- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Aiding Torture
Our top politicians may have violated international law. Why is that not an election issue?
[Editor's note: This article is adapted from a keynote address given by Professor Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at UBC. The occasion was the opening of the UBC Model United Nations in Vancouver on January 12, 2006]
Two recent quotes. First, from Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, just five weeks ago, on December 7, 2005:
- "The absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle we once believed to be unassailable-the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of the person-is becoming a casualty of the so-called war on terror."
Now, this one from December 18, 2005:
- "There's a little bit of the movie Casablanca in this, where, you know, the inspector says 'I'm shocked, shocked that this kind of thing takes place'."
With those words, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell sought to extinguish a scandal that has been raging in Europe over the use of European airspace and airports for the "extraordinary rendition" of terrorist suspects, either to secret CIA prisons, or into the hands of foreign intelligence services notorious for torture, such those of Syria and Egypt.
Yet, Powell's words cannot change the fact that secret prisons, and at least some of the renditions and methods of interrogation used by the CIA, constitute serious violations of international law, including the Torture Convention.
His words cannot change the fact that those who facilitate these activities-for instance, by allowing the CIA aircraft to land and refuel-might, themselves, be engaged in international crimes.
And it cannot change the fact that Canadian airspace and airports were likely also used by CIA aircraft engaged in renditions, and that Canadian politicians, too, might now be open to prosecution for complicity in torture, either in the domestic courts of this and other countries, or before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
'Extraordinary rendition'
International law has well-established rules on the involuntary transfer of persons across borders. It is illegal to deport or otherwise return someone when, in the words of the 1984 Torture Convention, "there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."
The Canadian Supreme Court has held that this prohibition does not necessarily apply when national security is at risk and, in exceptional situations, Canada relies on assurances of good treatment from receiving states. That decision-in the 2002 Suresh case-was properly criticized by Manfred Nowak, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, on the basis that "diplomatic assurances are unreliable and ineffective", not least because they "are sought usually from states where the practice of torture is systematic". The European Court of Human Rights expressed a similar view in 1996, when the British government sought to rely on an assurance of good treatment from India before deporting a Sikh militant there.
Abducting a person from another country without its consent is always illegal. Even, for example, when in 1960, Mossad agents captured Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and flew him to Israel where he was tried and executed. Argentina complained loudly about the violation of sovereignty until Israel quietly offered a generous settlement.
The current US practice of "extraordinary rendition" involves a mix of deportations and abductions. Six days after the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001, George W. Bush signed a presidential finding that provided the CIA with broad authorization to disrupt terrorist activity, including by killing, capturing or detaining Al Qaeda members anywhere in the world. On this basis, the CIA began secretly transferring suspects, either to the intelligence services of countries notorious for torture, or to clandestine prisons located outside of the United States and, therefore, beyond the reach-or at least the scrutiny-of US courts.
Arar and others
In September 2002, Maher Arar-a Canadian who is also Syrian by virtue of that country's refusal to accept renunciations of citizenship-was arrested while transiting through New York's JFK Airport. After twelve days of questioning, he was taken to Syria where he was imprisoned for one year without charge. An independent fact-finder appointed by a Canadian judicial inquiry has determined conclusively that Arar was tortured, including by being beaten on the palms and wrists with a steel cable two inches thick and being confined for ten months to a cell measuring six feet long, three feet wide and seven feet high.
Other terrorist suspects have been captured in Pakistan and moved elsewhere with the apparent consent of the government in Islamabad. Benyam Mohammed al-Habashi, an Ethiopian-born British resident, was taken to Morocco where, he claims, a scalpel was applied to his penis. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, disappeared into US custody in March 2003; the New York Times later reported that he was subjected to "graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown." And in Macedonia, a German citizen named Khaled al-Masri was arrested, handed over to US agents and transferred to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan where he, too, claims to have been tortured. Although the CIA soon realized it had the wrong man, al-Masri languished in prison for five months before being released.
Other renditions have involved straight forward abductions. In 2002, the Bosnian Supreme Court found six Algerians innocent of terrorist plotting and ordered their release. As the men left prison, they were seized by masked men, bundled into unmarked cars, and then flown to Guantanamo Bay. In 2003, Islamic cleric Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr was abducted from Milan while under Italian surveillance and flown to Egypt where, he claims, he was tortured. The Italian authorities, incensed at this interference in their own investigation, have issued arrest warrants for nineteen CIA agents.
An additional form of rendition has involved the transfer of detainees out of occupied, pre-"sovereign" Iraq in violation of a provision in the Fourth Geneva Convention that unequivocally prohibits "individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory . . . regardless of their motive". In October 2004, the Washington Post reported that a legal opinion prepared by the US Department of Justice had-in a completely Orwellian manner-reinterpreted this provision as actually allowing such transfers. A further violation occurred when the suspects, before being transferred out of the Iraq, were never registered as detainees, and were moved around within and between prisons, to conceal their existence from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Gulag parallels
The detainees from Iraq may have ended up in the secret CIA prisons, which the Washington Post reports are, or were, located in at least eight countries including Thailand, Afghanistan and "several democracies in Eastern Europe". Human Rights Watch has placed them in Poland and Romania.
