Rendition


Ghost Plane – CIA flight logs and new narrative published online

By Stephen Grey, author of Ghost Plane

For the first time, I’ve now posted on the Internet all available flight logs I have of the CIA’s alleged fleet of aircraft. Compiled from aviation sources it is a searchable database (by country, date, airport etc) that gives a portrait not only of renditions but wider CIA activity since September 11. Have also posted a timeline, including details of new renditions, that helps interpret what the flight logs show.

Also posted ‘

A CIA rendition in documents ‘ the aviation documents and Spanish records that show proof of the pilots and the companies responsible, including a private subsidiary of Boeing, for organising the rendition of Khaled el Masri, the German citizen, from Macedonia to Afghanistan.

My rendition and torture ‘ the story of Abu Omar, the Islamist kidnapped in Milan in February 2003 by the CIA, according to Italian prosecutors ‘ his story in full as told in an account (translated from Arabic, original also posted) smuggled out of Egypt’s infamous Torah prison. His account of his interrogation is chilling.

View with comments

European Parliament publishes draft report on Government involvement in extraordinary rendition

A draft report on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (2006/2200(INI)) is now in circulation. The full draft can be downloaded from here.

The report slams the UK government for its lack of cooperation with the enquiry, condems its involvement in extraordinary rendition, and is outraged by the legal advice provided by the then legal advisor to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Time will tell how many of its findings survive the inevitable political pressure and make it through to the final version.

Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners

THE UNITED KINGDOM

57. Deplores the way in which the British Government, as represented by its Minister for Europe, cooperated with the temporary committee;

58. Thanks the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Renditions (APPG), comprising members of the House of Commons and House of Lords, for its work and for providing the temporary committee delegation to London with a number of highly valuable documents;

59. Condemns the extraordinary rendition of Bisher Al-Rawi, an Iraqi citizen and resident of the UK, and Jamil El-Banna, a Jordanian citizen and resident of the UK, who were arrested by Gambian authorities in Gambia in November 2002, turned over to US agents, and flown to Afghanistan and then to Guant’namo, where they remain detained without trial or any form of judicial assistance;

60. Condemns the multiple extraordinary rendition of Binyam Mohammed, Ethiopian citizen and resident of the UK; points out that Binyam Mohammed has been held in at least two secret detention facilities, in addition to military prisons;

61. Is deeply disturbed by the testimony of Binyam Mohammed’s lawyer, who gave an account of the most horrific torture endured by his client to the official delegation of the temporary committee to the UK;

62. Points out that the telegrams from UK security service to an unspecified foreign government, which were released to the Chairman of the APPG, Andrew Tyrie, suggest that the abduction of Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil El-Banna was facilitated by partly erroneous information supplied by the UK security service MI5;

63. Emphasises that the former UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Jack Straw, conceded in December 2005 that UK intelligence officials met Binyam Mohammed when he was arrested in Pakistan; points out in this respect that some of the questions put by the Moroccan officials to Binyam Mohammed, appear to have been inspired by information supplied by the UK;

64. Condemns the extraordinary rendition of UK citizen Martin Mubanga, who met the official delegation of the temporary committee to the UK, and who was arrested in Zambia in March 2002 and subsequently flown to Guant’namo; regrets the fact that Martin Mubanga was interrogated by British officials in Guant’namo where he was detained and tortured for four years without trial or any form of judicial assistance, and then released without charge;

65. Criticises the unwillingness of the UK Government to provide consular assistance to Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil El-Banna on the grounds that they are not UK citizens;

66. Thanks Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, for his very valuable testimony to the temporary committee on the exchange of intelligence obtained under torture and for providing a copy of the legal opinion of Michael Wood, former legal advisor to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office;

67. Is outraged by Michael Wood’s legal opinion, according to which “receiving or possessing” information extracted under torture, in so far as there is no direct participation in the torture, is not per se prohibited by the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; points out that Michael Wood declined to give testimony to the temporary

View with comments

Rendition: Those liars and their lies in full

By Obsolete

…We already knew that those camps that Tony Blair had “never heard of” existed, as George Bush was forced into admitting they did. Don’t worry though, everyone in them was treated humanely, and they certainly weren’t tortured.

