Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Policies Criticized by UN Rights Watchdog
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations' top human rights advocate, Navanethem Pillay, on Wednesday appealed to the Obama administration to release Guantanamo Bay inmates or try them in a court of law, and said officials who authorized the use of "torture" must be held accountable.
Navanethem Pillay pointed to "torture." (Martial Trezzini - AP) In her most detailed statement on U.S. detention policy, the South African lawyer criticized President Obama's plan to hold some terrorism suspects in detention indefinitely without a trial. She also called for a probe of officials involved in the Bush administration's harsh interrogation program.
"People who order or inflict torture cannot be exonerated, and the roles of certain lawyers, as well as doctors who have attended torture sessions, should also be scrutinized," Pillay, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said in a statement dedicated to victims of torture.
Pillay praised the Obama administration for committing to ban many of the harshest interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration, including waterboarding, saying they "amount to torture." But she said it needs to go further by providing victims of U.S. abuses with an opportunity to rebuild their lives.
"I believe we are finally starting to turn the page on this extremely unfortunate chapter of recent history, with counter-terrorism measures starting to move back in to line with international human rights standards," Pillay said. " . . . But there is still much to do before the Guantanamo chapter is truly brought to a close."
The United States responded by highlighting the steps the administration has taken on human rights. "The Obama Administration has taken aggressive action on this issue from day one, upholding our nation's fundamental values while making the American people safer," Mark Kornblau, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in a statement. "The President banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, initiated a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo, and ordered that facility closed within one year."
Pillay's remarks represented the clearest challenge by the United Nations' high commissioner to Obama's decisions to limit investigation into past abuses and to continue to hold some detainees without trial. In May, Obama said some detainees deemed too dangerous to release might have to be held indefinitely.
"There should be no half-measures, or new creative ways to treat people as criminals when they have not been found guilty of any crime," Pillay said. "Guantanamo showed that torture and unlawful forms of detention can all too easily creep back in to practice during times of stress, and there is still a long way to go before the moral high ground lost since 9/11 can be fully reclaimed."
Pillay did not address the Obama administration's decision to use reformed military commissions to try terrorism suspects. Human rights groups have criticized the commissions, expressing particular concern that suspects could be convicted and put to death on the basis of evidence obtained under harsh interrogations.
Pillay said that detainees who are not prosecuted, and who could face abuse if they are sent back to their own countries, "must be given a new home, where they can start to build a new life, in the United States or elsewhere. I welcome the fact that in recent weeks a number of countries have agreed to take in a few people in this position, and urge others to follow suit, including first and foremost the United States itself."
This month, the Obama administration for the first time flew a Guantanamo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, to the United States to face charges for his alleged role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. But an overwhelming majority of Republican and Democratic lawmakers have fiercely resisted allowing any more of the remaining 229 detainees at the U.S. military prison in Cuba into the United States.
20 Comments so far
Show AllObama, the Democrats and the U.S. in general have squandered what little credibility they may have been granted following the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Obama's half measures on Guantanamo, his maintenance of the illegal and mostly secretive prison at Bagram, his views on indefinite detentions, his refusal to investigate and prosecute war crimes committed by the previous administration, his continuance of the 'states secrets' doctrine as a cover for illegal government activities - all these situations - point to a morally bankrupt nation and a compromised new administration that, despite its rhetoric, continues on the path toward corporate fascism.
I Second that!
...."continues on the path toward corporate fascism." Land ho... the end is in sight. Trouble is ya see, the UN is ALSO controlled by corporations.... sad but true....
I once playfully put my hands on a co worker who couldn't resist even though he was five times as strong as I. I think he would have killed me if he could have.
I was afraid to let him go and even more afraid not to.
Uncle Sam, you never should have put your hands on those people in the first place.
Despite the U.N. criticism, Obama's behavior regarding the gitmo victims has moved the U.S. a long way toward recognizing that there is no real difference between blacks and whites. In particular, there doesn't seen to be any difference between a white president like Bush and a black president like Obama.
"Continuity You Can Believe In"
I expect that the present maladministration will continue the proud imperialist, exceptionalist Amerikan tradition that we don't let no stinkin' United Nations blowhard tell US what to do!
· Yr Obd't Servant
The Neocons in Bush's administration took two strategic actions prior to launching their illegal war in Iraq: 1) continually berated the UN as corrupt and a tool of those nations that would condemn US 'freedoms and democracy' while simultaneously presenting to the UN the lies that undergirded Colin Powell's rationale for war, and 2) forced nations to relinquish ties to the International Criminal Court if they wanted to continue receiving US foreign aid. The reasoning: Bush et al knew that if their schemes were discovered they would most likely be taken to the Hague for trail - so - undermine the support for the very institution that was created to hold criminals accountable.
