Give "u.s." Immunity, and We'll Give You Freedom...
and even if you don't give us immunity, we will take
it for ourselves
by Mauricio Rosas and Lorelei Jackson
06.24.04
Facing global opposition fueled by the Iraqi prisoner abuse
scandal, the United States on Wednesday dropped its attempt to renew a U.N.
exemption shielding American troops from international prosecution for war
crimes. The same day, anonymous "US officials" told the Washington Post
that the US plans to extend immunity for all US and coalition personnel from
Iraqi courts beyond the June 30 hand-over of what Washington calls "sovereignty."
The abuse by coalition forces of prisoners
in Iraq is largely responsible for the opposition among the 15 council members.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) steps in only when a nation refuses
or cannot carry out its own probe, making it highly unlikely US citizens or
coalition members would ever appear before the tribunal. How can
the US extend immunity for all US and coalition personnel from Iraqi courts,
shielding themselves and bypassing the UN once again, from Iraqi investigations
into war crimes, when the ICC must step in when a nation "cannot" or "will
not" investigate those allegations?
But the Bush administration insists that the ICC threatens U.S.
sovereignty. They also argue that, given Washington's military predominance
and the unique responsibilities for maintaining international peace that go
with it, U.S. peacekeepers were particularly vulnerable to politically-inspired
prosecutions by the ICC.
The administration has also cut off military or financial
assistance to about three dozen countries that refused to sign such an agreement.
Ninety-four countries, including parts of Europe and most of the Caribbean,
Latin America, and a substantial number of African
states, have ratified the Statute. (Of course there were some
inducements.)
On January 15, 2003, the Secretary
of Defense (SECDEF), directed the General Counsel of the Department of Defense
(DOD GC) to establish a Working Group within the Department of Defense
to assess the legal, policy, and operational issues relating to the interrogations
of detainees held by the United States Armed Forces in the war on terrorism.
That Working Group report redefined
definition of techniques used to interrogate prisoners and ways to circumvent
the Geneva Convention. These were first used at Guantanamo Bay Naval
Station (GTMO) and then sadly, transferred to Abu Ghraib and other detention
centers.
All the specifics of these directives are not yet public,
and much is just now coming to the light of day. Some of those directives
already made public, have provided a legal basis for the use of harsh
interrogation techniques. Legal loopholes to absolve US officials of
war crimes include torturing prisoners in another country, or using surrogates
to do the actual torture, or by calling prisoners "unlawful combatants".
Who gave the Secretary of Defense the right to redefine the Geneva Convention?
Certainly not the Working Group "he" called into existence. Was it George
W. Bush?
Is anyone accountable in this administration, other than
the rank and file?
Apparently not. So far, only low level military personnel
and civilian contractors have been accused or charged with abuses.
Steven A. Stefanowicz, a civilian interrogator,
described the “Sleep Meal Management Program,” in which prisoners
were allowed no more than four hours of sleep in a 24-hour period, over a total
of 72 hours. Stefanowicz said that military police were “allowed to do
what is necessary,” to keep prisoners awake during that period short
of killing them.
Among the previously unknown incidents was
the death in January 2004 of an Iraqi prisoner at a forward operating base
in Asad, Iraq, where a detainee had resisted questioning by Special Forces
soldiers from Operational Detachment Delta. The prisoner died after he was
gagged and his hands were tied to the top of his cell door, in an incident
being reviewed for “consideration of misconduct”.
In a second incident in June 2003, at a “classified
interrogation facility” in Baghdad, an Iraqi prisoner was found dead
after being tied to a chair for questioning, and after being subjected to physical
and psychological stress. The Denver Post said an autopsy had determined that
he died of a “hard, fast blow” to the head, but no disciplinary
action was taken.
A third incident involved Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed
Mowhoush, who died in November 2003 at a detention facility run by the Third
Armored Cavalry, a unit based in Fort Carson, CO. A 27 November announcement
by the American military command in Baghdad described Mowhoush as having died
“of natural causes.” That was a lie. In fact according
to an autopsy report, Gen. Mowhoush died of "asphyxia due to smothering and
chest compression." According to documents first obtained by the Denver Post,
two soldiers slid a sleeping bag over him and rolled him repeatedly from his
back to his stomach; one then sat on his chest and covered his mouth. Only
after the Denver Post's report last week did the Pentagon acknowledge the truth
and say that a homicide investigation was underway.
An AP report by John Lumpkin on 22 May 2004
said the Pentagon was investigating 37 prisoner deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The excuses for these 37 deaths are dubious. “Shot while trying to escape”
was one of them. Other causes of death were either head injury or suffocation.