The parallels to these secret prisons-the Soviet Gulag and the Latin American "disappearances"-are obvious, as is their international illegality. Secret prisons contravene the prohibition on arbitrary arrest or detention set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is this latter aspect that has attracted the attention of the Council of Europe and European Parliament.
The Council of Europe has instructed its 46 member states to reveal what they know about the flights and prisons. Any government involved in these activities could see its membership on the Council suspended-an approbation which has historically been reserved for gross violations of human rights, such those which occurred in Greece after the military coup of 1967.
European governments are concerned about how revelations of collusion with the CIA might affect their domestic popularity. A recent Associated Press/Ipsos poll showed that fewer than one-in-three Western Europeans think torture is "sometimes" justified. Negative views of the United States have also become the norm. The Pew Global Attitudes Project determined that only 41 percent of Germans had a favourable opinion of the United States in 2005, as compared to 78 percent in 1999-2000. Favourable opinion had less distance to fall in France, from 62 percent to 43 percent, while in Britain it went from 83 to 55 percent during the same period.
These numbers-and the declining willingness of European governments to cooperate on other matters-explain why Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last month strenuously denied that the United States engages in torture. The denial apparently satisfied European leaders, though it should not have. Rice failed to address the contracting-out of torture to non-Americans, the sharp distinction between the international definition of torture and the more flexible definition used by the United States, and the Bush administration's view that any method of interrogation may still be used if authorised by the president.
What is torture?
The Torture Convention defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person". The Bush Administration prefers a standard articulated by the Justice Department in an August 2002 memorandum, namely that, to constitute torture, the pain caused "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or even death." Many methods of what is generally understood as "torture" would be permitted by this definition.
When that legal opinion became public, it was retracted and replaced by an ostensibly moderated document. However, the second memorandum refused to address a key aspect of the first, namely its expansive interpretation of the president's powers to ignore or override domestic legislation and even international law, and to apply whichever definition of torture he sees fit.
The August 2002 opinion was written by John Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley, who had the following exchange with University of Notre Dame professor Douglas Cassel during a debate in Chicago last month:
- Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
- Yoo: No treaty.
- Cassel: Also no law by Congress-that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
- Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
It is this extreme privileging of executive power that has enabled the CIA to maintain its list of "enhanced" interrogation techniques, which include water boarding, for use in clandestine operations approved by the president. And it is this that enables Rice to deny the use of torture without, at least in her view, lying to foreign ministers and heads of state.
Aiding and abetting
Not all Americans agree with their government's approach. Senator John McCain, who was tortured by the North Vietnamese, describes water boarding as "torture, very exquisite torture." Last autumn, McCain sponsored legislation confirming that "No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment".
The more encompassing language of McCain's legislation clearly extends to methods such as water boarding. The legislation was fiercely opposed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who-by invoking the threat of a presidential veto-successfully negotiated some important loopholes. The legislation does not ban torture contracted out to other countries. It provides US government employees with legal immunity for acts of torture that were "officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted". And it denies the right of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to contest their imprisonment in federal court, thus overturning a pivotal July 2004 US Supreme Court decision.
What's more, when Bush signed McCain's bill, he issued a statement declaring the new law would, again, be interpreted within the broader context of the president's powers to protect national security-in other words, that any method of interrogation may still be used, if and when Bush deems it necessary. This outright rejection of Congressional intent is breathtaking; as Sidney Blumenthal recently observed, it reflects "a basic ideology of absolute power".
The willingness of European leaders to accept Rice's assurances reflects a desire to end a scandal that touches on their own apparent complicity. According to some reports, CIA aircraft have used British airports on over 200 occasions since September 2001 and Irish and German airports even more often. British agents have allegedly conducted interrogations under threat of torture, at Guatanamo and elsewhere. According to Al-Habashi, MI6 agents visited him in Pakistan and threatened that he would be "tortured by Arabs".
And it seems the British government has used information obtained by other governments through torture. Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has posted secret documents on his website that, if authentic, show British officials deciding that information obtained through torture by other governments could be used for British intelligence purposes. The documents are all the more troubling because Uzbekistan is notorious for using especially horrific methods of torture, such as immersing detainees in boiling water.
The Torture Convention requires its parties to "ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture." It thus affirms a basic principle of criminal law: that those who aid or abet a crime are criminals themselves.
Canadian connections
Canada ratified the Torture Convention in 1987. Torture was explicitly made a crime through Section 269.1 of the Criminal Code. And Section 21.1 of the Criminal Code has clear provisions on the aiding and abetting of crimes, which include as a "a party to an offence" everyone who "does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it."
Today, some Canadian politicians might have some reason to worry about these provisions. In December 2005, it was reported that seven or more aircraft linked to the CIA had recently used Canadian airports on at least 55 occasions, including refuelling stops in Newfoundland and Nunavut. Many more aircraft, presumably, have flown through sovereign Canadian airspace, given that the shortest flight-lines from the United States to Europe or the Middle East cross this country's vast territory.
When asked about the matter last month, Prime Minister Paul Martin said that he had "checked with the Deputy Prime Minister, checked with the officials in charge, and there are absolutely no indications that anything of that kind is occurring."
The Deputy Prime Minister, Anne McLellan, is also Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and, in that capacity, responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency. For her part, McLellan said she was investigating the questionable flights. But she also asked for patience: "We are now in the process of following up on what we know about any of those, but as you can imagine, 55, it takes time to determine whether there's anything unusual in relation to any of those named flights."
It is likely that Martin and McLellan were simply trying to punt an embarrassing story past the current election campaign. But it is also possible that they or their officials knew-or chose not to know-that the flights were taking place, and that individuals on board were being involuntarily taken to secret CIA prisons or to foreign countries notorious for torture. If so, their evasive language could be rooted in concern for their personal responsibility, not just under Canadian law, but also in foreign courts, since all countries have universal jurisdiction over the crime of complicity in torture. For this reason, when Martin and McClellan cease to be ministers and lose the immunities attached to high office, they might wish to avoid foreign travel, at least to human-rights-respecting states.
Canadians deserve answers
It is even possible that some of the renditions and mistreatments could be considered war crimes, including the transfer of detainees out of occupied Iraq, or any mistreatment of detainees who deserved the status of prisoner of war. Facilitating war crimes is a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which raises the additional possibility, however remote, of a trial one day in The Hague.
Again, these are only possibilities. I do not want to overstate the legal situation. But at the same time, I believe Canadians deserve some answers, and soon. What role, if any, has the Canadian government played in facilitating "extraordinary renditions", including allowing the use of our airports and airspace? And if a convincing answer to this question is not available before the federal election, then the least Prime Minister Martin should do is to state, promptly and unequivocally, that his government will not allow CIA aircraft to land at Canadian airports or enter Canadian airspace-until the matter has been properly and publicly investigated.
For obvious reasons, Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper should be asked to make a similar statement.
Colin Powell's reference to Casablanca was misplaced. In that movie, the inspector's comments are amusing only because he's speaking about gambling, a relatively innocuous activity. The deliberate infliction of severe pain and suffering on another human being is hardly a frivolous matter, especially not when our democratically-elected leaders might be complicit in this most inhumane crime. In an important sense, if our democratic governments have been complicit in torture, we are all torturers now. That is, unless we refuse to be complicit in this abominable behaviour. Human rights must constantly be defended against those who seek to violate or undermine them, or who simply take the easy way out of acquiescing in violations committed by others. Democracy, the very essence of our societies, requires constant defending, too.
Michael Byers is Professor of Political Science & Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia. He is the author of War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (Douglas & McIntyre). ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- Does Simon Fraser University Need a Men's Centre?
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- Death in Remand: A Jail Crammed with Risk
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Should You Run from that Medical Test?
66
Login or register to post comments
Sunny Samson
6 years ago
Comments on "Aiding Torture"
And why isn't this an issue? Because the mainstream media in this country determines what qualifies as "news." In all the media debates I've witnessed, there have been no questions posed of the leaders about what their policies are regarding Canada's increasing military role.
Only in the last week, prompted by the Cons blue book, was there even any mention of active collusion with the Bush administration in weaponizing space. Did the mainstream media pay any attention to that? Virtually none. No, they hammer gay marriage. Why is gay marriage a more important issue than our country being dragged into, and used, in the name "war on terror?"
Why aren't we concerned that Canada is about to increase it's presence in Afghanistan, and to move from being a peacekeeping role to a fighting role? Why are we doing this, when the U.S. military is pulling its forces out? So the U.S. can deploy its military towards invasion of yet another country?
Why aren't these issues being brought up by the media? (The Tyee is an exception, but unfortunately, it's not a mainstream media member, most people still get their "views" from network TV and newspaper conglomerates.)Why are we seeing stories glorifying our "brave" soldiers with endless coverage about how they're being treated by those nice doctors at the American military hospital in Germany, and NO stories about why we're still there? Most people don't have, or take, the time to think through what's happening here, how our country is slowly, slowly becoming an American colony. And the active "harmonization" of American and Canadian efforts gets next to no press at this crucial time. It boggles the mind.
Many people are saying "well, the Cons will only get in there for a short while, say four years or less if there's a minority government, so they won't be able to do much. Mark my words, they will do a great deal. The Bush administration provides the model, and the support to just push, push, push ahead regardless of whether they're caught in public lies, regardless of whether their actions are illegal, regardless.
And if anyone thinks it will be easy to reverse the massive change the Cons will make to our Canadian way of life if they get in (even with a minority), they are in for a very, very rude shock. But by then, it will have been too late.
nightbloom
6 years ago
It may well turn out that in 100 years historians will look back on the torture and clandestine extradition issue as the fundamental moral, ethical and institutional litmus test of our time - for more so than 9/11 and the actual 'war on terror'. This, even though for most disinterested observers current see it is a troubling but nevertheless "background" issue. It is always long after the fact that the extent of abuses and their implications become known. It's shocking to imagine that 85,000 people have been cycled through this international Gestapo apparatus.
