yet another blog

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR300162007

AI Index: IOR 30/016/2007 (Public)
News Service No: 132
11 July 2007

European Court of Human Rights: Ban on torture is absolute and universal

Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, The International Commission of JURISTs, Interights and REDRESS are warning that, in a hearing today, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights is being asked to reconsider the absolute ban on torture and other ill-treatment.

Weakening the universally accepted absolute ban on torture and other ill-treatment, would not only be wrong, it would endanger us all, by undermining one of the basic values on which the European system is built.

In the case being considered Saadi v Italy, Nassim Saadi claims, among other things, that the order to deport him from Italy to Tunisia, under the Pisanu law, violates the Italian Government’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to prohibit and protect against torture and other ill-treatment, because returning him to Tunisia would expose him to a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment.
The government of the United Kingdom, along with a handful of others, have intervened in the case to support the deportation despite the risk of torture and other ill-treatment. The government of the United Kingdom (UK) is asking the European Court of Human Rights to change its case law which is currently consistent with the universally recognized absolute ban against torture and other ill-treatment. The UK is arguing that the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment should not be absolute for foreign nationals whom a state considers represent a threat to national security and whom it seeks to deport.

At present, human rights law is clear. The absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment means that states are obliged to ensure that their representatives do not engage in torture and other ill-treatment, no matter the circumstances. They must bring to justice those responsible for these acts and ensure redress to the victims. The prohibition also means that states may not expose people to risks of torture or other ill-treatment in other countries. Thus they cannot lawfully send someone to any place where they face a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment. These rules hold true, no matter the circumstances, including where the person concerned is suspected of involvement in terrorism.

The prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment is absolute for good reason. Torture is a grave violation of personal dignity and bodily integrity. Its effect is also corrosive on the rule of law and the moral authority of the state itself. For these and other reasons, the practice of torture has been repeatedly condemned by international and national courts. Its absolute prohibition has attained the highest status of international law, it is fundamental, peremptory and intransgressible.

The international community has made repeated legal commitments and public declarations that the measures taken by states to protect us all from terrorism must be consistent with international law, including the absolute ban on torture and other ill-treatment. However, the media, reports of human rights organizations, and the reports of UN and Council of Europe expert-bodies have been replete with examples of measures taken by states that seek to circumvent the absolute prohibition. The sending of people to places where they risk torture or other ill-treatment on the basis of a “diplomatic assurance”, as Italy seeks to do in the Saadi case, is just one example of this phenomenon that is of particular concern in Europe. A “diplomatic assurance” is an unenforceable “gentleman’s agreement” with the receiving state that it will make an exception to the ‘normal practice’ of torturing detainees by protecting the individual concerned from such treatment.

Background:
The case of Saadi v Italy is being considered by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 11 July 2007. In this case Nassim Saadi is claiming, among other things, that the order to deport him from Italy to Tunisia, under the Pisanu law, violates the Italian Government’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Nassim Saadi, a Tunisian national residing lawfully in Italy, was convicted in May 2005 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years and six months for criminal conspiracy and forgery. In the same trial he was found not guilty of association with international terrorism. Appeals by both Nassim Saadi and the prosecutor remain pending in the Italian courts.

However, in August 2006, while the appeal was pending, the Minister of Interior ordered Nassim Saadi’s deportation to Tunisia under the Pisanu law. Under this law, a person suspected by the authorities of involvement in terrorism-related activities may be deported on the order of the Minister of the Interior or a Prefect, without having been charged or tried. Appeals of such deportation orders are non-suspensive. The Saadi case is one of a number of cases pending which challenge the application of this law, whose constitutionality is currently under review in Italy.

Among other things, in his case before the European Court of Human Rights, Nassim Saadi claims that he faces a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment and other human rights violations in Tunisia, and thus can not lawfully be returned there. Our organizations have reports that people who have been returned to Tunisia from abroad including from Italy, have been held in incommunicado detention and that they have been subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment during their detention. Another Tunisian man, expelled from Italy to Tunisia under the Pisanu Law in early 2007, has reportedly been subject to ill-treatment in detention there.

