Изображения страниц



sexual humiliation during interrogations. A sormer interrogator recently consirmed that semalc intcrrogators had sexually harassed dclainccs.

The administration has continued with its assurances that all detainees in US custody are treated humanely and all allegations of abuse investigated. The evidence is mounting that this is simply falsc. “They don't usc dogs in Guantánamo Bay during the interrogation process and never did”, the Senate Armed Services Committee was told in September 2004.9 The former commander of Guantánamo, Major General Geoffrcy Miller, testificd on oath that dogs were never used to intimidate detainees at the base. Yet, now FBI agents have added to the allegations of detainees that dogs have been used. For example, FBI agents have reported witnessing sleep deprivation and “the utilization of loud music/bright lights/growling dogs” in interrogations at Guantánamo.

According to a leaked military document, the ICRC raised allegations in a meeting with the Guantánamo authorities in October 2003 that interrogators at the base had had access to the medical files of detainees, that the files were “being used by interrogators to gain information in developing an interrogation plan”, and “that there is a link belween the interrogation Icam and thc mcdical icam”. Major General Miller rejccicd the allegations. However, in a new article published in The New England Medical Journal of Medicine, two mcdical doctors write that their own rescarch into “medical involvement in military intelligence gathering in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay has revealed a more troublesome picture":

Not only did caregivers pass health information to military intelligence personnel;
physicians assisted in the design of interrogation strategies, including sleep
deprivation and other coercive methods tailored to detainees' medical conditions.
Medical personnel also coached interrogators on questioning technique...
The conclusion that doctors participated in torture is premarure, but there is
probable cause for suspecting i1. Follow-up investigation is essential...'

On 5 January 2005, US Southern Command announced that it would carry out an internal investigation into the FBI allegations of abuses." In Amnesty International's vicw, more is needed. There is a need for a full independent commission of inquiry into the USA's detentions in Guantánamo and elsewhere. Such a commission, called for by Amnesty International since May 2004, must have the power to investigate the role of officials in the highest echelons of government, including in the White Ilouse and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and must cover all aspects of the USA's “war on lerror" detention and interrogation policy and practices, in all locations. Secrecy and imprecision as avenues for abuse and suffering The Pentagon refuses to give precise numbers of detainees held in Guantánamo. The concern is that this could allow secret detainee transfers to take place. In early 2004, for example, approximately seven detainees remained unaccounted for in the official announcements about transsers w and from Guantánamo." In the light of revelations about so-called “ghost delainccs” in US custody in Iraq and the continued allegations of secret transscrs between the USA and countrics with records of torture, there is rcason for deep concern in this regard.

A legal motion filed in sederal court in November 2004 and declassisied on 5 January 2005, rencws concern on the case of Australian delaincc Mamdouh Habib. The motion begins:

"In October, 2001, the Unites States military - cooperation with the Pakistani and Egyptian Governments rendered Mamdouh Habib to Egypt, knowing and intending he would be tortured Mr. Habib spent six months in Egyprian custody, where he was subjected to unspeakable brutality. Afterwards, Mr. Habih was returned to United States custody, travelling first to Bagram Air Force Base, then to the U.S. military

11 وو

facility at Kandahar, then to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he has been held since May, 2002.

Recently, undersigned counsel learned from press reports that the United States Government is negotiating with Egypt to render Mr. Habib back to tha country where he would once again be tortured."

The motion seeks a restraining order to prevent the seared transfer of Mamdouh Habib to Egypl or the Egyplian authorities. The document details the alleged torture lo which Mamdouh Habib was previously subjected in Egypt, including clcctric shocks, walu torture, physical assaults, suspension from hooks, and threats with dogs. It gives details about how US agents were present at his interrogations in Pakistan after his arrest, and during his secret transfer to Egypt. The details echo those given by others who claim to have beec subjected to such “rendition”. For example, Amnesty International is still awaiting a reply to a letter it sent to the US authorities in August 2004 on the case of Khalid El Masri, a German national of Lebanese origin who alleges that he was secretly flown to incommunicado delenlion in Afghanistan from Macedonia in early 2004, and that US agents were present during interrogations in secret detention in Kabul.." His claims that hc was laken lo a plane by agents dressed in black, that he had his clothes cut from him with scissors, and that he was made to wear a blue track suit, match the allegations raiscd in federal court about Mamdouh Habib's previous transfer to Egypt with the involvement of US agents.

