By William Fisher
A few years back, the FBI mistakenly linked an American lawyer’s fingerprint to one found near the scene of a horrific terrorist bombing in Madrid, Spain. In the tragedy of errors that followed, the lawyer was jailed in Oregon as a “material witness” for two weeks.
And what did the FBI do? It apologized. That doesn’t happen very often, but it did happen this time. The FBI admitted a blunder that had led to Brandon Mayfield’s unlawful imprisonment.
“The FBI apologizes to Mr. Mayfield and his family for the hardships that this matter has caused,” the bureau said in a statement, adding that the agency also said it would review its practices on fingerprint analyses.
Mayfield, a 37-year-old convert to Islam, sharply criticized the government, calling his time behind bars “humiliating” and “embarrassing” and saying he was targeted because of his faith.
“This whole process has been a harrowing ordeal. It shouldn’t happen to anybody,” said Mayfield. “I believe I was singled out and discriminated against, I feel, as a Muslim.”
And maybe that’s what should have happened long before Maher Arar’s case ended up before a Federal Appeals Court. Consider how much money would have been saved by the government and by Arar’s legal team, and think about how such an action by the government would have undoubtedly ceded the U.S. the moral high ground it desperately needs to regain.
Just to refresh your memory: Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, was detained at JFK Airport in September 2002 while changing planes on his way home to Canada. He was held by U.S. authorities incommunicado – no lawyer, no contact with family, no nothing. The Bush administration labeled him a member of Al Qaeda and sent him not to Canada, his home and country of citizenship, but against his will to Syrian intelligence authorities renowned for torture. He was tortured, interrogated and detained in a tiny underground cell for nearly a year before the Syrian government released him, stating they had found no connection to any criminal or terrorist organization or activity.
How do we know what the outcome would have been if the U.S. had taken the Canadian road? We know because that’s the road the Canadian Government took. It decided to find out the details of what happened. It impaneled a high-level commission, which spent two years painstakingly sifting through the information that led to Arar’s unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, and unlawful “extraordinary rendition.” It admitted that its people had passed erroneous information to the Americans that led to this travesty in the first place.
Heads rolled. Senior officials were forced to resign. But the Canadian intelligence services didn’t implode. Their sources and methods were never revealed.
And after its exhaustive two-year public inquiry, which found that Arar had no connection to terrorism, the Canadian Government apologized to Arar for Canada’s role in his rendition, and awarded him a multi-million-dollar settlement.
Could there have been a sharper contrast between the two governments’ responses to their mistakes? The Canadians fessed up to a mistake. And with that admission, their credibility catapulted off the charts.
The U.S. Government, on the contrary, has fiercely fought off inquiry of any kind. It has used every tool in its legal back-back to refuse to hold anyone accountable for ruining the life of an innocent man. And, in so doing it has perfectly positioned a large dark cloud over its head.
Inscribed on that cloud? Secret government. Not credible government. Not to be believed government.
We might have harbored a smidgen of hope for better things from our government on the occasion of two Congressional hearings on the Arar case in 2007. On October 18, 2007, Arar testified via video at a House Joint Committee Hearing convened to discuss his rendition by the U.S. to Syria for interrogation under torture. During that hearing – the first time he testified before any U.S. governmental body – individual members of Congress publicly apologized to him. But the government stopped well short of any kind of formal apology. The following week, on October 24, then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged during a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing that the U.S. government had mishandled his case.
Mishandled his case? Tone-deaf statement of the Year!
BTW, Arar’s Congressional testimony was via video because Arar was on the “no fly” list of the Department of Homeland Security. And he remains on the list today.
But a lot of us were at least a bit more hopeful when we heard our new president usher in a new era of transparency in government. Not that we were under a bunch of naïve illusions that Obama would let our intelligence sources and methods spill out in plain sight. That’s OK for Code Pink.
No, most of us progressives are grown-up enough to appreciate that countries need to have secrets and that sometimes these secrets have to stay that way.
But perhaps we were naïve and full of wishful “Yes We Can” thinking if we thought our society and our government would become more open, more inclined to reconciliation, and less litigious any time soon.
The bottom line is that, as a result of years of government obfuscation, judicial sandbagging and bureaucratic red tape, a case that could have been settled with a pretty straightforward apology and modest compensation found itself inexorably headed for protracted arguments involving some of our smartest lawyers doing their thing before some of our smartest judges in the most powerful courts in our country.
Huzzah! We Americans seem to love nothing more than seeing a bunch of legal gladiators engaged in pitched battle in much the way the Romans did in the Forum. Conjures up images of Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. Or Spencer Tracy and Frederick March duking it out as Clarence Darrow and Williams Jennings Bryan.
And we weren’t disappointed. Words flew. Milllions of them. From lawyers on both sides. From Friends of the Court, who joined in the fun, adding millions more words. The case bounced up and down the judicial ladder from disrict court to a three-judge panel in the circuit court of appeals, back to the district court for yet another full-throated advocacy joust before an 11-judge en banc court.
All this took seven years and cost millions of taxpayer and private dollars.
And what did anyone get in the end?
An appeals court decision that left enough people so unhappy and unsatisfied that the Supreme Court has to be the next step in climbing this Himalayan obstacle course.
What did the Appeals Court decision tell us?
The court concluded that the case brought by Mahar Arar against Bush-era Attorney General John Ashcroft and other officials raised too many sensitive foreign policy and secrecy issues to permit relief. The decision leaves the federal officials involved free of any legal accountability for their actions.
In a 7-4 decision, the Court wrote, “If a civil remedy in damages is to be created for harms suffered in the context of extraordinary rendition, it must be created by Congress, which alone has the institutional competence to set parameters, delineate safe harbors, and specify relief. If Congress chooses to legislate on this subject, then judicial review of such legislation would be available.”
But Arar’s attorney, David Cole, took a decidedly different view as he indicated that yesterday’s decision would be appealed to the Supreme Court.
He told us, “This decision says that federal officials can conspire to subject an innocent man to torture, block his access to courts who would enjoin them from getting their way, and then avoid all accountability thereafter because the case would be too sensitive to litigate. The court puts executive officials above the law, and tells an innocent torture victim that concerns about foreign relations are so important that his claim cannot even be considered.”
Cole added, “If the rule of law means anything, it must mean that courts can hear the claim of an innocent man subjected to torture that violates our most basic constitutional commitments.”
Yesterday’s majority opinion cited previous cases in which the practice of rendition was found to be lawful. It noted that “the renditions of suspected terrorists Ramzi Yousef and Mir Aimal Kansi to the United States and the rendition of Illich Ramirez Sanchez, also known as ‘Carlos the Jackal’, by French authorities from the Sudan to France,” had been upheld by the European Commission on Human Rights.
“For decades,” the Court wrote, the United States and other countries have used ‘renditions’ to transport terrorist suspects from the country where they were captured to their home country or to other countries where they can be questioned, held, or brought to justice.”
It ruled, “Applying our understanding of Supreme Court precedent, we decline to create, on our own, a new cause of action against officers and employees of the federal government. Rather, we conclude that…it is for the Executive in the first instance to decide how to implement extraordinary rendition, and for the elected members of Congress--and not for us as judges -- to decide whether an individual may seek compensation from government officers and employees directly, or from the government, for a constitutional violation. Administrations past and present have reserved the right to employ rendition…Not withstanding prolonged public debate, Congress has not prohibited the practice, imposed limits on its use, or created a cause of action for those who allege they have suffered constitutional injury as a consequence.”
Four judges issued dissenting opinions. One of them, Judge Guido Calabresi, wrote, “I believe that when the history of this distinguished court is written, today’s majority decision will be viewed with dismay.”
The Obama Administration has said that it would continue the practice of extraordinary rendition, but would seek diplomatic assurances that those it rendered to other countries would be not tortured. This was also the policy of previous U.S. administrations, dating from the administration of President Bill Clinton and including that of George W. Bush. However, such “diplomatic assurances” have been largely worthless, since the U.S. retains relatively little control over what happens inside a foreign prison once a person is turned over to another country.
In a statement issued through the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which brought the suit on Arar’s behalf, Arar said, “After seven years of pain and hard struggle it was my hope that the court system would listen to my plea and act as an independent body from the executive branch.”
