Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:54 PM Dec 2014

Will the E.U. Hold the U.S. Accountable for Torture? (Vijay Prashad) TRNN

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12820

Will the E.U. Hold the U.S. Accountable for Torture?



Excerpt for those who can't watch the vid, follow the link for full interview:

PRASHAD: Well, here is the report. It's an extraordinary document. It's perhaps best put next to the Church Commission report, which criticizes the CIA for its covert activities. That came out in 1975. This report in a sense is part two. But it's a very specific subject, which is the post-9/11 extraordinary rendition and torture program run by the CIA.

You know, most of the detailed stories were well known beforehand. I mean, people might have read Jane Mayer's very fine book, The Dark Side, which in 2008 cataloged much of the kind of internal discussions in the Bush White House, the so-called torture memos, put together by people like John Yoo, their discussions inside the CIA, people like Cofer Black in conversation with John Ashcroft on one side, George Tenet on the other. And, of course, in the middle of all this was Dick Cheney.

But there is something about this Senate report that's really quite disturbing. One is the level of detail. It details the kind of torture conducted. And, by the way, there is no doubt about it after reading the details of the report that what was done was not enhanced interrogation but was actually torture. You know, there is no question, when you look at the small print, the actual ways in which human beings are handled. So there is that on the surface.

A second thing that's extraordinary about this report is it shows you how there was anxiety within the CIA. In other words, they knew very well that what they were doing was wrong. There's a moment after Abu Zubaida has been tortured, where the CIA cables show CIA agents themselves saying that they were choking up or they were asking for reassignment. They were fed up with what they have been asked to do. There is a moment where they say that they shouldn't tell Colin Powell about what's happening, because he will--to quote the report, he will blow his stack. In other words, they knew what they were doing was wrong. What they were doing was wrong. And they yet covered it up.

So the report is very significant, because it lays out in excruciating detail what had been happening, and it shows that the CIA was well aware that what they were doing was outside the bounds.
And one thing about this, I think, that's very important: where the report fails is it doesn't actually tie a proper chain of command. It puts a lot of the blame on the CIA. And it's not clear that this is simply or merely the CIA going outside the lines, drawn by the political elite. The CIA seems to have been following somebody's orders. But that's not clear in the report. It looks like the CIA was bumbling. There is a defense already inside the report that suggests that the CIA was in uncharted territory. And two psychologists on independent contract were paid $81 million to essentially produce the mechanism or the techniques of torture. I find this part of the report a little less credible.

DESVARIEUX: Okay. So, Vijay, you mentioned that, there not being a clear chain of command. Is that partially because then you can't really hold people accountable?

PRASHAD: Well, this is an interesting question. Already the UN high rapporteur on human rights has suggested that the United States, being a signatory to the Convention against Torture, has to act on the basis of this report. You know, whether there is a chain of command established or not, the United States has itself now said that it has conducted torture, and therefore the government has to in some way act. So there is no question that on the international terrain there is a call for accountability.
The problem is, of course, who do you hold accountable? Do you hold accountable the lowest level CIA official? You know, 80 some percent of the people who did the torture were on contract. Do you hold them accountable? I think you must. Do you hold accountable the people that signed off on these orders? I think that's inevitable. In the report it's clear that the CIA bureaucracy was knee-deep involved in setting policy for torture. It's also clear that Condoleezza Rice, as the national security adviser, was signing off on this stuff. It's also clear the Dick Cheney was aware.

Now, in the report they suggest that the president--in other words, George W. Bush--was unaware of the actual mechanisms of torture until 2006. It now appears that Cheney says this is not true. Well, that needs to be resolved somewhere. But there's no question that even though there's no direct chain of command established in the report, there are indications of complicity at the very highest level. So if there is going to be accountability, I think there is enough evidence here for some people to at least be brought up before some kind of tribunal.

And I should say on the other side, if the United States is not going to act, the European Union is certainly going to act, because now there's direct evidence that Poland, Lithuania, and Romania had been destinations for black sites where torture was conducted with the knowledge of those governments. So it's clear that the Council of Europe report that was created by Dick Marty in 2007 was not able to fully establish the complicity of these governments. Now that is clear from this report.

So if there's no internal accountability in the United States, there's certainly going to be some serious legal challenges in Europe.
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

MADem

(135,425 posts)
1. How? How can they "hold them accountable?" Send the EU Army to beat down their doors?
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:01 PM
Dec 2014

Oh wait...there isn't one of those. And then there's that whole NATO thing, too.

Europeans aren't going to get too onerous on this matter, because, I suspect, there's plenty of blame to go around. They got gamed by Porgie, and for reasons of their own (plenty to do with profit as much as their ideas about "security" I suspect), they went along with the program.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
2. It isn't clear, obviously, at this point. He is calling for some kind of tribunal, the fact is they
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:13 PM
Dec 2014

went against the Geneva Convention after SCOTUS ruled it did apply, those involved were fully aware of the criminality of it all since repeated attempts at immunity were made, first by GW, later pardons were sought, then international law apparently applies due to rendition. Calling it enhanced interrogation "is just hooey".

France is exiting NATO, it's just the beginning of blowback, too early to tell where it is all going, but it isn't going away.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
3. France hasn't been "in" NATO for nearly a half CENTURY . They aren't "exiting" it at all, unless
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:38 PM
Dec 2014

we're going back in a time machine several decades to the mid-twentieth century--1966, to be precise. Their cooperation with NATO is nothing like the full-bore associations that other nations enjoy.

The French left NATO so they could heat/light their homes with USSR nuclear technology, in essence. They came back (ostensibly, as "full" members) under Sarkozy, but we have no basing there--our situation with them is pretty much unchanged. They're "members," and they sit around the table in Brussels, but they're "members LITE"--kind of like being a DUer without a star!! When they start getting shirty about things like the pace of withdrawal in Afghanistan, they're basically ignored by everyone else. I'm not saying this to be mean, it's because their contribution to the effort merits very little attention to anything they have to say on the topic. Those that do the bulk of the heavy lifting get more "say" in how things go.

The only person I've seen saying that France would leave this (light) association is Marine LePen--and she's a racist far rightie, a xenophobic leader of a whole load of "Keep France for the French" haters, so who knows if her take is accurate? I haven't seen Hollande breathe a word about this--not a peep. Even if they did leave, and I'm not so sure they will, it wouldn't really matter. They can take their ball and go home, the game is over, pretty much. If they don't want to "play" in the current crisis, it will impact them far more than it would us, seeing as the drama du jour is playing out in THEIR (not our) former colonies, and a shitload of those folks are THEIR countrymen, living in their arrondissements, and fomenting violence on their streets. They're better off in the game than out of it, at least in terms of intelligence - sharing.

I don't think anyone will aver that what USA (and friends) did was "right." That said, I simply don't believe there is the political will in the EU to do anything more about it besides perhaps hold a pointless hearing or two and issue a "strongly worded document." If that.

This doesn't mean I "approve" -- it just means that there are too many people with their hands dirty, even those who eschewed membership in NATO all these years, to make for a unified front on these matters. And without one of those (even with one, half the time), very little gets done in the EU. The concept is choked by bureaucracy on a good day.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
4. I have no doubt all you say is true, and we'll soon know if all this drama is nothing more
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:12 PM
Dec 2014

than theater.

While all the drama's been playing out in the MSM, the budget for MIC has been increased. We'll be throwing money into that sink hole for eternity so that more of this terrorism can be wrought on both sides, it's big money these days since that too has been privatized.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Will the E.U. Hold the U....