Amnesty International has spoken lo many rclatives of Guantánamo detainccs who themselves are in decp distress from the lack of transparency and information about their loved ones. In November 2004, for example, the sister and brother of Kuwaiti detainee Abdullah Al Kandari told the organization of how their parents are not the same people they were three years ago” because of losing their son to the black hole of Guantánamo. Farlier in the year, the brother of Yemeni detainee Jamal Mar'i related how his mother has developed high blood pressure and sinks into bouls of depression from the strain of not knowing what is happening to the son she has not seen for more than three years. In other contexts, the suffering of the relatives of the “disappeared" has been found by the UN Human Rights Committee to amount to torture or cruci, inhuman or degrading trcatment. Similar crucity is inflicted upon the relatives of pcoplc held in indefinite virtual incommunicado detention without charge or trial. It is notable that numerous relatives of the Guantánamo detainees have referred to their loved one as having disappeared. Military commissions The fourth category of unlawfulness in relation to thc Guantánamo concerns thc US administration's cont ling efforts to bring sclected detainces to trial by military commission These bodies entirely lack independence from the executive. Set up to obtain convictions on lesser standards of evidence, they can admit secret or coerced testimony. Their verdicts cannot be appealed to any court. Only non-US nationals can be so tried, in violation of the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights.

Amnesty International had an observer at the recent pre-trial hearings for the first four detainees charged in preparation for trial by commission. Her observations confirmed the organization's worst fears that this is a system unable to deliver a fair trial. The commission panel's ignorance of the law and the disparily of resources allocated to prosecution and defence team in a process controlled by the executive, were particularly obvious. So too was thic low quality of intcrprcting and translation standards on several occasions the defence had to request that proceedings be halted because the quality of intcrprcting was so bad. Thu commission rejected the defence counsel's attempt to bring in six expert witnesses to explain various aspects of international law and military law. The prosecution asserted that the only law that binds the panel is "commission law”, a set of rules and orders developed in the US Deparlment of Defense. It is shocking that people could face execution after such trials, which clcarly sail 10 mcct basic international standards.

Commission proceedings were suspended in November 2004 after a federal judge concluded that those captured in Afghanistan should have been presumed to be prisoners of war, which precluded thcir trial by military com sion. Even if thcy were sound not lo bc POWs hy a competent tribunal, the judge said, the commission rules allowing the use of secret evidence would still violate duc process. The administration has appcalu to a higher court arguing that the judge's ruling "constitutes an extraordinary intrusion into the Cexecutive's power to conduct military operations”. The outgoing Attorney General, presumably referring not only to this judge's ruling, but also that of the Supreme Court in June, condemned what he characterized as a “profoundly disturbing trend” of “intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations”.

With the US administration showing disdain for its own courts, the international community faces an uphill task to persuade it to change course. The USA should be reminded not only of the various aspects of unlawfulness raised by the Guantánamo delenlions, but that this rcgime also contravencs thc USA's National Sccurity Suralcgy which proclaims that respcct for human dignily and thc rule of law is the roulc lo sccurily, as well as its National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which asserts that a world in which such standards arc embraced as the norm will be “the best antidote to the spread of terrorism". "This”, the latter strategy concludes “is the world we must build today”. Instead, the USA built a prison camp which has become an affront to human rights and the rule of law. The international community must redouble its efforts to bring this intolerable situation to an end. INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1 EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X ODW, UNTED KINGDOM



[ocr errors]


Amnesty International delivered a shorter version of this text at a hearing on the Laufulness of
Detentions by the United Sates in Guantánamo Bay held by thc Council of Europc's Committa on
Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Paris, France, on 17 December 2004.
? Even the US Army's interrogation Field Manual FM 34-52 of 1992 states that “Captured insurgents
and other detained personnel whose stalus is not clear, such as suspected terrorists, are entitled lo
(Prisoner of War) protection until their precise status has been determined by competent authority”.

See USA: Human dignity denied: Torture and accountability in the 'war on terror', Al Index: AMR
51/145/2004, October 2004, http://wcb.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004.
Fresh details emerge on harsh methods at Guantánamo. New York Times, 1 January 2005.
Fact Sheet. Status of detainees al Guantánamo. The White House. 7 February 2002.

ICRC meeting, 2 February 2004. hlup://www.washingtonposi.com/wpsv/nation/documents Gitmo Memo02-02-04.ndi.

Released Moroccan Guantánamo detainee tells Islamist paper of his 'ordeal. BBC, 30 December 2004.

