At the weekend, to mark the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, which takes place on June 26 each year, President Obama issued an extraordinary statement, declaring support for those working to eradicate the use of torture, and explaining that “[t]orture and abusive treatment violate our most deeply held values,” that they “do not enhance our national security,” that they “serv[e] as a recruiting tool for terrorists and further endanger the lives of American personnel,” and that they “are ineffective at developing useful, accurate information.”
The President was absolutely correct in his assessment of the problems with torture, and was also correct to point out how “President Reagan signed, and a bipartisan Senate coalition ratified” the UN Convention Against Torture, which came to force on June 26, 1987, and whose anniversary has been marked, since 1998, as the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.
However, when President Obama wrote of “paying tribute to all those who are courageously working to eradicate these inhuman practices from our world, and reaffirming the commitment of the United States to achieving this important goal,” and of remaining “dedicated to supporting the efforts of other nations, as well as international and nongovernmental organizations, to eradicate torture through human rights training for security forces, improving prison and detention conditions, and encouraging the development and enforcement of strong laws that outlaw this abhorrent practice,” it was difficult not to ignore the stench of hypocrisy.
The problem, of course, is that, although Obama issued an executive order on his second day in office, upholding the absolute prohibition on the use of torture, he also declared his “belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards,” and has done all in his power to prevent any senior Bush administration officials or lawyers from being held accountable for authorizing or attempting to justify the use of torture.
As a result, Obama stood by and watched as, in February last year, a four-year internal investigation into John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, lawyers at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, was cynically overturned by a DoJ fixer, David Margolis. Yoo had written the notorious “torture memos,” issued on August 1, 2002, that purported to redefine torture so that it could be used by the CIA, and Bybee had approved them, but when the investigation concluded that both men had been guilty of “professional misconduct,” Margolis decided instead that they had only exercised “poor judgment.”
Obama also stood by last September when five men subjected to “extraordinary rendition” and torture by the CIA, including the British residents Binyam Mohamed and Bisher al-Rawi, had their lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing subsidiary that had functioned as the CIA’s travel agent, blocked by the administration, and by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with Obama’s Justice Department that it was appropriate to use the little-known and little-used “state secrets” doctrine to block any attempt to expose the truth in any US court on the basis that it would endanger “national security” — a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court last month.
Last December, we also discovered, via WikiLeaks, that the Obama administration had put pressure on the Spanish government to prevent the courts in Spain from pursuing an investigation into six former Bush administration lawyers — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon’s former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; and Jay Bybee and John Yoo — for “creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture.”
As a result, Obama’s claims that the US has a “commitment” to eradicating torture, and is also involved in “encouraging the development and enforcement of strong laws that outlaw this abhorrent practice,” are thoroughly unacceptable, stinking of hypocrisy, as I mentioned above.
In fact, as the 24th anniversary of the entry into force of the UN Convention Against Torture passes, the only hope that anyone will be held accountable for torture under the Bush administration (in the US at least, as opposed to other investigations that are underway — in Poland, for example) is in the hands of John Durham. The “respected, Republican-appointed US Attorney from Connecticut,” as Adam Zagorin described him two weeks ago in an important Time magazine blog post, “has begun calling witnesses before a secret federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va.,” in connection with an investigation he began in August 2009, when Attorney General Eric Holder authorised him to investigate the activities of CIA agents, but only those that exceeded the guidelines drawn up by John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee — “roughly a dozen cases” in total.
This appeared, at the time, to be a depressingly weak response to the disgust that Holder apparently felt when he learned the full details of the Bush administration’s torture program, but with hindsight it may have been the only way to pierce the “golden shield” provided to Bush administration officials by the “torture memos.” No clue has been provided as to who authorized David Margolis to clear Yoo and Bybee of “professional misconduct,” but if the decision was out of Eric Holder’s hands, then it remains possible that Holder’s appointment of Durham was genuinely meant to yield results, simply because it focuses only on actions that exceeded the guidelines.
