New UN Report Shows the US Combo of Torture and Impunity Thrives in Iraqi Prisons

Jeremy Scahill, Journalist, author, “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army”,  April 30, 2009

Article

UN Full Report

Iraqi authorities widely use torture to interrogate prisoners and extract confessions without fear of consequence. Sadly, the US doesn’t have the credibility to confront these crimes.

Part of the deadly serious problem with the Obama administration’s position on (not) holding accountable CIA torturers, their lawyers and the Bush administration officials who authorized and ordered all of these crimes is this: It sends a message to other governments that if Washington does it, we can too. Especially governments completely created by the US government.

No governments on the planet are more controlled by the US right now than the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A new UN human rights report examining Iraq shows that torture of prisoners by Iraqi authorities is widespread and accountability is nonexistent. “The lack of accountability of the perpetrators of such human rights abuses reinforces the culture of impunity,” the UN bluntly states. The 30-page report by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, which examined conditions in Iraq from July to December 2008, was just released Wednesday.

At times, the report reads as though it could have been written about the US torture program at Guantanamo and other US-run prisons and the total lack of accountability. In Iraq, the UN cites “the use of torture as an interrogation method” and “prolonged periods of detention without charge or access to legal counsel and the use of torture or physical abuse against detainees to extract confessions.”

UN investigators said it was of “particular concern” that a senior Iraqi police official complained that the Iraqi government’s pending ratification of the Convention against Torture would “not be helpful,” stating, “How are we going to get confessions? We have to force the criminals to confess and how are we going to do that now?” It sounds like that Iraqi police official has been listening to Dick Cheney.

The UN says “there are no documented cases to this day where an official of the Minister of Defence has been held accountable for human rights abuses.” That is exactly the situation within the US Department of Defense (and Justice and CIA and White House for that matter). “This laxity in the prosecution is contrary to the international obligations undertaken by Iraq and to the provisions of the Convention against Torture.”

Iraq hasn’t even ratified the convention, but the US has–so what does that say about US conduct?

Some of the worst abuses in Iraqi prisons are said to take place in the northern autonomous Kurdish region, which has long been an area of major US influence (going back to the Saddam era). Among the findings of the UN: claims of beatings during interrogation, torture by electric shocks, forced confessions, secret detention facilities, and a lack of medical attention. Abuse is often committed by masked men or while detainees are blindfolded. In general, detainees fear the interrogators and investigative personnel more than prison guards.

As of December 2008, there were 41,271 people being held in prisons throughout Iraq, 15,058 of them in the custody of the US-controlled “Multi-National Forces.” The UN found that “many” of the prisoners “have been deprived of their liberty for months or even years in overcrowded cells” and expressed concerns “about violations of the minimum rules of due process as many did not have access to defence counsel, or were not formally charged with a crime or appeared before a judge.”

While the report primarily focused on Iraqi run prisons, it notes that in US-run prisons “detainees have remained in custody for prolonged periods without judicial review of their cases.” And remember, the US is in the process of turning over more prisoners to Iraqi custody.

It is well known that after Bush launched the so-called “War on Terror,” the US torture system was exported from Guantanamo to Afghanistan and Iraq. Apparently the disdain for accountability and international law was as well when the US was setting up the new Iraqi government. Wasn’t Saddams torture and disdain for international law one of the justifications for the invasion (after the WMD myth was exposed)? This UN report should serve as a sobering reminder of why it is so important to hold those who created, ordered, justified and implemented the US torture program responsible for their crimes. Sadly, the US at present has zero credibility in confronting these crimes by the Iraqi authorities.

Book tells of female U.S. soldiers raped by comrades

By Christine Kearney, Thu Apr 16, 2009

Article

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Female U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have more to fear than roadside bombs or enemy ambushes. They also are at risk of being raped or sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers.

“The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq,” a book based on 40 in-depth interviews, recounts the stories of female veterans who served in combat zones and tells of rape, sexual assault and harassment by male counterparts.

Some were warned by officers not to go to the latrine by themselves. One began carrying a knife in case she was attacked by comrades. Others said they felt discouraged to report assaults.

“The horror of it is that it is their own side that is doing this to them,” said the book’s author, Helen Benedict, a journalism professor at Columbia University in New York. The book was released in the United States on Wednesday.

One in 10 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are female, and more women have fought and died in the Iraq war than any since World War Two, according to U.S. Department of Defense statistics cited in the book.

Benedict said the book’s title comes from the isolation female U.S. soldiers experience when combining the trauma of their combat duties with sexual harassment by fellow soldiers.

“Because women are under so much more danger now and actually in the battle, it’s a particularly tragic situation because all soldiers are supposed to be able to rely on one another to watch their backs,” Benedict said.

“And how can you feel that way if your fellow soldiers are harassing you all day or trying to rape you or actually even raping you?”

One such soldier, Marti Ribeiro, was a third-generation Air Force sergeant who served in Afghanistan in 2006 as a combat correspondent with the Army’s all-male 10th Mountain Division. Her story includes an account of being attacked and raped by a U.S. soldier in uniform while guarding a post.

After completing the shift and not showering to substantiate the attack, she reported it to authorities, only to be told if she filed a claim she would be charged with dereliction of duty for leaving her weapon unattended. She left the military.

“I had dreams of becoming an officer one day, like my father and grandfather,” she says in the book. “Unfortunately, because I’m female, those dreams will not come true.”

SURVEYS UNDERSCORE PROBLEM

The number of reports of sexual assault in the U.S. military rose by 8 percent in fiscal 2008 from the previous year and by 25 percent in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released by the Pentagon in March.

There were 2,908 reports overall of sexual assault by members of the military. Such assaults include rape, indecent assault and attempted rape, the report said.

Of the 40 women Benedict interviewed who served between 2003 and 2006, 10 said they had been raped, five said they were sexually assaulted including attempted rape, and 13 reported sexual harassment.

A new play based on Benedict’s work was performed in New York and may tour the United States. After a recent performance, real soldiers hugged the actors who portrayed them. Some wiped away tears.

U.S. officials said the increase in assaults was due to efforts to make it easier to report them.

Cynthia Smith, a Department of Defense spokeswoman, said the department was committed to eliminating sexual assault from the military through prevention and response policies and eliminating barriers to reporting assaults.

“The Department of Defense’s goal is to establish a climate of confidence that encourages victims to report sexual assault and get the care they need,” she said in an e-mail.

Benedict and some researchers say U.S. government figures are much lower than their findings because the government only counts those brave enough to report the assaults.

The problem is not new to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A 2003 survey of more than 550 female veterans who served in wars from Vietnam to the first Gulf war found that 30 percent said they suffered from rape or attempted rape and 79 percent reported being sexually harassed, according to the American Journal of Industrial Medicine.

Many Americans who voted for Barack Obama last November continue to believe he will do the right thing in Iraq

by: Dahr Jamail, Friday 24 April 2009

Article

The US occupation of Iraq, which has become the full responsibility of President Barack Obama, is once again a bloodbath. Not that it had ceased to be violent, brutal and chaotic, for not one day has passed since the US invasion of Iraq was launched that hasn’t found several Iraqis being senselessly slaughtered. But rather than talking about three Iraqis being killed today, or two dozen, we are again talking about several dozen, and over 100 wounded, as we are seeing recently. Each of these Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of the US occupation of Iraq – their blood splattered on the hands of President Obama, who, during a visit to Baghdad’s airport on April 7, praised the US military for their “extraordinary achievement” in Iraq.

On April 23, over 73 Iraqis were killed in two separate suicide attacks. One bomber detonated his explosives in central Baghdad as a group of policemen were distributing relief supplies to Iraqis who had been driven from their homes during the US-fomented sectarian bloodshed of 2006 to mid-2007. Police said that at least 50 people were wounded; at least five children and one woman were among the dead.

A second major suicide bombing occurred that day as well, near Muqdadiya, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. The bomber targeted Iranian pilgrims who were in a restaurant, killing at least 45 and wounding over 60. The Shiite pilgrims were visiting Shia religious sites in Iraq.

The bombings reek of al-Qaeda in Iraq – whose operations were brought to a standstill thanks to both the Iraqi resistance and the al-Sahwa (US-created Sunni militia comprised mostly of former resistance fighters, who were largely abandoned by the US military and are now being attacked by the Iraqi government). The Sahwa have been abandoning their security posts in protest at having not been paid by the Iraqi government for their work, as well as in protest of the ongoing targeting of their leaders by the government. Prime Minister Maliki perceives the Sahwa as a political threat to the existence of his government, so has taken it upon himself to undermine their existence at every turn, as he has from the beginning.

The recent spasms of horrendous violence in Iraq are a direct result of the US abandonment of the Sahwa, and the US reluctance to stop Maliki from his ongoing policies to disenfranchise the group. The Sahwa were able to find al-Qaeda when the US military could not. Now that they are ceasing their security operations across an increasing portion of Iraq, naturally, the ability of al-Qaeda to conduct their operations increases.

Meanwhile, we have the pathetic propaganda from the impotent Maliki government in Baghdad. On the same day of the aforementioned bloodletting, just after the second bombing, Iraqi state television announced that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the purported leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaeda-linked group, was captured in eastern Baghdad. Security experts have previously speculated that al-Baghdadi was a character invented by some extremist groups rather than a real person and the US military does not believe there was ever a single al-Qaeda leader with that name.

There will be more attacks like this. They have less to do with the approaching June deadline of US troops to withdraw from cities in Iraq, (aside from Mosul, and any others the US military feels it should not withdraw from), and more to do with the Sahwa being hung out to dry by both the US military and the Iraqi government.

My cynicism is due to the fact that the Maliki government is not ceasing its attacks on the Sahwa, nor is there any indication the US government will force them to do so.

Neither the US military nor the Iraqi military has proven itself capable of finding al-Qaeda, nor of ceasing the attacks. In fact, Agence France-Presse reported on April 22 that the US military is, in fact, continuing to lead ‘Iraqi-led’ operations. The report reads:

“The [US and Iraqi] troops assembled by torchlight at Camp Falcon for a mission to the farming village of Owessat, which American and Iraq forces believe is being used as a staging ground for bombings in and around the capital. As with nearly every operation in Iraq these days, the Americans insisted that the Iraqis were in charge, leading the fight against Al-Qaeda and other armed groups with US forces cast in a supporting role. But the scene at Camp Falcon told a different story: six years after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, the Americans not only vastly outnumbered the Iraqis, but they were giving orders and providing vital logistical support. Under a security pact signed in November, Iraqi forces are to assume full responsibility for security as US forces withdraw from cities and towns by June 30 and from the country as a whole by the end of 2011. Iraqi and US leaders and commanders have repeatedly said that Iraq’s 560,000 police and 260,000 soldiers will be able to maintain security as the Americans pull back and have vowed to adhere to the timeline of the security plan. But on the Owessat operation this month, 600 US troops backed by helicopters were joined by a group of 40 Iraqi soldiers who, over the course of the 21-hour raid, repeatedly took their cues from the Americans.”

Many Americans who voted for Barack Obama last November continue to believe he will do the right thing in Iraq. The reality is that, unless forced to do so from below, there will be none of the promised “change” in US foreign policy. Those on the receiving end of US policy in the Middle East, Iraq in particular, know this better than most Americans.

In April 2004, when I was in Fallujah during the first major US military assault on that city, I spoke with Maki al-Nazzal, who was managing a small, makeshift emergency clinic. We spoke while dozens of women and children, most shot by US military snipers, were carried into the clinic.

“For all my life, I believed in American democracy,” he told me with an exhausted voice. “For 47 years, I had accepted the illusion of Europe and the United States being good for the world, the carriers of democracy and freedom. Now, I see that it took me 47 years to wake up to the horrible truth. They are not here to bring anything like democracy or freedom.”

Maki, who is now a refugee in Amman, Jordan, continued, “Now I see it has all been lies. The Americans don’t give a damn about democracy or human rights. They are worse than even Saddam.”

I asked him if he minded if I quoted him with his name. “What are they going to do to me that they haven’t already done here,” he replied.

The 60th Vote                                 

Bassem Tellawi/Associated Press, April 28, 2009

Arlen Specter, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania since 1980, said on April 28, 2009 that he would switch to the Democratic party, a move that could reshape the balance of power in Washington. Mr. Specter, running to be elected to a sixth term in 2010, already faced a primary challenge from a conservative opponent, former congressman Pat Toomey, whom Mr. Specter only narrowly fended off in the 2004 primary.

Conservatives in Pennsylvania have opposed Mr. Specter for years, and moderates, tens of thousands of them, have deserted the party and registered as Democrats. That has left a smaller Republican Party dominated by conservatives and has made Mr. Specter vulnerable to a challenge from the right.

Mr. Specter had long held fast to his identity as part of a dwindling band of Republican moderates. As one of only three Republican members of Congress who supported the stimulus – and the only one up next year for re-election – he appeared to be something of a test case for their survival.

