Update on Muntazar al-Zaidi: Brother Confirms "Torture"

The Iraqi Government's blocking of any news of Muntazar al-Zaidi's status, as politics turns to other issues such as the showdown over the status of the troops from Britain and five other countries, is almost complete today --- at least in the "Western" media.

The only story of significance is in The New York Times, reporting on the first visit to al-Zaidi by a family member. Speaking on al-Baghdadia television after the visit, al-Zaidi's brother Uday claimed that his brother had been "tortured". Muntazar al-Zaidi was stripped to his underwear, had cold water dumped on him, and was hit with a thick cable. Earlier beatings and burnings by cigarettes had left him with "bruises on his face, stitches on the bridge of his nose and swelling in his legs, arms and hands".

After the treatment, Muntazar al-Zaidi "told [his captors] to bring me a blank sheet of paper and I would sign it, and they could write whatever they wanted. I am ready to say I am a terrorist or whatever you want.” He added, however, that he did not write or sign anything as a result of the beatings and that his letter to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had not been coerced.

Significantly, the Times did not bother to follow up on the Al Baghdadia interview, for example, by noting the reports in Sunday's The Observer of Muntazar al-Zaidi's beating on his way to the police station. The reporter did call al-Maliki's office who --- unsurprisingly --- declined to make any comment.

Disturbingly, al-Zaidi has not been allowed to see lawyers. There is no information on when he might come to trial.

The Bush Administration in a Word: Barneycam

Of all the blessings given to the world by the Bush Administration --- Afghanistan, Camp X-Ray, Torture, the handling of Katrina, the wishing away of climate change --- this may be the one that best sums up the legacy of Bush and Co. (Indeed, I understand the looped transmission of this video may be succeeding waterboarding as a favoured technique in Christmas Greetings to America's enemies/detainees/"unlawful combatants".)

President George, in one of his more lucid acting moments of recent times, tells Barney: "We're sprinting to the finish."

Not fast enough, son. Not fast enough.

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hY7A4gZ1GVY[/youtube]

Bush's Successful War on Terror: The Elephant Story

Speaking at the US Army War College yesterday, President Bush declared:

While there's room for an honest and healthy debate about the decisions I made -- and there's plenty of debate -- there can be no debate about the results in keeping America safe. Here at home, we've prevented numerous terrorist attacks.

That keep-the-faith statement reminds me of an incident a few years ago:

I was walking on the High Street in Birmingham, and I noticed a fellow, seated on the ground, snapping his fingers. I had to ask him why.

"Keeping. The. Elephants Away. Keeping the Elephants. Away," he said in time to his snapping.

"But," I interjected, "there aren't any elephants within a 1000 miles."

He kept snapping, "See. It. Works. See. It. Works."

One could put the point that there are other reasons why there hasn't been a repeat of 11 September 2001. For example, it might be that Al Qa'eda --- given the massive upsure in US security measures --- went for "softer" targets from Indonesia to Morocco to Kenya. It might be that "terrorists" had far more lucrative campaigns, in publicity and in targets, in the US-fostered turmoil in Iraq. It might be that "terrorism", far from being a centrally-directed campaign against the US, was more a case of local and regional movements pursuing local and regional operations. And it might be because, with a range of co-operative measures --- measures that weren't necessarily led by the Bushian approach of rendition and torture --- other countries were able to curb terrorist planning.

Indeed, one might consider that Spain hasn't had a significant terrorist attack since March 2004: was this because Spain pursued illegal surveillance, detention, and torture? Or how about the UK since 7 July 2005? France, Holland, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, etc., etc. haven't had an attack at all during the Bush years: was this because they accepted his extra-legal  methods?

I doubt, however, that any of this will concern the President. Because the way he's framed his cause-and-effect argument, he's in a no-lose situation. Consider: if there was a terrorist attack on the US in the next 35 days, would Bush follow his logic and say that it was because his "any means necessary" approach had failed? Or would he and his remaining supporters simply assert that, in the wake of such an attack, the need for surveillance/detention/torture is only reinforced?

Just a Reminder on Torture: Dick Cheney is a Liar

It's one thing, from your office of Vice President, to make an unprecedented grab for Executive Power. It's another to lie blatantly about your efforts.



Dick Cheney to ABC News, 15 December 2008:

On the question of so-called "torture", we don't do torture, we never have. It's not something that this administration subscribes to. Again, we proceeded very cautiously; we checked, we had the Justice Department issue the requisite opinions in order to know where the bright lines were that you could not cross. The professionals involved in that program were very, very cautious, very careful, wouldn't do anything without making certain it was authorized and that it was legal. And any suggestion to the contrary is just wrong.

Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in US Custody, December 2008:

The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) interrogation program included at least one SERE* training technique, waterboarding. Senior Administration lawyers, including Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and David Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, were consulted on the development of legal analysis of CIA interrogation techniques. Legal opinions subsequently issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpreted legal obligations under U.S. anti-torture laws and determined the legality of CIA interrogation techniques. Those OLC opinions distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws, rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody and influenced Department of Defense determinations as to what interrogation techniques were legal for use during interrogations conducted by U.S. military personnel.

*SERE stands for Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape training, exposing US forces to techniques “based on illegal exploitation (under the rules listed in the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) of prisoners over the last 50 years”.

Update: The Torture Blame Game

Yesterday we noted the Senate Armed Services Committee's report concluding that top Bush Administration officials authorised the abuse and, dare you use the word, torture of detainees. Dan Froomkin, the outstanding blogger for The Washington Post, has an excellent round-up of the report and coverage.

It is his personal question, however, that is most striking:

There's...the obvious question that comes to mind after considering the sequence of events: How are these not war crimes?