Now this is where I’m supposed to summon up all my cajones, put out my strongest arguments in my most intrepid voice, and convince one and all that there is only one wisdom – and I have it.
Instead, it seems more appropriate to end this polemic with another look at the wisdom of another:
“After seven years of pain and hard struggle it was my hope that the court system would listen to my plea and act as an independent body from the executive branch.” – Maher Arar
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
And Where Was A.G. Ashcroft? A.W.O.L.
By William Fisher
Bush-era Attorney General John Ashcroft had a busy day in court yesterday.
A Federal Appeals court ruled he could not be held responsible for kidnapping a Canadian citizen in New York and shipping him off to Syria where he was imprisoned for a year and tortured.
But, in another case, five men who had been living in New York and were ultimately deported won a $1.26 million settlement from the U.S. government in a suit accusing Ashcroft and other officials of racial profiling, illegal detention and abuse of Muslim, Arab and South Asian men in the days following the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001.
Yasser Ebrahim, one of the men held at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, NY after the post-9/11 sweeps and now living in Egypt, said: “We were deprived of our rights and abused simply because of our religion and the color of our skin. After seven long years, I am relieved to be able to try to rebuild my life. I know that I and others are still affected by what happened and that communities in the U.S. continue to feel the fallout. I sincerely hope this will never happen again.”
In the second case, a federal Court of Appeals in New York dismissed Canadian citizen Maher Arar’s suit against Ashcroft and other U.S. officials for their role in sending him to Syria to be tortured. The court concluded that Arar’s case raised too many sensitive foreign policy and secrecy issues to permit relief. It leaves the federal officials involved free of any legal accountability for what they did.
In a 7-4 decision, the Court wrote, ““If a civil remedy in damages is to be created for harms suffered in the context of extraordinary rendition, it must be created by Congress, which alone has the institutional competence to set parameters, delineate safe harbors, and specify relief. If Congress chooses to legislate on this subject, then judicial review of such legislation would be available.”
Mr. Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, was detained at JFK Airport in September 2002 while changing planes on his way home to Canada. The Bush administration labeled him a member of Al Qaeda and sent him not to Canada, his home and country of citizenship, but against his will to Syrian intelligence authorities renowned for torture. He was tortured, interrogated and detained in a tiny underground cell for nearly a year before the Syrian government released him, stating they had found no connection to any criminal or terrorist organization or activity.
Georgetown university law school professor David Cole, who argued the Arar case, told Truthout, “This decision says that federal officials can conspire to subject an innocent man to torture, block his access to courts who would enjoin them from getting their way, and then avoid all accountability thereafter because the case would be too sensitive to litigate. The court puts executive officials above the law, and tells an innocent torture victim that concerns about foreign relations are so important that his claim cannot even be considered.”
He indicated that the Arar case would be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case against John Ashcroft and other Bush-era officials was filed in January 2004, just three months after he returned home to Canada from his ordeal. It was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and was the first to challenge the government’s policy of “extraordinary rendition,” also known as “outsourcing torture.”
The Canadian government, after an exhaustive two-year public inquiry, found that Mr. Arar had no connection to terrorism and, in January 2007, apologized to Mr. Arar for Canada’s role in his rendition and awarded him a multi-million-dollar settlement.
The contrast between the two governments’ responses to their mistakes could not be more stark, say Mr. Arar’s attorneys. “Both the Executive and Judicial branches of the United States government have barred inquiry and refused to hold anyone accountable for ruining the life of an innocent man,” they said.
Two Congressional hearings in October 2007 dealt with his case. On October 18, 2007 Mr. Arar testified via video at a House Joint Committee Hearing convened to discuss his rendition by the U.S. to Syria for interrogation under torture. During that hearing – the first time Mr. Arar testified before any U.S. governmental body – individual members of Congress publicly apologized to him, though the government still has not issued a formal apology. The next week, on October 24, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted during a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing that the U.S. government mishandled his case.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Guido Calabresi wrote, “I believe that when the history of this distinguished court is written, today’s majority decision will be viewed with dismay.”
The racial profiling case, known as Turkmen v. Ashcroft, was filed in September 2002 to challenge the arbitrary detention and mistreatment of immigration detainees by prison guards and high-level Bush administration officials in the wake of 9/11. With no evidence of any connection to terrorism, hundreds of Muslim, Arab and South Asian men were rounded up on the basis of racial and religious profiling and subjected to unlawful detention and abuse.
Among other documented abuses, many of the men had their faces smashed into a wall where guards had pinned a t-shirt with a picture of an American flag and the words, “These colors don’t run.” The men were pushed against the t-shirt upon their entrance to MDC and told, “welcome to America.” The t-shirt was smeared with blood, yet it stayed up on the wall at MDC for months.
All of the men were eventually deported, though several of the plaintiffs returned to New York under strict conditions to participate in depositions for their case against the government in early 2006.
“As with the Japanese internment, history will not look kindly upon the Ashcroft raids,” said CCR Attorney Rachel Meeropol. “This is just the first step, though. To ensure that this never happens again, the former Attorney General and his cronies – the architects of this policy – must also be held accountable.”
The suit named as defendants then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, former INS Commissioner James Ziglar and officials at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where the plaintiffs were held.
Some of the abuse included beatings, repeated strip searches and sleep deprivation. The allegations of inhumane and degrading treatment have been substantiated by two reports of the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General, and several defendants in the case have recently been convicted on federal charges of beatings and cover-ups of other prisoners around the same time period.
Bush-era Attorney General John Ashcroft had a busy day in court yesterday.
A Federal Appeals court ruled he could not be held responsible for kidnapping a Canadian citizen in New York and shipping him off to Syria where he was imprisoned for a year and tortured.
But, in another case, five men who had been living in New York and were ultimately deported won a $1.26 million settlement from the U.S. government in a suit accusing Ashcroft and other officials of racial profiling, illegal detention and abuse of Muslim, Arab and South Asian men in the days following the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001.
Yasser Ebrahim, one of the men held at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, NY after the post-9/11 sweeps and now living in Egypt, said: “We were deprived of our rights and abused simply because of our religion and the color of our skin. After seven long years, I am relieved to be able to try to rebuild my life. I know that I and others are still affected by what happened and that communities in the U.S. continue to feel the fallout. I sincerely hope this will never happen again.”
In the second case, a federal Court of Appeals in New York dismissed Canadian citizen Maher Arar’s suit against Ashcroft and other U.S. officials for their role in sending him to Syria to be tortured. The court concluded that Arar’s case raised too many sensitive foreign policy and secrecy issues to permit relief. It leaves the federal officials involved free of any legal accountability for what they did.
In a 7-4 decision, the Court wrote, ““If a civil remedy in damages is to be created for harms suffered in the context of extraordinary rendition, it must be created by Congress, which alone has the institutional competence to set parameters, delineate safe harbors, and specify relief. If Congress chooses to legislate on this subject, then judicial review of such legislation would be available.”
Mr. Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, was detained at JFK Airport in September 2002 while changing planes on his way home to Canada. The Bush administration labeled him a member of Al Qaeda and sent him not to Canada, his home and country of citizenship, but against his will to Syrian intelligence authorities renowned for torture. He was tortured, interrogated and detained in a tiny underground cell for nearly a year before the Syrian government released him, stating they had found no connection to any criminal or terrorist organization or activity.
Georgetown university law school professor David Cole, who argued the Arar case, told Truthout, “This decision says that federal officials can conspire to subject an innocent man to torture, block his access to courts who would enjoin them from getting their way, and then avoid all accountability thereafter because the case would be too sensitive to litigate. The court puts executive officials above the law, and tells an innocent torture victim that concerns about foreign relations are so important that his claim cannot even be considered.”
He indicated that the Arar case would be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case against John Ashcroft and other Bush-era officials was filed in January 2004, just three months after he returned home to Canada from his ordeal. It was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and was the first to challenge the government’s policy of “extraordinary rendition,” also known as “outsourcing torture.”
The Canadian government, after an exhaustive two-year public inquiry, found that Mr. Arar had no connection to terrorism and, in January 2007, apologized to Mr. Arar for Canada’s role in his rendition and awarded him a multi-million-dollar settlement.
