America Doesn't Torture (We just get others to torture for us)

The president-elect has assured us that his country doesn't torture and he will ensure that this is true. Another question the media should ask is whether this also means the U.S. will no longer transfer prisoners to countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia in order for them to be tortured? Rendition, after all, began with the Clinton administration so it's not just Republicans who are implicated in torture.

Fact x Importance = News (19 Nov): Camp X-Ray, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan-Pakistan, and Somalia

TORTURE AND CAMP X-RAY: HERE'S ONE FOR THE OBAMA IN-TRAY

The New York Times reports, "Military prosecutors have decided to file new war-crimes charges against" Mohammed al-Qahtani." It continues, "The decision will put additional pressure on the incoming Obama administration to announce whether it will abandon the Bush administration’s military commission system for prosecuting terror suspects."

No kidding. Al-Qahtani may have been dubbed the "20th hijacker" for the media (a tag that has been used for others like Zacarias Moussaoui) but the real headline issue is that he was the poster boy for the "enhanced interrogation" techniques pushed through --- without legal sanction --- by the Bush Administration. The issue of how far to go in questioning him was one of the test cases for the series of Administration memos in 2002 that set aside the Geneva Conventions and tried out methods, authorised by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, such as "prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, exposure to cold, involuntary grooming...[and] requiring him to dance with a male interrogator and to obey dog commands, including 'stay,' 'come' and 'bark'".

A Pentagon inquiry in 2005 found that the techniques were "degrading" and "abusive". Possibly in light of the fear that the case had been compromised by the not-quite-torture approach, the military without explanation dropped charges against al-Qahtani in May 2008.

IRAQ: AL-MALIKI TRIES TO SELL THE STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT

Keeping up his part of the bargain with the US Government, the Iraqi Prime Minister made a 12-minute speech in support of the agreement signed on Sunday by his Cabinet.

Perhaps more importantly, Ayatollah Sistani refrained from a full endorsement of the agreement on Tuesday: “Any agreement that doesn’t win national consensus will not be acceptable and will be a reason for more suffering for Iraqis.”

Reports that Iran had privately shifted to support the agreement were not borne out, at least in public, on Tuesday. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said, “We have to wait. Please allow us to make our stance after it is finalized.” The Speaker of the Parliament (and probably Presidential candidate in 2009) Ali Larijani did not wait, however, saying, that the US "was seeking to turn Iraq into one of its states....The Iraqi Parliament should keep on resisting.”

IRAN: POLITICAL AND LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES

A series of stories to ponder from and about Tehran:

The Iranian Parliament confirmed the new Interior Minister, Sadeq Mahsouli, by a 138-112 margin despite questions about his wealth. He replaces Ali Kordan, who was dismissed by the Parliament after the revelations of his faked doctorate from Oxford University.

In Baghdad, US forces have detained an Iranian who they claim is a senior member of the Quds Forces of the Revolutionary Guards. They allege not only that he was smuggling weapons but also carrying cocaine.

Meanwhile, Jahan News is reporting that Hossein Derahkshan, a prominent blogger who also writes for The Guardian of London, has been arrested on charges of spying for Israel.

AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN: ALL IS WELL, REALLY

From the Washington Post: "A rise in Taliban attacks along the length of a vital NATO supply route that runs through this border town in the shadow of the Khyber Pass has U.S. officials seeking alternatives, including the prospect of beginning deliveries by a tortuous overland journey from Europe."

Simon Jenkins, who has always been grumpy about the US-UK intervention in Afghanistan since October 2001, is now even grumpier:

The error of Afghanistan is far more serious than the error of Iraq. If the resulting insurgency is now exported to Pakistan, both errors will seem peccadillos. Pakistan is the sixth largest state in the world, and nuclear-armed.
The awful prospect is that Obama and Brown may feel too weak to learn from Iraq and pull back. They will blunder on, not to a clean defeat but to something far worse, a war of attrition whose poison will spread across a subcontinent.

SOMALIA: YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A GLANCE

While everyone is riveted by The Pirate Story off the Somalian coast, Martin Fletcher in The Times of London offers a potent reminder of how the War on Terror has brought further disruption, destruction, and even chaos to the country:

There are several insurgent forces, but one of the most powerful is the Shabab - a group of virulently anti-Western jihadists that has now eclipsed the Islamic Courts movement of which it was once part.

Somalia's nightmare may be only just starting. President Yusuf predicts wholesale slaughter if the Shabab seize Mogadishu. Diplomats fear that the Shabab will wage all-out war with other insurgent forces, including those of the Islamic Courts, for control of the country once Ethiopian troops - the common enemy - are withdrawn.

An Obama Presidency: The Niggles Begin

As I was on the move, I wrote this before reading today's papers. The Times of London is claiming, based on information from "aides", that "Barack Obama will move swiftly to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office."

With a couple of colleagues from Clinton Institute, listened to a speech by Senator Patrick Leahy at University College Dublin.

Leahy, a skillful speaker, gave a short set-piece presentation about the excitement and hope of the Obama victory, includoing the possibility of rebuilding US image abroad.

Not much detail, however, so I thought I would press in question-and-answer. "Given the Bush Administration's vast expansion of executive power, for example, on torture, detention, surveillance, and the use of signing statements, how soon could we expect Obama and the Democratic-led Congress to roll back those powers?"

That's when the warning flags came out. Leahy was forceful enough in saying that the US Government had forgotten the basic maxim, "Follow the laws", so American image as promoter of freedom had been tarnished. And it should be noted that Leahy, as chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, has given Bush Administration a rough ride over its re-interpretation of laws and power, especially in the case of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But he wouldn't grasp the nettle on the question. He merely said, "I hope some of these executive powers will be rolled back; if not, there will be pressure." That pressure was undefined, and the rest of the answer was a stall on whether Obama and Congress revoke powers on torture, detention, surveillance, and military operations.

And there were more disturbing omissions and deflections. In response to another question, Leahy said, "We're going to need a bipartisan coalition to close [the US detention facility] at Guantanamo".

Ummm, no, you don't. Just as President Bush could open authorise detention with an executive order, so President Obama could stop revoke it with a signature. The issue has nothing to do with Congressional authority.

Translation? I think Leahy is still worried that the Democrats will look "soft" on national security if they challenge --- at least without assured support from some Republicans --- the Bush Administration's grab of executive power.

That impression is reinforced by Leahy's (non)-answer to another excellent question: "Given the Bush Administration's effective institutionalisation of power and Government infra-structure, for example, through the extension of military authority, bases, and planning, could the Obama Presidency do much to push this back?" Leahy spoke for several minutes in reply, but I could not find a single word of substance to jot down.