Adolph Eichmann is an incongruent precedent to cite. The Mossad was morally correct in circumventing those legal and state structures which protected him. Lex injusta non
est lex (Thomas Aquinas: 'the unjust law is not law'). It cuts both ways.
As one who has favoured military intervention in Iraq since the Clinton years and the failure of the status quo that had set into an uncooperative & sanction-emiserated Iraq, this issue (torture, imprisonment & extradition) above any others (even the WMD fiasco) caused me to realise that the pendulum has swung out far more radically than was immediately apparent. Something fundamental is happening to Western democracy.
My unease crystallized into hard conviction for me when reports finally surfaced of secret flights landing in the Polish hinterland and secret prisons in eastern Europe. An admittedly illogical but chilling reminiscence came to mind of the entire Polish Officer Corps marched into the Katyn forest and executed by the Red Army (the Germans were initially blamed for political reasons). This is the kind of thing that happens when large blind spots are created, and when perpetrators can reasonably assume that they will never face blame.
Yammer
6 years ago
"As one who has favoured military intervention in Iraq since the Clinton years and the failure of the status quo that had set into an uncooperative & sanction-emiserated Iraq, this issue (torture, imprisonment & extradition) above any others (even the WMD fiasco) caused me to realise that the pendulum has swung out far more radically than was immediately apparent. Something fundamental is happening to Western democracy."
I am not sure that Western democracy is changing for the worse, or if underlying undemocratic remnants from medieval thinking are just being better covered by the press.
The latter makes more sense to me, and therefore is actually a bit of good news, insofar as governments tend to react strongly (if slowly) to ameliorate the outrage of their constituents.
That is, revelations about Abu Gharib are actually a good thing, if followed by corrective action.
nightbloom
6 years ago
Yes, there is some comfort to be had in the backlash of the electorate. It's just troubling that things had to go there in the first place. Western governments (let alone the U.S.) should know better. Ideally, our restraint-mechanisms should be failsafe.
The very fact that torture was discussed in politics and in the press as a plausible instrument of policy shows just how temperamental and skin-deep our resistance to abuses really are. It didn't last long, and we seem to be coming around. But how little it takes to push the public temper to such an extreme.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Abu Gharib, this story was on the front page of the New York Times for sixty days in a row in the lead up to the Presidential election on 2004.
No prisoners were killed or maimed.
This same prison a year previous was a horror story under Sadam.
Why are we held to such standards when the bad guys are not.
It's like the cops trying to defeat the Hells Angels.
nightbloom
6 years ago
Abu Ghraib was certainly overdone for political purposes. Nevertheless, it was pretty odious, and really hurt the American image worldwide. More signally, it demonstrates how easily the chain of responsibility and oversight was corrupted by the overweening intelligence wing with an open and undefined mandate. I'm inclined to sympathize with General Janis Karpinski.
It's not so much that which concerns me however. It's the relative ease with which one power is able to circumvent widely-accepted norms and international law with regard to Guantanamo and the more clandestine activities in Europe.
I'm prepared to grant legitimate national security concerns and military necessities broad leeway to accomplish reasonable and defined goals, but there is something fundamentally unconservative about some of the practices that have been coming to light of late.
allan
6 years ago
I find it extremely difficult to believe that deputy PM Anne McLellan can't find anything about these illegal activities in Canadian airspace and on Canadian soil.
There were reports that numerous of these flights landed in Iqaluit, Nunavit, either on the way to or returning from Europe to the US or, perhaps, Cuba.
No doubt an important global airport in many ways sitting on the most popular polar route between North America and Europe, Iqaluit's volume of daily traffic, however, would hardly create a book keeping problem.
At best 20 or 30 commercial flights a day land there.
Surely, keeping an eye on airplanes that are devoid of any markings and that park far from any terminals ought to have been pretty easy sighting for local RCMP.
Given that the RCMP are permanent fixtures at that airport where drug detection is a high priority, why can't federal officials find traces of the US spook planes?
And it's not that the RCMP in Iqaluit are complete bumpkins either, because they had the ability to quietly confront and deport a number of suspicious people out of Nunavit only days after 9-11.
I would humbly suggest that Ms. McLellan has been told in no uncertain terms to mind her own business.
Of course we get the same positive spin out of Ottawa just as we did when Chretien was saying no to Canada's involvement in Iraq.
Not a friggin' mention at that time that the bulk of Canada's military would spend at least the next five years trying to clean up the mess the Americans left in Afhanistan.
Sorry Yammer, but I don't see any good in this. I don't trust government to act on this.
The stakes are simply too high from the point of view of the pointy heads who get to intervene at the highest level in Canada on matters such as this.
Who do we rely on? The RCMP, CSIS? These are the very people who have tossed bodies, threats, conspiracy theories and just about everything else, including the kitchen sink in front of politicians who try to probe into intelligence issues.
A Canadian could be forgiven if he or she suspecedt both the RCMP and CSIS were bankrolled by the US.
The imminent arrival of one of George W. Bush's greatest fans at the PM's residence later this month likely means the end of concern in Ottawa about these flights.
hellokitty
6 years ago
Ron - the reason we are held to different standards is because we claim to be better than that. I can't even believe I just had to type something that obvious.
Detainees at Abu Ghraib were beaten, bitten by dogs, and raped, yet because (so far as you know) "no prisoners were killed or maimed", you consider this a non-issue?
Moral relativism at it's finest.
rjm
6 years ago
You sure have a habit of making unsupportable claims.
tks,
rjm
rjm
6 years ago
These are all related to Iraqi deaths at abu ghraib prison. there may be a couple of overlaps but it is clear that quite a few people have died there.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3BC6AC22-32FC-4B6B-A89A-84FB9F5D0A54.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F766CBA2-FAF7-43EE-AEDC-44FB55781ACC.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A7FC399F-6479-47A5-9D4B-C65D58515D8D.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DA858B79-7E56-4CFB-A4DC-BC87ADEB2AD5.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7F7FDF80-5BCE-44A0-BEE2-4F1D86CE10A6.htm
fishguy
6 years ago
Thanks for those links rjm, but of course Ron is unlikely to accept al Jazeera as a valid source, because, well, they are all raghead terrists right? So how about this link?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/16/national/w113007S95.DTL
I have a little thought experiment for you Ron, imagine this if you will. Y'all come up near my place and I will hogtie you up, take you out to my hunt camp and practice some of these patented American non-torture techniques on you. I will guarantee you that I can get you to admit that it is torture after all, and that you agree that every single MP is guilty of war crimes and that you promise to personally go and execute every single one of them as soon as I let you go.
It is just hypothetical though, because I would never want to do those things to anyone. People who perform these acts on other human beings get really screwed up. How would you like to be raising kids down the street from some yankee GI who spent two tours in Iraq forcing poor schmucks to watch their sons or daughters get raped, brutalizing and humiliating other humans day after day after day.
neocon
6 years ago
I think we should cooperate with the US any and every which way we can. The so called "rendition" of a few terrorists, who commit the most despicable acts of crime possible - and who threaten to kill even us cowardly Canucks - is a whole lot better than, say, the Iranian method of questioning a prisoner to death - remember photojournalist Zahra Kazemi?
Your idealism, Mr Byers, conflicts with reality.
rjm
6 years ago
:)
I don't know what Ron looks like but I must admit that imagining cheney/rumsfeld in a "deliverance" style setting has somewhat of a calming effect on the psyche.
tks,
rjm
allan
6 years ago
Neocon, I think you are an American, at least as much a one as Ron E. is.
Seems to me there has yet to be one person in the hundreds of illegally detained Arabs, abused and then sent to Quanatnimo Bay for more torture by American invasionary forces, who has been proven to be anything other than a human being, some of them mere children too.
It's unfortunate Neocon that neither the American military and administration nor you seem to have any of the qualities that might advance your evolvement enough to be lumped into that human class.
Aw, such a proud tradition of killing for General Motors and Haliburton that you prop up there Neocon.
Remember G W. Bush's victory speech a week or so after th US invasion of Iraq.
"Mission accompished,", I think were his words.
Hardly.
Hey, it's not too late for you to volunteer Neocon. In fact I'm sure I hear your drummer calling you as I write this.
neocon
6 years ago
Allan,
People who work to rid the world of terrorists are heroes in my book. I'm too old to enlist, otherwise I might. I certainly would be proud to have either my son or daughter serve. So brand me an American, warmonger or whatever you prefer.
To me, the writer of this article is a terrorist apologist. Is that what you are too?
fishguy
6 years ago
neocon
Define Terrorist please
hellokitty
6 years ago
neocon,
I guess you're willing to accept the fact that a number of the people tortured and, yes, killed were innocent. And as another commenter points out, children.
Your response reveals you to be both morally and intellectually impoverished.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
oh, I wouldn't be so hard on the Americans. They are really smart. After all ...
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED TO REMOVE A COMMENT RACIST IN TONE. THE POSTER HAS APOLOGIZED FURTHER DOWN IN THIS THREAD.
- TYEE EDITOR.
neocon
6 years ago
What were the Nick Bergs and the Zahra Kazemis of the world guilty of?...Wrong place at the wrong time?
hellokitty, call me what you want in with your holier-than-thou elitism - I don't mind.
I'm sick of this perpetrator-is-the-victim mentality. Don't forget to vote NDP.
fishguy
6 years ago
What was Maher Arar guilty of?
Flying while swarthy?
neocon
6 years ago
fishguy: a person who engages in acts of terrorism...
fishguy, you really say some strange things in your post...how does your head get filled with such rubbish? Have you ever talked with anyone who's spent time in Iraq?
Ron: You make some good points. Thanks for your voice.
fishguy
6 years ago
Ron,
Nice comment, care to withdraw it?
fishguy
6 years ago
neocon,
okay then, play coy, define terrorism please
and which comments specifically do you find strange
hellokitty
6 years ago
neocon - What, exactly, do Nick Berg and Zahra Kazemi have to do with the torture of innocent people?