The contrast between the two governments’ responses to their mistakes could not be more stark, say Mr. Arar’s attorneys. “Both the Executive and Judicial branches of the United States government have barred inquiry and refused to hold anyone accountable for ruining the life of an innocent man,” they said.
Two Congressional hearings in October 2007 dealt with his case. On October 18, 2007 Mr. Arar testified via video at a House Joint Committee Hearing convened to discuss his rendition by the U.S. to Syria for interrogation under torture. During that hearing – the first time Mr. Arar testified before any U.S. governmental body – individual members of Congress publicly apologized to him, though the government still has not issued a formal apology. The next week, on October 24, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted during a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing that the U.S. government mishandled his case.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Guido Calabresi wrote, “I believe that when the history of this distinguished court is written, today’s majority decision will be viewed with dismay.”
The racial profiling case, known as Turkmen v. Ashcroft, was filed in September 2002 to challenge the arbitrary detention and mistreatment of immigration detainees by prison guards and high-level Bush administration officials in the wake of 9/11. With no evidence of any connection to terrorism, hundreds of Muslim, Arab and South Asian men were rounded up on the basis of racial and religious profiling and subjected to unlawful detention and abuse.
Among other documented abuses, many of the men had their faces smashed into a wall where guards had pinned a t-shirt with a picture of an American flag and the words, “These colors don’t run.” The men were pushed against the t-shirt upon their entrance to MDC and told, “welcome to America.” The t-shirt was smeared with blood, yet it stayed up on the wall at MDC for months.
All of the men were eventually deported, though several of the plaintiffs returned to New York under strict conditions to participate in depositions for their case against the government in early 2006.
“As with the Japanese internment, history will not look kindly upon the Ashcroft raids,” said CCR Attorney Rachel Meeropol. “This is just the first step, though. To ensure that this never happens again, the former Attorney General and his cronies – the architects of this policy – must also be held accountable.”
The suit named as defendants then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, former INS Commissioner James Ziglar and officials at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where the plaintiffs were held.
Some of the abuse included beatings, repeated strip searches and sleep deprivation. The allegations of inhumane and degrading treatment have been substantiated by two reports of the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General, and several defendants in the case have recently been convicted on federal charges of beatings and cover-ups of other prisoners around the same time period.
Monday, November 02, 2009
What Ever Happened to "Do No Harm'?
By William Fisher
The state board responsible for licensing – and disciplining -- psychologists in Louisiana is “fighting awfully hard to turn a blind eye to serious allegations of abuse” brought against one of its members, who is being accused of complicity in beatings, religious and sexual humiliation, rape threats and painful body positions during his service as a senior advisor on interrogations for the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
That is the view expressed by Deborah Popowski, cooperating attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), part of the legal team representing Dr. Trudy Bond. Dr. Bond, an Ohio-based psychologist, is suing the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists to compel it to investigate the behavior of Louisiana psychologist and retired U.S. Army colonel Dr. Larry C. James, a former high-ranking advisor on interrogations for the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
“We wish the Board would devote its resources to investigating unethical conduct instead. Everyone, including the people of Louisiana, would be better served,” she told us.
The chairperson of the Board, Dr. Jillandra Rovaris, who also chairs the complaints committee, did not respond to telephone calls or emails seeking comment and clarification.
Popowski says that, according to Dr. James’ own statements, he played an influential role in both the policy and day-to-day operations of interrogations and detention at the prison camps. She claims that publicly-available information shows that “while Dr. James was at Guantanamo, abuse in interrogations was widespread, and cruel and inhuman treatment was official policy.”
In February 2008, Dr. Bond filed a complaint against Dr. James before the Board, the agency that issued and now regulates his psychology license. Dr. Bond alleged that Dr. James breached professional ethics by violating psychologists’ duties to do no harm, to protect confidential information and to obtain informed consent, and she called on the Board to investigate whether action should be taken against Dr. James.
Dr. Bond’s lawyers contend that the Board summarily refused to investigate her complaint, claiming that the statute of limitations had run, despite what they say is conclusive information to the contrary. Dr. Bond then filed suit against the Board in Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court, which in July 2009 dismissed her case without looking at the merits. Now, in a brief before the First Circuit Court in Baton Rouge, Dr. Bond argues that the District Court should have reviewed the Board’s “clearly wrong legal decision.”
Said Dr. Bond, “The five psychologists on the Louisiana Board were given plenty of credible evidence, but they chose not to investigate the head intelligence psychologist of prison camps notorious for their use of psychological torture. I don’t think Louisiana lawmakers intended to give five fellow professionals total, unchecked power to make arbitrary decisions that deeply affect the public welfare.”
Dr. Bond told us, “I began reading of the role of psychologists at detention sites such as Guantanamo and was horrified when the American Psychological Association, by way of the infamous PENS report in 2005, determined that the actions of the BSCT psychologists were ethical.”
She added, “In his biographical statement for the PENS report, Larry James stated that he was the ‘Chief Psychologist for the Joint Intelligence Group at GTMO, Cuba’ starting in January 2003. When the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedure Manual (dated February, 2003 and implemented March 27, 2003) was released in November of 2007 and included behavioral management of prisoners that violated our psychological ethics codes, that same ethics code required that I report such violations to the licensing board to be investigated. My complaint to the Louisiana Board of Psychologists was dated 2/29/08.”
Allegations of abuse during Dr. James’s January to May 2003 deployment include beatings, religious and sexual humiliation, rape threats and painful body positions.
Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, who is still imprisoned in Guantanamo, is one of the prisoners who has alleged brutal treatment in the spring of 2003, when he was only 16 years old.
Khadr was captured by American forces at the age of 15 following a four-hour firefight with militants in the village of Ayub Kheyl, Afghanistan. He has spent seven years in the Guantanamo Bay detention camps charged with war crimes and providing support to terrorism after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.
A Canadian citizen born in Toronto, he is the youngest prisoner held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp by the United States and has been frequently referred to as a child soldier. In April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms made it obligatory for the government to immediately demand Khadr's return. After a hearing before the Court of Appeals produced the same result, the government announced they would argue their case before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case next month.
Dr. James was also stationed in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 and returned to Guantanamo in 2007. In 2008, he was named Dean of the School of Professional Psychology at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.
The CCR says that, as Chief Psychologist of the Joint Intelligence Group and a senior member of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) at Guantanamo, Dr. James had access to the confidential medical records of people he was charged with exploiting for intelligence.
It adds that, according to former Guantanamo interrogators, BSCTs used information from patients’ records to help interrogators increase the patients’
psychological duress, including by exploiting their fears. The very purpose of these mental health professional teams, the interrogators said, was to help
“break” the prisoners. Dr. James denies that claim, but an extensive government paper trail supports the interrogators’ accounts, the organization contends.
The so-called “Biscuit Teams” have sparked controversy ever since their existence became public. The actions taken by team members have called into question the appropriate behavior for physicians, psychologists and other health care professionals who are team members.
The taken by the CCR is, “Despite their universally recognized duty to do no harm, doctors and psychologists have played a key role in the United States government’s policy of torture in its overseas prisons. Some have crafted and justified torture tactics, inflicted pain, overseen abuse and enabled and covered up cruel treatment.”
The group adds, “Freedom of Information Act litigation and a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) inquiry into the treatment of detainees have yielded shed light on the specific role of military intelligence psychologists and psychiatrists at the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba. The names and licensing information of several individuals who may have been involved in prisoner abuse are publicly known. Yet, when presented with credible information that licensees within their jurisdiction may have committed gross breaches of ethics, state licensing boards have refused to take action. To date, not one health professional has been held accountable for their role in torture.”
The state board responsible for licensing – and disciplining -- psychologists in Louisiana is “fighting awfully hard to turn a blind eye to serious allegations of abuse” brought against one of its members, who is being accused of complicity in beatings, religious and sexual humiliation, rape threats and painful body positions during his service as a senior advisor on interrogations for the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
That is the view expressed by Deborah Popowski, cooperating attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), part of the legal team representing Dr. Trudy Bond. Dr. Bond, an Ohio-based psychologist, is suing the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists to compel it to investigate the behavior of Louisiana psychologist and retired U.S. Army colonel Dr. Larry C. James, a former high-ranking advisor on interrogations for the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
“We wish the Board would devote its resources to investigating unethical conduct instead. Everyone, including the people of Louisiana, would be better served,” she told us.
