Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUN Torture Envoy Says US Deny Access to Iraq Jails
The U.N. investigator on torture said on Tuesday the United States had denied his request to visit U.S.-run jails in Iraq and insisted a visit could help clear its legacy of the prison abuse scandal in Abu Ghraib.
Manfred Nowak, United Nations special rapporteur on torture, said he had received credible information the situation had improved at U.S. detention facilities in recent years, but stressed only a visit would allow him to verify them.
An international outcry erupted in 2004 after images of prisoner abuse by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib west of Baghdad, including naked detainees stacked in a pyramid and others cowering before snarling dogs, became public.
"I was a little astonished that the U.S. government is not willing to grant me access because it might perhaps even be in their own interest if I compared different detention facilities," Nowak told a news briefing in Geneva.
"It might also be in their interest in overcoming the legacy of having been criticized so much for torture practices in Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities up to 2004," he added.
Nowak, who has an Iraqi government invitation for his Oct 18-26 planned visit, said he would also expect full access to Iraqi-run detention facilities, although this was still under negotiation. British authorities have agreed to allow him to visit their detainees in Iraq, he added.
At least 30,000 prisoners are held by Iraqi authorities, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross which made its first visit to security detainees held by Iraq's central government last October.
The neutral Red Cross -- whose reports are confidential unlike those of U.N. investigators -- still seeks a wider agreement for access to all prisoners held by Iraq. Sunni Arabs have accused the Shi'ite-led interior ministry of operating torture centers and dungeons holding Sunni detainees.
Nowak also voiced dismay at President George W. Bush's veto last Saturday of legislation passed by Congress that would have banned the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from using waterboarding. The U.N. envoy reiterated that the interrogation technique which simulates drowning amounted to torture.
"I think that the (U.S.) government wishes to maintain certain positions of principle which they have taken at the beginning of the so-called war on terror, and if they now would take them back as a government, they would kind of admit that what they had done in the past was wrong," he said.
"I think that the current administration still sticks to its legal position although there is enough evidence that these legal positions are untenable under international law," he said.
Nowak, an Austrian law professor who has served in the independent post since 2004, spoke on the sidelines of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Its 47 member states are holding a four-week session until March 28 to examine abuses worldwide.
Editing by Jonathan Lynn and Matthew Jones
© 2008 Reuters
35 Comments so far
Show AllNope, that was a total bu$h!tism.
He activity requested, we refused and then said the opposite
Er, wasn't this the raison de entre in the first place -- Saddam wouldn't allow UN inspection?
Bush, Cheney, et al:
A fair trial would be in Iraq. We didn't send McVeigh and Nichols to the Hague.*
*They had help, too, but only one was tried.
Bush and Cheney to The Hague--tne sooner the better.
And canuckchuck -- don't they now "kiss 'em, before they fuck 'em" ?
Judge dismisses charter appeal in Afghan detainee transfers
Decision comes as military police watchdog announces public hearings
A federal judge has ruled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to Afghan prisoners captured by Canadian troops.
The court's decision came just hours after Canada's civilian-run military police watchdog announced it will hold public hearings into the military's detainee transfer policy in Afghanistan, in response to "delays and difficulties" in obtaining relevant documents and information from government authorities.
The federal ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Amnesty International Canada and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association against the minister of national defence, the chief of defence staff and the attorney general of Canada in a bid to halt the prisoner transfers.
In her decision, Judge Anne Mactavish concluded that while detainees held by the Canadian military in Afghanistan "have rights accorded to them under the Afghan constitution and by international law, and, in particular, by international humanitarian law, they do not have rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the court decision during question period in the House of Commons.
"They have accepted the government's arguments," Harper said. "We're obviously very pleased by the decision and will look at it more carefully."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/12/afghan-detainees.html
Charter does not apply to Afghan detainees: ruling
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080312/afghan_detainees_080312/20080312?hub=TopS...
"Manfred Nowak, United Nations special rapporteur on torture, said he had received credible information the situation had improved at U.S. detention facilities in recent years"
Yeah, I hear that now when they ass rape young Iraqi boys, they only put it half way in.
USAn, When the president dies or is incapable of doing his job, he is replaced by the vice-president in charge of vice.
Do not, I say again, do not shoot the president first.
"when will Congress IMPEACH THIS MONSTER?"
Like the old Japanese movies, the only way to stop a monster is to kill it...
In the fall of 2007 Hillary Clinton changed from believing torture interrogation should be legal for presidents to her current position that it should always be illegal. But see one of Hillary Clinton's closest advisors and likely to wield considerable influence in a Clinton administration--if that were to happen--talk about how torture interrogations by state operatives should still happen when necessary ... illegally. The close advisor is Bill Clinton. Watch him laugh a bit too much as he discusses how torture works much better when government operatives do it illegally rather than legally. Watch how in his listing of the negatives about torture it does not occur to him to mention that it is simply wrong--for in fact he doesn't think it is always wrong. Watch him argue that the government gets better results from torturing when it is done by government operatives illegally rather than legally. Does Senator Clinton agree or disagree with the views of this close advisor? See this video and ask yourself if this reassures you about Senator Clinton's judgment in advisors, and how meaningful it is that Senator Clinton now calls for torture to be illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvoFmvcV1ug
When the torture of US personnel was first exposed, it was a few low level bad apples, Bush declared. So now he has stood before the USA, and the world, and blocked efforts to end US torture. If there ever was any doubt where the permission and/or orders came from, there is no doubt any more.