I'm not holier than thou, just better informed. And if being opposed to torture makes me an elitist in your dim view of the world, so be it. I've been called worse names by better people.
Sayonara.
neocon
6 years ago
I agree that Maher Arar was treated unjustly - and subsequently tortured. Someone has to answer for that. Sometimes people get put in jail for crimes they didn't commit - that happens - I wish it didn't - but it's not a perfect world.
Far from saying that our top poiticians violated international law, which is ridiculous.
fishguy
6 years ago
neocon,
If they agreed to allow the CIA to use our airspace and airports for "rendition" flights then the international law is pretty clear.
If they didn't do that, then they will open up the documents and it will all be cleared up.
poindexter
6 years ago
How come none of you terrorist apologists here have brought up Khadr and Guantanamo Bay?
Could it be because he was captured on the battlefield, armed, shooting at American troops? I think reality is that the majority of prisoners in Abu Graib or Guantanamo were not poor innocent citizens walking down the street to the store when they were arrested. Most are detained with reason. Like shooting at American troops.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the likes of Khadr. If they don't cooperate in prison and get a bit of intimidation or the occasional fist in the mouth, well, they should of thought of that before they picked up that AK-47 in Afghanistan, shouldn't they?
fishguy
6 years ago
poindexter,
Define terrorism, terrorist please
allan
6 years ago
Neocon, I haven't stated "our top politicians violated international law".
Read slower fellow, because you're only seeing what you think is there.
When I spoke of illegal activities in our airspace and on our soil, I was referring to US intelligence agency aircraft and the crews, which are clearly violating international laws carrying torture subjects.
Or perhaps you were just finally acknowledging your allegiance to a Bush government rather than a Canadian one.
fishguy
6 years ago
neocon says
Guess what though? Under that torture he admitted he was a terrorist, I think he even confessed to being OBL's right hand man! So if torture is so great, then I guess you are wrong when you say he was treated unjustly? He deserved it, the confession under torture proved that he deserved to be tortured right?
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
fishguy,
you ask me to withdraw my comment on Hurricane Katrina, why should I ?
I was only reflecting the views of many, including New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who in a speech just last night blamed Hurricane Katrina of being a product of God's anger toward the USA because of their activities in Iraq. In the same speech , he told his audience that New Orleans would be rebuilt as a 'chocolate' city with African Americans as the vast majority. A week earlier said his city should not include illegal Mexican aliens.
Imagine if Katrina hit Salt Lake City, and the Mayor , in a major speech said he wanted Salt Lake City as a white city.
I think we know who the racist is now, don't we.
cumbrian
6 years ago
Sunny Samson is right on about the media. Witness the following big and bold front page headline on this morning's Times Colonist just six days before Canada becomes just another branch plant of Haliburton Inc. "SALMON KINGS FIRE MAXWELL" Maxwell was the coach of a local Victoria hockey team.
fishguy
6 years ago
Ron Erwin,
The contract for posting on this site that you had to agree to when you signed up says:
Just trying to help you not get banned dude, if you want to go on being not quite as racist as the other guy your voice will disappear.
rjm
6 years ago
Lucky thing GW was on vacation at the time... or was it that his mouth was in the hospital for a kidney operation?
tks,
rjm
Wallace
6 years ago
Here once again are the earlier racist rantings of little ronnie:
"Sherry Charlie, A group of Indians sends an Indian child to be cared for by another Indian. The other Indian murders the Indian child. And this is our fault ? Give me a break."
On the muslims of the world little ronnie writes:
"these people are animals who are not going to follow the normal ways of waging war. They want us dead. I cannot help but to throw out all polteness and go for their jugular vein." and
""The real enemy is the Muslim Extremists, not the Americans."
little ronnie must have got instant wood when NO Mayor Nagen made his racist comments, and thought then it would be OK to repeat them hiding his own racism in that of another.
We know what you are little ronnie.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
To my detractors above, get a brain.
jtothemfk
6 years ago
Ronny, whether the mayor of N'orleans made such a speech or not is utterly beside the point. In his comments he did not suggest that the US made a hurricane that only killed black people. You, in a terribly lame attempt at irony, said it. And you showed your true colours too. You implied that if such a thing were possible that it was "smart" to do it.
Poindexter, Ronny and Neocon... I find it just surreal... your eager approval, more, bootlicking, racial, religious based boosterism of these type of tactics discussed in the article. When your standard of conduct towards suspects is that which is carried out by the Iranian government, when you simply right off as "ridiculous" any suggestion that our esteemed offices of government may be violating international law (I just about choked on that one), when you condemn a man for shooting at an American troopduring a war (how uncouth), when as a general principle you support sinking to such sub-human standards as standardized torture and de-humanization, you just lose all credibility. And it's people like you that make up this conservative party under which we'll suffer. May the creator help us all.
jtothemfk
6 years ago
I, along with fishguy, would also like to know how the bootlicking fascists define terrorist and terrorism. I wonder if they ever get further than "brown-skinned or black, muslim or sikh, living in a hot, probably dry but quite possibly tropical climate." Of course, jarheads, guided by more important jarheads, ordered by ever more important jarheads, firing weapons of mass destruction into cities from cruisers, helicopters and jets would never qualify.
loverofalllife
6 years ago
Neocon......."I'm too old to enlist, otherwise I might. I certainly would be proud to have either my son or daughter serve."