As Zagorin described it, Time had “obtained a copy of a subpoena signed by Durham,” which stated that “the grand jury is conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving War Crimes (18 USC/2441), Torture (18 USC 243OA) and related federal offenses.” One of the cases identified by Time is that of Manadel al-Jamadi, also known as “the Iceman.” An Iraqi prisoner killed in Abu Ghraib on November 4, 2003, al-Jamadi’s story was the focus of a masterly article in the New Yorker in November 2005, in which Jane Mayer asked, Can the CIA legally kill a prisoner?” (and in the same month Zagorin also wrote an article for Time).
As Zagorin noted in his recent article, although al-Jamadi’s death received “worldwide publicity,” because his ice-wrapped corpse featured in some of the notorious Abu Ghraib photos, only one officer was charged in connection with his death — and acquitted, hence the title of Mayer’s article. Navy SEALs had “injured al-Jamadi during his violent arrest and initial questioning, but an autopsy concluded that those events could not have killed him.” In fact, he had died after “being turned over by the SEALs at Abu Ghraib, kicking and screaming in English and Arabic, [and] placed in a cell with a CIA interrogator and contract linguist.”
Zagorin proceeded to explain that “[o]fficial investigations ruled al-Jamadi’s death a homicide,” because, while in CIA custody, he “was hung on a wall before succumbing to asphyxiation and ‘blunt force injuries.'” The circumstances of his death were so severe that the CIA’s Inspector General “referred the case to the Justice Department” for possible prosecution, “but no action was taken.”
According to Zagorin’s report, Durham is seeking evidence about al-Jamadi’s death from military personnel who served at Abu Ghraib, and “is asking a lot of questions — like who took photographs of the body, and when.” He has also reportedly “asked about civilian contractors at the site, mentioning one by name, and has probed the source of the multiple shoe prints apparently found on material used to wrap al-Jamadi’s body.” One particular individual being investigated has not been named by Durham, but “those close to the case believe that person is Mark Swanner, a non-covert CIA interrogator and polygraph expert who questioned al-Jamadi immediately before his death,” even though he “told investigators several years ago that he did not harm” al-Jamadi.
Zagorin also noted:
Unanswered questions surround the killing. According to official reports, investigators were unable to examine key evidence because the victim’s blood was removed from the floor of the death cell on orders of a US military officer. The CIA allegedly removed a blood-stained hood that had been placed over the victim’s head. A CIA supervisor later admitted he destroyed it. Immediately after the killing, CIA and military personnel argued over who might be blamed; the corpse was iced to slow decomposition and stored in a shower room overnight, before being spirited away with an intravenous tube attached to one arm, creating the impression that al-Jamadi was still alive.
Whether Durham’s investigation will lead to any kind of prosecution is unknown. Zagorin wrote that “any charges involving the CIA, much less accusations of war crimes and torture, could be explosive,” adding that “Durham’s inquiry amounts to a crawl through a political minefield.” This is certainly true, although some observers have always hoped that pinning charges on individuals might encourage them to point up the chain of command to those who authorised their actions, breaking through the protective shield that still surrounds those like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who bear the ultimate responsibility for creating the environment in which al-Manadi was murdered.
There are certainly obstacles to any action. As Zagorin explained, last month Michael Mukasey, Attorney General under George W. Bush, “declared it ‘absolutely outrageous’ that the Justice Department was still looking into potential CIA wrongdoing.” He also noted that seven former CIA directors had asked Holder to scrap the investigation as soon as it was announced in August 2009, and that former Republican Senator Rick Santorum stated that the investigation was “a political prosecution” and “should be terminated immediately,” as he recently launched his Presidential bid.
However, the main reason for doubting that Durham’s investigation will lead anywhere — above and beyond the significance of Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court not to allow a torture suit by 250 former Abu Ghraib prisoners to proceed against contractors at the prison — is John Durham’s previous capitulation regarding his investigations. Under George W. Bush, Durham was tasked with investigating the destruction of videotapes documenting the CIA’s torture of “high-value detainees,” despite a court order to preserve the tapes as evidence.
However, in November last year, after nearly three years, the Justice Department announced that Durham had “concluded that he would not bring a criminal case against the CIA officers,” even though, as the Washington Post explained at the time, “The burning of the 92 tapes on Nov. 9, 2005, was authorized in a cable sent by Jose Rodriguez Jr., head of the agency’s directorate of operations,” and a former senior CIA operations officer told the Post that the tapes were not destroyed “in total innocence,” because “there was a standing order from a federal judge that said not to destroy the tapes, [which] trumps any inside the CIA legal call.”
