Torture Overseas

The ACLU–conducting more oversight these days than Congress and the mainstream media combined–has gotten a hold of some previously unreleased documents detailing the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and other overseas facilities. Here (PDF file), for instance:

[Wisam] Abd-Al-Rahman described his reported period of detention in Afghanistan from January 2002 until April 2003 as moving from ‘one American prison to another’, staying in cold, dark, and crowded rooms. He said he stayed, without charges or interrogation, with nine other persons in a 25 square foot room without sunlight and fed only bread and rice for a period of about 77 days. He said that sanitary and hygiene conditions were terrible, and that he did not receive medical care nor see the sun during the period of detention in Afghanistan. He also reported sleep deprivation, undressing in front of female soldiers, desecration of the Koran by a dog, beatings, and threats of harm from barking dogs while blindfolded.

Abd-al-Rahman was later found to be innocent.

Here’s a series of accounts (PDF file) of the deaths of four detainees killed in captivity in Iraq.

Here’s a list of talking points (PDF file) about torture, as conveyed in a State Department cable transmission. Note that the people who received them were warned that they should “not be given to non-usg [U.S. Government] persons or left behind after meetings.”

And there’s plenty more that I haven’t read through yet. Give them a look yourself, and I’ll post anything interesting I come across as I peruse them.

See more tagged with: civil liberties and torture

Iran: Sabers and Sobriety

Much has been written already about General David Petraeus’ and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s two days of marathon testimony on Capitol Hill this week, including plenty about the degree to which they also testified about Iran’s influence both in Iraq and in the greater Middle East. Petraeus was quick to call Iran’s influence in Iraq “malevolent”, but less quick to reconcile that influence with the fact that Iran is on friendly terms with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. Just hours after the two men wrapped up their show, President Bush kicked up the rhetoric. According to the Times of London, “President Bush warned Iran [] that if it did not stop arming and training Shia militia in Iraq then ‘America will act to protect our interests and our troops’.”

Interestingly, while Petraeus and Crocker sat before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, the National Iranian American Council hosted a conference, drawing on the expertise of journalists, scholars, former chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), to examine America’s best options if it seeks to keep Iran’s nuclear weapons program dormant. Iran, which recently claimed to be installing 6,000 new centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, could restart its weapons program, and preventing that, the guests noted, will likely require direct U.S. diplomatic engagement with the Islamic Republic.

That process would no doubt have an impact on Iran’s influence in Iraq, and it might well prove to be a positive one. “Iran recently proved helpful in brokering a ceasefire between Prime Minister al-Maliki and Muqtada al-Sadr’s JAM militias in Basra, Feinstein noted. “Clearly, a more positive relationship with Iran might be helpful in stabilizing Iraq.” That ceasefire is by no means destined to hold, and will by no means solve the fundamental political rifts that keep Iraq ablaze. But it has knocked violence down noticeably, which is something all sides no doubt welcome.

See more tagged with: Iran

U.S. Troops and Torture

Here are some new, troubling allegations:

[Murat] Kurnaz [a German citizen of Turkish descent] claims his interrogations at Kandahar turned to torture. He told 60 Minutes that American troops held his head underwater.”They used to beat me when my head is underwater. They beat me into my stomach and everything,” he says.

“They were hitting you in the stomach while you’re head was underwater so that you’d have to take a breath?” Pelley asks,

“Right. I had to drink. I had to…how you say it?” Kurnaz replies.

“Inhale. Inhale the water,” Pelley says.

“I had to inhale the water. Right,” Kurnaz says.

Kurnaz says the Americans used a device to shock him with electricity that made his body go numb. And he says he was hoisted up on chains suspended by his arms from the ceiling of an aircraft hangar for five days.

“Every five or six hours they came and pulled me back down. And the doctor came to watch if I can still survive to not. He looked into my eyes. He checked my heart. And when he said okay, then they pulled me back up,” Kurnaz says.

“The point of the doctor’s visit was not to treat you. It was to see if you could take another six hours hanging from the ceiling?” Pelley asks.

“Right,” Kurnaz says.

“I suspect you know that the U.S. military will deny this happened. The U.S. military will deny that you were shocked. It will deny your head was held in a bucket of water. It will deny that you hung from a ceiling for days at a time,” Pelley remarks.

“Doesn’t matter whatever they will say. The truth will not change,” Kurnaz says.

Not surprisingly, he was guilty of nothing.

See more tagged with: torture

The Passing of Tom Lantos

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) passed away today at the age of 80. Just two months ago, after being diagnosed with esophageal cancer, he announced that he would not seek re-election this fall.

Lantos represented California’s 12th congressional district–a carat-shaped patch of liberal geography that stretches from south San Francisco down the Bay Area peninsula into San Mateo county. In an environment like that, his seat will no doubt be retained by another progressive Democrat.

But Lantos wasn’t just a garden-variety progressive. He was also the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. And, as such, he enjoyed jurisdiction, in the 110th Congress, over funding for foreign aide programs and directing arms sales, training for the country’s allies, and other crucial aspects of the nation’s international relations. In that regard, Lantos performed admirably–he was a great friend to the United Nations, a strong proponent of diplomatic engagement with hostile country, and had metamorphosed from a loud supporter into a formidable critic of the president’s efforts in Iraq.

His approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was generally less even handed. Lantos was a famously strong supporter of Israel, and of many of its policies in the occupied territories. But he had seemed, in recent months, to have softened some of his views.

Now, though, the gavel will be passed down to a new chairman, who will be selected by the whole caucus (all House Democrats) in the days ahead. Traditionally, chairmanship falls to the senior member of the committee (in this case Rep. Howard Berman of California), but there’s no rule requiring that. When he announced his coming retirement, I made a series of inquiries on the Hill about which committee Democrat was most likely to replace him. Most of the people I asked–committee and leadership aides–noted the seniority tradition, suggesting that Berman would be the most likely to assume Lantos’ position.

But a surprising number said that Berman–who’s also the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee–might prefer succeeding John Conyers, whenever he vacates his position. And that would put Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) at the front of the line.

Both men–Berman and Ackerman–have views on foreign policy that closely mirror Lantos’. Both endorse the policies of hawkish factions within Israel, and both have taken a fairly hard-line stance against Iran–devoting similar energies to arguing for Iran’s economic isolation as to fostering dialog with that country’s government.

But there’s another long-shot possibility, too–one that’s appealing to some progressive foreign policy thinkers. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could, in a politically risky move, throw her support behind somebody farther down the line. And one name that I’ve heard mentioned a few times is Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.)

The six-term congressman has impressive foreign policy bona fides. As chairman of the subcommittee on international organizations, human rights, and oversight–all issues dear to Lantos–he’s investigated issues such as visa acquisition, rendition, torture, and inspector general malfeasance. And he’s been willing to inject life and reality into some of the more sclerotic foreign policy debates of the past several years. “While we have an embargo on Cuba and restrict American citizens’ ability to travel there,” Delahunt said in July at a hearing about iniquities in American aide and diplomacy, “we provide Egypt with $2 billion worth of American taxpayer resources, and Azerbaijain receives assistance as well.”

Delahunt curries favor with Pelosi, as well. At 66 years old, he’s one of two honorary members of Pelosi’s “30 Something Working Group”, dedicated to encouraging youth involvement in government and the political process. His ascent is by no means out of the question. But neither he nor his aides will comment just yet on what the future might hold, and on a committee stacked at the top with so many like-minded foreign policy thinkers, it may be unlikely.

See more tagged with: foreign affairs committee, Iran and tom lantos

No More Security Guarantee

Is the Bush administration backing down on it’s declaration that it will provide Iraq an indefinite security guarantee against foreign and domestic threat? CQ reports that “the administration has backed off its previous assertions that a long-term bilateral agreement with Iraq would include a security arrangement to defend the country from external threats.”

The administration has maintained that the agreement would not rise to the level of a treaty. The “security guarantee” statement appeared in the announcement because Iraqis wanted it on the table, the administration official said. But, he said, the United States does not believe it to be necessary. “We say, look, if you want a security guarantee, that will be a treaty, and a treaty will have to go to our Senate,” endangering the whole agreement, he said.

Of course, the proof will be in the ink, when the agreement is penned in the coming weeks. For now, this is an important win for Congress and, indeed, for the Constitution.

See more tagged with: iraq

Iranian-Americans Favor Diplomatic Engagement

A recently released survey, conducted by researchers at U.C. Berkeley, has found that a significant majority of Iranians living in the United States favor a non-violent course of diplomatic engagement with Tehran. It’s a significant finding in that it’s the first survey of its kind, but also because some of the most significant Iran-related lobbying efforts in Washington involve trying to convince powerful congressmen and other politicos that there’s significant support within the Iranian-American community for everything from military attacks on nuclear sites to regime change in their former country.

The report can be accessed at this link.

See more tagged with: Iran

House Progressives Seek Permanent Bases Hearings

Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, and Lynne Woolsey of California have sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, pushing for an investigation into President Bush’s most recent signing statements, one of which threatens to dismiss a provision of the National Defense Appropriations Act forbidding funding of permanent bases in Iraq. The text of the letter follows.

February 1, 2008

Hon. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
US House of Representatives
The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

President George W. Bush issued a signing statement on Monday, January 28, 2008 where he signaled his intent to ignore a provision in the FY08 Department of Defense Authorization Bill (PL 110-181) that prohibits permanent military bases in Iraq. We urge you to request the appropriate committee chairs to quickly schedule oversight hearings on this important issue.

We believe this is a particularly contradictory and serious development given that the President has signed similar provisions into law five times before. (PL109-289, PL 109-364, PL 110-28, PL 110-116, and PL 110-161.)

When a majority of the American people are committed to ending our occupation in Iraq on a timeline within a year, in making this proclamation President Bush has only reinforced what we have always known; that he intends our occupation in Iraq to be indefinite.

Sadly, this is a pattern of behavior from a White House that seems intent on cutting Congress out of any decisions relating to the permanent stationing of the US military in Iraq. At the end of last year, without any congressional input, President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki signed a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America” that will set the stage for future agreements on the disposition of US troops in Iraq and other wide-ranging aspects of this important bilateral relationship. (We introduced H.R. 5128, legislation disapproving of any agreement that doesn’t have the approval of both houses of Congress and that of the Iraqi Parliament, too)

We believe that Congress must find out and the American public made aware of the serious consequences of long-term military basing agreements or treaties that bypass congressional action as the ‘Declaration of Principles’. In addition, it is critical to shed light on the implications of the President’s signing statement and intention to ignore the law. At the same time it is also imperative to give greater scrutiny to the Bush administration’s efforts to maintain a long-term or indefinite military presence in Iraq. Holding hearings will complement the 166 hearings on Iraq that Democrats have held since you became our speaker in January 2007.

We appreciate your strong leadership and commitment in ending the US occupation of Iraq and look forward to working with you on this matter.

Sincerely,

BARBARA LEE
Member of Congress

LYNN WOOSLEY
Member of Congress

MAXINE WATERS
Member of Congress

See more tagged with: iraq

Contractor Clashes

The GAO examined the whether military officials and private contractors in Iraq function cohesively when they work together. Shockingly, they do not.

DOD does not routinely incorporate information about contractor support for deployed forces in its pre-deployment training of military personnel. During the course of our
work, we found examples where limited or no pre-deployment training caused a variety of problems for military commanders in a deployed location, such as not being able to adequately plan for the use of contractors upon deployment, not knowing what services would be provided through contractors, or not being prepared to provide force protection. We have found several instances where poor oversight and management of contractors has led to negative monetary and operational impacts.

See more tagged with: gao report

In Iraq Until When?

Close followers of the Iraq mess might remember that on November 28 of last year, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki signed a statement of intent–called a Declaration of Principles–to “frame the future relationship between the two countries.”

The Declaration itself was vague and unbinding, but it left open the possibility that future negotiations between Washington and Baghdad could result in a commitment of sorts, from the White House to Maliki, that the United States will commit troops to the defense of the Iraqi state from both internal and external threats for years to come.

For instance:

1. Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.

2. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups, at the forefront of which is Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation, and destroy their logistical networks and their sources of finance, and defeat and uproot them from Iraq. This support will be provided consistent with mechanisms and arrangements to be established in the bilateral cooperation agreements mentioned herein.

3. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces to enable them to protect Iraq and all its peoples, and completing the building of its administrative systems, in accordance with the request of the Iraqi government.

The language here doesn’t necessarily imply a coming commitment of U.S. troops. But, historically, that’s what the term “security commitment” means in the non-binding language of diplomacy. So, what’s the time-frame, then? The Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qadir has suggested that Iraq won’t be ready to defend itself until 2018. A quick decade or thereabouts.

Of course, only a lame-duck commander-in-chief gone mad would promise the Iraqi government 10 years of military protection (perhaps even from rebel factions within Iraq) during his last year in office. But that just might happen. And that’s where Congress steps in. Today, Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) chaired a joint subcommittee hearing devoted to examining whether such a commitment would be Constitutional without the ratification of a treaty by the U.S. Senate. (A treaty requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate for passage, and would, in this instance, almost surely fail).

That would be the theoretical avenue by which the Congress could block the president from making this sort of agreement with Maliki. But this is the realm of foreign affairs, and as such, words like “legal” and “binding” don’t apply as usual. In absence of a treaty the president could provide similar assurances informally, leaving the future president–Democrat or Republican–in a tricky diplomatic position if he or she decides not to honor Bush’s promise.

Fortunately, there are other constraints. One is time: The Declaration lays out a framework for negotiations that will begin in February with the goal of reaching an agreement of some sort by the end of July. In the meantime, Congress could, for instance, consider legislation floated by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) which would “require the Bush Administration to consult with Congress before moving forward with any agreement that could lead to long term security arrangements… and makes clear that any such agreement must come in the form of a treaty.”

The other constraints, though, come from within Iraq. On the one hand, those within the Iraqi government who would like a long-term commitment from the United States may not sign on to anything that doesn’t have the force of U.S. law behind it (a treaty, for instance). And on the other hand–according to Iraq expert Kenneth Katzman, who testified at today’s hearing–any agreement of any kind between the U.S. and Iraq would meet “tremendous difficulty passing the Iraqi parliament”. So this is far from a done deal. But it’s also a situation, which, if ignored, could make the Iraq problem even more complicated for the next president than it already promises to be.

See more tagged with: iraq, president bush and william delahunt

Sanctioning Iran

How low is the international appetite for trade sanctions against Iran?

Energy-hungry China, which has extensive business interests in Iran, supported earlier U.N. resolutions against Tehran, but has sided with Russia in opposing a new sanctions resolution being sought by Washington and its allies, instead calling for more intensive negotiations.

That opposition has hardened since the December release of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran stopped working on a secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, contradicting Washington’s previous view that Tehran was continuing such activities….

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu indicated Thursday there were no changes to China’s opposition to new sanctions. Beijing hopes the international community will “intensify diplomatic efforts for an early resumption of negotiations,” she said at a regular news briefing.

Very low.

See more tagged with: china and Iran