HUMAN RIGHTS-US: Another War against Bad Press

By Gustavo Capdevila Reprint | | Print |

Gustavo Capdevila

GENEVA, May 5 2006 (IPS) - A major delegation of lawyers and officials from the United States appeared before the U.N. Committee Against Torture Friday, defending that country vigorously against allegations of serious abuse that have dogged the U.S. government since the early days of the war against terror.

Along these lines, the head of the U.S. delegation, John B. Bellinger, legal adviser to the Secretary of State, reiterated the US government’s “absolute commitment to upholding its national and international obligations to eradicate torture and to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishments.”

When accusations of torture are brought forward, even if they are made against government officials, they are investigated, and, when justified, legal proceedings are set in motion, said another U.S. delegate, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, Barry F. Lowenkron.

With these ideas as the foundation of their arguments, the defence for the U.S. government unfolded predictably, committee member Fernando Mariño Menéndez, court reporter for the U.S. case, told IPS.

Lowenkron said abuses such as those perpetrated in the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib, under U.S. control, “sickened the American people – just as they appalled people around the world. They were inexcusable and indefensible.”

But Bellinger emphasised that these incidents were not systematic. “I would ask you not to believe every allegation that you have heard.”

“The accusations regarding U.S. military and intelligence activities have become so hyperbolic as to be absurd,” the official told the 10 independent, unpaid members that comprise the U.N.’s Committee Against Torture.

Lowenkron noted that the Defence Department had made 12 investigations into the abuses at Abu Ghraib and that 250 people had been found guilty of violating prisoner rights. “When we make mistakes we take corrective measures,” he emphasised.

The defence rounded out its case by referring to the situation in the prison on the U.S. naval base in Cuba’s Guantánamo Bay. More than 1,000 international journalists have travelled to Guantánamo to examine the facilities, which hold approximately 500 detainees of various nationalities.

A parliamentary group of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) also visited the naval base and one of its members told journalists that he would describe the facilities as a “model prison,” Lowenkron told the committee.

Committee members questioned the U.S. delegation on two issues: one relating to internal U.S. issues, particularly the problem of abuse of women in prisons, raised by Nora Sveaass, of Norway.

Sveaass spoke of sexual violence against women detained in the United States, and asked if prison-staff training includes gender issues.

The second issue focused on U.S. legislation on torture and the relationship between this kind of human-rights violation and the actions that the U.S. has put in place to fight terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Mariño Menéndez said the U.S. delegation was going to have to work on their definition of torture. They will have to justify why “they do not list torture as a federal crime,” he said.

The U.S. legal system has other criminal designations that “may or may not cover all cases of torture, but are not specified in detail,” the Spanish academic told IPS. The United States has not incorporated into its legislation the full stipulations of the first article of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which does specifically define the crime.

This blurs the line between torture, on one side, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on the other, he said.

This lack of precision gives rise to a wide range of discretion as to what interrogation techniques are allowed, as evidenced in two memos issued by the U.S. government in 2002 and 2004, noted the committee chair.

Mariño Menéndez said that the next session would include a dialogue on the U.S. interpretation of the special laws in cases of armed conflict –- ones to which the Convention against Torture, in effect since 1987, does not apply. The U.S. delegates “must clearly explain if this is their position,” he repeated.

“Are they claiming to still be involved in an armed conflict against terrorism?” he asked. “The United States must establish the idea that there is still an armed conflict in terms of international law, which I believe is debatable.”

Jennifer Daskal, the Washington director of the international organisation Human Rights Watch, said she was reassured by the vigorous questions of the Committee members.

“They raised very important issues about the definition of torture, about continuing to rely on diplomatic assurances, about the lack of accountability, and about the incommunicado detention of prisoners,” Daskal told IPS.

Daniel Gorevan, of Amnesty International, was pleased that committee members used many of the arguments contributed by his organisation and other human rights groups.

“The problem is that the U.S. is spreading torture and cruel inhuman treatment both as part of the war on terror and domestic actions,” Gorevan told IPS.

Referring to the committee recommendations, which will be released May 19, he said: “We hope that there will be a positive outcome and that the U.S. will change its policies as a result of this process.” (END/IPS/WD NA IP HD SP IK/TRASP-SS-SW/PC/DCL/06)