September 27, 2006
by Zen Garcia

Bush has stated over and over, "We do not torture detainees" and yet when Senator McCain, a once held prisoner of war, dissented against the White House position on the treatment of detainees and together with the Senate passed a law outlawing the torture of detainees; Bush issued a 'signing statement' - an official document in which a president lays out interpretation of a new law -in which he reserved the right to ignore Congressional demands outlawing the torture of prisoners.

He claims authority as commander in chief to bypass any law, in context of broader powers to protect national security. Bush believes he can waive any restrictions which would impede his ability to protect the American people from the threats of terrorism. "The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President...as Commander in Chief... in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President...of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Bush had stated on numerous occasions not only that America does not torture detainees, but that America is not running black sites in which detainees are flown to some obscure location where the rule of law does not exist so that extreme measures can be used to excise information it deems necessary to protecting our citizenry. Having had the program of extraordinary rendition called into question by several federal judges, the White House has had to fess up to the existence of such a program. "I cannot describe the specific methods used - I think you understand why," Bush said during a 5th anniversary speech of the attacks of September 11th. "If I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful and necessary."

He reiterated his insistence that detainees have not and will not be tortured, claiming "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it." What the world and Americans do not realize is that what we the people traditionally consider torture, is not the same torture Bush speaks about since attorney general Alberto Gonzales redefined torture in a narrow context. The Torture Convention defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person".

The Bush Administration declares torture by a different standard, namely that, to constitute torture, the pain caused "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or even death." Methods generally understood by the world as "torture" would be permitted by this newly and narrowly altered definition. According to the new 'definition' everything up to the point leading to death is not torture as defined by the Administrations new policy. The redefining of torture, allows the administration to deny criminal behavior while still allowing the implementation and committing of such atrocities. This also gave CIA and military interrogators the 'go-ahead' to try many drastic measures considered to tough in previous sessions prior to the 'war on terror.'

Bush wants the CIA to be exempt from prosecution under the war crimes act for cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees and is now hard at work propagandizing the American public and Congress to have the Geneva Conventions modified. He knows that his administration has committed war crimes against humanity, which he and many members of his administration are liable to be prosecuted under according to international law. If he can exempt the CIA from such prosecutions then not only can they continue this sinister program of kidnap and torture, CIA interrogators won't have to worry about future prosecution, or holding back from current methods of gleaning information.

Even with torture being narrowly redefined, Bush is outright lying when he claims that, "We do not torture detainees." According to figures compiled by the Associated Press news agency, at least 108 people have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. The AP based their claims on information obtained from the US 's own army, navy and senior administration officials. While many of the deaths were due to natural causes, as a result of insurgent attacks on US detention facilities or during violent prison uprisings in which lethal force was used by US personnel, at least 26 have been investigated as criminal homicide involving abusing prisoners to death. "Military investigators have looked into -- or are continuing to investigate -- 35 cases of alleged abuse or deaths of prisoners in detention facilities in the Central Command theater," said Army Secretary Les Brownlee.

A Pentagon report to Congressional oversight committee cited six prisoner deaths as of last September. Another report based on information from Pentagon and other official US sources, released by Human Rights First in October 2005 cites similar conclusions in that over 100 prisoners have died while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002. Out of 98 deaths, at least 34 were suspected or confirmed homicides "caused by intentional or reckless behavior". Human Rights First representative Deborah Pearlstein told Newsnight she was "extremely comfortable" that the information was reliable while UK MP Bob Marshall-Andrews told the Press Association that "If it is indeed systemic, then the responsibility for it must go right to the top, and that would apply to both British and American governments."

A spokesman for Amnesty International UK called for an investigation into how the deaths occurred while in US custody and said, "Deaths in custody during the war on terror are a real matter of concern to us and we want to see the US and its allies allowing a full independent and impartial investigation into these deaths, as well as mounting incidents of alleged torture and other mistreatment."

(Article Continues Below)

Some methods used by the CIA and military interrogators include using a scalpel to make numerous cuts on the penis of Benyam Mohammed, who was arrested at Karachi airport on April 10 2002, and flown by a US government plane to a prison in Morocco. Other techniques include forceful beatings and even stomping which resulted in the paralysis of Sami Al-Laithi, a result of his detention at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Al-Laithi is now confined to a wheelchair with two broken vertebrae. Images released from the Abu Ghraib scandal show the forceful rape, sodomy of Iraqi men, women, and children and include depictions of electrical wires attached to the genitalia of detainees. There were also images of dogs being used to attack detainees. Would it shock the American people to know that John C. Yoo, a Justice Department attorney who helped devise the Bush regime's doctrine of torture, condones even the torture of terrorists children to extract information from their terrorist parents.

When asked a hypothetical question in which the child of a terrorist suspect had their 'genitals crushed' in front of his father in order to extract information; Yoo answered there is "no law" and "no treaty" that would forbid such an atrocity, assuming that it was authorized by the president: "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that," Yoo said. How can an attorney for the Justice Department condone the torture of children, even terrorist children to safeguard the security of the American people?

We know through Seymour Hersh's work that the policy of torturing and sodomizing terrorist children had in fact been implemented because the Pentagon has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib to extract information from their parents. "[There's] a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher. Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking.... They are in total terror it's going to come out."

Manuals used by the U.S. Army's School of the Americas between 1982 and 1991 condoned executions, beatings and many other human rights abuses. John Yoo admits that he regards the sexual torture of children to be a legal and justifiable tactic, if authorized by the president. Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on December 7, 2005 declared: "The absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle we once believed to be unassailable-the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of the person-is becoming a casualty of the so-called war on terror."