The chairperson of the Board, Dr. Jillandra Rovaris, who also chairs the complaints committee, did not respond to telephone calls or emails seeking comment and clarification.
Popowski says that, according to Dr. James’ own statements, he played an influential role in both the policy and day-to-day operations of interrogations and detention at the prison camps. She claims that publicly-available information shows that “while Dr. James was at Guantanamo, abuse in interrogations was widespread, and cruel and inhuman treatment was official policy.”
In February 2008, Dr. Bond filed a complaint against Dr. James before the Board, the agency that issued and now regulates his psychology license. Dr. Bond alleged that Dr. James breached professional ethics by violating psychologists’ duties to do no harm, to protect confidential information and to obtain informed consent, and she called on the Board to investigate whether action should be taken against Dr. James.
Dr. Bond’s lawyers contend that the Board summarily refused to investigate her complaint, claiming that the statute of limitations had run, despite what they say is conclusive information to the contrary. Dr. Bond then filed suit against the Board in Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court, which in July 2009 dismissed her case without looking at the merits. Now, in a brief before the First Circuit Court in Baton Rouge, Dr. Bond argues that the District Court should have reviewed the Board’s “clearly wrong legal decision.”
Said Dr. Bond, “The five psychologists on the Louisiana Board were given plenty of credible evidence, but they chose not to investigate the head intelligence psychologist of prison camps notorious for their use of psychological torture. I don’t think Louisiana lawmakers intended to give five fellow professionals total, unchecked power to make arbitrary decisions that deeply affect the public welfare.”
Dr. Bond told us, “I began reading of the role of psychologists at detention sites such as Guantanamo and was horrified when the American Psychological Association, by way of the infamous PENS report in 2005, determined that the actions of the BSCT psychologists were ethical.”
She added, “In his biographical statement for the PENS report, Larry James stated that he was the ‘Chief Psychologist for the Joint Intelligence Group at GTMO, Cuba’ starting in January 2003. When the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedure Manual (dated February, 2003 and implemented March 27, 2003) was released in November of 2007 and included behavioral management of prisoners that violated our psychological ethics codes, that same ethics code required that I report such violations to the licensing board to be investigated. My complaint to the Louisiana Board of Psychologists was dated 2/29/08.”
Allegations of abuse during Dr. James’s January to May 2003 deployment include beatings, religious and sexual humiliation, rape threats and painful body positions.
Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, who is still imprisoned in Guantanamo, is one of the prisoners who has alleged brutal treatment in the spring of 2003, when he was only 16 years old.
Khadr was captured by American forces at the age of 15 following a four-hour firefight with militants in the village of Ayub Kheyl, Afghanistan. He has spent seven years in the Guantanamo Bay detention camps charged with war crimes and providing support to terrorism after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.
A Canadian citizen born in Toronto, he is the youngest prisoner held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp by the United States and has been frequently referred to as a child soldier. In April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms made it obligatory for the government to immediately demand Khadr's return. After a hearing before the Court of Appeals produced the same result, the government announced they would argue their case before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case next month.
Dr. James was also stationed in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 and returned to Guantanamo in 2007. In 2008, he was named Dean of the School of Professional Psychology at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.
The CCR says that, as Chief Psychologist of the Joint Intelligence Group and a senior member of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) at Guantanamo, Dr. James had access to the confidential medical records of people he was charged with exploiting for intelligence.
It adds that, according to former Guantanamo interrogators, BSCTs used information from patients’ records to help interrogators increase the patients’
psychological duress, including by exploiting their fears. The very purpose of these mental health professional teams, the interrogators said, was to help
“break” the prisoners. Dr. James denies that claim, but an extensive government paper trail supports the interrogators’ accounts, the organization contends.
The so-called “Biscuit Teams” have sparked controversy ever since their existence became public. The actions taken by team members have called into question the appropriate behavior for physicians, psychologists and other health care professionals who are team members.
The taken by the CCR is, “Despite their universally recognized duty to do no harm, doctors and psychologists have played a key role in the United States government’s policy of torture in its overseas prisons. Some have crafted and justified torture tactics, inflicted pain, overseen abuse and enabled and covered up cruel treatment.”
The group adds, “Freedom of Information Act litigation and a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) inquiry into the treatment of detainees have yielded shed light on the specific role of military intelligence psychologists and psychiatrists at the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba. The names and licensing information of several individuals who may have been involved in prisoner abuse are publicly known. Yet, when presented with credible information that licensees within their jurisdiction may have committed gross breaches of ethics, state licensing boards have refused to take action. To date, not one health professional has been held accountable for their role in torture.”
Justice Delayed…
By William Fisher
The long road to the proverbial “day in court” just got longer for five men who claim they were ‘disappeared’ and tortured by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
The men, who say they were victims of the ‘extraordinary rendition’ program conducted during the administration of President George W. Bush, have been trying since 2007 to get their cases heard on the merits.
But it is now far from clear that the merits of these cases will heard any time soon – if ever. The reason is that the Department of Justice – first through Bush Administration lawyers, now through Obama Administration lawyers -- has invoked the so-called ‘state secrets’ privilege, claiming that a public trial would endanger U.S. national security.
The latest development in the case came last week, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside an earlier ruling by three of its own judges and said a majority of its judges had voted to refer the case to an 11-judge panel for a new hearing. The request to rehear the case, now scheduled for December 15, came from the Obama Administration.
That decision put on hold the earlier findings of the three-judge panel, which had reinstated the Mohamed suit in April. That 3-0 ruling rejected arguments by the Bush and Obama administrations that the case concerned secrets too sensitive to disclose in court.
In its tortuous journey toward justice, the Jeppesen case has taken on many aspects of an international spy thriller – involving high courts, senior diplomatic officials in two countries, prisoner abuse and threats to withhold intelligence-sharing among allies if the abuse was publicly disclosed.
The case is known as Mohamed et al v. Jeppesen Dataplan. The Mohamed is Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen and British resident who, while in CIA custody in 2002, was stripped, blindfolded, shackled, dressed in a tracksuit, strapped to the seat of a plane and flown to Morocco where he was secretly detained for 18 months and interrogated and tortured by Moroccan intelligence services.
In January 2004, Mohamed was once again blindfolded, stripped, and shackled by CIA agents and flown to the secret U.S. detention facility known as the "Dark Prison" in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was again tortured and eventually transferred to another facility and then to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from which he was released without charge in February.
The Jeppesen Dataplan named in the case refers to a subsidiary of aerospace giant Boeing, located in the California Bay Area, which is alleged to have knowingly provided the CIA with logistical support for the chartered aircraft used to “render” terror suspects to countries where they were disappeared and tortured.
A Council of Europe report in 2007 described Jeppesen as the CIA's aviation services provider. In a court declaration, a former employee quoted a company official as telling staff members in 2006 that Jeppesen handled the CIA's "torture flights." And, according to published reports, Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. A former Jeppesen employee informed Jane Mayer of The New Yorker magazine that, at an internal corporate meeting, a senior Jeppesen official stated, "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights - you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way."
The three-judge appeals court panel said the government and Jeppesen could take steps to protect national secrets as the case proceeded. The judges said the administration's argument, if accepted, would "cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its contractors from the demands and limits of the law."
Ben Wizner, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents the plaintiffs, told us, “Much is at stake in this case. If the CIA's overbroad secrecy claims prevail, torture victims will be denied their day in court solely on the basis of an affidavit submitted by their torturers.
He said he was "disappointed that the Obama administration continues to stand in the way of torture victims having their day in court."
He added, "This case is not about secrecy. It's about immunity from accountability."
"We are disappointed by the court's decision to re-hear this case, but we hope and expect that the court's historic decision to allow the lawsuit to go forward will stand. The CIA's rendition and torture program simply is not a ‘state secret.' In fact, since the court's decision in April, the government's sweeping secrecy claims have only gotten weaker, with the declassification of additional documents describing the CIA's detention and interrogation practices. The Obama administration's embrace of overbroad secrecy claims has denied torture victims their day in court and shielded perpetrators from liability or accountability. We hope that the court will reaffirm the principle that victims of torture deserve a remedy, and that no one is above the law," Wizner said.
