Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Rumsfeld Responsible for Torture, Report Says


WASHINGTON - A bipartisan Senate report released today says that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials are directly responsible for abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and charges that decisions by those officials led to serious offenses against prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere.

The Senate Armed Services Committee report accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the principal architects of the plan to use harsh interrogation techniques on captured fighters and terrorism suspects, rejecting the Bush administration's contention that the policies originated lower down the command chain.

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the panel concludes. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

The report, released by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., and based on a nearly two-year investigation, said that both the policies and resulting controversies tarnished the reputation of the United States and undermined national security. "Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority," it said.

The panel's investigation focused on the Defense Department's use of controversial interrogation practices, including forced nudity, painful stress positions, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and use of dogs. The practices, some of which had already been adopted by the CIA at its secret prisons, were adapted for interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and later migrated to U.S. detention camps in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the infamous Abu Ghraib prison.

"The Committee's report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody," McCain, himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, said in a statement. "These policies are wrong and must never be repeated."

White House officials have maintained the measures were approved in response to demands from field officers who complained that traditional interrogation methods weren't working on some of the more hardened captives. But Senate investigators, relying on documents and hours of hearing testimony, arrived at a different conclusion.

The true genesis of the decision to use coercive techniques, the report said, was a memo signed by President Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the Geneva Convention's standards for humane treatment did not apply to captured al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. As early as that spring, the panel said, top administration officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, participated in meetings in which the use of coercive measures was discussed. The panel drew on a written statement by Rice, released earlier this year, to support that conclusion.

In July 2002, Rumseld's senior staff began compiling information about techniques used in military survival schools to simulate conditions that U.S. airmen might face if captured by an enemy that did not follow the Geneva conditions. Those techniques - borrowed from a training program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, or SERE - included waterboarding, or simulated drowning, and were loosely based on methods adopted by Chinese communists to coerce propaganda confessions from captured U.S. soldiers during the Korean war.

The SERE program became the template for interrogation methods that were ultimately approved by Rumsfeld himself, the report says. In the field, U.S. military interrogators used the techniques with little oversight and frequently abusive results, the panel found.

"It is particularly troubling that senior officials approved the use of interrogation techniques that were originally designed to simulate abusive tactics used by our enemies against our own soldiersand that were modeled, in part, on tactics used by the Communist Chinese to elicit false confessions from U.S. military personnel," the report said.

Defenders of the techniques have argued that such measures were justified because of al-Qaida's demonstrated disregard for human life. But the panel members cited the views of Gen. David Petraeus, now the head of U.S. Central Command, who in a May, 2007 letter to his troops said humane treatment of prisoners allows Americans to occupy the moral high ground.

"Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right," wrote Petraeus, who at the time was the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy."

Sunday, November 9, 2008

US Military Admits to Afghan Civilian Killings


While stressing their allegations of Taliban complicity in the deaths, the US military admitted yesterday that it had killed 37 civilians in an air strike on a wedding party in Kandahar Province early last week. The report comes just days after Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued his government’s assessment of the attack.

Long delays and repeated denials have damaged the credibility of international forces with both the Afghan government and the civilian populace in the wake of previous US strikes which killed large numbers of civilians, such as August’s strike in Herat Province. The strike killed at least 90 civilians, but the US continued to deny any significant civilian casualties for over a month, finally revising their account in early October.

Even then, the US insisted the Herat strike killed “more than 30″ civilians, and in spite of an Afghan government investigation that concluded it was based on a false tip called in by a rival tribe, they continued to maintain that the killings were “legitimate self-defense.”

Admitting the latest killings more quickly may relieve tensions with the Afghan government somewhat, but President Karzai is still pressuring President-elect Obama to halt the growing US reliance on air power in populated areas of Afghanistan. In spite of this, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher says he does not believe the killings have damaged relations with Afghanistan.

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/09/us-military-admits-to-afghan-civilian-killings/

Friday, November 7, 2008

Hard lessons from Afghanistan


Former Kabul correspondent Alan Johnston reflects on decades of turmoil in Afghanistan, from the Soviet invasion in 1979 to the intervention by the West.
Old Russian Tank in Afghanistan


Alan hears from ordinary Afghans who witnessed events, Russian soldiers who served in Afghanistan and the American intelligence experts who served in the field as well as some of the British commanders who have since faced fierce fighting in the Hindu Kush.

