Waterboarding Was 'Actively Sought' by US Officials

That's according to Carl Levin who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

US military officials actively sought ways to implement harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding used at Guantanamo Bay despite legal objections, a senior Democratic senator has said.

Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, told a hearing the US government had "twisted the law to create the appearance of legality".

"If we use those same techniques offensively against detainees, it says to the world that they have America's stamp of approval," he said in Washington DC on Tuesday.

The committee was also shown US military memos saying that the techniques should be curbed while international monitors were present.

The hearing is the committee's first attempt to discover the origins of the harsh interrogation methods used in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq and how policy decisions on interrogations were agreed across the US department of defence.

The CIA has admitted it used waterboarding, which simulates drowning, on several suspected al-Qaeda leaders, while US soldiers were photographed using dogs against prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

The interrogations have been widely condemned by international human rights groups.

Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator, said the Bush administration's legal analysis on detainees and interrogations following the September 11, 2001, attacks would "go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and shortsighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military and intelligence communities".

William Haynes Chevron

(Apologies for the poor grammar in the headline, there is a reason.)

Well, someone at Chevron certainly is keeping their eye on blogs posting about Ecuador, Chevron and William Haynes. In the past week, I have had no less than four visits from someone holed up at Chevron HQ (lucky old me). Generally speaking, they appear to use the search term that I have used as the title of this post, which then leads them to this lovely little post I wrote on the connection between William Haynes and the 'war on terror'. One wonders how many other visits they will pay to this blog in the near future.

In honour of my new found friends at Chevron, I would like to dedicate the following short animation to their tireless work in Ecuador. You deserve it chaps, no really.

What's The Link Between Chevron, Guantanamo and Ecuador?

So, at long last the mainstream media appears to be catching up with reality of torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghriab. Whilst stories surrounding the extent to which those closest to Bush were aware of the new policy regarding torture has been doing the rounds on the internet for some time, it is only now that it is being taking seriously by one of the 'quality' newspapers in the UK. The Guardian's Weekend magazine prints an extensive excerpt from Philippe Sands' Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty And The Compromise Of Law which explores Donald Rumsfeld's authorisation of previously illegal interrogation techniques. Although Rumsfeld's name sticks out like a sore thumb, there is one other name that repeatedly surfaces in this expose: William J Haynes II. Yes, the very same William J Haynes II who has recently been employed by Chevron.

Sands' piece makes a pretty damning case against Haynes. Sands writes:

....in the Pentagon, an event took place for which there was no comment, no fanfare. With a signature and a few scrawled words, Rumsfeld reneged on the tradition of valour to which Bush had referred. Principles for the conduct of interrogation, dating back more than a century to President Lincoln's famous instruction of 1863 that "military necessity does not admit of cruelty", were discarded. He approved new and aggressive interrogation techniques that would produce devastating consequences.

The document had been drafted a few days earlier by the general counsel at the Defence Department, William J Haynes II (known as Jim Haynes), Rumsfeld's most senior lawyer. The Haynes memo was addressed to Rumsfeld and copied to two colleagues: General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the most senior military official in the US, and Doug Feith, under-secretary of defence for policy and number three at the department.

Yes, Haynes was the man responsible for the policy of torture and human rights abuses that the Bush administration employed across the globe. But to what extent did Haynes approve of new interrogation techniques?


[Attached to the memorandum] was a list of 18 techniques of interrogation, set out in a three-page memorandum.

These techniques were new to the military. Category I comprised two techniques, yelling and deception. Category II included 12 techniques, aiming at humiliation and sensory deprivation, including stress positions, such as standing for a maximum of four hours; isolation; deprivation of light and sound; hooding; removal of religious and all other comfort items; removal of clothing; forced grooming, such as shaving of facial hair; and the use of individual phobias, such as fear of dogs, to induce stress.