The fear is that the 11-judge appeals court panel may agree with the DOJ that disclosure in a trial in a public courtroom would compromise national security. Then, the five petitioners would probably ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case – an action the government too would probably take if it lost in the appeals court. If the high court declined to hear the case, that would be the end of the legal road for Mohamed and his co-plaintiffs.
Wizner told us, "To date, not a single alleged torture victim has had his day in court. In this case, most of the evidence is already public. There are no 'state secrets' here. And if there were, our federal courts are well prepared to handle this issue. This is a betrayal of the rule of law. It is not the standard we expected from the Obama Administration."
The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that six of its 27 judges have disqualified themselves from the case, for reasons that were not disclosed. The six included Judge Jay Bybee who, as a Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration, wrote a March 2002 memo saying the president could legally transfer captives to foreign custody.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, whose wife, Ramona Ripston, is the American Civil Liberties Union's executive director in Southern California, also disqualified himself. The ACLU represents the plaintiffs in the case.
Of the five plaintiffs, two are still imprisoned in Egypt and Morocco, and the other three were released without U.S. charges.
Binyam Mohammed, the best-known of the five, was flown back to Britain from Guantanamo in February. He had been on a hunger strike there for several weeks and British Government officials had visited him to determine that he was physically fit to return to the U.K. He claims that up until the time of his release, he was being asked to agree to a no-disclosure agreement in return for charges not being brought against him.
The position taken by the new administration of President Obama took ACLU lawyers by surprise. In their presentation to the Federal appeals court in San Francisco, lawyers from the Obama Department of Justice invoked the same “state secrets privilege” used by the administration of President George W. Bush to argue that the lawsuit brought on behalf of Mohamed and four other alleged victims of the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program should not go forward because revealing the evidence would harm national security.
The ACLU was encouraged to believe that the Obama Justice Department would break from the practices of the Bush Administration. Eric Holder, then only recently confirmed as President Obama’s new Attorney General, said at his confirmation hearing, “I will review significant pending cases in which DOJ has invoked the state secrets privilege, and will work with leaders in other agencies and professionals at the Department of Justice to ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations.”
But that appeared to be at odds with testimony by Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, who told Senators at his confirmation hearing that the practice of rendition would be continued, but that “extraordinary rendition” – sending terror suspects to countries where they are likely to be tortured – would end.
In the past, the U.S. has received “diplomatic assurances” from countries on the receiving end of the extraordinary rendition trips that their new “guests” would not be tortured. These assurances have proved to be demonstrably worthless.
The Jeppesen case has also caused a furor in the United Kingdom and a problem for the U.S. State Department. In a separate case brought on behalf of Mohamed, who is a legal British resident, Britain’s High Court refused to release seven paragraphs that the court had redacted in an earlier opinion. The High Court said that the redacted material lent credence to the torture allegations by Mohamed.
The court said it reached its decision because of what it called a threat from the United States to reconsider sharing intelligence with the U.K. But, in a highly unusual criticism, the High Court expressed dismay that a democracy “governed by the rule of law” would seek to suppress evidence “relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.”
The court said the Bush administration had made the threat in a letter to the Foreign Office last September. It called on the Obama administration to reverse that position. The British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, denied that there was any threat from the U.S.
But the U.S State Department said that the United States “thanks the U.K. government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information” and that “the United States investigates allegations and claims of torture, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment such as those raised by Binyam Mohamed.”
In the latest ruling from the U.K., the British High Court found that while Mohamed, a British resident, was in American custody, the CIA told British intelligence agents how he was being treated. British agents then wrote memos to record what they were told. Last year, the High Court ruled that Mohamed -- who was then at Guantanamo -- had the right to obtain those documents from the British intelligence service in order to prove that statements he made to the CIA were the by-product of coercion.
The High Court's original ruling in Mohamed's favor contained seven paragraphs which described the torture to which Mohamed was subjected.
The ACLU has written to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to clarify the Obama administration's position on the Mohamed case and to reject what it described as the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs.
After Mohamed was captured, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said that he had been complicit with Jose Padilla in a plan to detonate a “dirty bomb” in the United States. Padilla was never charged with this plot, but was convicted on other terrorism-related charges by a federal court in 2007. Last year, the Justice Department said it was dropping the dirty-bomb charges against Mohamed, and last October all charges against him were dropped.
It has been 50 years since the United States Supreme Court last reviewed the use of the "state secrets" privilege. During the Bush Administration, government lawyers invoked the “state secrets” privilege more often than any prior administration to stop cases from proceeding.
Among such cases was that of whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds, who was fired from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March, 2002, after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleging serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence which, she contended, presented a danger to U.S. security.
Her case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. And in 2007, the Supreme Court refused to review the "state secrets" privilege in a lawsuit brought by ACLU client Khaled El-Masri, an innocent German citizen who was kidnapped and rendered to detention, interrogation and torture in a CIA "black site" prison in Afghanistan.
Ironically, in what is believed to be the first use of the state secrets privilege, it was invoked to cover up a falsehood. In a 1953 case known as United States v. Reynolds, the widows of three crew members of a B-29 Superfortress bomber that had crashed in 1948 sought accident reports on the crash, but were told the release such details would threaten national security by revealing the nature of the bomber's top-secret mission.
The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch could bar evidence from the court if it deemed that its release would impair national security. In 1996, the accident reports in question were declassified and released, and when discovered in 2000 were found to contain no secret information. Rather, they contained information about the poor condition of the aircraft itself, which would have compromised to the Air Force's case. Many legal experts have alleged government abuse of secrecy in this landmark case.
Meanwhile, Congress is being pressured to seriously consider legislation to limit the use of the state secrets defense. Major civil rights and open government organizations have written to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees urging them to pass legislation to restrict the government’s ability to use the privilege to dismiss litigation charging government wrongdoing.
Although the Obama administration yesterday announced a new policy in which it essentially promised to use of the state secrets privilege more sparingly, that promise is not good enough, the organizations wrote.
“Both the Bush and Obama administrations have previously relied upon the state secrets privilege to block litigation challenging policies ranging from warrantless wiretapping to extraordinary rendition, and our organizations welcome the new policy as an important first step in bringing much needed reform to the use of this doctrine,” the letter said.
However, the new policy does not address all the problems, the organizations wrote. “To ensure proper oversight and an independent check on executive discretion, judges must be able to review the evidence, order the creation of non-privileged substitutes where appropriate, and assess whether there is sufficient non-privileged evidence to enable a case to proceed,” the letter said. “Legislation is necessary to implement these key reforms.”
The seven organizations which signed the letter include the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Constitution Project, Human Rights First, the National Security Archive, and OMB Watch.
The legislation they’re supporting has been introduced in the Senate as the State Secrets Protection Act: S. 417, sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and in the House as H.R. 984, sponsored by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).
In addition to Mohamed, the four other appellants in the Jeppesen case include:
• Italian citizen Abou Elkassim Britel, who In May 2002, was handcuffed, blindfolded, stripped, dressed in a diaper, chained, and flown by the CIA from Pakistan to Morocco where he was tortured by Moroccan intelligence agents and where he is now incarcerated.
• Egyptian citizen Ahmed Agiza, who In December 2001, was chained, shackled, and drugged by the CIA and flown from Sweden to Egypt where he was severely abused and tortured and where he still remains imprisoned.
• Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah was taken into custody in October 2003 by the Jordanian General Intelligence Department and tortured and interrogated for days. On the morning of October 26, 2003 he was turned over to agents who beat, kicked, diapered, hooded and handcuffed him before secretly transporting him to the U.S. Air Force base in Bagram, Afghanistan. Bashmilah was finally freed on March 27, 2006, never once having faced any charges related to terrorism.
• Iraqi citizen and long-term British permanent resident Bisher al-Rawi was kidnapped in November 2002 and later secretly flown by the CIA to Kabul, Afghanistan. For two months al-Rawi was imprisoned, interrogated and tortured at two separate CIA facilities in Afghanistan, before being transferred to the U.S. detention facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba in February 2003. There, he was imprisoned for more than four years until his release on March 30, 2007. On his release, al-Rawi returned to his home in London where he currently resides freely.
No charges have ever been brought against him.