In May 2005, Nassim Saadi was also convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, in his absence, by a military court in Tunisia for membership of a terrorist organization operating abroad and for incitement to terrorism, reportedly based on his alleged conduct in Italy. Although he would be likely to be re-tried if returned to Tunisia, such a trial would take place in the military court. The research of our organizations indicates that trials in military courts in Tunisia violate international standards of fairness. The presiding judge is the only civilian hearing the case and there is restricted access to such trials, which are held on military compounds. The European Court of Human Rights has already held in other circumstances that trials of this kind breach the right to a fair trial. Civilians tried in such courts in Tunisia have reported violations of their right to a defence, ranging from not having been informed of their right to a lawyer, to restrictions placed on their lawyer’s access to the case file and basic information such as the dates on which the hearings will take place. Appeals are considered only by the Military Court of Cassation, there is no review by a civilian court.

The Saadi v Italy case is one of a series of three cases pending in the European Court of Human Rights in which the United Kingdom and a handful of other European governments are seeking to change the Court’s case law on the absolute prohibition of sending a person to a place where they face a real risk of torture and other ill-treatment, in favour of a test which would balance the risk to the individual against the risk to national security.

Another case in which the government of the United Kingdom has made this argument to the Court is in the case of Ramzy v the Netherlands, also pending in the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has yet to hold hearings in the Ramzy case. However, the Court granted the request of the United Kingdom to address the Court during the hearing of the Saadi case and to include its submissions which had been previously filed in the Ramzy case in the Saadi v Italy case file. The Court did not however agree to include in the Saadi case, the counter-balancing written submissions filed by three groups of NGOs, including those filed by Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, the International Commission of Jurists, INTERIGHTS and Redress, which are part of the case file in Ramzy- which is a matter of regret for the organizations.

Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International’s press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org

For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org

So the MoD is going to let the British sailors and marines captured by the Iranians sell their stories to the press is it?¹
Well, it strikes me that this unprecedented and seedy move is probably prompted more by a desire to spin the story out a bit and puff it up into something more than it actually was, just to stir up even more anti-Iranian sentiment.
(And how much of that largesse is prompted by behind-the-scenes influence from 10 Downing Street I wonder?)

For let’s face it, the “ordeal” they supposedly endured was pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things, wasn’t it?
(And just to put this in context… I too have been held at gunpoint and fully expected my time to be ended at that moment. Sure, it was a scary experience, but come next day it’d passed and I’d gotten over it - and I didn’t even have the benefit of a military training!)

Compare it for example to this account…

“…subjecting them to psychological torture day and night. Lights were kept on in their cell around the clock. They endured solitary confinement. They had only thin plastic mattresses on concrete for sleeping. Meals were of powdered milk and bread or rice and chicken, but interrupted by selective deprivation of food and water. Ceaseless heavy metal and country music screamed in their ears for hours on end… They lived through ‘conditions of confinement and interrogation tantamount to torture… Their interrogators utilised the types of physically and mentally coercive tactics that are supposedly reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants.”²

- no, not more Iranian misdeeds, but the hospitality extended by the US military.

Nor let’s forget the treatment handed out by British soldiers to their captives in Northern Ireland until fairly recent times.

I really am getting a bit bored with all the hypocrisy and double standards that both the US and our own government so blatantly indulge.

And before anyone argues that the examples aren’t comparable, just bear this in mind…

From the Iranians viewpoint we could legitimately be described as foreign insurgents fomenting discord and bloodshed in a neighbouring country.

And incidentally, whatever happened to that law Blair’s government recently introduced about “glorifying terrorism”?
From any rational point of view our military aggression toward a nation that represented no threat to us whatsoever surely places the mantle of terrorism upon our own shoulders, a notion reinforced by our overthrowing of the elected government of that sovereign nation by force of arms (an act expressly forbidden by the UN Charter I believe).
Had we not committed such an act of international terrorism those captured Brits wouldn’t have been where they were in the first place. So surely, by endeavouring to cast their experience in a sympathetic light we are in fact glorifying an act of terrorism.

Now I’m no scholar, no academic able to elucidate the finer points of an argument, or persuasively score telling debating points, but I do believe I’m able to distinguish between what is morally right and wrong, and its perfectly clear to me that our entire handling of Middle East situations is somewhat more than tainted with the promotion of self-interest over humanitarian concern and respect for the Rule of Law.
And it seems to me that if we continue on this path the only possible outcome is yet more bloodshed and suffering.

