From No Right Turn – New Zealand’s liberal blog:
As a civilised country, the US is a party to the Convention Against Torture. In addition to not torturing people or subjecting them to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, one of the obligations on parties is to make regular reports to the UN Committee Against Torture. This year, for the first time since the beginning of the “war on terror”, the US will face the Committee. And they have some questions to ask. Quite a lot of them, in fact [PDF]. Starting with
Please explain how [the US definition of torture as only including “extreme acts”] is compatible with article 1 of the Convention
And it just goes on – for eleven pages or so. They ask about Guantanamo and the “black sites”, they ask about extraordinary rendition and disappearances, they ask about Abu Ghraib and Bagram and the “Salt Pit”, and they ask about prosecutions and whether there has been
an independent investigation regarding the possible responsibility of high-ranking officials of the Administration, including the CIA, the Department of Defence, the Department of Justice and the Armed Forces, for authorizing or consenting in any way, including through the issuance of orders or guidelines, to acts committed by their subordinates, especially during the interrogation of detainees, which could be considered as acts of torture?
Or, in English, “why isn’t Donald Rumsfeld in jail?”
One UN staffer is quoted as saying that it is the longest list of issues they have ever seen. The US policy of torture and disappearance is being put under the microscope, and it is being asked to justify every statement or report which suggests it is derogating from the absolute prohibition on torture it agreed to when it ratified. In other words, the US is being put on trial – and given its policies, it is highly likely that it will be found wanting. All the Committee can do is issue an adverse report finding that the US has failed to abide by its obligations under the Convention and listing the practices it considers demonstrate noncompliance – but that in itself sends a powerful message, and one the US does not want sent. Even the Bush Administration has a sense of shame, it seems.
“Even the Bush Administration has a sense of shame, it seems.”
I beg to differ; they do not have any sense of shame. The current ‘leaders’ of my country owe part of their support to people who hate.
The only concern of my current government, is getting negative reviews in the press. They are like the worst of the business world, they will not hesitate to do anything in the name of profit or power, but they get concerned if the USA ‘brand name’ is damaged.
I am sorry. I have never been to New Zealand, but I have lived in the USA all of my life; I have never seen my homeland in such bad shape. I like where I live, and I like most of my fellow Americans. I can only hope that future elections will help to correct what is going so wrong right now.
I hope the UN report will help, and it may. Yet, most who support my current government have made hatred towards the UN part of their culture.
On the bright side, war crimes never prescribe. some time somewhere, justice will take place
I believe that the Bush Administration will end up discrediting this committee’s final report with the same arrogance they are so known for. It seems the “ends justify the means” philosophy reigns supreme with no reason to believe there is any wrong, immoral or vile with their “actions” to date. However, the Bush Administration will “use” the UN has cover for future preemptive strikes stating “national security” in the case of Iran and other nations to be named as they see fit.
There is a blindness in the United States that can no longer be ignored by the international community. Those who follow blindly behind the U.S. could end up in a worse position by agreeing to the Bush Administration policies. One day, the situation will change and the U.S. will not be able to “cry wolf” and get away with it.
Thanks for bringing this report to our attention. We can hope for “shame” but with the Bush Administration, that is very doubtful at best!
While there may be some intensive interrogation techniques that might be considered torture if used against US personnel (by any non-American entity, in the absence of very specific authorization), and in some cases might even be considered torture if used by a non-US nation against its own citizens or other non-Americans, when employed by US personnel within the context of the War on Terror, these techniques are not torture, though designating them as such is part of Al Qaeda training.
I can’t explain it. Why isn’t Rumsfeld in jail? I don’t know. The administration just denies everything, ignores what it doesn’t like, twists words in the most disgusting ways, and then smirks. So far there has been no way to hold them accountable. Things are changing, but damn slowly.