The long road to the proverbial “day in court” just got longer for five men who claim they were ‘disappeared’ and tortured by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
The men, who say they were victims of the ‘extraordinary rendition’ program conducted during the administration of President George W. Bush, have been trying since 2007 to get their cases heard on the merits.
But it is now far from clear that the merits of these cases will heard any time soon – if ever. The reason is that the Department of Justice – first through Bush Administration lawyers, now through Obama Administration lawyers -- has invoked the so-called ‘state secrets’ privilege, claiming that a public trial would endanger U.S. national security.
The latest development in the case came last week, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside an earlier ruling by three of its own judges and said a majority of its judges had voted to refer the case to an 11-judge panel for a new hearing. The request to rehear the case, now scheduled for December 15, came from the Obama Administration.
That decision put on hold the earlier findings of the three-judge panel, which had reinstated the Mohamed suit in April. That 3-0 ruling rejected arguments by the Bush and Obama administrations that the case concerned secrets too sensitive to disclose in court.
In its tortuous journey toward justice, the Jeppesen case has taken on many aspects of an international spy thriller – involving high courts, senior diplomatic officials in two countries, prisoner abuse and threats to withhold intelligence-sharing among allies if the abuse was publicly disclosed.
The case is known as Mohamed et al v. Jeppesen Dataplan. The Mohamed is Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen and British resident who, while in CIA custody in 2002, was stripped, blindfolded, shackled, dressed in a tracksuit, strapped to the seat of a plane and flown to Morocco where he was secretly detained for 18 months and interrogated and tortured by Moroccan intelligence services.
In January 2004, Mohamed was once again blindfolded, stripped, and shackled by CIA agents and flown to the secret U.S. detention facility known as the "Dark Prison" in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was again tortured and eventually transferred to another facility and then to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from which he was released without charge in February.
The Jeppesen Dataplan named in the case refers to a subsidiary of aerospace giant Boeing, located in the California Bay Area, which is alleged to have knowingly provided the CIA with logistical support for the chartered aircraft used to “render” terror suspects to countries where they were disappeared and tortured.
A Council of Europe report in 2007 described Jeppesen as the CIA's aviation services provider. In a court declaration, a former employee quoted a company official as telling staff members in 2006 that Jeppesen handled the CIA's "torture flights." And, according to published reports, Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. A former Jeppesen employee informed Jane Mayer of The New Yorker magazine that, at an internal corporate meeting, a senior Jeppesen official stated, "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights - you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way."
The three-judge appeals court panel said the government and Jeppesen could take steps to protect national secrets as the case proceeded. The judges said the administration's argument, if accepted, would "cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its contractors from the demands and limits of the law."
Ben Wizner, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents the plaintiffs, told us, “Much is at stake in this case. If the CIA's overbroad secrecy claims prevail, torture victims will be denied their day in court solely on the basis of an affidavit submitted by their torturers.
He said he was "disappointed that the Obama administration continues to stand in the way of torture victims having their day in court."
He added, "This case is not about secrecy. It's about immunity from accountability."
"We are disappointed by the court's decision to re-hear this case, but we hope and expect that the court's historic decision to allow the lawsuit to go forward will stand. The CIA's rendition and torture program simply is not a ‘state secret.' In fact, since the court's decision in April, the government's sweeping secrecy claims have only gotten weaker, with the declassification of additional documents describing the CIA's detention and interrogation practices. The Obama administration's embrace of overbroad secrecy claims has denied torture victims their day in court and shielded perpetrators from liability or accountability. We hope that the court will reaffirm the principle that victims of torture deserve a remedy, and that no one is above the law," Wizner said.
The fear is that the 11-judge appeals court panel may agree with the DOJ that disclosure in a trial in a public courtroom would compromise national security. Then, the five petitioners would probably ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case – an action the government too would probably take if it lost in the appeals court. If the high court declined to hear the case, that would be the end of the legal road for Mohamed and his co-plaintiffs.
Wizner told us, "To date, not a single alleged torture victim has had his day in court. In this case, most of the evidence is already public. There are no 'state secrets' here. And if there were, our federal courts are well prepared to handle this issue. This is a betrayal of the rule of law. It is not the standard we expected from the Obama Administration."
The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that six of its 27 judges have disqualified themselves from the case, for reasons that were not disclosed. The six included Judge Jay Bybee who, as a Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration, wrote a March 2002 memo saying the president could legally transfer captives to foreign custody.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, whose wife, Ramona Ripston, is the American Civil Liberties Union's executive director in Southern California, also disqualified himself. The ACLU represents the plaintiffs in the case.
Of the five plaintiffs, two are still imprisoned in Egypt and Morocco, and the other three were released without U.S. charges.
Binyam Mohammed, the best-known of the five, was flown back to Britain from Guantanamo in February. He had been on a hunger strike there for several weeks and British Government officials had visited him to determine that he was physically fit to return to the U.K. He claims that up until the time of his release, he was being asked to agree to a no-disclosure agreement in return for charges not being brought against him.
The position taken by the new administration of President Obama took ACLU lawyers by surprise. In their presentation to the Federal appeals court in San Francisco, lawyers from the Obama Department of Justice invoked the same “state secrets privilege” used by the administration of President George W. Bush to argue that the lawsuit brought on behalf of Mohamed and four other alleged victims of the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program should not go forward because revealing the evidence would harm national security.
The ACLU was encouraged to believe that the Obama Justice Department would break from the practices of the Bush Administration. Eric Holder, then only recently confirmed as President Obama’s new Attorney General, said at his confirmation hearing, “I will review significant pending cases in which DOJ has invoked the state secrets privilege, and will work with leaders in other agencies and professionals at the Department of Justice to ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations.”
But that appeared to be at odds with testimony by Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, who told Senators at his confirmation hearing that the practice of rendition would be continued, but that “extraordinary rendition” – sending terror suspects to countries where they are likely to be tortured – would end.
In the past, the U.S. has received “diplomatic assurances” from countries on the receiving end of the extraordinary rendition trips that their new “guests” would not be tortured. These assurances have proved to be demonstrably worthless.
The Jeppesen case has also caused a furor in the United Kingdom and a problem for the U.S. State Department. In a separate case brought on behalf of Mohamed, who is a legal British resident, Britain’s High Court refused to release seven paragraphs that the court had redacted in an earlier opinion. The High Court said that the redacted material lent credence to the torture allegations by Mohamed.
The court said it reached its decision because of what it called a threat from the United States to reconsider sharing intelligence with the U.K. But, in a highly unusual criticism, the High Court expressed dismay that a democracy “governed by the rule of law” would seek to suppress evidence “relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.”
The court said the Bush administration had made the threat in a letter to the Foreign Office last September. It called on the Obama administration to reverse that position. The British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, denied that there was any threat from the U.S.
But the U.S State Department said that the United States “thanks the U.K. government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information” and that “the United States investigates allegations and claims of torture, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment such as those raised by Binyam Mohamed.”
In the latest ruling from the U.K., the British High Court found that while Mohamed, a British resident, was in American custody, the CIA told British intelligence agents how he was being treated. British agents then wrote memos to record what they were told. Last year, the High Court ruled that Mohamed -- who was then at Guantanamo -- had the right to obtain those documents from the British intelligence service in order to prove that statements he made to the CIA were the by-product of coercion.
The High Court's original ruling in Mohamed's favor contained seven paragraphs which described the torture to which Mohamed was subjected.
The ACLU has written to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to clarify the Obama administration's position on the Mohamed case and to reject what it described as the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs.
After Mohamed was captured, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said that he had been complicit with Jose Padilla in a plan to detonate a “dirty bomb” in the United States. Padilla was never charged with this plot, but was convicted on other terrorism-related charges by a federal court in 2007. Last year, the Justice Department said it was dropping the dirty-bomb charges against Mohamed, and last October all charges against him were dropped.
It has been 50 years since the United States Supreme Court last reviewed the use of the "state secrets" privilege. During the Bush Administration, government lawyers invoked the “state secrets” privilege more often than any prior administration to stop cases from proceeding.
Among such cases was that of whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds, who was fired from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March, 2002, after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleging serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence which, she contended, presented a danger to U.S. security.
Her case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. And in 2007, the Supreme Court refused to review the "state secrets" privilege in a lawsuit brought by ACLU client Khaled El-Masri, an innocent German citizen who was kidnapped and rendered to detention, interrogation and torture in a CIA "black site" prison in Afghanistan.
Ironically, in what is believed to be the first use of the state secrets privilege, it was invoked to cover up a falsehood. In a 1953 case known as United States v. Reynolds, the widows of three crew members of a B-29 Superfortress bomber that had crashed in 1948 sought accident reports on the crash, but were told the release such details would threaten national security by revealing the nature of the bomber's top-secret mission.
The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch could bar evidence from the court if it deemed that its release would impair national security. In 1996, the accident reports in question were declassified and released, and when discovered in 2000 were found to contain no secret information. Rather, they contained information about the poor condition of the aircraft itself, which would have compromised to the Air Force's case. Many legal experts have alleged government abuse of secrecy in this landmark case.
Meanwhile, Congress is being pressured to seriously consider legislation to limit the use of the state secrets defense. Major civil rights and open government organizations have written to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees urging them to pass legislation to restrict the government’s ability to use the privilege to dismiss litigation charging government wrongdoing.
Although the Obama administration yesterday announced a new policy in which it essentially promised to use of the state secrets privilege more sparingly, that promise is not good enough, the organizations wrote.
“Both the Bush and Obama administrations have previously relied upon the state secrets privilege to block litigation challenging policies ranging from warrantless wiretapping to extraordinary rendition, and our organizations welcome the new policy as an important first step in bringing much needed reform to the use of this doctrine,” the letter said.
However, the new policy does not address all the problems, the organizations wrote. “To ensure proper oversight and an independent check on executive discretion, judges must be able to review the evidence, order the creation of non-privileged substitutes where appropriate, and assess whether there is sufficient non-privileged evidence to enable a case to proceed,” the letter said. “Legislation is necessary to implement these key reforms.”
The seven organizations which signed the letter include the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Constitution Project, Human Rights First, the National Security Archive, and OMB Watch.
The legislation they’re supporting has been introduced in the Senate as the State Secrets Protection Act: S. 417, sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and in the House as H.R. 984, sponsored by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).
In addition to Mohamed, the four other appellants in the Jeppesen case include:
• Italian citizen Abou Elkassim Britel, who In May 2002, was handcuffed, blindfolded, stripped, dressed in a diaper, chained, and flown by the CIA from Pakistan to Morocco where he was tortured by Moroccan intelligence agents and where he is now incarcerated.
• Egyptian citizen Ahmed Agiza, who In December 2001, was chained, shackled, and drugged by the CIA and flown from Sweden to Egypt where he was severely abused and tortured and where he still remains imprisoned.
• Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah was taken into custody in October 2003 by the Jordanian General Intelligence Department and tortured and interrogated for days. On the morning of October 26, 2003 he was turned over to agents who beat, kicked, diapered, hooded and handcuffed him before secretly transporting him to the U.S. Air Force base in Bagram, Afghanistan. Bashmilah was finally freed on March 27, 2006, never once having faced any charges related to terrorism.
• Iraqi citizen and long-term British permanent resident Bisher al-Rawi was kidnapped in November 2002 and later secretly flown by the CIA to Kabul, Afghanistan. For two months al-Rawi was imprisoned, interrogated and tortured at two separate CIA facilities in Afghanistan, before being transferred to the U.S. detention facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba in February 2003. There, he was imprisoned for more than four years until his release on March 30, 2007. On his release, al-Rawi returned to his home in London where he currently resides freely.
No charges have ever been brought against him.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Obama Urged to Fully Comply with Anti-Torture Treaty
By William Fisher
The fifteenth anniversary of the U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture passed last week with little fanfare and virtually no press attention from the mainstream media here.
But according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "U.S. policy continues to fall short of ensuring full compliance with the treaty."
For example, the organisation said that an appendix to the Army Field Manual (AFM) can still facilitate cruel treatment of prisoners and detainees at home and abroad.
The Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CAT) is the most comprehensive international human rights treaty dealing exclusively with the issues of torture and abuse. It came into effect in 1987, and has been ratified by 146 countries.
The treaty was initially signed by the Ronald Reagan administration in 1988 and was ratified by the Senate on Oct. 21, 1994, but with reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs) that failed to make the treaty fully applicable.
The administration of former President George W. Bush exploited these RUDs to justify abusive interrogation policies, including the use of waterboarding, stress positions, extreme isolation and sleep deprivation.
In 2006, the Committee Against Torture, which reviews country compliance with CAT, criticised the U.S. for failure to uphold the treaty and called for full compliance.
After taking office, President Barack Obama issued an executive order prohibiting torture. But under an appendix to the 2006 revised U.S. Army Field Manual – the most recent edition – practices considered incompatible with CAT and international law are still allowed. These include force-feeding, psychological torture, sleep and sensory deprivation.
And under Appendix M to the AFM, detainees can be "separated" or held in isolation from other detainees for 30 days, or longer with authorisation, and allowed only four hours of continuous sleep per night over 30 days, which can be prolonged upon approval.
Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Programme, told IPS, "The president's first nine months in office have signaled a policy shift on human rights and commitment to the rule of law. Certainly his speech to the U.N. and his Nobel Peace Prize have raised the bar of expectation as to his commitment to advancing human rights at home and abroad."
But, he added, "There is still much more to do, including honouring and expanding U.S. human rights commitments and fully incorporating them into domestic policy. U.S. credibility abroad and commitment to human rights at home will be judged by deeds, not by words."
"What is needed now is taking concrete actions to translate these commitments to a robust human rights policy. A new presidential executive order to reconstitute the Inter-Agency Working on Human Rights would be an important step forward," Dakwar said.
"To fulfill its human rights requirements, the administration must also fully investigate crimes of torture committed in violation of U.S. and international law and withdraw the Army Field Manual's Appendix M," he added.
Since his inauguration, President Obama has helped restore U.S. standing on human rights by issuing executive orders to close the Guantánamo detention centre, prohibiting CIA prisons and enforcing the ban on torture, joining the U.N. Human Rights Council, signing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and prioritising the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
While welcoming these steps, the ACLU is calling for additional concrete measures to reassert U.S. leadership on human rights, including the full investigation of torture crimes, abandoning the Guantánamo military commissions and renouncing the practice of holding detainees indefinitely without charge or trial.
The ACLU's Dakwar told IPS that he "expected the administration to announce concrete plans to implement and enforce ratified human rights treaties and the resurrection of the Interagency Working Group on Human Rights - disbanded during the Bush administration - to coordinate and promote human rights within domestic policy."
He said, "There is hope and expectation within the human rights community that the president will make the announcement on resurrection of the Inter-Agency Working Group on Human Rights as soon as Dec. 10 – international human rights day and the day he will be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize."
He noted that shortly after the U.S. elections, the ACLU and more than 50 U.S.-based human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and social justice organisations launched the Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda, which identified concrete goals for pushing the administration and Congress to strengthen the U.S.'s commitment to human rights at home.
The campaign have four primary objectives. First is re-creation of the Interagency Working Group on Human Rights, first initiated in 1998 by President Clinton through an executive order, but effectively disbanded by the Bush administration in 2001. The call is for a new executive order to be issued with an improved and strengthened mandate.
Second is transformation of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission into a U.S. Civil and Human Rights Commission. The current commission was created in the 1950s with the mandate of monitoring and enforcing compliance with U.S. civil rights law.
In recent years, it has grown dysfunctional and been largely discredited. Currently there is a push to re-form the commission. The Leadership Conference for Civil Rights has taken the lead on the reform effort, and, along with the Campaign, has called for a new commission with a mandate to monitor the U.S.'s compliance with its human rights (as well as civil rights) commitments.
Third is implementation of recommendations by the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and to create a plan of action to enforce them at the domestic level.
Lastly, the Campaign is calling for implementation and coordination of human rights on the state and local level, particularly in partnership with state and local human rights and civil rights commissions.
The fifteenth anniversary of the U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture passed last week with little fanfare and virtually no press attention from the mainstream media here.
But according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "U.S. policy continues to fall short of ensuring full compliance with the treaty."
For example, the organisation said that an appendix to the Army Field Manual (AFM) can still facilitate cruel treatment of prisoners and detainees at home and abroad.
The Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CAT) is the most comprehensive international human rights treaty dealing exclusively with the issues of torture and abuse. It came into effect in 1987, and has been ratified by 146 countries.