Try, for just a brief moment, to imagine that suffering and bloodshed visited upon your loved ones. The loss of a dearly-loved spouse. Or the body of a cherished son or daughter maimed, disfigured, forever. How would you feel?
So how the hell can we countenance our government visiting this fate upon others, simply because they live on the other side of the world?

We (and by that I mean the government and the media) made such a big fuss about the 7/7 bombings in London yet, thanks to the rogue Bush regime in America and our Prime Minister’s support of them, that sort of experience is a daily occurrence in Iraq nowadays. And we’re responsible. Why? Because we haven’t yet ousted Blair and his kind.
Because we haven’t spoken loudly enough; because we haven’t acted radically enough. Because we’re too wrapped up in our own petty concerns and basically don’t give a toss about anyone else.
So the next time it happens to us, how the hell can there be a great wailing about the suffering of “innocent victims”, for we’re all bloody guilty!
The very least we can do, now that Iran is top of the hit list, is to resist this with every means at our disposal, else we deserve all that’ll be visited upon us!

So disregard all anti-Iranian propaganda you encounter. Complain to the media about the bias and spin. Write to your MP. If need be even become an activist! But do something!

And if the military doesn’t want history to cast them in the same mold as Hitler’s SS, then its about time they conjured up the courage to refuse to obey orders that disregard both International Law and common morality.
Remember the Nazis’ standard excuse? “But I was only obeying orders.” Where the f*** is these soldiers’ and sailors’ humanity?

I often speculate what it would take to put our country back on the right track… why does the film “V for Vendetta” spring to mind I wonder?

1. ”Naval captives can sell stories” news.bbc.co.uk [↩]
2. ”My Name Used to Be #200343″ www.alternet.org [↩]

AFP.com | Agence France-Presse, a global news agency

ROYAL MARINES BASE CHIVENOR, England AFP - The 15 British naval personnel held by Iran told Friday how they were stripped, blindfolded and handcuffed as part of “psychological” intimidation during their detention.

more

Seems to me they can count themselves fortunate that their captors were the Iranians and not the CIA. On the other hand, should Blair have insisted, during the period of captivity, that the precedent set by the US government for the treatment of prisoners be rigorously applied?

Or for that matter the treatment some British squaddies have seen fit to dish out to Iraqis in their own country.

Not totally irrelevant is this superbly insightful article by Gilad Atzmon: Between Good and Evil

Reuters AlertNet - US judge dismisses Rumsfeld torture lawsuit

WASHINGTON, March 27 Reuters - A U.S. federal judge dismissed on Tuesday a lawsuit seeking to hold former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officers liable for the torture and abuse of Afghan and Iraqi prisoners, including some at Abu Ghraib prison.In throwing out the lawsuit, U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Hogan ruled in the 58-page opinion that the defendants are entitled to immunity.

The plaintiffs had said they were stabbed, sexually abused, dunked in freezing water, and beaten while being hung upside down from the ceiling in Iraqs notorious Abu Ghraib prison and other U.S.-run facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his opinion, Hogan cited other court rulings that rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution generally do not extend to foreign citizens in other countries. The plaintiffs have no right to sue in U.S. court, he said.

Hogan said that allowing money damages against military officials during a war “would invite enemies to use our own federal courts to obstruct the armed forces ability to act decisively and without hesitation in defense of our liberty and national interests.”

more…

In other words, to act in contravention of international law without fear of reprisal. Hmm… wonder how he’d feel about the so-called “insurgents” in Iraq (in reality resistance fighters opposing an occupying force) using similar arguments?

The ongoing story…

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed “Confessed” To Attacking Bank Founded After His Arrest

Khalid Shaikh Mohammeds alleged confession testimony has been thoroughly discredited after it emerged that one of the targets he identified, the Plaza Bank, was not founded until 2006, four years after the alleged Al-Qaeda masterminds arrest.In his confession, KSM claims, “I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing for the New or Second Wave of attacks against the following skyscrapers after 9/11: …Plaza Bank, Washington state.”

KSM was arrested in March 2003. According to the Plaza Banks website, the organization was founded in early 2006, making it impossible for KSM to have even known of the banks existence before 2003, never mind plotted against it.