Mr. Specter, who says he voted for the stimulus to prevent the economy from worsening, had built his career on skillfully navigating between Republicans and Democrats. But doing so had always come at a price. Now, at 79, faced with the prospect of becoming the political equivalent of a man without a country, he decided no longer to resist the entreatis he had periodically received to join the Democrats.

If Al Franken prevails in his ongoing court case in the Minnesota senate recount and Mr. Specter begins caucusing with Democrats, Democrats would have 60 votes and the ability to deny Republicans the chance to stall legislation.

After Mr. Specter’s stimulus vote in February, he plunged in polls of Republicans. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that Republican voters preferred Mr. Toomey over Mr. Specter, 41 percent to 27 percent, with 28 percent undecided. (The margin of sampling error for the poll of Republican voters is plus or minus five percentage points.) And the chairmen of both the Pennsylvania and national Republican parties have said they were open to backing a challenger, an unusual slight to a five-term incumbent.

Mr. Toomey, who declared his candidacy on April 15, 2009, lost to Mr. Specter in 2004 by less than 2 percent of the vote. But so many moderates have defected from the party – particularly from Mr. Specter’s base in Philadelphia and its four suburban counties – that Mr. Toomey is better positioned this time, at least for the primary.

Mr. Specter had always remained relatively popular with Democrats. They have appreciated much in his history – his support for abortion rights, his blocking of Judge Robert H. Bork from a seat on the Supreme Court, as well as his stimulus vote – but they have been furious with him, too, notably for his support for Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court and his related interrogation of Anita F. Hill, who had accused Mr. Thomas of sexual harassment.

Before switching parties, Mr. Specter had given every indication that he would fight aggressively in the primary against Mr. Toomey, raising $6.7 million. He spent $100,000 in television commercials trying to link Mr. Toomey, a former derivatives trader, with the financial crisis.

Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties

Feingold Unloads On Peggy Noonan: “Never Heard Anything Quite As Disturbing”, 4/23/09

Article

Updated below

Senator Russ Feingold, one of the harshest critics of the Bush administration’s national security policies, says he cannot bring himself to support President Obama’s apparent decision not to investigate or prosecute illegalities from those years.

“Part of what troubles me are the lawyers — we should see their law school degrees — who consciously wrote these memos justifying and explaining full well those outrageous arguments,” the Wisconsin Democrat said on Tuesday in reference to the Bush-era torture memos released last week. “I cannot join the president, or his spokesman, or [chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel, who said we aren’t going [to prosecute these people]. I can’t. I just disagree with them.”

Later, the Senator took a swipe at some of the rationalizations for avoiding prosecution that have been voiced by Washington lawmakers and pundits.

“If you want to see just how outrageous this is, I refer you to the remarks made by Peggy Noonan this Sunday,” he said, referring to the longtime conservative columnist’s appearance on ABC’s This Week. “I frankly have never heard anything quite as disturbing as her remark that was something to the affect of: ‘well sometimes you just have to move on.’”

“Some things in life need to be mysterious,” Noonan said on Sunday about the release of the torture memos. “Sometimes you need to just keep walking. … It’s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that.”

Feingold’s remarks, delivered before the Religious Action Center convention, represent some of the most forceful pushback against the line coming out of the White House to date. Emanuel and senior adviser David Axelrod have suggested that prosecution of Bush officials is likely off the table due to the political sensitivities that would accompany such retroactive action. On Tuesday morning, however, the New York Times reported that White House “aides did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush lawyers who developed the legal basis for the use of the techniques.”

A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a long-time critic of torture, Feingold viewed investigations and, perhaps, prosecutions as a key tool to restoring America’s moral standing.

“It is truly horrifying and unforgivable that anybody operating under the auspices of the United States of America had involvement in any of this,” he said. “So I’m not even completely ready to [cede the argument] that people who devised these techniques should be off the hook. I understand the argument. I also remember when people said that they were just following orders. So that troubles me and I am thinking about it.”

UPDATE: Feingold responds to Obama’s statement that he is open to prosecutions of some Bush officials:

“I am pleased that the president made clear that he has not ruled out investigations or prosecutions of those who authorized torture, or provided the legal justification for it. Horrible abuses were committed in the name of the American people, and we cannot look the other way, or just ‘move on.’ The final decision will be up to the attorney general and the president, but I urge the Justice Department to take this matter very seriously.”