As the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, it may be wishful thinking to consider that, at some point, someone may be held accountable for the many acts of torture and murder that have taken place in the “War on Terror,” but for now John Durham’s ongoing investigation remains the only hope that there will be any kind of accountability within the United States.
Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook, Twitter, Digg and YouTube). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in June 2011, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, on tour in the UK throughout 2011, and available on DVD here — or here for the US), my definitive Guantánamo habeas list and the chronological list of all my articles, and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.
On Facebook, Małgorzata Czil wrote:
Kricket Schurz wrote:
my son thinks I am over the edge for refusing to vote for Obama and offer my approval for this – the wars – his being corporate owned and all the rest that his administration has so far stood for.
Thanks, Malgorzata and Kricket. I can’t blame you, Kricket. Voting for the lesser of two evils is not really a demonstration that we live in societies with genuine choice available, and politicians who actually care about the people, about peace, about justice.
Kristin Higgins wrote:
shared i like what you are doing Andy
And thanks, Kristin. That’s very good to hear.
Zeke Smith wrote:
Kricket, I think its ok to not vote given the choices we have, as long as you are getting involved in other ways politically. Supporting movements for liberation.
Kricket Schurz wrote:
I am hoping enough people will wake up for there to at least be a viable option by the time the election comes around – a way to express the desire for change at any rate. Mind you – I am aware this is America – land of the deaf – uninformed and blind – but we can always hope.
Thanks, Zeke and Kricket. Here in the UK, we’re out on the streets again today — protests are focused on teachers and other public sector workers fighting to stop the erosion of their pensions, but it’s an opportunity for much wider action against the government’s austerity program. Hopefully it will be a big turnout, as more and more people realize that it is only through concerted action that we have a chance of shifting the debate away from what the government falsely claims as “necessity,” when everything is actually down to choice — and, in particular, the government’s choice to savage the state, to privatize everything that hasn’t already been privatized, and to ignore the fact that any holes in the public finances could be filled if the banks and corporations were not allowed to pursue their disgraceful policies of wholesale tax evasion.
On Digg, The Face of Bo wrote:
Rhetoric in lieu of action seems to be the Obama way and too any people still allow that superficial rhetoric to stand in PLACE of real action.
What are we? Psychotic? Thinking to say something is equivalent to doing? That is purely psychotic but then the US citizenry exhibits its social psychosis daily.
We are “peace-lovers” while bombing in 3 countries (plus); we are “democratic” while installing dictatorships; we are “humanitarian” while allowing huge numbers of Americans to starve and look the other way at torture committed in our name…
Excellent comments. Thanks!
Back on Facebook, Cindy Piester wrote:
Andy, thank you for keeping up your fine efforts on this. Are you going to be coming to the U.S. at any point?
I hope so, Cindy. Current plans are for a visit in January, on the 10th anniversary of the opening of Guantanamo.
Cindy Piester wrote:
Kricket, you have the wisdom to see through the media lies. This whole thing must be so hard for many, especially our youth to wrap their minds around. Easier to believe what comes across the tube. Take care, Kricket. cindy
George Kenneth Berger wrote:
I’m sharing and Digging this now, Andy. Extraordinary work on a revolting case of lethal torture, sadism, moral cowardice, concealment and obstruction from Obama on down. Not to mention media distortion and neglect, with a largely uncaring or unknowing public.
Sadly, yes, George. Thanks for caring. Always good to hear from you.
Priya Warcry wrote:
Mui J. Steph wrote:
According to [Jane] Mayer, the Navy Seals did more than just injure Al Jamadi. They knocked him on the head with a door, threw him around and threw a stove on him (probably head injury, broken ribs(?) etc.. Don’t know when the hood was put on him. But I doubt he was kicking and screaming by then. Both Mayer and other journalists are too nice to the Seals, even if it was the CIA who ultimately did him in. It’s like asking which kick did him in.
Mui J. Steph wrote:
The reports also claimed Al-Jamadi resisted arrest, which is when he opened his door, they immediately grabbed his head and banged it against the door./s These are Navy Seals. I wish journalists would stop with the polemic. Not you Andy. But no one can be defended in this case or many many others.
