23 July 2006
Written by Tanjen
Cork Alliance Against War
Another political meeting in Cork coming up, details below:
——————————————————-
CORK ALLIANCE AGAINST WAR PUBLIC MEETING:
Ex Abu Ghraib interrogator Joshua Casteel speaks out.
Wednesday 26 July
8:00pm Metropole Hotel, Macurtain St.
When Joshua Casteel was sent to Iraq by George Bush, he was promised that he would be fighting the war on Terror. He was stationed as an interrogator in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. Casteel was so sickened by what went on while he was at Abu Ghraib that he applied for conscientious objector status and now works in the US with Iraqi Veterans Against War, and is using his experience in Iraq as a weapon for peace, truth and justice.
His talk in Cork is part of a nationwide speaking tour organised by the Irish Antiwar Movement.
All welcome.
It is over 2 years since the appalling Abu Ghraib photos appeared in the media. Research shows that more than 600 U.S. personnel have been implicated in abuse of over 460 detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay, yet the U.S. has taken only limited steps to investigate and punish those implicated.
A briefing paper presents findings of the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project (DAA) a joint project of New York Universitys Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First initiated 2005. The project is the first comprehensive accounting of credible allegations of torture and abuse in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.
Said Professor Meg Satterthwaite, faculty director of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU:
2 years ago, U.S. officials said the abuses at Abu Ghraib were aberrations and that people who abused detainees would be brought to justice…Yet our research shows that detainee abuses were widespread, and few people have truly been brought to justice.
The DAA Project has documented more than 330 cases in which U.S. military and civilian personnel are credibly alleged to have abused, tortured or killed detainees. Only 40 of the more than 600 U.S. personnel implicated have been sentenced to prison time.
The project found that about half of the abuse allegations were never investigated, and investigations that did occur often closed prematurely, or stalled without resolution.
Although approximately 20 civilians, including CIA agents, have been referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for detainee abuse, the Department of Justice has shown minimal initiative in moving forward cases. The Department of Justice has not indicted a single CIA agent for abusing detainees; it has indicted only 1 civilian contractor.
In cases where abuses were substantiated and perpetrators identified by military investigators, military commanders often chose to use weak non-judicial disciplinary measures as punishment, instead of pursuing criminal court-martial. Of the court-martials that did take place, the majority resulted in either prison sentences of less than 1 year, or punishments that did not involve jail time. Only 10 U.S. personnel have been sentenced to a year or more in prison..
Said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch:
We ve seen a series of half-hearted investigations and slaps on the wrist…The government seems more interested in managing the detainee abuse scandal than in addressing the underlying problems that caused it.
The project found that the vast majority of those who were investigated for abuse were enlisted military personnel, and only 3 officers have been convicted by court-martial for detainee abuse. Under military law, officers can be held accountable for the abuses of their subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility. The project did not find a single case in which an officer was held accountable under that doctrine.
Said Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights First:
There s been a failure of accountability for detainee abuse at the command level… Without accountability up the chain of command, there won’t be deterrence, and the torture and abuses we ve documented likely will continue.
The U.S. government has denigrated international treaties that the U.S. has signed and that constitute U.S. law regarding torture and inhuman treatment.
The definition of torture has been reinterpreted by the U.S. Justice Department as follows:
Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.
Torture and cruelty are re-named as enhanced measures,creative and aggressive techniques, unique and innovative ways.
Redefinitions are designed to justify lowered moral standards in the treatment of prisoners.
The department has also said :
…there is no legal prohibition under the Convention Against Torture on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to aliens overseas.
There is no indication that the outsourcing or rendition of brutal treatment will cease.
A U.S. Defense Department memorandum has said that:
no law banning torture or regulating interrogation can bind the president when he is operating in his role as commander in chief.
Senator Jack Reed asked the military this question:
If you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American citizen [under the] control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, answered:
I would describe it as a violation.
The next question might be:
Why have these and other violations of the Geneva Conventions been certified as legal when employed by the U.S.?
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people. (August 1765) John Adams.
I’ll come for this meeting. Certainly a better idea than holding it at 8pm on Friday night, like last time. I mean, I try to be caring guy, and I truly hate war, but going to a protest meeting during prime pub hours? Jeesh, there’s a limit to my engagment, y’know?