Programme 1: Trapping the Bear

The tale of the catastrophic miscalculation that humbled the mighty Red Army in the Hindu Kush.

Tens of thousands of troops, tanks and helicopters poured into Afghanistan late in 1979. They laid waste to the land for a decade, during which millions of Afghans died or were forced to flee.

But in the end it was the Russians who retreated, chased out, in part, by the Cold War warriors of the CIA who backed the rebels in the mountains.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2008/11/081103_hardlessons_one.shtml

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Former FM: Taliban May Split With al-Qaeda Over Afghan Peace


Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, a former Foreign Minister for the pre-invasion Taliban government in Afghanistan, says that the Taliban might cut ties with al-Qaeda in the course of reconciliation talks with the post-war government, though the move should not be a pre-condition for such talks. Muttawakil said al-Qaeda was a guest of the Taliban and an ally in the present fight, but they “will not be allowed to create an obstacle” to peace negotiations.

Former Minister Muttawakil was also reportedly a participant in the long-rumored meeting in Saudi Arabia regarding Afghan reconciliation. No actual Taliban representatives were present at the meeting, which was apparently not a formal peace talk but rather a preliminary discussion.

It is unclear how much insight Muttawakil has into the present perspective of the Taliban, who publicly disowned him five years ago. The Taliban has denied any contact with the Afghan government, and insisted that the reports to the contrary were a plot to create mistrust with its allies.

However, the rumors of the peace talks simply will not die. Retired Pakistani Spy Chief Lt. General Hamid Gul says he believes the Taliban will agree to talks if certain demands are met. Among the demands are for the US to recognize that they are not terrorists, release all Taliban prisoners, and set a firm date for withdrawal of international forces.

Gul however did not seem to hold much hope for the prospect of such an arrangement, saying their either Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama or his Republican rival John McCain “want to continue following the same line of action that they have during the last seven years. And I am afraid that is going to bring disaster.” Both candidates have promised an increased troop presence in Afghanistan, and an increased focus on Pakistan.

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/15/former-fm-taliban-wont-allow-al-qaeda-to-block-peace/

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Petraeus: US Should Talk With Talk With Taliban, Other Enemies


Much has been made of the rumored peace talks between Afghanistan and the Taliban, and while both the Taliban and the Afghan government have made rather public denials that any such talks are ongoing, the United States has been totally silent on the report. That is, until today.

Today, General David Petraeus confirmed that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has in fact asked Saudi Arabia to arrange peace talks between his government and the Taliban. He also referenced “some local activities” to that end.

And while the general said he didn’t want to “get into the middle of domestic politics,” he appeared to endorse the idea, saying that he thought the US should talk with its enemies. In the case of Afghanistan he said “the key is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination with complete support of the Afghan government and with President Karzai.”

President Karzai seems to be in favor of reconciliation as well, having last week made a public call to Taliban leader Mullah Omar to return to the country and participate in upcoming presidential elections. Karzai promised to be personally responsible for Omar’s safety. The Taliban rejected the call, saying Karzai was a “puppet” of the US and not in a position to negotiate.

So far the only sign that the Taliban is at all open to reconciliation is a statement by Mullah Omar late last month which offered US and NATO forces a “reasonable opportunity” to withdraw safely from the country. There has been no apparent progress on the offer.

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/08/petraeus-confirms-peace-overtures-to-taliban/

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Guantanamo Uighur release blocked


An US federal appeal court has blocked a judge's order that 17 Chinese detainees at the Guantanamo Bay camp should immediately be released.

A district court had said it was wrong for the Bush administration to continue holding the Chinese Muslim Uighurs, as it had no evidence against them.

The White House then appealed, saying the original ruling - the first of its kind - could set a dangerous precedent.

Captured in Afghanistan in 2001, the group has been held without charge.

Under the original ruling, they were to be brought to court on Friday, and then freed to stay with members of the Uighur community in the Washington area.

The appeal court ruling puts a temporary halt to the release to allow lawyers for both sides to present further arguments over the coming week.

'Sworn enemies'

The Uighurs had been cleared for release in 2004 but the US says they may face persecution if returned to China.

The White House said if they were released it could set a precedent that would allow "sworn enemies" to seek US entry.

The government says the 17 also pose a security risk if released into the US.

But in the original ruling, District Judge Ricardo Urbina said there was no evidence that they were "enemy combatants" or a security risk.