Our new national and corporate logo is 'NAZI'S R US'
@John F. Bfield:
I saw some previously unreleased photos from Abu Ghraib recently, I may be wrong but
I believe they were in an article on URUK.com.
I've definately read reports by Seymour Hersh that there are videos w/sound tracks of young boys being raped before their father's eyes.
The one "terorist" in the sloppy tshirt, who USA admitted to waterboarding, also had his son (maybe more than one) kidnapped by the cia and (sorry my swiss cheese memory)\
I think his name was Zubaydah, was taunted by the cia concerning what they had done to his son, were doing to his son & their plans
to harm him all in an effort to torment & terrorise Zubaydah.
The answer to your question is that there are untold numbers of computers, digital cameras, and homemade movies that were made at Abu Ghraib until the scandal broke & all
filming was prohibited -for security of course, wouldn't want the "AlQueida" to be able to prepare for viewing anal intercourse being performed on your grandmother or young daughter/son/wife/grandchildren/your parents and siblings. That would defeat the whole purpose of the terrorizing of Iraqis
besides shaming us in front of the more brutally experienced Israelis.
I seem to remember that Rumsfeld once said that Americans would really be upset if we ever saw the rest of the Abu Ghraib pictures. Pictures that we still have not seen. Can anyone verify this?
whoever the deciders are- i'm guessing dubya is not doing all this by himself- they will insist that the pres and his cia need torture to get info from terrorists, even though it has been well established that you cannot get useful information that way. Why does this not stop them? Because they really do not care about getting anything from their victims. They will continue to torture because they want the world to know that they can and will do anything they want, and cannot be stopped by any international laws or the u.s. congress or the constitution or anything else.
As a American Citizen, as an American Patriot and as someone
who is activly envolved in furthering the American life I can no longer recognize your right to represent me. You cannot and will not lead me. You cannot be my first among equals. You cannot be my designated representitive, my voice to the world. I rescind your right to speak or act for me or on my behalf. I repudiate your right to express
your values as my values. They are not!!! You no longer can
be the face of leadership in my America. You can no longer be my voice to the World. You cannot be my representitive, my example of rightness my defender of Justice. You who are willing to denigrate all of the values we have spilled life to defend,you who besmirch the life of every American
who has struggled to establish this place. You who who trample on every right and privledge we have earned with sweat can not Speak for me any longer. I rescend any priviledge that has been extended to you to
represent me. Enough! Enough!! Enough!!! You and your circle of likeminded kind do not and will not represent me. You may not speak for me. You may not act for me.
And, what ever values you wish to uphold for this country, my country cannot and will not be my values. You have corrupted the place where you stand. And you have darkened
the face of my county.
By law you will continue some few monthes more but from this day on you and your kind will not speak or act for me.
R L Pete Housman American
NOT surprising. After all, the U.S. govt also does not allow UN-IAEA inspections of U.S. nuclear weapons, and surely other kept-very-secret U.S. ... bs.
It's interesting that Britain has approved Nowak's inspection of British-held detainees in Iraq; interesting contrast.
" aldo March 12th, 2008 11:45 am
The USA need to hand over Iraq to the UN and pay for the built up of the Iraq. ..."
I agree with aldo's post, with one exception. The first sentence should read: "The USA needs to hand over Iraq to IRAQIS and the UN, and pay for the reconstruction, ..., of Iraq. ...".
In that, I included some typo. corrections, but they're definitely not part of my point; only being made for the "sake" of formality. The real point is that the US et al MUST withdraw and hand Iraq back to Iraqis, with the assistance of the UN, which must not play a tyrant's role vis-a-vis Iraqis. Iraqis have good representation in Iraqi politics, and though they have not been good in terms of effecting just changes, they have been good in the positions they've taken; it's not their fault if the U.S. and the leadership of its puppet Iraqi govt have constantly overridden the good political representatives Iraqis DO HAVE. They are the ones who should play the leading role, while the UN would only [assist]; if and when the U.S. finally withdraws or is made to withdraw.
Iow, DO NOT put the UN in charge over Iraqis. The UN FAR too MUCH operates as an instrument of the western-Imperialist elites; there being MANY examples of this, many and strong examples.
ONLY if, if and only if, a significant majority of Iraqis wanted the UN to play the leading role could it then be okay to go along with this. Otherwise, Iraqis ARE 'THE DECIDERS' of how to procede; of course, once freed of the hellbent occupational war of the USA and its real ruling elites.