Skepticism about the legitimacy of KSMs confession has gushed forth from all quarters, leaving the credibility of the Pentagon and the process of military tribunals in ruins and provoking additional questions about why the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind admitted to involvement in such a vast range of plots.

more…

Well, what a surprise! (See my earlier posts)

JURIST - Forum: True Confessions? The Amazing Tale of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

JURIST Guest Columnist Anthony DAmato of Northwestern University School of Law says the sweeping Guantanamo “confessions” of al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed rival the scope of those made in the Stalinist purge trials of the 1930s, and should equally prompt us to question the legal process in which they were made…

read the full article…

9/11 suspect confesses UK targets - Yahoo News UK

The September 11 attacks, the Bali bombing and plots against British targets were among the confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay.According to a transcript released by the Pentagon, Mohammed said in a statement read during the session: “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z,”

This report by the Press Association, read on Yahoo News UK, goes on to say…

Mohammed also claimed he was tortured by the CIA after his capture in 2003 in Pakistan, according to an exchange he had with the military colonel who heads the three-member panel that heard his case.

“Is any statement that you made, was it because of this treatment, to use your word, you claim torture,” the colonel asked. “Do you make any statements because of that?”

Portions of Mohammed’s response were deleted from the transcript, and his immediate answer was unclear. He later said his confession read at the hearing to the long list of attacks was given without any pressure, threats or duress.

Oh come on… how naive can you be! And the media certainly aren’t naive. Cynical, yes. Profit-driven, yes. But naive - no! And, against the background of Mr Mohammed’s earlier remarks concerning torture, the censored parts of his statement, and in the context of the documented abuses at Guantanamo Bay (and indeed the present American regime’s stance on torture) no reasonable person can be left in any doubt that this case is built on very shaky ground.

How then justify the attention-grabbing headline adopted by Yahoo?

Here’s a bit more, in rather more detail, about the story I blogged a few days ago…

» Soldier Killed Herself After Objecting to Interrogation Techniques - RINF Alternative News
The true stories of how American troops, killed in Iraq, actually died keep spilling out this week. Now we learn, thanks to a reporter’s FOIA request, that one of the first women to die in Iraq shot and killed herself after objecting to harsh “interrogation techniques.”

more…

Original post here

Torture Memories by Shepherd Bliss

U.S. SOLDIER COMMITS SUICIDE

The editor of the authoritative trade publication Editor and Publisher, Greg Mitchell, wrote on article on Nov. 1 entitled “Revealed: U.S. Soldier Killed Herself After Objecting to Interrogation Techniques.” He tells the story of U.S. Army specialist Alyssa Peterson, 27. She died on Sept. 15, 2003, by “non-hostile weapons discharge,” according to the military.

Her story lay dormant until longtime radio and newspaper reporter Ken Elston decided to probe further in 2005. On Oct. 31 he reported the following on her hometown radio station KNAU in Flagstaff, Arizona: “Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed.”

Elston reports on interviews with her colleagues, “The reactions to the suicide were that she was having a difficult time separating her personal feelings from her professional duties.” Peterson was a devout Mormon. She is described by a friend as being “genuine, sincere, sweet…a wonderful person.”

It is bad enough that the Bush administration is putting the bodies of our military personnel in harm’s way. It is worse that some are being order to apparently engage in war crimes, thus damaging their souls.

I hope that Peterson’s story gets out further. It is an example of how torture deeply harms those tortured, their family members and friends, and those ordered to torture.

more…

The End of Humanity

All of us are living in a torturing and killing World

We all live in a world of PERPETRATORS and are identifying us with the powerful, the rich and the influent persons in this World. The other truth is, that we all are living our reality in a VICTIMS-World - have always been and always will be. We live in a perpetrators world but in fact 99 percent of human beings have in all times been victims of the eternally same horrible creatures.

Listen to the following sound:

“We tortured young people to death with all possible methods: Some were burnt to death on a net of metal made glow by electricity. Some other students or journalists were slowly drowned to death over hours. But we were never satisfied in our lust to kill as painfully as ever possible. With the consent and knowledge of CIA and government, my torturing monsters did with the victims whatever they wanted. One of the worst method of killing was to widen the anus of men or the vagina of women with burners and than chasing rats in these openings. The rats ate themselves literally through the intestines of the victims. The shouting and yelling had no end and we laughed our heads off during the time our victims slowly died from pain….”

more…