Pfc. Andrew J. Sting of Bradner, and Pfc. Jeremiah
J. Trefny entered guilty pleas at a 14 May 2004 court-martial in Iraq. They
pleaded guilty to giving electric shocks to an Iraqi prisoner at the Al Mahmudiya
prison. Sting pleaded guilty to charges of assault, cruelty and maltreatment,
dereliction of duty, and conspiracy to assault. He was sentenced to a year
in prison, a reduction of rank, forfeiture of pay and a bad-conduct discharge.
Trefny pleaded guilty to cruelty and maltreatment, dereliction of duty, false
official statement, violating a lawful order, and conspiracy to commit assault.
He was sentenced to eight months in prison, reduction of rank and forfeiture
of all pay, and he will also receive a bad-conduct discharge.
Two soldiers at Camp Bucca, Iraq, (Tim Canjar
and Lisa Girman) were discharged from service for abusing prisoners.
Or take the case of two Afghan detainees who
died at Bagram airbase in December 2002. In March 2003 the New York Times reported
that their deaths had been ruled homicides; only then did the Pentagon say
that an investigation was underway. But no further information became available
about the case until this month, when the Times learned that the prisoners
died while being interrogated by personnel from the same intelligence unit
that later served at Abu Ghraib. After 17 months, no one has been charged or
otherwise held responsible for the deaths, nor are Pentagon officials able
to plausibly explain why there has been no conclusion to the investigation.
Although Americans can sue foreign governments
for war crimes committed as long ago as World War II, Iraqis will not be able
to sue either the US or UK military over war crimes in 2003-04, because Coalition
Provisional Authority’s "Order 17" has granted Coalition personnel impunity
from "local criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction and from any form
of arrest or detention other than by persons acting on behalf of their parent
states." Private contractors working for the Coalition are also protected,
"immune from Iraqi Legal Process with respect to acts performed by them within
their official activities."
I'm wondering how the Working
Group's report translates to include prisoners in a war we started with
Iraq? Surely they are "POW's" and should have enjoyed the protection
of the Geneva Convention..
After the abuses of Iraqi prisoners filled
television screens all over the world, I couldn't believe that these "official
activities" are what our government intends to protect with their immunity
plea. Our soldiers and citizens are in more danger now than ever before.
I remember the universal outrage when the media
showed pictures of American POWs on television, looking frightened and unsure
about their fate. I remember the outcries from American citizens, claiming
that Iraqis were animals for showing America’s finest fully clothed and
unharmed. The utter horror when later we were shown others hanging and charred
and we viewed the "beheadings" of innocent civilians. The terrorist
tell us in out-of-focus video tapes that these beheadings were in retaliation
for the abuses. Do beheadings fit the crime? I think, not, and it
is up to our military and the Iraqi police to bring those people to justice.
In the interim, will anyone ever be held accountable for US abuses other than
the rank and file?
Colin Powell speaking to the National League of Families said,
"We must not cede any of our nation's sovereignty over domestic judicial
matters to an international body. Any action taken by the International Criminal
Court (ICC) against a citizen or national of the United States shall be considered
an offense against the laws of our nation". Pretty strong statement there
Colin!
"Given the recent revelations from Abu Ghraib prison,"
said Richard Dicker, who follows the international justice issues for Human
Rights Watch, "the U.S. government has picked a hell of a moment to ask
for special treatment on war crimes."
And this is about the spread of freedom and liberty?
There are about 140,000 US troops currently
in Iraq and 25,000 from other countries. Torture and ill-treatment must never
be encouraged, condoned or ignored by the citizens of the US or any other country,
otherwise we place all our people in even further dangerous situations.
"Let me make very clear the position
of my government and our country: we do not condone torture. I have never ordered
torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that
torture is not a part of our soul and our being," Bush told reporters
at the White House.
The Working
Report makes it clear the redefined interrogation techniques are
not defined as torture. It makes clear the
ways to sidestep, so to speak, the Geneva Convention. It also makes clear
that, and as the Supreme Court has recognized, the President enjoys complete
discretion in tbe exercise of his Commander-in-Chief authority including in
conducting operations against hostile forces. Because both " executive
power and the command of the military and naval forces is vested in the President,"
the Supreme Court has unanimously stated that it is "the President alone
who is constitutionally invested with the entire charge of hostile operations.
" Hamilron v. Dillin.
If the buck does not stop at Rumsfeld our SECDEF,
then where does the buck stop, Mr. President?
America has never been at a lower point in
the minds of citizens around the world our relationships with other countries,
including natural allies, have seldom been as strained. Iraq may be free, but
immunity will not change the new face of America that this administration has
given us.
www.voiceoffreedom.com