Finally came Category III. These methods were to be used for only a very small percentage of detainees - the most uncooperative (said to be fewer than 3%) and exceptionally resistant individuals - and required approval by the commanding general at Guantánamo. In this category were four techniques: the use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact", such as grabbing, poking and light pushing; the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences were imminent for him or his family; exposure to cold weather or water; and, finally, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation. This last technique came to be known as water-boarding, described on a chat show by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as a "dunk in the water" and a "no-brainer" if it could save lives.

The Haynes memo recommended "blanket approval" of 15 of the 18 techniques, including just one of the four techniques listed in Category III: mild, non-injurious physical contact. However, he did not reject the others, nor did he advise that they were contrary to the Geneva conventions. Rumsfeld signed his name next to the word "Approved", and added his comment at the bottom of the page: "I stand for eight to 10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?"

'Blanket approval'. Not 'contrary to the Geneva convention'. Haynes essentially gave the administration the go ahead to indulge in torture on a scale never seen before. Haynes is culpable for one of the greatest crimes against humanity since the Second World War. And now, he has been enlisted to work on legal matters with Chevron. Legal matters that may well include the dispute with Ecuador regarding the alleged damage to the local environment. A dispute that has led to allegations of intimidation of key players in the prosecution (see Chevron in Ecuador label). A dispute that has been subject to a massive smear campaign by Chevron. One does not have to consider for long what Mr Haynes might bring to the dispute. Perhaps new techniques that will encourage the prosecution to drop it's case? One thing can almost be guaranteed. Haynes will explore avenues that will push the boundaries of the law in Chevron's favour. However, as Sands points out, there is still an opportunity for Haynes to receive the justice he deserves:

In June 2006, the Supreme Court overturned President Bush's decision on Geneva, ruling it to be unlawful. The court confirmed that Common Article 3 applied to all Guantánamo detainees. It was as simple as that. Whether they were Taliban or al-Qaida, every one of the detainees had rights under Common Article 3 - and that included Mohammed al-Qahtani.

The majority opinion, reaffirming the "minimal protection" offered by Common Article 3, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. One of the Justices went even further: Common Article 3 was part of the law of war and of a treaty that the US had ratified. "By Act of Congress," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote pointedly, "violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes', punishable as federal offences, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel."

Justice Kennedy's remark put the issue of war crimes on the American political agenda. Individuals who had contributed to a violation of Common Article 3 would know that they were at risk of criminal investigation and prosecution. Even more ominously, it underscored the risk of being investigated outside the US.

Parties to the international Torture Convention are required to investigate any person who is alleged to have committed torture. If appropriate, they must then prosecute - or extradite the person to a place where he will be prosecuted. The Torture Convention is also more explicit than Geneva in that it criminalises any act that constitutes complicity or participation in torture. Complicity or participation could certainly be extended not only to the politicians and but also the lawyers involved in the condoning of the 18 techniques. After all, the scheme applied to al-Qahtani was devised by lawyers, reviewed by lawyers, overseen by lawyers.

Haynes could yet be prosecuted for his abuse of the most basic of human rights. These final few paragraphs might also explain one other aspect of the situation in Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr is seen as a real threat to US power in the region. A threat that needs to be crushed in order for the US plan to be fully carried out. What, perhaps, makes this even more crucial is the realisation that should al-Sadr wield any power in Iraq, the consequences could be very serious indeed for various members of the Bu$h clique. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that leading members of the current administration could face extradition to Iraq for their flagrant abuse of the Torture Convention at Abu Ghraib. This, from their point of view, cannot be allowed to happen. Consequently, it is vital for al-Sadr to be portrayed as a dangerous Iranian proxy (ridiculous considering the extensive links between the current Iraqi government and Iran) by the Western establishment (politicians and the media). The thought of Western leaders being exposed as war criminals would be too much for the Western system of government to contend with.

Chevron in Ecuador

Given Chevron's existing links to the White House (Condoleeza Rice sat on the board of Chevron for many years), it is perhaps unsurprising that another name connected to the White House has joined the company. However, given the recent revelations about the extent to which those at the seat of power had authorised torture techniques, it is quite surprising to learn who this man is, a certain William Haynes II.

Haynes was general counsel to the Pentagon from 2001 until February this year. As general counsel, Haynes was heavily involved in crafting legal policies that led to the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. So involved was Haynes, that he is currently under investigation by the Senate for his role at the Pentagon during this period. Perhaps his most important contribution to the Bush terror regime, was a memo relating to a further memo that claimed that torture conducted overseas is not covered by federal law. Consequently, Haynes and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, used this memo to justify harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. In short, Haynes was a crucial component of the Bush presidency who was particularly close to both Bush and Dick Cheney. In fact, he was such an ally to Bush, he even volunteered to make calls on Bush's behalf when Bush was up for election in 2000.

Haynes' role as chief corporate counsel could have serious repercussions for Chevron's ongoing battle in Ecuador relating to a charge of environmental damage. The damage is such that Richard Cabrera, a geologist appointed by the court, set a minimum of $7 billion in damages to remediate damage. He also added a maximum figure of $16 billion which would include penalties for "unjust enrichment." Of course, Chevron dismissed the findings out of hand and have attempted to have the report struck from the case claiming it is "flawed and patently partisan". Furthermore, there have been numerous accusations about Chevron's conduct during investigations, particularly regarding the efforts of Cabrera.

During the course of the investigations, Chevron has been accused of "engaging in a pattern of vicious,defamatory and unethical attacks" . These attacks include full page advertisements accusing Cabrera of being a criminal, stalking him whilst he was completing his fieldwork and filing a separate motion with another court to have him removed from the case. In fact, the harassment became so grave, that the trial judge 'ordered security agents to keep Chevron representatives away from Cabrera so he could complete his field work without interference or fear of intimidation'. Furthermore, although there is no proof that Chevron were responsible, Cabrera's office was broken into and a laptop containing files relating to the case went missing. Undoubtedly, there have been real concerted efforts to de-rail this case by Chevron. The efforts they have gone to underline quite how damaging this court case could be if they are ordered to pay damages to the people of Ecuador.

Chevron have already shown how far they prepared to push the boundaries of the law in Ecuador in order to protect their interests in the country. With the addition of Haynes to the team, there is no doubt that Chevron seem set to explore new methods to achieve their aims. If Chevron are willing to appoint a man who is partially responsible for gross human rights abuses in the name of national interest, one wonders just how far they are prepared to go in defending corporate interest. One can be sure that both Chevron, and Haynes, are preparing to take this battle to another level - a level that could have serious consequences for those seeking justice in Ecuador.


Further Information: ChevronToxico: Clean Up Ecuador Campaign

Rice Apologises For Conduct of US Forces in Japan

Remember when the Bush administration claimed that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were down to few individuals? That this wasn't part of a wider problem within the US army? Well, think on.....

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, apologised yesterday for a string of crimes involving American troops based in Japan, amid warnings that failure to improve discipline risked damaging relations between Washington and one of its closest allies.

Resentment towards the US military presence erupted this month following the arrest of a marine for the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl on the island of Okinawa, home to more than half of the 50,000 US troops in Japan.

Since then, US soldiers on the island have been arrested for trespassing and drink driving, and another is being questioned about the alleged rape of a Filipino woman in a hotel room.

The rape allegation has echoes of the 1995 gang rape of a 12-year-old girl by three US servicemen, which brought 85,000 people on to the streets in protest and international attention to the US base.

When a government figuratively rapes whole nations, is it really a surprise when it's people do it literally?

Bush Administration Invoke Nuremberg - I Say "Bring it On"

RickB picked this up at Ten Percent and I have never laughed so hard in all my life (at the concept, not RickB!):

The Bush administration has instructed U.S. diplomats abroad to defend its decision to seek the death penalty for six Guantanamo Bay detainees accused in the Sept. 11 terror attacks by recalling the executions of Nazi war criminals after World War II.

A four-page cable sent to U.S. embassies and obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press says that execution as punishment for extreme violations of the laws of war is internationally accepted and points to the 1945-46 International Military Tribunals as an example. Twelve of Adolf Hitler’s senior aides were sentenced to death at the trials in Nuremberg, Germany, although not all were executed in the end.

