I finally saw Taxi to the Dark Side this weekend. A viewing was certainly long overdue, as it came out in '07. But I knew most of the subject matter anyway, so I didn't miss anything but a well-made documentary. I hope director Alex Gibney (or someone) has the desire to do a follow-up somewhere down the road.
More importantly, The Washington Post ran three stories today that are stark reminders, as if we needed any, that the U.S. and beyond is still trying to sort through the post-9/11 chaos.
First, a report that the Bush administration sought to water-down an international human rights treaty to fit their warped, morally-depraved version of extraordinary rendition, or kidnapping the suspected without any consideration of their well-being during or after confiscation.
Instead of embracing a far-reaching ban on arrests, detentions and abductions of people without disclosing their fate or whereabouts or ensuring "the protection of the law," the United States pressed in 2004 for a more limited prohibition on intentionally placing detainees outside legal protections for "a prolonged period of time." At the time, the CIA was secretly holding about a dozen prisoners.
Foreign governments criticized the U.S.-preferred wording, calling it vague and saying that proving intent would be hard and should not be necessary.
In the end, the Bush administration declined to endorse the treaty's broadly worded ban, which at least 81 countries have now signed, including all members of the European Union and many nations with checkered human rights records, such as Algeria, Argentina, Cuba and Guatemala.
...
The treaty requires member countries to enact domestic criminal penalties for state-orchestrated disappearances and to compensate victims, but it has not taken legal effect because it has not been ratified by at least 20 nations, the minimum required. That leaves U.N. investigations of such cases in the hands of a five-member group chaired by a South African, which last year sent 1,203 new allegations of enforced disappearances to officials in the 28 countries said to be involved. A total of 42,393 alleged such disappearances in 79 countries remain unresolved by the group, according to its most recent annual report.
The U.N. group complained to the Bush administration last year about reports of the "enforced disappearance for a certain period of time" of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, a radical Egyptian cleric who was abducted by the CIA from a Milan street in 2003 and sent to Egypt, where he says he was tortured. When the State Department responded that U.S. policy bars such renditions if torture is anticipated, the U.N. group highlighted the gulf between the global treaty's view of "intentionality" and the Bush administration's view.
"Intentionality is essentially irrelevant," the group said in its response to Washington, "in the sense that any act of enforced disappearance has the consequence of placing the persons subjected thereto outside the protection of the law, regardless of the pursued purposes." U.S. negotiators had argued to the contrary in 2006 -- that proving intent is "an essential ingredient of the crime."
During the negotiations, China and a few other countries joined the United States in repeatedly attempting to slow the pace of the drafting, citing the complexity of the underlying issues. But a February 2004 State Department cable described the United States as "isolated" in urging that the text include language allowing those participating in enforced disappearances to be exempt from prosecution if they thought they were following lawful orders.
The documents also spell out how the Bush administration was "virtually alone" in objecting to a treaty provision stipulating that anyone "with a legitimate interest," such as a relative, be given an explanation and accounting of an individual's detention by the government as well as information on the person's whereabouts and health. U.S. negotiators called that provision unacceptable in a 2004 document, saying it "could impair national security, law enforcement, or privacy interests."
At least we have China's stellar human rights record to back us up....
Second, Germany's reaction of outrage at a German NATO commander solely ordering a U.S. fighter jet to bomb a fuel tanker that ended up killing as many as 100, most of which were reportedly innocents, in Afghanistan. The German government has swiftly reacted, and prosecutions linger. Granted, Germany has an election coming up, so I'm sure that didn't hurt the reaction time. But still, their anger at themselves, at the U.S. for criticizing German forces for their initial handling of the bombing and at their involvement in the war is a strong reminder of what international opinion of the war in Afghanistan is. And its trending in that same downward trajectory here.
I can't imagine the U.S. rushing to hold those responsible for possible egregious action accountable in such fashion. We usually argue over whether a death count is 20 or 40 civilians, then hope no one notices when we move on to the next massacre du jour.
Third, here's what you do when you have terror suspect. You put them through the scrutiny of a fair justice system. If a court of law finds the evidence against them sufficient, then you prosecute. This all legal. No torture, no kidnapping, no moral stains. The British can do it. Why couldn't we do it on a consistent basis?
No comments:
Post a Comment