Mui J. Steph wrote:
And as far as I am concerned, Obama can take BS and dress it up nice and seem less vicious than Bush, but when it comes down to it, Kill Teams, Bagram pop x3, endless imprisonment, night raids, escalated bombing, Ray Davis etc. happened on his watch as well. He’s pretty much endorsed policy that permits murder and torture rather than coming out and saying it out loud. In a way it’s worse, Obama’s a liar.
Mui J. Steph wrote:
re: Al-Jamadi and “resisting arrest”. From what I can tell, ” Resisting Arrest” is the standard excuse mlitary gives in reports when they have beaten a prisoner (almost or near )to death before bringing him/her to Camp Cropper, or whatever detention center, if they ever get there. So common in the reports, IMHO, that it’s a pattern. And the autopsy cert can then read manner of death: Accidental. It’s unbelievable the lies they pull to cover up the killing and torture. And that’s why I sincerely think the burden rests on the Navy Seals to prove that Al-Jamadi was actually “resisting arrest” when they beat him, threw him up in the air a few times and threw a stove on him.
Mui J. Steph wrote:
It will read “Accidental” or something else that’s meant to be self-exonerating.
Thanks, Priya, and particular thanks to you, Mui. Your clear disgust, and the way you have thought abut this in depth, really shines through. I will shortly have to start writing an update about the Obama administration’s disgraceful attempt to definitively dismiss the Bush administration’s global program of rendition, torture and murder, which took place yesterday when Eric Holder announced that only two criminal prosecutions will take place as a result of John Durham’s investigations — in the case of Manadel al-Jamadi, and also that of Gul Rahman, murdered at the “Salt Pit” in Afghanistan. I’m not looking forward to it, as it’s such a blatant attempt to wipe the slate clean, and to blame just a handful of people down the chain of command for what came from the very top of government.
Mui J. Steph wrote:
Obama’s looking to wipe the slate clean, because he’s protecting the people who are still in place doing the same things they did during the Bush administration. IMHo, it’s that simple.
Mui J. Steph wrote:
Another thing about the “investigations” is: stories change all the time. As do autopsy reports. According to Steven Miles there was more than one death certificate for at least one of victims of the most notorious torture. Dilawar? Al Jamadi? I forgot which. There’s lying and then there’s telling so many lies that no one knows which is true. Don’t know which is worse.
Mui J. Steph wrote:
One of the death certificates said cause of death was due to some kind of heart failure, heart disease.
Thanks again, Mui. I seem to recall that a preexisting heart condition was used in more than one homicide case, but I haven’t read most of the depressing stories for many years. The February 2006 report by Human Rights First is here: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf
It was Dilawar who had several death certificates (although there probably were other such cases). At least one of them was honest and led to the case going public when journalist Carlotta Gall (NYT) laid eyes on it. Incidentally, it had been given to his family without a translation, so they never even knew until Carlotta got involved and investigated this further: Taxi to the Dark Side.
Thanks, Kabuli. Further information on Dilawar’s murder, and other murders in Afghanistan, can be found in this article I wrote two years ago:
Mui J. Steph wrote:
Yes Andy. Because heart failure at 25 is so common. Although we can be pretty sure it wasn’t the primary cause of death in some of the wretched torture cases.
Mui J. Steph wrote:
Thanks Andy, I haven’t seen that link before. It’s still the same through 2008 as far as I can tell. I wish they’d FOIA through present day. Because everything about recent news like “Petraues rounds up thousands of “Taliban””, screams abuse.
Mui J. Steph wrote:
The military has a DC cardiac pathologist lined up to give a long BS explanation, regardless of what happened to the rest ofo the body, I suspect. They accidentally left a name (oops) in one of the ACLU FOIAs.
Who would’ve thought war was so great for DC pathology consultancy businesses? They have a nice contract too.
Thanks, Mui. Yes, an updated report by HRF (and/or others) would be good, although I don’t recall anything along those lines, and can’t find anything by Googling.
[…] none of these men have been held accountable for their actions. In fact, as I explained in an article last week, the President has done all in his power to make sure that those who authorised torture or […]
Campaigning investigative journalist and commentator, author, filmmaker, photographer, singer-songwriter and Guantánamo expert
Email Andy Worthington
Please support Andy Worthington, independent journalist: