Condi's Trail of Lies
By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon.com
Thursday 08 December 2005
Condoleezza Rice's contradictory, misleading and outright false statements
about the US and torture have taken America's moral standing - and her own -
to new depths.
The metamorphosis of Condoleezza Rice from the chrysalis of the protégé
into the butterfly of the State Department has not been a natural evolution
but has demanded self-discipline. She has burnished an image of the ultimate
loyalist, yet betrayed her mentor, George H.W. Bush's national security
advisor Brent Scowcroft. She is the team player, yet carefully inserted
knives in the back of her predecessor, Colin Powell, climbing up them like a
ladder of success. She is the person most trusted on foreign policy by the
president, yet was an enabler for Vice President Cheney and the
neoconservatives. Now her public relations team at the State Department
depicts her as a restorer of realism, builder of alliances and maker of
peace.
On her first trip to Europe early this year she left the sensation of
being fresh by listening rather than lecturing. The flirtation of power
appeared to have a more seductive effect than arrogance. So the old face
became a new face. But on this week's trip the iron butterfly emerged.
Rice arrived as the enforcer of the Bush administration's torture
policy. She reminded the queasy Europeans that their intelligence services,
one way or another, are involved in the rendition of hundreds of suspected
terrorists transported through their airports for harsh interrogation in
countries like Jordan and Egypt or secret CIA prisons known as "black
sites." With her warnings, Rice recast the Western alliance as a partnership
in complicity. In her attempt to impose silence, she spread guilt. Everybody
is unclean in the dirty war and nobody has any right to complain. "What I
would hope that our allies would acknowledge," she said, "is that we are all
in this together."
For the European leaders, facing publics hostile to U.S. policy in Iraq
and torture, Rice's visit was disquieting. In Italy, prosecutors have issued
indictments of 22 current and former CIA operatives for their "extraordinary
rendition" of an Egyptian suspect; among those indicted is the former Rome
CIA station chief, whom an Italian judge has ruled has no immunity from
prosecution. Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini, asked about
renditions, said, "We know absolutely nothing. We have not one single piece
of knowledge." If the Italian government knew the facts, it would
investigate, he added.
In Britain, the Foreign Office released a diplomatic disclaimer that it
has "no evidence to corroborate media allegations about the use of UK
territory in rendition operations." But upset members of the House of
Commons have launched a parliamentary inquiry into whether the U.K. has
violated the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations
Convention Against Torture. Foreign Minister Jack Straw sent Rice a letter
requesting any "clarification the U.S. can give about these reports in the
hope that this will allay parliamentary and public concerns."
When the Washington Post reported on the eve of Rice's trip that CIA
prisons holding U.S. detainees exist in Romania, Poland and other Eastern
European nations, it triggered an explosion. Even though Romania and Poland
denied the report, the European Commission and the Council of Europe began
investigations. The E.C. declared that for any member state to harbor a CIA
prison would be "extremely serious" and bring down sanctions upon it.
In Germany, Rice was greeted by the new chancellor, Angela Merkel, eager
to repair relations with the Bush administration made awkward by former
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to the Iraq war. Rice's visit was
supposed to smooth over the conflicts of the past, but instead it surfaced
new ones that indicated that the divisions between Germany - and Europe -
and the U.S. are rooted in the Bush administration's fundamental policies.
Rice arrived in Berlin on the heels of a Washington Post report about
the rendition, to a secret CIA jail in Afghanistan called the Salt Pit, of a
German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, who was tortured and imprisoned for five
months in a case of mistaken identity. After meeting with Rice, Merkel
announced that Rice had acknowledged that the U.S. had made a "mistake" in
the case. But Rice countered with a statement denying she had said that at
all. The reconciliation with Germany was botched; Merkel was embarrassed;
and Rice's credibility, at least in the German press, was left in tatters.
Rice had hoped to quell the controversy before she landed. On Monday, as
she boarded her plane at Andrew Air Force base in Washington, she delivered
a lengthy statement on torture. Her speech was remarkable for its defensive,
dense and evasive tone. It was replete with half-truths, outright
falsehoods, distortions and subterfuges.
Her remarks can never sway or convince any European leader, foreign
ministry or intelligence service, which have the means to make their own
judgments. In her effort to persuade world opinion and reassure the American
public, she raised the debate over torture to greater prominence and
virtually invited inspection of her claims.
Rice has made memorable statements in the past. There was her appearance
before the 9/11 Commission, in which she had trouble recalling the CIA's
Presidential Daily Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden Determined to
Strike in US," and dismissed its significance. There were her many
assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, including
nuclear weapons: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
There was her attack on Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief on
the National Security Council, for his disclosure that both she and the
president did not regard al-Qaida as an urgent threat before Sept. 11, 2001,
as a "scurrilous allegation." But her remarks on torture may turn out to be
her most unforgettable full-length speech, tainting her tenure as secretary
of state as indelibly as Colin Powell's speech making the case for the Iraq
war before the United Nations blotted him.
"Torture is a term that is defined by law," said Rice. "We rely on our
law to govern our operations." She neglected to explain that "torture" as
she used it has been defined by presidential findings to include universally
defined methods of torture, such as waterboarding, for which U.S. soldiers
were court-martialed in 1902 and 1968 specifically on the basis of having
engaged in torture.
But the Bush administration has rejected adherence to the Geneva
Conventions as "quaint," in the term of then White House legal counsel and
now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; rejects torture as it is defined in
the United Nations Convention Against Torture (although the U.S. is a
signatory); and rejects torture as it is interpreted by other international
expert bodies, including the European Human Rights Court, whose judgments
are binding on the nations of the Council of Europe.
"The United States does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under
any circumstances," Rice insisted in her statement. "Moreover, in accordance
with the policy of this administration: The United States has respected -
and will continue to respect - the sovereignty of other countries." But was
the kidnapping of the Egyptian suspect in Italy that has resulted in the 22
indictments of CIA operatives a fiction? Have the Italian prosecutors been
made aware that the event was a figment of their imaginations? Was holding
el-Masri, the innocent German, not a violation of the sovereignty of another
country?
Rice continued: "The United States does not transport, and has not
transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of
interrogation using torture. The United States does not use the airspace or
the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a
country where he or she will be tortured." But the German government was
reported to have a list of 400 flights over European airspace for the
purpose of renditions. And Amnesty International reports that there have
been 800 such flights. Once again, Rice relies upon her own definition of
"torture" to deny it.
She went on: "The United States has not transported anyone, and will not
transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where
appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons
will not be tortured." In fact, the U.S. receives assurances from those
countries that it would be unlikely that the suspects will be tortured, a
technical loophole that provides for a washing of hands. Everybody on all
sides understands that there will be torture, as there has been.
Rice's legal interpretations were authoritative, bland and bogus. It is
hard to say whether they should be called Orwellian for their intentional
falsity or Kafkaesque for their unintentional absurdity.
"International law allows a state to detain enemy combatants for the
duration of hostilities," she said. But the administration has vitiated
international law with its presidential findings. The "global war on terror"
is a conflict without end; its time limit extends into perpetuity. So long
as terror is used as a tactic, or the threat of terror exists, which it
always does, a state of war, such as it is, justifies indefinite detention.
Then, Rice presented as the administration's position precisely the
position it opposes: "Detainees may only be held for an extended period if
the intelligence or other evidence against them has been carefully evaluated
and supports a determination that detention is lawful. The U.S. does not
seek to hold anyone for a period beyond what is necessary to evaluate the
intelligence or other evidence against them, prevent further acts of
terrorism, or hold them for legal proceedings." But the Bush administration
has refused to place detainees within the criminal justice system. Instead,
they have been kept in a legal limbo, denied the protections of both the
U.S. justice system and the Geneva Conventions. The administration has hid
"ghost detainees" from the International Red Cross. If the suspects are
criminals, they have not been tried as criminals.
Rice cited two cases to make her point: Carlos the Jackal, the
international terrorist captured in Sudan in 1994, and Ramzi Youssef, the
1993 World Trade Center bomber. But, unlike current detainees, both were put
on public trial, Carlos in France, Youssef in the United States. And the
European Commission on Human Rights issued a report that Carlos' rights were
not violated. Both cases refuted in their particulars the larger argument
Rice was making.
One case Rice did not cite was that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured
al-Qaida operative, whose claims about Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD
were used by the administration to build the case for the Iraq war. "We've
learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons
and deadly gases," President Bush said on Oct. 7, 2002, drawing on al-Libi's
information. Al-Libi also provided the basis for a dramatic high point of
Secretary of State Powell's U.N. speech: "the story of a senior terrorist
operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.
Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I
will relate to you now, as he himself, described it." But al-Libi had been
tortured and repeated to his interrogators what they had suggested to him.
The Defense Intelligence Agency reported in February 2002 that al-Libi's
information was dubious, and the CIA also questioned its credibility in a
report in January 2003 - both reports made before the war. Rice's various
statements created a pandemonium across Europe that she tried to quiet with
a clarification Wednesday in Ukraine. The policy she had just declared we
did not follow she announced we would no longer pursue. "As a matter of U.S.
policy, the United States' obligations under the CAT [U.N. Convention
Against Torture], which prohibits cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment -
those obligations extend to U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they
are in the United States or outside of the United States," Rice said at a
press conference with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.
Rice's erratic journey also raises the question of her own part in the
policy. The Washington Post story on el-Masri reports that Rice intervened
on the side of informing the German government, a disclosure that resulted
in el-Masri's release. This fact suggests that Rice has a degree of
authority and knowledge in the realm of detainees and "black sites."
Since 2003, Rice has repeatedly told representatives of Human Rights
Watch and other similar organizations that the U.S. does not torture. There
is no trail of memos tracing her involvement in the titanic struggle over
U.S. torture policy between Powell and the senior military on one side and
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft's Justice Department on the
other. Was the national security advisor completely out of the loop? On Nov.
19., ABC News reported, "Current and former CIA officers tell ABC News there
is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza
Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, approving the [harsh
interrogation] techniques, including waterboarding."
That technique has its origin in the Spanish Inquisition. Indeed, in
1490, a baptized Christian who was a secret Jew, a converso named Benito
Garcia, was subjected to water torture. The process drew out of him a
confession of the ritual murder of a Christian child by crucifixion to get
his blood for a magic ceremony to halt the Inquisition and bring about
Jewish control. The incident greatly helped whip up the fear that led to the
expulsion of the Jews in 1492, as described by James Reston Jr. in his new
book, "Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors."
Since the Inquisition, the method of waterboarding has been little
refined. But Rice, like Bush, says we did not and will not torture anymore.
***
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/international/europe/09britain.html?th&emc=th
Britain's Top Court Rules Information Gotten by Torture Is Never Admissible
Evidence
By SARAH LYALL
NY Times Lead News Article: December 9, 2005
LONDON, Dec. 8 - Britain's highest court thrust itself into the middle of a
roiling international debate on Thursday, declaring that evidence obtained
through torture - no matter by whom - was not admissible in British courts.
It also said Britain had a "positive obligation" to uphold antitorture
principles abroad as well as at home.
"The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by
torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to
proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where, or by whom, or on
whose authority the torture was inflicted," said Lord Bingham, writing the
lead opinion in a unanimous ruling for the Law Lords. "To that question I
would give a very clear negative answer."
The ruling dealt specifically with 10 men who were detained after the
attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and were held without charge
in Britain on suspicion of being terrorists. But while the question at hand
concerned only British courts, the ruling seems to have been made with the
current international situation very much in mind. Several of the concurring
opinions referred explicitly, and not flatteringly, to the United States.
Speaking of what he said was England's justifiable pride in its common-law
rejection, centuries ago, of torture as a means to an end, Lord Hoffman
brought his argument forward to the current era. "In our own century," he
wrote, "many people in the United States, heirs to that common-law
tradition, have felt their country dishonored by its use of torture outside
the jurisdiction, and its practice of extra-legal 'rendition' of suspects to
countries where they would be tortured."
The 10 men are known informally as the Belmarsh detainees, after the prison
where many of them were held. The case against them has been long,
complicated and thick with secrecy. But the issue of torture came up as a
result of the detainees' appeals to the Special Immigration Appeals
Commission, which asserted its right to consider evidence that may have been
obtained under torture in other countries.
Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that such evidence was admissible and
that the government had no obligation to investigate how possibly suspect
evidence had been gathered.
Gareth Peirce, who represents eight of the detainees, said the judgment by
the Law Lords, which applies to England and Wales, would reverberate.
"It's a modern judgment, in December 2005, but it's steeped in the legal and
moral history not just of this country but also of the United States and
international treaty obligations," she said in an interview. "We believe our
colleagues in the United States who are fighting for the rule of law will
take strength from the judgment."
Human rights groups applauded the ruling as a landmark that set a civilized
standard for evidence in terror cases.
"The Law Lords' ruling has overturned the tacit belief that torture can be
condoned under certain circumstances," Amnesty International said in a
statement. "This ruling shreds any vestige of legality with which the U.K.
government had attempted to defend a completely unlawful and reprehensible
policy, introduced as part of its counterterrorism measures."
Similar questions - What constitutes torture? Is evidence obtained through
torture admissible when the torture does not happen on American soil and is
not explicitly authorized? - are being debated in the United States.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Europe this week, has been trying to
answer charges that America routinely practices so-called extraordinary
rendition, sending terror detainees abroad to places where they face
possible torture.
Britain, America's firmest ally in the antiterror campaign, has been accused
of allowing its airports to be used by American planes transporting such
detainees. Members of Parliament are calling for an investigation into the
charges.
Asked for his response, Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons
on Wednesday, "In respect of airports, I don't know what you're talking
about."
It is unclear what practical or immediate effect the Lords' ruling
overturning the Court of Appeal's decision will have.
Rights groups that had brought the case said the ruling would force the
government to do three things: re-evaluate any pending or future terrorism
cases to determine whether evidence had been extracted by torture; stop
seeking to deport terror suspects to countries where they might be tortured;
investigate possible complicity in the American policy of rendition.
But in a statement, the home secretary, Charles Clarke, said the ruling
would have no substantive effect on the suspects whose cases were at issue.
Nor, he said, would the judgment have any bearing on the government's
antiterrorism policies.
"The government has always made it clear that we do not condone torture in
any way, nor would we carry out this completely unacceptable behavior, or
encourage others to do so," Mr. Clarke said.
The Law Lords struck down the Court of Appeal decision in strong, stirring,
indignant language that referred to centuries of English common-law
precedent, to the moral weight of international treaties and obligations
like the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and to the rights of
individuals as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The principles of the common law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the
exclusion of third-party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive
to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the
principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice,"
Lord Bingham wrote.
He referred to authorities from as far back as the 15th century to make the
case that torture has no place in English law, or indeed in any law. He
quoted the historian Sir William Holdsworth, who wrote in 1945 that "once
torture has been acclimatized in a legal system, it spreads like an
infectious disease" and "hardens and brutalizes those who have become
accustomed to it."
The prohibition against torture "has now become one of the most fundamental
standards of the international community," Lord Bingham continued.
"This prohibition is designed to produce a deterrent effect, in that it
signals to all members of the international community and the individuals
over whom they wield authority that the prohibition of torture is an
absolute value from which nobody must deviate."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a difference. Find and fund world-changing projects at GlobalGiving.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vlzMKB/PbOLAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