All this was planned years ago. Now, it's Obama's turn. Will he support the criminals, or will he support the law and justice. There really is no other question.
the PARADOX of America:
WITHIN the USA there remains Racist Divides. black and white, etc.
THE USA Within the PLANET
there is UNITY :
AMERIKKKA is the Empire .
IT IS UNITED "states" of America as an EMPIRE...and let NO ONE in the world say otherwise.
bottom line - the SICKNESS is called
"america".
i mean if all it came to be is be an EMPIRE and to maintain, preserve or expand it, it has become all the most detestable things one can list.....
America really can be seen, rather than the self-described "miracle" and "exceptional nation" that it is...an ABERRATION in history like the aberration of Capitalism that it espouses and from which its Empire "spreads"...which then justifies the Tortures, the wars, the exploitation, the hypocrisy and double standards......a kind of BOIL upon a body that is poisonous and will infect the body itself.
A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.
The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.
Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.
The president expressed hopes that an Iraqi defector would be "brought out" to give a public presentation on Saddam's WMD or that someone might assassinate the Iraqi leader. However, Bush confirmed even without a second resolution, the US was prepared for military action. The memo said Blair told Bush he was "solidly with the president".
The five-page document, written by Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, and copied to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, the chief of the defence staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, and the UK's ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, outlines how Bush told Blair he had decided on a start date for the war.
Paraphrasing Bush's comments at the meeting, Manning, noted: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."
Last night an expert on international law who is familar with the memo's contents said it provided vital evidence into the two men's frames of mind as they considered the invasion and its aftermath and must be presented to the Chilcott inquiry established by Gordon Brown to examine the causes, conduct and consequences of the Iraq war.
Philippe Sands, QC, a professor of law at University College London who is expected to give evidence to the inquiry, said confidential material such as the memo was of national importance, making it vital that the inquiry is not held in private, as Brown originally envisioned.
In today's Observer, Sands writes: "Documents like this raise issues of national embarrassment, not national security. The restoration of public confidence requires this new inquiry to be transparent. Contentious matters should not be kept out of the public domain, even in the run-up to an election."
Memo Reveals US Plan to Provoke an Invasion of Iraq
Sunday 21 June 2009
by: Jamie Doward, Gaby Hinsliff and Mark Townsend | Visit article original @ The Observer UK
http://www.truthout.org/062209J
===================
of course it was. that is REGULAR OPERATION by the USA everywhere. while of course pretending it had nothing to do with domestic problems in other countries. this is part of wyhat John Perkins, former CIA "economic hitman" described as
US foreign policy of provocations, planting "insurrectionists" to destabilize uncooperative nations and THEN blame THEM for "mismanagement" and "dictatorships" and "lack of freedom" etc....
as way to arrive at what decades AGO -= General Smedley Butler, US MARINES, speeches in 1933 also revealed as the USA's "foreign policy -- has always been geared towards gathering unto ourselves as much of the world's resources at the expense of others and to make the world SAFE for Capitalism and our Cultural and Economic Assault".
Brent Scowcroft - US high official formerly - just blurted out an admission to a british publication:
:"OF COURSE we have spies and operatives IN IRAN"......
to destabilize Iran , of course.
AS IF the CIA led coup of a democratically elected leader in the '50's wasn't enough.
OH WAIT -- AMERICA NEVER STOPS doing that sort of thing....
it's in its VERY DNA -- building its global empire......
teddy - thank you for the reminders --
And, after having bombed Iraq for 20 years what resistance
could they possibly offer?
It's all a farce to create not a threat from Iraq, of course, but of "terrorism" which provides for not only perpetual war, but 100 year wars!!
The new "red under the bed" -- terrorism!
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Ms. Pillay reassures that torture should not be tolerated or rationalized. People should never be incarcerated wthout a trial proving criminal activity. Photos of torture should be made public. Let's cleanse ourselves.
The core of the argument against closing Gitmo, is that the prisoners are "too dangerous" to be allowed on US soil.
What's wierd is that anything so obviously specious, so infantile, so dishonest is considered an actual "argument" in this "debate".
Specious because of course, we have federal supermax prisons like Pelican Bay, from which is it impossible to escape, in which it is impossible to plan or execute crimes or even to have 5 seconds of privacy. We hold multiple murderers, serial killers, gang leaders, career recidivists, and other bad boys in these places, without incident. None of them poses any risk of any kind to the facility or the surrounding communities. Communities often welcome new prison construction due to the perceived economic benefit.
Infantile because it arises from and appeals to the most inchoate fears of the most ignorant and manipulable among us.