The world now knows that the torture of detainees was not a result of a few bad apples, but is and was a direct consequence of orders coming all the way from the President and relayed through the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to troops on the ground. Why else would Bush fight so hard to legitimize his administrations stance on torture and extraordinary rendition? He and the Vice-President had lobbied congress to exempt the CIA from the McCain Bill outlawing torture by US Personnel and when they failed; Bush issued one of his infamous signing statements claiming authority to interpret the law anyway he sees fit even if it means ignoring it. We know that it is the administration that was and is responsible for implementing torture on a broad scale.

Interrogators as well as detainees have made public claims that torture does not solicit valuable information and fearing such treatment detainees will admit to anything just to have the torture stop even a former U.S. Army Interrogator describes why "Torture is the worst possible thing we can do to detainees."  Bush keeps citing the criticalness of continuing this CIA program of extraordinary rendition, torture, and indefinite detention; claiming it a necessary evil in the war on terror. However, even Bush's own former Secretary of State, Colin Powell disagrees with his opinion on this matter. Powell sent a letter to Sen. John McCain, warning against Bush's proposal to allow more extreme methods of interrogating detainees. "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell said, adding Bush's policies on the treatment of detainees "would put our troops at risk." And it does put our troops at risk especially when the world knows that we are torturing everybody that we take into custody and using various unholy methods just to extract information. T

he Red Cross released a report about how 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib detainees who had been tortured were innocent.  Doesn't the indiscriminate torture of people create hatred for those who commit such violations?  We create terrorists by subjecting them to such terrorism as torture especially when they are innocent.  What will happen to our troops when they are caught by so called enemy combatants? Do we as nation believe that our troops will be extended any kind of courtesy when we ourselves do not extend any kind of courtesy to prisoners of war? 

Three key Republican Senators on the Armed Services Committee: John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner have challenged the White House on this issue. The three helped pass a measure last week affirming Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits inhumane treatment. Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before their committee, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges."

Newsweek magazine reported that the Bush administration is trying to maintain at least seven existing CIA interrogation methods for use against detainees including induced hypothermia; long periods of forced standing; sleep deprivation and "attention slapping." While McCain, Warner, and Graham have come out in defiance of the administrations attempt to limit common article 3 of the Geneva Convention, both bills proposed in the Senate strip away the right of habeas corpus from detainees and limits the ability of torture survivors to hold their perpetrators accountable for their abuse and to even know what charges have been filed against them.

Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights said, "In both the administration bill and in the McCain-Graham-Warner bill, in both cases you abolish the writ of habeas corpus. The government, the Congress, is abolishing the writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus writ is the right to challenge your detention once you're picked up by the United States. It would apply to Guantanamo. It would apply to everybody in Bagram. And it basically says that anybody picked up, now or in the future or who is there now, no longer has the writ of habeas corpus.

For some reason, for some peculiar reason, nobody is really covering this in the media. Yes, they're covering the McCain debate over waterboarding and torture and somewhat on the military commissions, but not really the denial of the abolishment of the fundamental writ. If we look at Maher Arar, his is one of the cases. I mean, there may be Maher Arars -- or are, as I know -- in places like Guantanamo and other places in the world, and without an ability to bring those cases to court, the United States can continue or the administration can continue doing what it did to Maher Arar."

The writ of habeas corpus guarantees a prisoners right to know the charges against them in a court of law without being held in indefinite confinement just because someone wants them detained. Without it Presidents and Kings have historically been able to lock people up, essentially throwing away the key, and disappearing them by allowing them to rot in jail. The writ of habeas corpus stems from the Magna Carta of 1215 and was so important for protecting peoples rights that when our forefathers wrote our Constitution in the United States, it became a foundation point for our own Bill of Rights. Having the writ of habeas corpus suspended for terror suspects, can also endanger American citizens as the Patriot Act defines 'domestic terrorists' as anyone that challenges the policies of government administration especially anti-war demonstrators.

Should the writ of habeas corpus be suspended indefinitely, it will only be a matter of time before anti-war, anti-police state, peace loving Americans like myself, yourself are locked up as a harassment measure and possibly indefinitely detained with charges considered 'state secrets.' We may then be brought before bogus 'military tribunals' where we can then be sentenced to death without every knowing or the government releasing what crime we may have committed and been sentenced to death for. If you think this is far from the truth, look into the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was held without charge for 3 years on information considered 'state secret' until a federal judge expressed doubts about the strength of the government's terror conspiracy case against he and others.  The judge ordered prosecutors to provide more evidence of alleged violent activities overseas because the judge could find no real concrete evidence for his prosecution or further imprisonment.

All people should be extended the same courtesies guaranteed to us by the US Constitution and International Law. The American people must realize that surrendering civil liberties, rights, and protections will not make us safer from terrorists. It only endangers us further by allowing fascism to creep into our government. We must remember that our founding fathers established our Constitutional Republic based on the knowledge that big government was the greatest purveyor of injustice against the people and individual freedoms.

Our Bill of Rights was written in such a way as to protect us from a tyrannical figures like Bush who consider themselves above the law and capable of doing whatever they want even when it comes to torturing other human beings or even their children. Historically speaking it has been big government that has impinged upon the freedoms and liberties of the people. We must remember that Ben Franklin said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

     click here

Zen Garcia [send him email] is an activist and writer in Athens, GA.  Find more of his writings at www.endeavorfreedom.org/