Lawyers for the Bush administration have argued that federal judges do not have authority to order the release into the US of Guantanamo detainees.

Beijing demand

Some detainees at the military prison fear torture or persecution if they return to their home countries, according to the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

The Bush administration has maintained that if they cannot be returned home and no other country will take them, they should stay at Guantanamo.

In 2006, five Chinese Muslim men released from Guantanamo Bay were flown to Albania for resettlement.

The 17 Uighurs involved in the current case had been living in a camp in Afghanistan during the US-led military campaign that began in October 2001.

They fled into the mountains and were held by Pakistani authorities who handed them over to the US.

Beijing has demanded that all Uighurs held at Guantanamo be repatriated to China.

Many Muslim Uighurs from Xinjiang in western China want greater autonomy for the region and some want independence.

Beijing has waged a campaign against what it calls their violent separatist activities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7660399.stm

Anger over Guantanamo Bay ruling


The White House has reacted angrily after a judge ordered that 17 Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo Bay should be released into the United States.

District Judge Ricardo Urbina said the US could not hold the 17 as they were no longer considered enemy combatants.

The Uighurs were cleared for release in 2004 but the US says they may face persecution if returned to China.

The White House said the ruling could set a precedent that would allow "sworn enemies" to seek US entry.

The government says the 17 also pose a security risk if released into the US.

Lawyers for the Bush administration have argued that federal judges do not have authority to order the release into the US of Guantanamo detainees.

Analysts say the ruling is a rebuke for the US government and could set the stage for the release of dozens more detained at the military jail in Cuba.

'No risk'

Lawyers for the prisoners said it was the first time a federal court had ordered the release into the US of any Guantanamo prisoners.

Judge Urbina had presided over a hearing to consider appeals by the 17 who were seeking to be freed and allowed into the US.

They have been held at Guantanamo for nearly seven years.

The judge said there was no evidence that they were "enemy combatants" or a security risk.



"Because the constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful," he said.

He ordered that they be brought to his courtroom for a hearing on Friday and he scheduled another hearing for the following week to decide where the Uighurs should be permanently settled.

Members of the Uighur community in the Washington DC area have offered to take them in.

The Washington DC courtroom was packed with dozens of Uighurs and human rights activists who cheered and applauded at the decision.

Justice department attorney John C O'Quinn's request to delay the detainees' release pending a possible appeal was denied by the judge.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the ruling "could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country".

Beijing demand

Some detainees at the military prison fear torture or persecution if they return to their home countries, according to the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

The US has maintained that if they cannot be returned home and no other country will take them, they should stay at Guantanamo.

The 17 Uighurs had been living in a camp in Afghanistan during the US-led military campaign that began in October 2001.

They fled into the mountains and were held by Pakistani authorities who handed them over to the US.

Beijing has demanded that all Uighurs held at Guantanamo be repatriated to China.

Many Muslim Uighurs from Xinjiang in western China want greater autonomy for the region and some want independence.

Beijing has waged a campaign against what it calls their violent separatist activities.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Afghan victory hopes played down


The UK's commander in Helmand has said Britain should not expect a "decisive military victory" in Afghanistan.

Brig Mark Carleton-Smith told the Sunday Times the aim of the mission was to ensure the Afghan army was able to manage the country on its own.

He said this could involve discussing security with the Taleban.

When international troops eventually leave Afghanistan, there may still be a "low but steady" level of rural insurgency, he conceded.

He said it was unrealistic to expect that multinational forces would be able to wipe out armed bands of insurgents in the country.

The BBC's Martin Patience in Kabul says Brig Carleton-Smith's comments echo a view commonly-held, if rarely aired, by British military and diplomatic officials in Afghanistan.

Many believe certain legitimate elements of the Taleban represent the positions of the Afghan people and so should be a part of the country's future, says our correspondent.

'Taken the sting out'

Brig Carleton-Smith is the Commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan.

He paid tribute to his forces and told the newspaper they had "taken the sting out of the Taleban for 2008".

But he stated: "We're not going to win this war.

"It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army."

Brig Carleton-Smith said the goal was to change how debates were resolved in the country so that violence was not the first option considered.

He said: "If the Taleban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this.

"That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."

Since the start of operations in Afghanistan in 2001, 120 UK military personnel have been killed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7653116.stm