TheLorax March 12th, 2008 2:03 pm:
"We're JUST LIKE Al-Quaida. In fact, they should change it to Am-Erican."
There is one difference though: Al-Qaida defeated Am-Erican.
MRFOAD;
Actually there are a number of diff's between Hitler and bush; unfortunately for bush, Hitler was a better man. Hitler could speak fluently in his mother tongue, bush can't. Hitler volunteered to fight in the front lines as an infantryman, bush hid. Hitler could read and is said to have written a book (still think it was a ghost written product myself, and it's quite poorly written), I doubt bush can understand what's written in books. Hitler didn't listen to his generals, neither does bush. Hitler knew to off himself when the end came (shame he didn't do it in '39 ), bush won't.
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
HITLER - BUSH not much difference
Hitler had torture camps Bush: ditto
Hitler voided treaties Bush ditto
Hitler invaded countries Bush ditto
Hitler occupied countries Bush ditto
Hitler stifled human rights Bush ditto
Hitler met an early death Bush we can only pray!
That is what I mean whatfools, why has our government hot be held accountable? Why files the charges and why has it not been done before now? Isn't that what the UN and Conventions and World Court supposed to be about?
The world didn't want what Hitler did in this world again. So who or what is stopping the process from proceding?
I think they should stick a huge firecracker up bush's ass, light the fuse, and tell him to hop like a frog.
The Nazis let the Red Cross into their death camps - how much worse can the American torture chambers be?
When George Bush was a kid... apparently he used to torture little, defenseless animals, just LOVED to take itty bitty frogs and explode them- um, anyone recall how Jeffrey Dahmer used to torture animals on his way to becoming one of the world's worst serial killers?
When George Bush was governor... he helped sign a record-breaking number of people on death row to their deaths. It's been reported, he was extremely callous and actually made fun of a death row inmate's pleas for leniency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker
When George Bush was President... well- we all already know about this, don't we?
It's well established, part of history forever more: Bush likes to torture.
George Bush... when will Congress IMPEACH THIS MONSTER?
"I think that the current administration still sticks to its legal position although there is enough evidence that these legal positions are untenable under international law," he said.
Why hasn't anyone filed criminal charges? What is the procedure here?
The AP story included this quote of Nowak's missing here:
"Nowak said U.S. officials told him that American-run prisons in Iraq were not subject to international human rights law because of the armed conflict, and as such were outside his area of responsibility."
Armed conflict = war ? not here. Or else Congress would need to approve.
Wonder how Reuters missed that one.
"Manfred Nowak, United Nations special rapporteur on torture, said he had received credible information the situation had improved at U.S. detention facilities in recent years"
How naive and diplomatic can a UN representitive get?
There are dozens of hidden facilities all around the globe Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Israel, ceentral asia one could go on and on. Is this 'astonished' lawyer, who feels his visits and comparing some detention facilities could overcome a legacy of criticized practices which on principle the US government might 'kind of admit that what they had done in the past was wrong'and would prefer to stick to their positions of principle "although there is enough evidence that these legal positions are untenable under international law" serious? Has he heard the very credible deluge of detailed reports of the rendition program by the US-UK and other government agencies abroad? Has he investigative powers to go to Israeli detention facilities so as to compare them to say Saudi Arabia? Holy Moses folks!
And meanwhile Gates and Bush are on the backs of NATO countries for not contributing more troops in Afghanistan. Go know why.
Guilt by association for human rights violations hardly makes the US an appealing ally! And our own soldiers deserve better too!
The only reason we're not on the watch list for torture is because Canada folded under our intimdation. We torture people. We violate their rights. We lock them up in secret prisons. We're JUST LIKE Al-Quaida. In fact, they should change it to Am-Erican.
"I was a little astonished that the U.S. government is not willing to grant me access"
I can't see why he as astonished. We all know that the US tortures, amongst other atrocities.
Yes, stop the presses; torture still employed in US prisons. But there is another reason the American government uses torture. Just like the New York Times and the Washington Post, torture victims tell them what they want to hear.
I am completely convinced the people in the bush administration are pro-torture because they like it; and it may be high time American citizens faced up to this.
The people in the White house like torture-they condone it-they get a kick out of it-they get a sick thrill from it.
Torture does not work; the information gleaned through its use is notoriously inreliable-that is a proven fact.
During WWII, the Nazis were throughly interogated-and no one was tortured. The information was used against them and resulted in numerous sucessful prosecutions.
The people in this current administration just-plain-like-it. Period.
So, I take it the torture of detainees is continuing... What a surprise... How much longer before bushie brings back crucifixion as a method of execution?
The USA need to hand over Iraq to the UN and pay for the built up of the Iraq. No american private company involved in the reconstuction. This is an illegal occupation.
The USA need to hand over Iraq to the UN and pay for the built up of the Iraq. No american private company involved in the reconstuction. This is an illegal occupation.