You Might enlist? but...you'd be so, so proud to have you children, shot at and maybe, die??
You are disgusting, YOU MIGHT but your kids, it's A-O.K.
They are still taking 'old' guys down south, you can still enlist and probably should then you might have a diferent opinion. Get your boot-straps on my dear fellow.
Same to you Irwin!!
You guys seem too young but too old to have ever been in military combat,right??
pekes
6 years ago
Hey allan: I was referring to the author, not you.
jtothemfk: the greatest weapon of mass destruction is the ignorance and misinformation you and your ilk spread on websites like this. You can put your head in the sand and pretend that bad guys (excuse me - people) don't exist but some islamofacist will blow your exposed latte-liberal a$$ to pieces because your an infidel.
The government of this land (same with our friends/allies/customers south of the border) are guilty of aiding and harbouring the Queen's enemies when they allow terrorist organizations (Hamas)to thrive and fund-raise - but I guess that doesn't violate international law. Give me a break - you terrorist appologists need to discern between fantasy (terror) and reality (terror).
jtothemfk
6 years ago
pekes, no one here seems to be suggesting "bad guys" don't exist. but they're as likely christian as muslim, as to where suit and ties as robes. Also, I'm no apologist. I do follow historical precedents, of what came before. I don't live in a world detached of history. Seems you do.
poindexter
6 years ago
Oh come on you terrorist apologists...no where did I or Pekes etc say terrorists were muslim or dark or whatever. Stop trying to play your stupid race card crap.
I said if you pick up an AK-47 in Afghanistan or Iraq, whether you are a darkie like Khadr or a whitey like John Walker the Yank, and you shoot at US troops, then you ARE a terrorist.
If captured during battle you will be sent to a US war prison. There, if you fail to cooperate, or maybe just because you are terrorist scum, expect to get boot f*cked.
Don't think that's fair? Well all's fair in love and war, isn't that right jtothemofok?
redrivergirl
6 years ago
Well, Ron, first you'd have to imagine FEMA only providing services to the black areas, while condemning mostly white neighbourhoods for that to be comparable. You'd have to imagine the black neighbourhoods with full electricity and trailers while the black ones mostly still off the grid!
redrivergirl
6 years ago
Apparently the senators have seen pictures that are not being released (there are attempts being made to release them, the gov't doesn't want them released) that are way worse than the ones we saw. I heard on American radio some of it. Googling would probably find it. I can't bring myself to write what I heard.
We can not be involved in these things.
tommymoore
6 years ago
What astounds me is the idea of some bible-brandishing, self-avowed 'Christian' describing the killing of civilians as "collateral damage". Or those same types who claim to occupy the moral high ground yet condone the inhumane treatment of people. Any people. Anywhere. Of any ethnic backround. For any reason. This is the crux of the issue, and has been pointed out in previous posts, we ourselves condone it in our complicity.
jtothemfk
6 years ago
still unclear as to how shooting at an armed soldier in a war makes one a terrorist... Are you suggesting that Canadians volunteering in the US army who are fighting in Iraq are terrorists? Is it the nationality of the shooter that is the defining factor? Yer just not making any sense, Pekes.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
jtothemfk
The difference ( see previous or exactly abone at this time )
The rules of war are that if you are wearing the uniform of a known enemy, whereas you should be able to relate to WW2 where we had Nazi combatants, clearly wearing Nazi uniforms, speaking German, killing Jews, fighting the Allied forces ( Canada, Britain, USA ) who were also clearly identified as signed up players in the War. You can kill the enemy, in fact even capture and put into prison camps.
Now these terrorists that were picked up during the Liberation of Iraq, were classified as enemy combatants. This is a special class that is recognised by the UN and are legally considered evil.
So that's your answer.This scum has no legal or moral ( except maybe by you ) rights whatsoever.
I could expound on how we are being more than fair to them than they would ever be to us, but I suspect you are to biased ( dumb ) to grasp this truth.
lynn
6 years ago
"This cannot change until we, in the west, look in the mirror and confront the true aims and narcissism of the power applied in our name: its extremes and terrorism.... Looking in the mirror means understanding that a violent and undemocratic order is being imposed by those whose actions are little different from the actions of fascists. The difference used to be distance. Now they are bringing it home".
Quote from the cover article in The New Statesman; "The Quiet Death of Freedom", written by journalist John Pilger, January 9, 2006.
http://pilger.carlton.com/print
fishguy
6 years ago
Ron Erwin,
You want to bring up WWII? Great! I guess in your estimation the Italian, Czech and Yugo Partisans and the French Resistance were illegal combatants? But wait, we (the Allies) spent the whole war supplying them with arms, intelligence, training and money! So that makes us terrorist supporters, right?
While it is true that "enemy combatants" are recognized by the UN, it is also true that the same set of "rules of war" absolutely FORBID the mistreatment of any and all people captured on the battlefield. Of course the neocons are famous for picking and choosing the laws they will regard as valid.
It is also widely accepted that armed resistance to foreign military occupation is legitimate. Sort of an international "common law". Believe me, if (when) we find M-16 toting GIs on our Canadian street corners they won't be safe from me, nor from my friends, nor I would hope, from large numbers of my fellow Candians. And we be just and in the right, and you may end up Vichy scum that will die first.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
fishguy'
with the gun registry, how exactly are you going to defend yourself from invading American troops ( like that's going to happen ).
Our military couldn't even fend off this.
What a bunch of dribble you write.
At least you acknowledged that enemy combatants are to be treated differently than legitimate warriors.
fishguy
6 years ago
Ron Erwin,
Gun registry is irrelevant, for the most part the Iraqis are causing hell with the equivalent of diesel and fertilizer. Our military is irrelevant, the Iraqi military was rolled up like a cheap rug, but three years on they are still killing two or three yanks per day average.
Lie, evidence is right there, I wrote
...the same set of "rules of war" absolutely FORBID the mistreatment of any and all people captured on the battlefield
any and all liar.
neocon
6 years ago
fishguy:
you don't know jack about the fertilizer or distillate markets
neocon
6 years ago
fishguy: now I get it ... sorry
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Geneva Convention fishguy, that's what we have to follow. Your heroes, the insurgents, don't follow any rules.
Something tells me you couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag anyway.
allan
6 years ago
pekes, what do you mean you were "referring to the author, not you(me)?
I thought I was responding to comments made by neocon, which suggests strongly that someone is writing here under at least two difference handles.
Care to clarify pekes, or is that neocon?
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
To those I offended. I had posted what I meant as an ironic joke, that referred to Hurricane Katrina being smart because it only killed black people.
I do apologize for this posting, although it was not meant to be racist, it appears some of you felt it was. To those I say I'm sorry.
poindexter
6 years ago
Holy crap. I read that hurricane comment right after Ron wrote it and laughed because I have a sense of humour. I got it because I don't take myself too seriously.
Anyone who was offended obviously is so uptight we could put a lump of coal in their butt and by election day we'd have a diamond so we could all retire.
lynn
6 years ago
allan: pekes, neo-con, ron, poindexter et al have a lot of hats to juggle...combined with their loopy euphoria over the polls lately they are bound to slip up now and then. :-)
Makes you think they are almost human, after all.
C'est impossible.
rjm
6 years ago
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/64E74D9A-72DE-4525-9883-926B2A9BE47E.htm
tks,
rjm
Truman Green
6 years ago
Well, Ron, I've defended your right to say outrageous things before when others were recommending that you be banned. But I'll be very disappointed to see your comments appear here again. I was offended by your remark and I don't offend easily. Yeah, it might be because I am a black person. I can only speculate about that as several others who might not be seem to have little trouble with taking your comment as a joke.
Well I think it's pretty hateful. I sincerely hope you are banned from this site because I think a joke about killing any discernible group is sufficient to get you booted off Tyee.
If this doesn't happen I'll be very disappointed in the editors at Tyee.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
To use aljazeera as a reliable source, is, well it's disgusting. What next the Peking Times ?
Or maybe The New York Times.
fishguy
6 years ago
Allan, hilarious, nice catch
neocon/pekes, can't keep your lies straight? No worries mate, you have some good company hehehe
http://www.wimp.com/update/
fishguy
6 years ago
Ron Erwin,
Slagging the reliability of the NYT? WOW! Now you are starting to sound like Chomsky. Enjoy yourself on the left side comrade.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
fishguy,
The New York Times is fishwrap, only reporting lies told by Liberal Democrats.
Read Maureen Dowd if you ever get the chance. This vile woman is right up your alley.
Wallace
6 years ago
Ronnie writes:
"To use aljazeera as a reliable source, is, well it's disgusting. What next the Peking Times ?
Or maybe The New York Times."
Funniest thing I've read today, ronnie. Thanks.
I disagree wholeheartedly, however, on your opinion about Dowd. Dowd provides great political and social insight. She would never had shilled for the fascist Bushies, like Judy Miller of the NY Times. Or the entire elite editorial squad of that squalid rag, for that matter.
allan
6 years ago
Ron Erwin, if you have a minute, I'd urge you to go to the Aljazeera news website and read the story today (Sunday), on Canada sending troops to Afghanistan.
Perhaps when you do you can come back here and tell us all the bias and lies you find.
If you had a brain you would understand that Aljazeera is far more accurate and balanced in its coverage on middle east affairs than most western media.
Aljazeera also carries a story today on Israel threatening to attack Iran over perceived plans to develop nuclear weapons.
I'd say Aljazeera went a bit overboard on that story in that it refrained from noting that Israel is one of a handful of nations with nuclear weapons even though it denies and denies and denies the fact.
Sounds to me like the US has cashing in an IOU with a client state, don't you think?