…For a government that always dismisses civil liberties concerns with the old adage that “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”, it’s odd that government ministers and advisers have been so thoroughly uncooperative with the EU investigation into rendition. If they didn’t know anything, why would they do everything they possible could to obstruct and filibuster the Europe-wide inquiry?

The reason, as you’ve already guessed, is that the government is actually up to its neck in the scandal, as the draft EU report makes clear….

For the full article go here

View with comments

German courts to pursue Rumsfeld for war crimes?

From Frontline

Rumsfeld, while resigning, still insisted that the Iraq war was a winnable one and that very few people understood its real nature. A few days after his resignation, a court in Germany prepared to hear a lawsuit charging him and other senior officials, including former Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, with having played a role in the abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere. The plaintiffs are 11 Iraqis and a Saudi, who said that U.S. interrogators tortured them. The lawyers for the plaintiffs said that Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, the U.S. military commander of Iraqi prisons at the time, will testify on their behalf. German law provides “universal jurisdiction”, which allows for the prosecution of war crimes that have taken place anywhere in the world.

More details available from Time

View with comments

Missing presumed tortured

By Stephen Grey (author of Ghost Plane) in the New Statesman

More than 7,000 prisoners have been captured in America’s war on terror. Just 700 ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Between extraordinary rendition to foreign jails and disappearance into the CIA’s “black sites”, what happened to the rest?

Sana’a, Yemen. By the gates of the Old City, Muhammad Bashmilah was walking, talking, and laughing in the crowd – behaving like a man without a care in the world. Bargaining with the spice traders and joking with passers-by; at last he was free.

A 33-year-old businessman, Bashmilah has an impish sense of humour; his eyes sparkled as he chatted about his country and the khat leaves that all the young men were chewing. But when I began my interview by asking for the story of his past three years, his mood shifted. His face narrowed, his eyes calmed, and he stared beyond me – as if looking directly into the nether world from which he had so recently emerged.

For 11 months, Bashmilah was held in one of the CIA’s most secret prisons – its so-called “black sites” – so secret that he had no idea in which country, or even on which continent, he was being held. He was flown there, in chains and wearing a blindfold, from another jail in Afghanistan; his guards wore masks; and he was held in a 10ft by 13ft cell with two video cameras that watched his every move. He was shackled to the floor with a chain of 110 links.

From the times of evening prayer given to him by the guards, the cold winter temperatures, and the number of hours spent flying to this secret jail, he suspected that he was held somewhere in eastern Europe – but he could not be sure.

When he arrived at the prison, said Bashmilah, he was greeted by an interrogator with the words: “Welcome to your new home.” He implied that Bashmilah would never be released. “I had gone there without any reason, without any proof, without any accusation,” he said. His mental state collapsed and he went on hunger strike for ten days – until he was force-fed food through his nostrils. Finally released after months in detention without being charged with any crime, Bashmilah was one of the first prisoners to provide an inside account of the most secret part of the CIA’s detention system.

On 6 September, President George W Bush finally confirmed the existence of secret CIA jails such as the one that held Bashmilah. He added something chilling – a declaration that there were now “no terrorists in the CIA programme”, that the many prisoners held with Bashmilah were all gone. It was a statement that hinted at something very dark – that the United States has “disappeared” hundreds of prisoners to an uncertain fate.

(more…)

View with comments

The Horrors of “Extraordinary Rendition”

By Maher Arar in FPIF

Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who is barred from entering the United States, delivered his acceptance speech for the Letelier-Moffitt International Human Rights Award in a pre-recorded videotape. This is a transcript of his speech, which was viewed at the award ceremony hosted by the Institute for Policy Studies on Oct. 18, 2006 in Washington, DC.

This award means a tremendous amount to us. It means that there are still Americans out there who value our struggle for justice.

It means that there are Americans out there who are truly concerned about the future of America. We now know that my story is not a unique one. Over the past two years we have heard from many other people who were, who have been kidnapped, unlawfully detained, tortured and eventually released without being charged with any crime in any country.

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was a victim of the U.S. policy known as “extraordinary rendition.” He was detained by U.S. officials in 2002, accused of terrorist links, and handed over to Syrian authorities, who tortured him. Arar is working with the Center for Constitutional Rights to appeal a case against the U.S. government that was dismissed on national security grounds.