The unclassified cable was sent by the State Department to all U.S. diplomatic missions worldwide late on Monday. [Taken from Yahoo!]

Ok, why so funny? Ok, well one of the major principles of the Nuremberg trials was as follows:

Principle Vl

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

a) Crimes against peace:

i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

If the Nuremberg trials are suddenly the basis of how international criminals are prosecuted, the underlined sections make a very compelling case for Bush and Blair to stand trial for war crimes. Note from part (a), there are no exceptions and no examples when such action is justified. As such, the war in Iraq was a 'war of aggression'. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot apply the principles of the Nuremberg trials when you see fit. It either applies to all, or it does not. By using the justification of the Nuremberg trials as reason enough to execute those 'convicted', the Bush administration is also providing us with the rope from which to hang them. So yes, I accept this justification, provided you really accept every principle outlined in the Nuremberg trials. Otherwise, you might start to look like a hypocrite.

I was always taught at uni never to end with a quote, but bollocks to that I'm going to. This is what chief U.S. Prosecutor, Robert Jackson, said when he addressed the Nuremberg tribunal:

“.....we should remember that we’re handing these Nazi war criminals a poisoned chalice. If we ever sip from it we must be subject to the same principles or else the whole thing is a farce.”

Bush Threatens to Destabilise Cuba

George Bush has made yet another attempt to determine the future of the Cuban people. As most sane people have suspected, Bush is eager for Castro to die in order for the American empire to extend to one of the few countries prepared to adopt an alternative system to the US. His speech, riddled with double standards, contained the usual posturing synonymous with Bush's supposed moral high ground. In his address, Bush claimed:

"As with all totalitarian systems, Cuba's regime no doubt has other horrors still unknown to the rest of the world. Once revealed, they will shock the conscience of humanity, and they will shame the regime's defenders and all those democracies that had been silent."

One wonders how the President of the United States can adopt such a self-righteous tone. The only difference, one supposes, being that the horrors of the American regime are well known (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Blackwater etc etc). In fact, Bush even had the cheek to describe Cuba as a "tropical gulag". Do the words "glass" and "houses" sound familiar??

The address itself also made it quite clear that the US would waste no time in influencing the post-Castro Cuba. Bush added:

"Now is the time to support the democratic movement growing on the island. Now is the time to stand with the Cuban people as they stand up for their liberty. And now is the time for the world to put aside its differences and prepare for Cubans' transitions to a future of freedom and progress and promise."

The 'world' is, of course, a euphemism for the US and her allies. However, this passage raises one very obvious question: what right has the 'world' got to 'prepare' for Cubans' transitions??? It is quite clear that the US is preparing to spend big in the event of Castro's death in order to influence the post-Castro regime. Have no doubt that, come Castro's death, the US will ensure some US friendly party will mysteriously come to power. Either by military means or by applying pressure for 'democratic' elections (Cuba does already have elections of course, but this is barely mentioned).

Once more, the American state is attempting to destabilise a foreign nation. Only imagine if another country made similar statements about the US. They would be widely condemned. We live in a world in which everything is seen through the prism of American hegemony. Anything that doesn't fit in with this view is to be opposed at all costs. Every nation that takes an opposing ideology to US based capitalism must be destabilised, invaded and converted. No country must be permitted its own free existence if it contradicts the American way. This was the same arrogance upon which the British Empire was built and every other empire before and since. It will sow the seeds of its own destruction. The attacks of 9/11 were, after all, a direct result of US imperialism (despite what the nutjobs say about Islam and all the other bullshit they spout).

Thankfully, not everyone is blinded by the supposed universal truth that guides US policy. Dr Ian Gibson, of the All Party Group of MPs on Cuba, chastised the US with this statement:

“the aggressive interventionist foreign policies of the US were not appropriate in Iraq and they are not appropriate for Cuba. The US must stop attempting to undermine the sovereignty of nation states and recognise the important strategic role Cuba now holds in Latin America. We must promote stability through engagement and leave behind these US bullying tactics.”

MP Colin Burgon also added:

“The ignorance of international law of the current US President is very well known. However, this latest statement on the internal affairs of Cuba is tantamount to calling for a coup against a sovereign state. The arrogance of the US is both worrying and lamentable.”

As Rob Miller, the director of the UK-based Cuba Solidarity Campaign, puts it: the US needs to move to a policy of engagement rather than "aggression, intervention, destabilisation and conflict". It could be a hard habit to break for a state hooked on empire building like some crack addicted whore.

UPDATE: Davide at Nether-World writes the post that I wish I had written.

Physician Heal Thyself

-around 60% of torture victims report seeing a health professional involved in monitoring their interrogation, setting up how harsh the interrogation can be, and so forth. -

You can read all of this, listen to this, or watch this at Democracy Now!

-After 9/11, the Pentagon began using so-called behavioral science consultants, or "biscuit" teams to help interrogators obtain information from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. These medical teams reportedly advised the military on how to "break" detainees to make them more cooperative.
Dr. Steven Miles, author of "Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror." He is a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and a faculty member of its Center for Bioethics. He is also a practicing physician.

"the medical system is entirely integrated into the abuse, that there was a structure, there was an actual policy mechanism that can be seen for the delayed release of torture-related homicides, that there was an entire structure for culling patients medical records for information on their vulnerabilities, incorporating that into harsh, incursive interrogation plans, monitoring those plans, designing those plans with psychological insights to exploit the particular characteristics of Islamic men, and then monitoring the disintegration of these men, and feeding that back into the torture plans.

looks very much like, oh, for example, the way physicians were complicit in torturing Argentina or Paraguay or Chile. Basically they hid torture. They delayed the release or concealed death certificates pertaining to deaths by torture. They helped design and monitor harsh interrogations, and they neglected basic medical needs as they failed to record injuries from torture and failed to report that torture up the chain of command or to places that could stop it.he was not a prisoner. He was actually a U.S. employee, and somebody else said that he was getting ready to attack our unit. And, in fact, around 85% of the prisoners in Iraq and 60% in Guantanamo are innocent of any insurgency or al-Qaeda activity by the Military Intelligence's own estimate. In this case, we picked up one of our own employees. So Schlesinger said -- well, the guy blurted out a bunch of names after they fired a gun next to his head, and Schlesinger said, “This is a great example of a ticking time bomb case.” But the problem was --

the guy gave out names of people who were innocent, just because he was scared. We alienated him as an informant, and none of these names panned out. But here's the follow-up to the story: what they did then was they let this lieutenant colonel off very lightly and they allowed him discharge with a pension, okay? And about a hundred congressmen gave him dinners across the United States.

this government’s definition of what’s a legal interrogation is infinitely elastic and so that this is not a profound barrier to psychologists, and it doesn't surprise me that the military will shift over to working with psychologists. In fact, they screen the docs before they go down to Guantanamo to make sure they have no moral objections to force-feeding and then they take the docs who don't have an objection to force-feeding, and those are the docs who get to go to Guantanamo."-

At this moment psychiatrists and their professional body have taken a stand and are generally not involved in the torture regime. However American psychologists have failed to show much backbone, their association passed a bullshit resolution which sounded good but actually allowed them to cooperate with the Bush crime family. Learn more at psychoanalyst Stephen Soldz's blog http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/

Hypocrisy Sweeps Britain

This is no way to treat prisoners:

They should be treated with respect.

Dignity.

And Honour.

You Bastards.

Psyche, Science, and Society

Picked up this blog courtesy of Saboma at Maryannaville, it's well worth checking out. There are many posts about psychological torture that give an interesting insight into the tactics of the US government. It also posted on the recent HBO movie Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, which has not been shown in the UK. Luckily, someone has posted the movie in eight parts onto YouTube. As a taster, Part 1 is below:

UPDATE: YouTube have now taken down the 8 part clips, so I have reposted with this promo.