Dishonest because of course we have no idea how "dangerous" any of the Gitmo prisoners are. They have not been charged or arraigned. Those still there have not been tried in any kind of accountable process. Their guilt or innocence has not been demonstrated in any reliable way. On the contrary, many of them seem to have been luckless bystanders, sold into detention by Afghan warlords and others eager to collect the large bounties offered by the US military. We now have documentation showing that many of them were vetted on the ground in Afghanistan, found to be harmless, then shipped to Gitmo anyway, on orders from higher up, including, in one case, directly from John Ashcroft. Since when did the AG become part of the military command chain? The Pentagon tells us that prisoners released from Gitmo have gone back to the battlefield and may have harmed US troops. Is it possible that they are so stupid that they do not know this is an argument AGAINST what they are doing at Gitmo? Is it possible that we are so stupid that we might fall for something like this? And that leaves aside whether these Pentagon claims are true (there is reason for doubt).
The Republicans may have opposed closing Gitmo out of sheer, animal self-preservation. but why would any Dems join them? Are the Democrats who opposed closing Gitmo not the world's worst sniveling, mendacious vermin?
Would any of these "detainees" even want to settle in the USA?
"President Obama's plan to hold some terrorism suspects in detention indefinitely without a trial"
show me where he said this is his plan
this was bushes plan, and it is bushes mess and he is trying to clean it up
djb,google "preventitive detention" I don't have a link but BO said he thought preventitive detention might be usefull for people too dangerous to release even if they are not ever charged or tried!Check out Democracy Now Amy just mentioned this on todays broadcast. peace
Here's the key statement indicating that Obama supports preventive dentention in the absense of evidence, trial, or conviction:
"Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again."
Then, towards the end - this is an odd statement, because we are *already* doing this. What does "involves judicial and congressional oversight" mean? Involves? It appears that neither wiretapping citizens nor keeping men and children in cages for 8 years has "involved" judicial and congressional oversight, right?
"If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight."
Here's the context, Obama's speech on Guantanamo, he discusses terrorists "too dangerous to release" even though they have not been convicted, or maybe even charged:
"Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.
I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."
I suppose he's saying COngress will pass some bull*shit law doing away with Habeus Corpus, as they are perfectly willing and eager to do.
In my opinion Obama is a war criminal for his attacks on Pakistan and escalation in Afghanistan, and because of his violations of the Geneva conventions in keeping Bhagram open. He belongs in the Hague on charges, and has already committed crimes worthy of impeachment. That's by the same standard I applied to Bush, violations of US law, including the UN Charter and the War Crimes Act of 1996 (which makes it a federal crime to violate certain of the Geneva Conventions. The reckless use of arms in civilian areas constitutes a violation, as does his treatment of individuals.
OK Gitmo gave us the torture we could see, that lawyers could report. So much for the ONE PERCENT of all u.s. illegal prisoners. Ask anyboby who was at Bagram and Gitmo which was worse. they all say Bagram. And that is very probably not the worst. because we know nothing at all about the cia's secret black sites, and nothing about what really happens to the people who get rendered to other countries.
congresspeople are forever screaming about letting these "terrorists" go. problem is, they are not terrorists. They are Muslims who made the mistake of going to Pakistan, or trying to get out. The u.s. was paying $5,000 for any "suspect" who was turned in. in the new world order, suspects are the same as capital criminals. notice how happily our military bombs Taliban "suspects" and hits women and children.
I want somebody to insist upon full disclosure of where all our prisons are, and all the names of all the people still being held. What's the problem?
i applaud navanethem pillay's efforts.
unfortunately, the UN wasn't designed to actually address these issues. the UN was designed to retain the power for the victors of the 2nd world war.
until the enforcement mechanism of the UN is given to the general assembly, the 5 permanent members of the security council hold all of the cards. russia and china also violate human rights around the world and it seems like there's a 'gentleman's aggreement' that it ok to torture people and detain people w/out habeas corpus rights throughout the realms of these 3 superpowers.
countries that are proxies of one of the superpowers have carte blanche privileges. they can violate human rights left and right b/c their benefactors in the UN can veto any resolutions before the security council, essentially preventing any substantive universal standard from evolving and/or being enforced (the example of israel's actions in gaza is seared into my brain).
how do we reform the united nations ? - when our own government (our representatives to the UN) is corrupt and committing atrocities around the world daily. it's overwhelming. i fear our problems will fester until either 1) americans replace this system through revolutionary acts or 2) america is conquered economically by one of our perceived global adversaries.... depressing. the world deserves a functional compassionate world government. why hasn't the US signed on to the international criminal court of the hague ?
...peace...
All too many of these "too dangerous to release" captives were actually purchased, as in a slave market, and then tortured to 'confess' anything that our sadistic government wants to hear. Obama, like congress, is just another war criminal.