View with comments

Ghost Plane

From Newsnight

In a new book, British journalist Stephen Grey’s Ghost Plane documents his investigation into the secret CIA practice of transporting terror suspects to third countries – known as “extraordinary rendition”.

The book claims many of those prisoners subsequently suffered torture at the hands of regimes such as Syria – publicly pilloried by the Bush administration but, it says, privately colluded with in the name of defending the US.

View with comments

Torture is “a no brainer for me” – Cheney confirms that detainees were subjected to water-boarding

By Jonathan S. Landay in McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON – Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed that U.S. interrogators subjected captured senior al-Qaida suspects to a controversial interrogation technique called “water-boarding,” which creates a sensation of drowning.

Cheney indicated that the Bush administration doesn’t regard water-boarding as torture and allows the CIA to use it. “It’s a no-brainer for me,” Cheney said at one point in an interview.

Cheney’s comments, in a White House interview on Tuesday with a conservative radio talk show host, appeared to reflect the Bush administration’s view that the president has the constitutional power to do whatever he deems necessary to fight terrorism.

The U.S. Army, senior Republican lawmakers, human rights experts and many experts on the laws of war, however, consider water-boarding cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that’s banned by U.S. law and by international treaties that prohibit torture. Some intelligence professionals argue that it often provides false or misleading information because many subjects will tell their interrogators what they think they want to hear to make the water-boarding stop.

Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have said that a law Bush signed last month prohibits water-boarding. The three are the sponsors of the Military Commissions Act, which authorized the administration to continue its interrogations of enemy combatants.

The radio interview Tuesday was the first time that a senior Bush administration official has confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding against important al-Qaida suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mohammad was captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003, and turned over to the CIA.

Water-boarding means holding a person’s head under water or pouring water on cloth or cellophane placed over the nose and mouth to simulate drowning until the subject agrees to talk or confess.

Lee Ann McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, denied that Cheney confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding or endorsed the technique.

“What the vice president was referring to was an interrogation program without torture,” she said. “The vice president never goes into what may or may not be techniques or methods of questioning.”

In the interview on Tuesday, Scott Hennen of WDAY Radio in Fargo, N.D., told Cheney that listeners had asked him to “let the vice president know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we’re all for it, if it saves American lives.”

“Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?” Hennen said.

“I do agree,” Cheney replied, according to a transcript of the interview released Wednesday. “And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that’s been a very important tool that we’ve had to be able to secure the nation.”

Cheney added that Mohammed had provided “enormously valuable information about how many (al-Qaida members) there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth. We’ve learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that.”

“Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?” asked Hennen.

“It’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the vice president ‘for torture.’ We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in,” Cheney replied. “We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we’re party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.”

The interview transcript was posted on the White House Web site. Interview of the Vice President by Scott Hennen, WDAY.

CIA spokeswoman Michelle Neff said, “While we do not discuss specific interrogation methods, the techniques we use have been reviewed by the Department of Justice and are in keeping with our laws and treaty obligations. We neither conduct nor condone torture.”

View with comments

US legalises Presidential right to torture

From the American Civil Liberties Union

“The president can now – with the approval of Congress – indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions. Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act.”

WASHINGTON – As President Bush signed S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage and called the new law one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history.

To highlight concerns with the act, the ACLU took out a full page advertisement in today’s Washington Post, calling itself “the most conservative organization in America.” Since its founding, the ACLU has fought to conserve the system of checks and balances and defend the Bill of Rights.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director:

“With his signature, President Bush enacts a law that is both unconstitutional and un-American. This president will be remembered as the one who undercut the hallmark of habeas in the name of the war on terror. Nothing separates America more from our enemies than our commitment to fairness and the rule of law, but the bill signed today is an historic break because it turns Guant’namo Bay and other U.S. facilities into legal no-man’s-lands.

“The president can now – with the approval of Congress – indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions. Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act.”