Fresh details emerge on harsh methods ar Guantánamo. New York Times, 1 January 2005. Major General George Tay. Testimony to Senate Armed Services Commillee, 9 September 2004.

See page 94 of Human dignity denied: Torture and accountability in the 'war on terror'.

When doctors go lo war. By M. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks. The New England Medical Journal of Medicine, Volume 352:3-6, 6 January 2005, Number 1.

Southcom investigates abuse allegations at Guantánamo. United Statcs Southern Command News Rclcasc, 5 January 2004.

See page 101-102 of Human dignity denied: Torture and accountability in the 'war on terror'.

Habib v Bush. Petitioner's memorandum of points and authorities in support of his application for injunctive relief. Civil Action No. 02-CV-1130 (CKK), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Soc page 186 of Human dignity denied: Torture and accountability the 'war on terror'.

[ocr errors]











............ 1


Part One: Overview ..............


I. A familiar path to torture

A war mentalily without commilment to the laws of war..
Old arguments to justify torture: the concept of 'necessity

Not just a few 'bad apples' .....
II. Human dignity denied: torture or ill-treatment of the ‘other'...

From Afghanistan to Abu Ghraib, via Guantánamo.....
Interrogation techniques with a discriminatory resonance.
From stripping to sexual assault

The right to be treated with humanity......
III. Coercive interrogations and international law..

Torture and ill-treatment as international crimes
IV. Human rights: the route to security, not the obstacle to it.........

6 9 14 18 20 23 30 36 40 41 44 46

Part Two: Agenda for action - Commission of inquiry and 12-Point Program.. 49 An independent commission of inquiry is called for.......


Point 1- Condemn torture...............

55 1.1 Words undonc by dccds

55 1.2 The condemnation is paper thin – The 'torture memos?

57 1.3 -Un-American' activities?

73 1.4 Slippery slope: Undermining public morality

80 1.5 Recommendations under Point 1...

89 Point 2 - Ensure access to prisoners ......

90 2.1 Incommunicado detention facilitates torture 2.2 Access to legal counsel

91 2.3 Access to doctors

93 2.4 Access to relatives..

96 2.5 Access to the courts...

98 2.6 Recommendations under Point 2.

99 Point 3 - No secret detention.............

100 3.1 Sccrccy nurtures torture and disappearancc”.

100 3.2 Sccrel detentions and other government agencics'.

107 3.3 Recommendations under Point 3 .........

116 Point 4 – Provide safeguards during detention and interrogation.................... 117 4.1 Keeping powers of interrogation and delenlion aparı..

117 4.2 Isolation as an interrogation technique..........

122 4.3 Specific protection for women and child detainees

126 4.4 Independent inspection: ICRC, UN and human rights monitors.

130 4.5 Recommendations under Point 4...



USA: Human dignity denied: Torture and accountability in the war on terror

Point 5 - Prohibit torture in law

5.1 Pulling thc President above the law, dclainccs below the law 5.2 Domestic legislation to comply with international law.

5.3 Recommendations under Point 5 Point 6 - Investigate

6.1 Investigative record does not inspire confidence.... 6.2 Investigating deaths in custody.

6.3 Recommendations under Point 6. Point 7 - Prosecute

7.1 No impunity: from contractors to commander-in-chief.

7.2 Recommendations under Point 7 .... Point 8 - No use of statements extracted under torture ...

8.1 Thc fruit of a poisonous trcc.

8.2 Recommendations under Point 8. Point 9 - Provide effective training.

9.1 Training has been found wanting.

9.2 Recommendations under Point 9 Point 10 - Provide reparation .......

10.1 Reparation means more than just money

10.2 Recommendations under Point 10 ...... Point 11 - Ratify international treaties..........

11.1 Playing fast and loose with international law.
11.2 UN Convention against Torture..
11.3 Geneva Conventions
11.4 Ignoring or misusing international cxpert opinion......
11.5 Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture.
11.6 International Criminal Courl...

11.7 Recommendations under Point 11
Point 12 - Exercise international responsibility

12.1 Internalional sccurily cooperation or outsourcing lorturc?
12.2 Double standards – setting a bad example
12.3 Recommendations under Point 12.

134 134 139 141 142 142 146 152 153 153 160 161 161 164 164 164 166 167 167 169 169 169 170 173 175 178 179 180 181 181 187 189




Compilation of recommendations under 12-Point Program......


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »