profits have doubled since recession gave way to economic expansion in November 2001, and even though employee productivity has risen more than 15 percent since then, the average wage for the typical American worker has inched up just 1 percent (after inflation).”
That was part of a pattern of gross unfairness that has been unfolding for some three decades. No wonder people have depleted their savings and maxed out their credit cards.
The crisis now, of course, is not that wages are stagnant but that the jobs themselves are disappearing. It’s not just change that the nation needs, but big change.
President-elect Obama has talked of a “new dawn of American leadership.” Three-quarters of a century ago, Franklin Roosevelt promised a New Deal and said his biggest task was “to put people to work.”
That’s as appropriate a cue as any for the next president. I hope Mr. Obama’s “new dawn” portends more than just a few nibbles around the edges of change. We need change that brings about more shared sacrifice in wartime and tough times, and a more equitable distribution of the nation’s resources all the time.
I want to know who in the Obama administration will be listening to the young girl on the South Side of Chicago whose future is constrained by a lousy public school, and the factory worker in Toledo whose family’s future has been trampled by unrestrained corporate greed and unfair trade policies.
All the evidence is that the next administration will be competent and smart as hell. Now I’d like to know for whom they plan to deliver.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Torture and the Terror Trials At Guantánamo
Photos from internet cache/wires here and others below...this one not necessarily from GTMO trials yet here to suggest that the role of law is directly related to honest witness.The following article was posted by Andy Worthington December 1, 2008 (Be sure also to see the other items below which are related to this one...especially the three noted with ***)
Torture, Preventative Detention and the Terror Trials at Guantanamo
In the real world outside the US Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Barack Obama’s pledge to close Guantánamo and scrap the Military Commissions (the system of trials for “terror suspects” that was established in the wake of the 9/11 attacks) has provoked a rare outburst of frenzied media coverage.
With no concrete plans announced by the President-Elect’s transition team, pundits and off-the-record officials of all political hues have stepped in to fill the void with speculation about the significance of the remaining 255 prisoners, some shrill demands for legislation endorsing “preventive detention,” some equally shrill warnings that robust techniques will be needed in future to deal with captured terrorists, and a range of opinions about whether the Guantánamo prisoners regarded as a genuine threat to the United States (estimates range from several dozen prisoners to around 80) should be transferred to the US mainland to face trials in federal courts or in another brand-new system.
Some of these opinions are genuinely troubling, and reveal the extent to which the government’s fear-filled “War on Terror” rhetoric of the last seven years has permeated the US psyche. Proposals to create new legislation authorizing “preventive detention,” for example, actually seek to justify much of what the Bush administration has been doing at Guantánamo, and it beggars belief that citizens in a civilized society founded on the rule of law could attempt to justify imprisoning people not for what they have done, but to prevent what they could conceivably do in future.
The proposal is doubly disturbing because the government’s assertions that some of the prisoners may be dangerous comes not from evidence that can be tested in a court of law, but from intelligence reports that may or may not be reliable, and from hearsay and confessions — made by other prisoners, or by the prisoners themselves — that may have been produced through the use of torture or other forms of coercion, or through bribery (a well-chronicled “rewards” system for prisoners regarded as “cooperative”).
In addition, calls for robust techniques to deal with terror suspects captured in the future are clearly influenced by the Bush administration’s arguments that prisoners seized in the “War on Terror” constitute a threat of a kind never encountered before, and that this threat justifies its attempts to redefine torture, and its endorsement of the use of torture by US forces. For the record, torture, as defined in the UN Convention Against Torture (to which the US is a signatory) is defined as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person,” and not, as the US administration claimed in its notorious “Torture Memo” of August 2002, an act producing pain which is “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
Those endorsing greater latitude to deal with terror suspects in future have presumably forgotten the extent to which the administration has belittled the intelligence agencies’ skilled interrogators, who contributed to 107 successful terrorist prosecutions in US federal courts without resorting to the use of torture, and its disdain for the psychological techniques enshrined in the Army Field Manual, which not only prohibits the use of torture, but of any kind of physical violence. Both, however, have a proven track record of success, unlike the torturers, whose activities constitute war crimes, however much the Bush administration has attempted to disguise them, and are also morally corrosive and counter-productive, producing, at best, ripples of truth in a sea of false confessions, with no practical way of separating fact from fiction.
Much of this has been confirmed by Dan Coleman, a senior FBI interrogator who worked on several high-profile terrorism cases before the 9/11 attacks. Coleman is on record as stating that “people don’t do anything unless they’re rewarded.” In an interview in 2006 with the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, he acknowledged that brutality may “yield a timely scrap of information,” but is “completely insufficient” in the longer fight against terrorism. “You need to talk to people for weeks. Years,” he explained.
When it comes to proposals to establish a new trial system for terror suspects, those putting forward such ideas have obviously failed to scrutinize the failures of the system conceived by Dick Cheney and his close advisers in November 2001. Thrown out by the Supreme Court in June 2006, the Commissions were revived by Congress later that year, but have struggled to establish their legitimacy, primarily because the government-appointed military judges are empowered to accept evidence obtained through coercion, to prevent all mention of evidence obtained through torture, and to blur the distinction between the two, and also because, as I reported at length in a previous article, a growing body of evidence indicates that the entire system is rigged, with Pentagon representatives who are supposed to be impartial actually taking their orders from the heavily biased Office of the Vice President.
It remains to be seen how this chain of command — which pivots on the role played by retired judge Susan Crawford, the Commission’s “Convening Authority,” and a close friend of both Dick Cheney and his chief of staff David Addington — will survive the transition to the Obama administration, but enthusiasts for the creation of another brand-new system should really take on board the sustained opposition to the Commissions that has been mounted from within.
Those who have become implacably opposed to the system are not only the military defense lawyers, who have been prepared to sacrifice their careers in defense of justice, but also Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor, and several former prosecutors, including, most recently, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, who turned from being a “true believer to someone who felt truly deceived” by the system, when he discovered that evidence vital to the defense was being routinely withheld in the case of Mohamed Jawad, an Afghan teenager accused of a grenade attack on US forces in December 2002.
In the meantime, while enthusiasts for a new trial system indulge their largely abstract musings, the reality of the Commissions themselves continues to confound reality, as those in charge of the process persist in behaving as though it is business as usual...
To read the rest of this article look for December 1, 2008...
Here
************************************************************************************
Other NEW and Older - similar or differing perspectives on the commissions from new and older articles (NOT from Andy Worthington's site)
NEWEST ITEMS - Dec 2, 2008 Holder Must Balance Security, Rights Leopold on Consortium News, Robert Parry's site:
Here
And also:
Here
Here
And
Here
OLDER:
Here
Also see the following on Susan Crawford:
Here
Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, Legal Advisor for the Office of Military Commissions, briefs members of the media about the U.S. Military Commissions process, at the legal complex of the U.S. Military Commissions, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba in this June 4, 2008 file photo. REUTERS/Brennan Linsley/PoolThe following are RELATED yet not on Andy's site...
U.S. reassigns Guantanamo court's top lawyer WIRES story & Photo - Reuters
September 20, 2008 - 12:00 a.m. EST
Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, Legal Advisor for the Office of Military Commissions, briefs members of the media about the U.S. Military Commissions process, at the legal complex of the U.S. Military Commissions, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba in this June 4, 2008 file photo. REUTERS/Brennan Linsley/Pool
MIAMI (Reuters) - A U.S. general who was banned from three Guantanamo trials will no longer act as the legal advisor for the Guantanamo war crimes court, the Pentagon said on Friday.
But Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann will still play a role in the terrorism trials at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Pentagon said he had been appointed to the newly created job of operations and planning director for the military tribunals.
As legal adviser since July 2007, Hartmann's job was to provide impartial legal advice to Susan Crawford, the Pentagon appointee who oversees the trials and validates charges for prosecution. The legal adviser also plays a role in the appeals process for prisoners convicted of terrorism charges.
Hartmann was the subject of numerous complaints from military defense lawyers, who alleged that he illegally influenced the cases and essentially took over prosecution duties, in one case withholding a document that could have influenced the decision to validate the charges.
Another general testified in an August hearing that Hartmann was a bully who used a "spray and pray" approach to pursuing cases -- "Charge 'em, charge 'em, charge 'em and let's pray that we can pull this off."
Military judges barred Hartmann from various phases of three trials, and complaints about him were pending in others.
In an August hearing, Hartmann acknowledged telling prosecutors he wanted cases that would "capture the public's imagination."
DIVISIONS WITHIN MILITARY
The allegations against him by his colleagues revealed some of the division within the U.S. military about the tribunal process that human rights monitors had long portrayed as politically driven and rigged to convict.
Friday's Pentagon announcement did not mention the controversy but credited Hartmann with getting the sluggish trials, formally known as military commissions, moving.
"Gen. Hartmann has driven the commissions process forward since his arrival in July 2007. In no small part because of his efforts and his dedication, the commissions are an active, operational legal system," Daniel J. Dell'Orto, the Defense Department's acting general counsel, said in the announcement.
Twenty-four Guantanamo prisoners have been charged under the current trial system that replaced one struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as illegal in 2006, though charges against one were dismissed.
The United States began sending suspected al Qaeda and Taliban captives to Guantanamo in 2002. Of about 255 detainees now in Guantanamo, government agencies say 60 to 80 face the special military tribunals.
The first full trial was only completed in August, with the conviction of Osama bin Laden's Yemeni driver, Salim Hamdan. He was sentenced to about five more months in prison for providing material support for terrorism.
The deputy legal advisor, Michael Chapman, was appointed as the new legal advisor. He retired from the military as a colonel in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Corps after nearly 30 years of active duty, and had been working with the Guantanamo tribunals since 2005.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, one of the defense lawyers who succeeded in limiting Hartmann's further involvement in a case, called his reassignment "a thin veneer for what amounts to being fired for his excessive and unlawful interference in the military commissions process."
"The real problem is that simply reassigning the general does not cure the taint resulting from his conduct," said Kuebler, who is defending Canadian captive Omar Khadr in a trial set for November.
Khadr, who is charged with murder and accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in a firefight in Afghanistan, turned 22 on Friday. He was captured at age 15 and sent to Guantanamo shortly after his 16th birthday.
(Editing by Jim Loney and Jackie Frank)
**********
OTHERS:
Here
Here
*******************
Letter To Susan Crawford, Convening Authority, Office of Military Commissions (6/3/2008)
Susan J. Crawford
Convening Authority
Department of Defense
Office of Military Commissions
1600 Defense Pentagon
Rm. 3B652
Washington DC 20301-1600
June 3, 2008
Dear Ms. Crawford:
Many of us learned for the first time this week that only one relative of a 9/11 victim was invited to attend the proceedings at Guantánamo Bay. The Defense Department’s belated disclosure that Debra Burlingame, a staunch supporter of this administration and the military commission system, was secretly invited to attend the arraignment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is but the latest example of a covert, politicized military commission system that has little hope of bringing any legitimate outcome.
As people who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we want nothing more than to see that justice is served in the prosecution of suspects. However, we know that no justice will come out of a system that has been compromised by politics and stripped of the rule of law. Unfortunately, the government insists on trying those accused of participating in the 9/11 attacks in military commissions that operate largely outside the realm of public scrutiny and rely on confessions derived by torture, secret evidence that a defendant cannot rebut, and hearsay.
The American public has every right to expect that prosecutions of 9/11 suspects will be conducted in a fair, open and honest manner that is not compromised by crass political considerations. Selectively inviting only 9/11 family members whose views are in alignment with those of the Bush administration is only one example of the repeated attempts to infuse politics into what should be an impartial process that has the goal of achieving justice.
We know that we are not the only ones who object to the illegitimacy of these proceedings. Respected military figures as well as law enforcement officials like Janet Reno and William Webster have spoken out. And in an effort to make this system more in line with our constitutional values, the American Civil Liberties Union has assembled civilian legal teams to assist the woefully under-resourced military defense counsel. If the prosecution of these suspects is carried out in a manner that is not in accordance with American values of due process, the rule of law, and transparency, any verdict will lack legitimacy and we will be left to wonder if those responsible for the deaths of our loved ones have really been brought to justice.
Sincerely,
Anne M. Mulderry
Mother of Stephen V. Mulderry
Adele Welty
Mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty
Mindy Kleinberg
Wife of Alan Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken
Wife of Kenneth Van Auken
Patricia Perry
Mother of Police Officer John Perry
Monica Gabrielle
Wife of Richard Gabrielle
Patty Casazza
Wife of John F. Casazza
cc: Capt. Karen Loftus, DoD OGC
*******
If this subject is keenly important to you, please get on the free email list daily from The Bill of Rights Defense Committee and/or go daily to
Here
and/or
Here
and scroll down for actions/notes/resources and more news/grassroots items
IF YOU DON"T CATCH or File THESE DAILY or save in your emails, you could be missing a lot of really crucial items since it appears there may be no archive system here yet!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Maher Arar's Story with Links: Prepare for the US Trial to Begin Ninth of December
Accountability is not about seeking revenge; it is about making our institutions better and a model for the rest of the world. Accountability goes to the heart of our democracy. It is a fundamental pillar that distinguishes our society from police states. - Maher Arar
CURRENT case summary and items for US TRIAL: beginning December 09, 2008
Here
The Arar Commission released its official report on Maher Arar's case on September 18, 2006. Commissioner Dennis O'Connor cleared Maher of all terrorism allegations, and found that the actions of Canadian officials very likely lead to his ordeal.
STORY IN BRIEF ( With focus on Canada's accountability and action)
Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. He was born in Syria and came to Canada with his family at the age of 17. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. On Sept. 26, 2002, while in transit in New York’s JFK airport when returning home from a vacation, Arar was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.
During his imprisonment, Arar's wife, Monia Mazigh, campaigned relentlessly on his behalf until he was returned to Canada in October 2003. On Jan. 28, 2004, under pressure from Canadian human rights organizations and a growing number of citizens, the Government of Canada announced a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar.
On September 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."
Read more about Maher's story in fuller detail with chronology, links:
Here
A Message from Maher Arar:
It was four years ago that the horrible ordeal I suffered first began. People ask me repeatedly how, during this time, I have been able to cope with the stress of surviving torture, the stress of not being able to find a job, the stress endured at the inquiry, and the stress from the countless hours I spend doing media interviews and talking to my lawyers on the phone. The answers are simple: I draw my strength from my faith; from my loving, caring, strong wife; and from the support and generosity I have received from Canadians. I have rediscovered Canada through its people, people who made me feel proud of being Canadian.
What has also given me the determination to persevere is the obligation I have felt as a human being to keep my case alive in hope that the attention will help other innocent people. Three years ago, I made a very difficult decision to tell my painful, personal story to the Canadian public. I made it clear at that time that I wanted to achieve three objectives.
The most important and first objective was to clear my name.
Justice Dennis O'Connor did so in his report from the Commission of Inquiry examining my case when he stated that he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."
In his findings, Justice O'Connor had this to say regarding my innocence:
Mr. Arar has asked that I "clear his name." His concern, understandably, is that the publicity surrounding his case has raised suspicions that he has been involved in illegal activities. Unfortunately, Mr. Arar has been the subject of a good deal of publicity, some of which has inaccurately portrayed his status in Canadian investigations and his possible connections to terrorist activities. The result has been that Mr. Arar, already the victim of inhumane and degrading treatment in Syria, has been subjected to further suffering owing to the release of information that has unfairly damaged his reputation here in Canada.
I have heard evidence concerning all of the information gathered by Canadian investigators in relation to Mr. Arar. This includes information obtained in Canada, as well as any information received from American, Syrian or other foreign authorities. I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.
The public can be confident that Canadian investigators have thoroughly and exhaustively followed all information leads available to them in connection with Mr. Arar's activities and associations. This was not a case where investigators were unable to effectively pursue their investigative goals because of a lack of resources or time constraints. On the contrary, Canadian investigators made extensive efforts to find any information that could implicate Mr. Arar in terrorist activities. They did so over a lengthy period of time, even after Mr. Arar's case became a "cause celebre."
The results speak for themselves: they found none.
My second objective was to hold those people responsible to account.
The Canadian government has full access to both the public and confidential reports prepared by Justice O'Connor. Since the release of the report the Canadian public has consistently asked the government to take concrete actions to hold those Canadian officials responsible to account. But nothing has been done so far, and the public's trust in the government's ability to restore faith in our institutions has clearly been shaken.
It is important to highlight that the inquiry report does not point the finger at any one person or institution alone. It is also crucial to focus on demanding concrete changes rather than focusing on asking some officials to resign from their jobs. This is because accountability is not about seeking revenge; it is about making our institutions better and a model for the rest of the world. Accountability goes to the heart of our democracy. It is a fundamental pillar that distinguishes our society from police states.
My third objective was to make sure that this does not happen to any other Canadian.
Unfortunately this has already happened to three other Canadian citizens: Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El-Maati and Muayyed Nureddin. The similarities between their cases and mine are striking. We were all detained at the same branch of the Syrian military intelligence, tortured by the same people and asked questions that would be of interest to Canadian police and security agencies. It is my hope that the government acts on its promise and holds an independent review of their cases, as recommended by Justice O'Connor in his report.
If the government wants to prevent another tragedy from happening, it must fully implement Justice O'Connor's comprehensive and balanced recommendations.
In my opinion these recommendations, if implemented fully, will protect our national security and safeguard our hard-won civil liberties. We have heard encouraging statements from Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, indicating he intends to implement the recommendations. It is my hope that he will act immediately.
Justice O'Connor will also make further recommendations in a second report before the end of the year. This second report will outline proposals for a new approach to reviewing the RCMP's activities regarding national security investigations. It is my view and my hope, based on testimony at the inquiry, that this should go beyond the RCMP and include at least CSIS and Foreign Affairs.
It is important to make a distinction between "review" and "oversight." Oversight will be more effective as it will prevent tragedies from happening again while review means that tragedy has happened already and an investigation needs to be launched to find out what went wrong.
Here's a good example to illustrate the point: The existence of an oversight agency could have prevented the RCMP from sending false information about me to their American counterparts or, at a minimum, could have made a huge difference when it came to correcting the record early on. Quick hearings could have been held, at the end of which all Canadian agencies could have been ordered to issue a "one voice" letter clearing me of any wrongdoing. Certainly this could have resulted in my being released earlier and also could have served as a deterrent to those Canadian officials who embarked on the damaging smear campaign after my return to Canada.
I hope that many lessons have been learned from my case. Canadians have invested time, effort and money in this inquiry. Now is the time to make sure this investment pays off, by insisting that the government implements all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations. Doing so will help Canada restore its tarnished reputation for promoting and protecting human rights around the globe.
Thank you,
Maher Arar
(END of Maher Arar Website entry for front page)
********
A few videos you may want to see/hear on Maher Arar and related:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Note from blogger of One Heart for Peace - Look for Maher Arar and much more related to his case in the weeks ahead...
CURRENT case summary and items for US TRIAL: beginning December 09, 2008
Here
The Arar Commission released its official report on Maher Arar's case on September 18, 2006. Commissioner Dennis O'Connor cleared Maher of all terrorism allegations, and found that the actions of Canadian officials very likely lead to his ordeal.
STORY IN BRIEF ( With focus on Canada's accountability and action)
Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. He was born in Syria and came to Canada with his family at the age of 17. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. On Sept. 26, 2002, while in transit in New York’s JFK airport when returning home from a vacation, Arar was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.
During his imprisonment, Arar's wife, Monia Mazigh, campaigned relentlessly on his behalf until he was returned to Canada in October 2003. On Jan. 28, 2004, under pressure from Canadian human rights organizations and a growing number of citizens, the Government of Canada announced a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar.
On September 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."
Read more about Maher's story in fuller detail with chronology, links:
Here
A Message from Maher Arar:
It was four years ago that the horrible ordeal I suffered first began. People ask me repeatedly how, during this time, I have been able to cope with the stress of surviving torture, the stress of not being able to find a job, the stress endured at the inquiry, and the stress from the countless hours I spend doing media interviews and talking to my lawyers on the phone. The answers are simple: I draw my strength from my faith; from my loving, caring, strong wife; and from the support and generosity I have received from Canadians. I have rediscovered Canada through its people, people who made me feel proud of being Canadian.
What has also given me the determination to persevere is the obligation I have felt as a human being to keep my case alive in hope that the attention will help other innocent people. Three years ago, I made a very difficult decision to tell my painful, personal story to the Canadian public. I made it clear at that time that I wanted to achieve three objectives.
The most important and first objective was to clear my name.
Justice Dennis O'Connor did so in his report from the Commission of Inquiry examining my case when he stated that he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."
In his findings, Justice O'Connor had this to say regarding my innocence:
Mr. Arar has asked that I "clear his name." His concern, understandably, is that the publicity surrounding his case has raised suspicions that he has been involved in illegal activities. Unfortunately, Mr. Arar has been the subject of a good deal of publicity, some of which has inaccurately portrayed his status in Canadian investigations and his possible connections to terrorist activities. The result has been that Mr. Arar, already the victim of inhumane and degrading treatment in Syria, has been subjected to further suffering owing to the release of information that has unfairly damaged his reputation here in Canada.
I have heard evidence concerning all of the information gathered by Canadian investigators in relation to Mr. Arar. This includes information obtained in Canada, as well as any information received from American, Syrian or other foreign authorities. I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.
The public can be confident that Canadian investigators have thoroughly and exhaustively followed all information leads available to them in connection with Mr. Arar's activities and associations. This was not a case where investigators were unable to effectively pursue their investigative goals because of a lack of resources or time constraints. On the contrary, Canadian investigators made extensive efforts to find any information that could implicate Mr. Arar in terrorist activities. They did so over a lengthy period of time, even after Mr. Arar's case became a "cause celebre."
The results speak for themselves: they found none.
My second objective was to hold those people responsible to account.
The Canadian government has full access to both the public and confidential reports prepared by Justice O'Connor. Since the release of the report the Canadian public has consistently asked the government to take concrete actions to hold those Canadian officials responsible to account. But nothing has been done so far, and the public's trust in the government's ability to restore faith in our institutions has clearly been shaken.
It is important to highlight that the inquiry report does not point the finger at any one person or institution alone. It is also crucial to focus on demanding concrete changes rather than focusing on asking some officials to resign from their jobs. This is because accountability is not about seeking revenge; it is about making our institutions better and a model for the rest of the world. Accountability goes to the heart of our democracy. It is a fundamental pillar that distinguishes our society from police states.
My third objective was to make sure that this does not happen to any other Canadian.
Unfortunately this has already happened to three other Canadian citizens: Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El-Maati and Muayyed Nureddin. The similarities between their cases and mine are striking. We were all detained at the same branch of the Syrian military intelligence, tortured by the same people and asked questions that would be of interest to Canadian police and security agencies. It is my hope that the government acts on its promise and holds an independent review of their cases, as recommended by Justice O'Connor in his report.
If the government wants to prevent another tragedy from happening, it must fully implement Justice O'Connor's comprehensive and balanced recommendations.
In my opinion these recommendations, if implemented fully, will protect our national security and safeguard our hard-won civil liberties. We have heard encouraging statements from Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, indicating he intends to implement the recommendations. It is my hope that he will act immediately.
Justice O'Connor will also make further recommendations in a second report before the end of the year. This second report will outline proposals for a new approach to reviewing the RCMP's activities regarding national security investigations. It is my view and my hope, based on testimony at the inquiry, that this should go beyond the RCMP and include at least CSIS and Foreign Affairs.
It is important to make a distinction between "review" and "oversight." Oversight will be more effective as it will prevent tragedies from happening again while review means that tragedy has happened already and an investigation needs to be launched to find out what went wrong.
Here's a good example to illustrate the point: The existence of an oversight agency could have prevented the RCMP from sending false information about me to their American counterparts or, at a minimum, could have made a huge difference when it came to correcting the record early on. Quick hearings could have been held, at the end of which all Canadian agencies could have been ordered to issue a "one voice" letter clearing me of any wrongdoing. Certainly this could have resulted in my being released earlier and also could have served as a deterrent to those Canadian officials who embarked on the damaging smear campaign after my return to Canada.
I hope that many lessons have been learned from my case. Canadians have invested time, effort and money in this inquiry. Now is the time to make sure this investment pays off, by insisting that the government implements all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations. Doing so will help Canada restore its tarnished reputation for promoting and protecting human rights around the globe.
Thank you,
Maher Arar
(END of Maher Arar Website entry for front page)
********
A few videos you may want to see/hear on Maher Arar and related:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Note from blogger of One Heart for Peace - Look for Maher Arar and much more related to his case in the weeks ahead...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)