The full page advertisement from the Washington Post is available at: www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/27085leg20061017.html

The ACLU’s letter on S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, is available at: www.aclu.org/natsec/gen/26861leg20060925.html

View with comments

Canada: Arar report exposes RCMP, government officials complicit in torture

From Amnesty International

Ottawa ‘ Justice Dennis O’Connor has confirmed the worst fears of Organizations with Intervenor Status at the Arar Inquiry: that Canadian officials were complicit in the torture of Maher Arar and other Canadian citizens.

‘Justice O’Connor has documented in astonishing detail how the very officials tasked with protecting the rights of these Canadian citizens failed to live up to that responsibility, and worse yet, were directly involved in passing on questions for interrogations where torture would be used,’ said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada.

The report details the callous disregard for the very real likelihood that government actions would directly contribute to the torture of these Canadian citizens. In particular, there is chilling reference to an October 10, 2002 memo in which a Foreign Affairs official warns that a decision to send a line of questioning about Abdullah Almalki to Syrian security agencies might ‘involve torture.’ The RCMP chose to ignore the concern and proceeded anyway:

‘The RCMP are ready to send their Syrian counterparts a request that Al Malki be asked questions posed by the RCMP, questions relating to other members of his organization. Both ISI and DMSCUS/HOM [Ambassador Pillarella] have pointed out to the RCMP that such questioning may involve torture. The RCMP are aware of this but have nonetheless decided to send their request’ (Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Analysis and Recommendations, page 209).

Intervenors welcome Justice O’Connor’s recommendation that a further process of ‘independent and credible’ review into the cases of Mr. Abdullah Almalki, Mr. Ahmad El Maati and Mr. Muayyed Nureddin be instituted (Analysis and Recommendations, page 278), and urge the government to act on this recommendation without further delay. These men have waited far too long for answers and accountability.

Organizations intervening at the Arar Commission are also pleased that Justice O’Connor says that his Interim Report should remove any ‘taint or suspicion’ that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or constitutes any threat to the security of Canada (Anaylsis and Recommendations, page 59).

Justice O’Connor is also clearly of the view that Mr. Arar is entitled to compensation and has encouraged the Canadian government to be flexible in how that compensation should be assessed, recognizing the suffering he has been through, the damage of the improper and unfair leaks, his difficulty in finding employment and the impact of the inquiry itself. Justice O’Connor has also signaled that an apology might be appropriate (Analysis and Recommendations, page 362-363).

‘The report offers a staggering catalogue of deficiencies, mistakes and even deliberate wrongdoing, all of which laid the ground for the severe abuses suffered by Mr. Arar and the other three men named in this report,’ said Neve.

Those responsible should be held accountable and the reforms recommended by Justice O’Connor should be immediately implemented in order to guard against future repeats of these tragedies.

Justice O’Connor has also recommended that Canadian agencies involved in national security investigations implement written policies prohibiting racial, religious or ethnic profiling, and training to sensitize those agencies to the realities of Canada’s Muslim and Arab communities. Intervenors urge the government to prioritize the implementation of these recommendations.

View with comments

Guantanamo’s Catch-22

By Moazzem Begg in the Herald Tribune

Moazzam Begg is a British Muslim who spent three years in U.S. detention, including two years at Guantanamo before being released in 2005.

A few months ago, I was approached by U.S. military defense attorneys, something I have grown increasingly accustomed to since my release from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

The request wasn’t from lawyers defending Guantanamo detainees. The defendant was a soldier facing several charges, including detainee abuse at a U.S. detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan. Some of the events surrounding these allegations coincided with my time there during 2002. I’d spoken to members of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command and internal investigation officers who were trying to build a case against other soldiers. So it came as a surprise when lawyers asked me if I would consider being a defense witness.

The then specialist, Damien Corsetti, didn’t mistreat me. He never interrogated me and he always passed by my cage with a smile, often stopping to talk. He even gave me books at a time when they were hard to come by. One of the books, ironically, Heller’s “Catch-22,” is described as “the classic antiwar novel of our time.” I was even allowed to bring it with me to England, where it remains on my bookshelf, next to another book from U.S. soldiers: a military issue of the Bible, in full camouflage jacket.

I often found myself discussing religion with guards and interrogators, some of whom were Christian Evangelists or Southern Baptists. I thought it important to try to explain similarities between the Bible and the Koran, as well as looking at the fundamental differences in belief and perception. Perhaps, I thought, it might help some of my captors appreciate that we all held things sacred.

Last year, when Newsweek published a report alleging the desecration of the Koran by guards in Guant’namo, I was surprised – surprised that the article had materialized so late. Many former prisoners had complained about the abuse well before, including me. However, my personal analysis of the affair was simple: The Koran may be the sacred, unadulterated speech of the Almighty to me and 1.6 billion other Muslims, but to the average soldier it is paper and ink. If, in his or her mind, it was justified to redefine the rules of engagement to include the application of torture then what of a mere book?

A Saudi still in Guantanamo, Ahmed al-Darbi, told me in Bagram that Corsetti had taken out his penis, threatened to rape him and, while pointing to his manhood, screamed, “This is your God!” I have since learned that Corsetti was called “King of Torture” by his fellow soldiers.

Darbi’s allegations were not upheld in court, so my testimony was not required. Oddly enough, there was a time when I was facing my own possible military commission, in which I intended to call U.S. soldiers as defense witnesses. I encountered hundreds of them during my years in captivity. I made friends with some of them, too. Paradoxically, some of these soldiers helped me face the years of isolation and despair as my only friends. One of them was Corsetti.

In his defense, Corsetti’s lawyer is reported to have said: “The president of the United States doesn’t know what the rules are. The secretary of defense doesn’t know what the rules are. But the government expects this Pfc. [private first class] to know what the rules are?”

Corsetti cannot escape culpability by this argument. But it does suggest that responsibility stretches higher up the chain of command. Meanwhile, we continue to pay the price because nobody knows what the rules are.

View with comments

The battle for international law continues in the US

From CNN International

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday voted 15-9 to recommend a bill – over the objections of the Bush administration – that would authorize tribunals for terror suspects in a way that it says would protect suspects’ rights.

The bill was backed by Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

It differs from the administration’s proposal in two major ways: It would permit terror suspects to view classified evidence against them and does not include a proposal that critics say reinterprets a Geneva Conventions rule that prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees.

In a decision earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must meet Article III standards in its treatment of detainees.

Article III prohibits nations engaged in combat not of “an international character” from, among other things, “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”

(more…)

View with comments

Bush’s reversals in war on terrorism: There is still hope for the US legal sytem

From Reuters

A Senate committee rebelled against U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday, passing a bill it said would protect the rights of foreign terrorism suspects and repair a U.S. image damaged by harsh treatment of detainees.

Here are some other areas in which the Bush administration’s war on terrorism has been dealt setbacks:

MILITARY TRIBUNALS

The Supreme Court in June rejected as illegal the military tribunal system set up by the Bush administration to try Guantanamo prisoners, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan. The court said the tribunals — an alternative legal system — lacked congressional authorisation and did not meet U.S. military or international justice standards.

DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

After the September 11 attacks, Bush directed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant when in pursuit of suspected terrorists. But a federal judge in Detroit this year ruled the program illegal. Bush has appealed. The case is expected to end up in the Supreme Court.

CIA TERRORISM DETENTION PROGRAM

Bush this month publicly acknowledged the CIA had held high-level terrorism suspects, including alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in secret overseas locations. He announced Mohammed and 13 others were transferred recently to the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention centre run by the Pentagon to be prosecuted in the future. Bush strongly defended the secret detention and questioning of terrorism suspects and said the CIA treated them humanely and did not torture. The detention program, disclosed last year by The Washington Post, provoked an international outcry.

ABU GHRAIB

Earlier this month, Iraq regained control of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, known for a prisoner abuse scandal involving U.S. troops. Photographs of American soldiers abusing Iraqis at the prison in western Baghdad in 2003 made it a touchstone for Arab and Muslim rage over the U.S. occupation. The conviction of several low-ranking American soldiers for abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 — secured after photographs taken by the soldiers were made public — failed to end anger among many Iraqis about the treatment of detainees.

View with comments

Bush confirms existence of secret CIA prisons

From the JURIST

JURIST] US President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged [speech transcript] that the US Central Intelligence Agency [official website] has operated secret prisons outside the US where high-value terror suspects [DNI backgrounder, PDF] were detained, and said that 14 of those suspects [DNI profiles, PDF] have now been transferred to the Defense Department’s military prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] where they will face trial. The suspects transferred to Guantanamo include alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile] as well as key al Qaeda members suspected of designing the bombings of the USS Cole and US embassies in Africa. Bush said that it was necessary to keep the “small number” of detainees in secret facilities where they could be “questioned by experts and – when appropriate – prosecuted for terrorist acts” due to the threat posed by the detainees or because they may possess “intelligence that we and our allies need to have to prevent new attacks.”

Bush also stressed that US Justice Department and CIA lawyers have determined that program complies with US law, saying:

This program has been subject to multiple legal reviews by the Department of Justice and CIA lawyers; they’ve determined it complied with our laws. This program has received strict oversight by the CIA’s Inspector General. A small number of key leaders from both political parties on Capitol Hill were briefed about this program. All those involved in the questioning of the terrorists are carefully chosen and they’re screened from a pool of experienced CIA officers. Those selected to conduct the most sensitive questioning had to complete more than 250 additional hours of specialized training before they are allowed to have contact with a captured terrorist.

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it — and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.

The CIA program has detained only a limited number of terrorists at any given time — and once we’ve determined that the terrorists held by the CIA have little or no additional intelligence value, many of them have been returned to their home countries for prosecution or detention by their governments. Others have been accused of terrible crimes against the American people, and we have a duty to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice. So we intend to prosecute these men, as appropriate, for their crimes.

The existence of secret CIA prisons [JURIST report] in Europe was first reported by the New York Times in November and at the time the Bush administration refused to either confirm or deny the report. Both the European Union and the Council of Europe (COE) have conducted investigations into the prisons and the CIA’s alleged use of illegal rendition flights [JURIST news archive] throughout Europe. The COE in June passed a resolution [JURIST report] adopting the report [PDF text] of Swiss legislator Dick Marty accusing European countries of colluding with the CIA in transporting terror suspects in a “global spider’s web” [COE graphic] of secret prisons and rendition flights.

During the same speech Wednesday, Bush also detailed his administration’s proposal for legislation authorizing military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. AP has more.

View with comments

Aero’s Cloaks and Daggers

By Barbara Koeppel in Consortium News

Torture at CIA secret sites is illegal. So too is the practice of the CIA transporting suspects to other countries where torture tactics are commonplace.

To expose and halt such goings-on, members of Stop Torture Now and Code Pink gathered last November at a rural airport in Smithfield, N.C., about 40 miles from Raleigh. Their target was Aero Contractors, a charter airline company. The activists insist that from this bucolic setting and another small airport in Kinston, N.C., called Global Transpark (GTP), Aero runs ‘torture taxis”secret rendition flights for the CIA

The activists say they don’t want this dirty business starting on their turf. ‘Aero uses runways and hangars paid for with our tax dollars,’ they argue. The activists cite a $9 million state bond and $650,000 in federal funds secured last fall by Rep. Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., to extend Smithfield’s runway.

The activists also note that Aero’s rent to Global Transpark (GTP) is just $.05 a square foot. Since Aero leases five acres’218,000 square feet’it’s just $10,890 a year. Moreover, since GTP gave Aero a credit for the $60,000 the company spent to ‘upfit’ its hangar, Aero will park free for over five years. Someone is footing the bill, the activists argue, and that someone is the taxpayer.

Aero’s planes stop first at Dulles or at CIA facilities in Virginia to pick up flight plans, then fly to Ireland to refuel, and from there to countries such as Britain, Italy, Sweden, Pakistan, Germany, Bosnia, Macedonia, Morocco and Turkey to collect the suspects. On the final lap, they deliver the human cargo for interrogation to countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Afghanistan and until last year, Uzbekistan’all cited in U.S. State Department reports as having unclean hands when it comes to human rights.

The flights have been documented by Amnesty International and the Council of Europe (COE) Parliamentary Assembly on Human Rights in 2006 reports. To verify the dates and routes, investigators have used a global network of ‘plane spotters’ who stake out positions near runways where they photograph Aero take-offs and landings, and they write down the tail numbers of the otherwise unmarked craft. They then match the numbers with airport and aircraft logs obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests.

‘Spider’s Web’

In its April report, the COE described Aero and other civilian charter companies as part of a ‘global spider’s web.’

Why the front companies? To maintain deniability about renditions and secret prisons, the CIA contracts with Aero to fly the planes. As part of the ruse, the craft are registered as ‘owned’ by shell companies: None list boards of directors, phone numbers or e-mail addresses. Their only identifications are post office box numbers. Moreover, the names change nearly every year. Thus, the Boeing 737 that Aero ‘leases’ were ‘owned’ by Stevens Leasing Company in 2001, ‘sold’ to Premier Executives in 2002, and ‘re-sold’ to Keeler and Tate Management in 2004. Each time, new tail numbers are painted over the old, to make the planes harder to track.

Also, the CIA uses civilian charter airlines because, under international law, private companies don’t need to reveal the nature of their trips to the countries where they refuel or fly over, while military planes must declare the names of their crews, flight plans, passengers and cargo. As a civilian charter, Aero is not asked for this information.

Another clue: According to Amnesty International, Aero has ‘CALP’ rights (Civil Aircraft Landing Permits)’enjoyed by just 10 other charter companies’which allow it to land at U.S. military bases around the globe.

However, as a veteran intelligence agent told me, ‘these tactics, like having supposedly private companies do the flying and changing the owners’ names and craft numbers, are so sloppy that they are completely transparent.’

He explained that ‘if the CIA leased planes with a company to really perform an air cargo service it wouldn’t feel compelled to continually change the names of the owners and numbers.’

Secret Police

In Uzbekistan, the flights were common knowledge. Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan in 2003-2004, said, ‘Premier Executives flew dozens of detainees from Kabul to Tashkent, probably Uzbeks or Uzbek nationals living in Afghanistan. The flights were part of an international web of transporting people, the torture end of the operation, since the Americans handed them over to the SNB’the [Uzbek] national security secret police. After this, they went off the radar screen, not seen again.’

How did Murray know? ‘Few westerners live in Tashkent and the city is small so everyone knows everyone else. I knew Premier’s ground crew, who I believed to be CIA operatives. I just assumed Premier was owned by the CIA and that it was based in one of the Carolinas. And I thought they assumed that I assumed it,’ he explained.

The British diplomat told me he chatted with the men about once a week for over a year in a bar frequented by westerners. He noted that they weren’t particularly secretive.

‘They would say ‘things were difficult today,’ or that it was ‘hard work getting them off the plane.’ This was casual conversation after work,’ Murray recalled.

Back in the U.S., on the subject of renditions, the CIA and the Bush administration neither confirmed nor denied that CIA ground and flight crews were involved. Aero didn’t respond to a request for comment on this article.

The U.S. government flatly denies it engages in torture. In December 2005, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated, ‘The U.S. does not permit or condone torture’or transport detainees from one country to another for the purpose of torture.’ She added, ‘where appropriate, the U.S. seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.’

Mounting evidence, however, suggests the contrary. Indeed, in the ‘global war on terror,’ torture is very much on the table. Amnesty International, the Council of Europe and Human Rights Watch describe case after case of terror suspects held incommunicado in secret detention centers, tortured, and kept out of the reach of the International Red Cross, lawyers or human rights groups. The United Nations human rights panel is also convinced of the abuses and demanded in July that the U S. close its secret prisons.

(more…)

View with comments

Still No Info on Terror War’s ‘Ghost Detainees’

By Aaron Glantz in OneWorld US

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 23 (OneWorld) – The human rights group Amnesty International is appealing decisions by the United States government to withhold as secret information detailing the incarceration of so-called ghost detainees as part of the Bush administration’s self-styled “war on terror.”

The requests, which were submitted under the Freedom of Information Act with the help of the International Human Rights Clinic of New York University (NYU) School of Law, concern detainees who are–or have been–held by or with the involvement of the United States government, where there is no public record of the detentions.

Such individuals have also often been subjected to the practice commonly known as extraordinary rendition, which means they have been flown by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to a U.S.-allied nation where torture is legal and have been interrogated there.

Hundreds, possibly thousands, of prisoners have been victims of torture in third countries. It’s difficult to ascertain the exact number because the files remain classified.

(more…)

View with comments

Dimming the beacon of freedom

From ACLU

GENEVA ‘ The American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Human Rights Network hosted a panel of people who have been victimized by the U.S. government’s failure to uphold civil and political rights. On Monday, the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC) is scheduled to review the United States’ compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a major international human rights treaty ratified by the United State in 1992.

The ACLU report, Dimming the Beacon of Freedom: U.S. Violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, documents the United States record on human rights in five areas: national security, women’s rights, racial justice, immigrants rights and religious freedom.

‘What I am seeking is an acknowledgement that the CIA is responsible for what happened to me, an explanation as to why this happened, and an apology,’ said Khaled El Masri, a victim of extraordinary rendition who spoke on the Voices of Victims panel. ‘It is my hope that the Human Rights Committee will hold the U.S. government accountable for the abuse I have suffered.’

View with comments

Article 3 returns to the US

Following the Supreme court ruling against Bush, the core of the Geneva Conventions has been reasserted in the US legal system. ACLU comments on the moves that have rendered Attorney General Gonzales somewhat ‘quaint and obsolete’.

From the American Civil Liberties Union

Washington, DC – After more than four years of lawlessness, the Defense Department took a big first step toward complying with federal law, by stating that it will comply with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions when holding detainees. However, just hours after the announcement of the new Pentagon policy, a top Justice Department lawyer urged Congress to ‘ratify’ the military commissions that the Supreme Court invalidated two weeks ago.

‘The Pentagon’s decision is wholly appropriate, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and long overdue,” said ACLU Director Anthony Romero. However, at the same time that the Defense Department is showing signs of heading in the direction of restoring the rule of law, the Justice Department is urging Congress to abandon it.

The new Pentagon policy reversed a prior Bush Administration claim that detainees were not protected by Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. In policies developed in early 2002 by President Bush, Attorney General Gonzales and top Defense Department and Justice Department officials ‘ over the objections of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell ‘ the Administration took the position that individuals held at Guant’namo Bay and many other detainees were not entitled to the basic legal protections outlined in the Geneva Conventions. The July 7, 2006 memorandum from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England reversed the earlier policy.

The Pentagon memorandum comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that ruled the military commissions established by President Bush to try detainees at Guant’namo Bay are illegal. Congress has started a series of hearings, including three hearings this week, to decide how to try these detainees. Twenty retired generals and admirals, along with prominent senators such as Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, and Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have stated that the court-martial system should be the working model. But at the first hearing on the subject this morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Acting Assistant General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Bradbury urged Congress to codify the military commissions that the Supreme Court had found to be illegal.

‘It’s time for the government to stop trying to weasel out of obeying the Supreme Court and federal law. The Supreme Court made clear that the government could start putting people on trial at Guantanamo immediately if it follows court-martial procedures. We have the best military justice procedures in the world, but the Justice Department is telling Congress to use a broken system instead of the best one.’

View with comments

Italy defense official denies involvement in CIA rendition of Egyptian cleric

From The Jurist

The government of Italy was not involved in and did not know in advance of the CIA’s alleged extraordinary rendition of an Egyptian cleric, an Italian defense official told legislators Tuesday. The official, Giovanni Lorenzo Forceri, told Italian Senate committees investigating the alleged kidnapping that Italy has never “accepted or practiced” such techniques of fighting terrorism and that its Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI) learned about the kidnapping only after it had occurred in 2003. The cleric, Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was allegedly taken from a Milan street and then flown to Egypt, where he was tortured. Silvio Berlusconi, then Italy’s prime minister, called the alleged kidnapping a violation of Italy’s sovereignty, and Forceri said Tuesday that current Prime Minister Romano Prodi supports the investigation.

Last Wednesday, police arrested two Italian intelligence officers, including a senior official, suspected of collaborating with CIA operatives in the alleged rendition. Arrest warrants have been issued for 26 Americans, most of them CIA agents, said to have been involved in the abduction. The Italian justice department has said it would not seek their extradition, but they may be prosecuted in absentia.

View with comments