The treaty was initially signed by the Ronald Reagan administration in 1988 and was ratified by the Senate on Oct. 21, 1994, but with reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs) that failed to make the treaty fully applicable.
The administration of former President George W. Bush exploited these RUDs to justify abusive interrogation policies, including the use of waterboarding, stress positions, extreme isolation and sleep deprivation.
In 2006, the Committee Against Torture, which reviews country compliance with CAT, criticised the U.S. for failure to uphold the treaty and called for full compliance.
After taking office, President Barack Obama issued an executive order prohibiting torture. But under an appendix to the 2006 revised U.S. Army Field Manual – the most recent edition – practices considered incompatible with CAT and international law are still allowed. These include force-feeding, psychological torture, sleep and sensory deprivation.
And under Appendix M to the AFM, detainees can be "separated" or held in isolation from other detainees for 30 days, or longer with authorisation, and allowed only four hours of continuous sleep per night over 30 days, which can be prolonged upon approval.
Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Programme, told IPS, "The president's first nine months in office have signaled a policy shift on human rights and commitment to the rule of law. Certainly his speech to the U.N. and his Nobel Peace Prize have raised the bar of expectation as to his commitment to advancing human rights at home and abroad."
But, he added, "There is still much more to do, including honouring and expanding U.S. human rights commitments and fully incorporating them into domestic policy. U.S. credibility abroad and commitment to human rights at home will be judged by deeds, not by words."
"What is needed now is taking concrete actions to translate these commitments to a robust human rights policy. A new presidential executive order to reconstitute the Inter-Agency Working on Human Rights would be an important step forward," Dakwar said.
"To fulfill its human rights requirements, the administration must also fully investigate crimes of torture committed in violation of U.S. and international law and withdraw the Army Field Manual's Appendix M," he added.
Since his inauguration, President Obama has helped restore U.S. standing on human rights by issuing executive orders to close the Guantánamo detention centre, prohibiting CIA prisons and enforcing the ban on torture, joining the U.N. Human Rights Council, signing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and prioritising the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
While welcoming these steps, the ACLU is calling for additional concrete measures to reassert U.S. leadership on human rights, including the full investigation of torture crimes, abandoning the Guantánamo military commissions and renouncing the practice of holding detainees indefinitely without charge or trial.
The ACLU's Dakwar told IPS that he "expected the administration to announce concrete plans to implement and enforce ratified human rights treaties and the resurrection of the Interagency Working Group on Human Rights - disbanded during the Bush administration - to coordinate and promote human rights within domestic policy."
He said, "There is hope and expectation within the human rights community that the president will make the announcement on resurrection of the Inter-Agency Working Group on Human Rights as soon as Dec. 10 – international human rights day and the day he will be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize."
He noted that shortly after the U.S. elections, the ACLU and more than 50 U.S.-based human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and social justice organisations launched the Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda, which identified concrete goals for pushing the administration and Congress to strengthen the U.S.'s commitment to human rights at home.
The campaign have four primary objectives. First is re-creation of the Interagency Working Group on Human Rights, first initiated in 1998 by President Clinton through an executive order, but effectively disbanded by the Bush administration in 2001. The call is for a new executive order to be issued with an improved and strengthened mandate.
Second is transformation of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission into a U.S. Civil and Human Rights Commission. The current commission was created in the 1950s with the mandate of monitoring and enforcing compliance with U.S. civil rights law.
In recent years, it has grown dysfunctional and been largely discredited. Currently there is a push to re-form the commission. The Leadership Conference for Civil Rights has taken the lead on the reform effort, and, along with the Campaign, has called for a new commission with a mandate to monitor the U.S.'s compliance with its human rights (as well as civil rights) commitments.
Third is implementation of recommendations by the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and to create a plan of action to enforce them at the domestic level.
Lastly, the Campaign is calling for implementation and coordination of human rights on the state and local level, particularly in partnership with state and local human rights and civil rights commissions.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A Simpleton Tries to Understand the Health Care Debate
By William Fisher
Now, the first thing I want you to know is that I'm no health care policy expert. Far from it.
But, like the rest of us, I have a body and a mind that can get sick. So I'm a participant in the debate whether or not I want to be.
And being about to mark my eighty-first birthday gives me a shorter time to participate but, arguably, a heightened motivation.
Over these past months, I have been drowning in seas of data and analysis and opinions and lies and spin about health. But very little of it has actually been about health. A lot of it has been about process, such as the process in the sausage factory through which legislation gets crafted. But mostly it has been about money -- money headed for so-called health insurance companies.
Now, maybe I have a simplistic mind, but frankly I don't understand why health care and insurance companies keep appearing in the same sentences.
After all, these two things are not the same. Insurance companies are not in the health care business. They are in the risk business. They assess risk and then charge you a fee -- it's called a premium -- to protect you against that risk. Just like your car or your home insurance. If your car gets wrecked, the insurance company doesn't make it better; it gives you money so that you can make it better. Same with home insurance; if a storm tears your roof off, your insurance company will send a contractor to fix it.
So it is with health insurance. Health insurance companies don't do a thing to make you well if you're sick. That's the work that's done by physicians, nurses, hospitals and clinics. And these two groups -- health care professionals and health insurance companies -- are far from buddies. In fact, they're pretty intense enemies.
The reason is that the health insurance companies, being in the risk business, do whatever they can to reduce their risk. So they are more than likely to deny all or parts of the care your doctor is prescribing to make you better. Their loyalties are to their shareholders. Shareholders who've seen a run of great profits, based on ever-rising premiums, based in turn on generous government subsidies and an almost total lack of competition among all these companies.
Oh, I forgot to mention that our Congress, in its infinite wisdom, gave these health insurance companies the same antitrust exemption enjoyed by major league baseball. This means they can fix prices with impunity. Trouble is they haven't been staying fixed for long; premiums have been increasing exponentially year after year. And there's been no noticeable improvement in our health; in fact, our health has gotten steadily worse.
These companies go still further to reduce their risk. For example, if you get sick you're insurance is quite likely to be dropped -- an action the insurance companies antiseptically call "rescission." They rescind a lot. In other words, just when you're sick and need coverage the most, that's when they tell you "you're out!"
Then there's the "preexisting condition" gambit. I just read about three denials that seem really gross. One was refusing coverage to a victim of domestic violence, which the company ruled was a preexisting condition. The second refusal involved a newborn who the insurance company claimed was too fat. And that was followed by a third refusal -- because the infant was too skinny.
Maybe, like me, you've been reading Karen Tumulty's pieces in TIME on the health care issue. She captures the facts as well as anyone I've read. And she has assembled one hell of a chamber of horrors -- about people with serious but treatable illnesses who were told, essentially, to find a charity to help because we, the insurance company you've been paying to reduce your risk, have been too busy reducing our own. Very few happy endings here: patients have died as a result.
Same thing happens if you get health insurance at work but lose your job. You can buy something called COBRA -- if you can afford to pay three or four times what you were paying when you had a job.
Gee, it must be wonderful to run a company set up to take risks on people getting sick -- but which has only healthy customers!
Now, here's another wrinkle to think about. How'd we get to this place where employers provide health insurance to their employees? And take it away when they fire you. Well, I'm told this practice started back in World War Two when the U.S. had wage and price controls. Your wages couldn't be increased so along came health insurance to make up the difference -- and give employers even more economic power over those who work for them.
Seems downright un-American to me.
In fact, seems to me this whole health care debate is struggling to reconcile two contradictory narratives we Americans invented to help us understand ourselves and our history. One is the narrative of rugged individualism. In this bit of mythology, everyone is John Wayne and nobody needs anyone's help to meet tough challenges -- least of all the government's help.
Then there's that other bit of American mythology, the part that talks about how, when the going gets rough for our fellow citizens, we all rally round and share our energy and our wisdom and our compassion to make things right again.
Neither of these narratives is true, but we like to believe both of them anyway, even if they are myths and contradictory myths at that.
Now, it seems to me there's a third bit of American mythology that's getting overlooked. That's the bit that talks about certain inalienable rights we all have, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's from our Declaration of Independence, written by our Founding Fathers.
I like to think of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not as states of being, but as goals. That's because we've never achieved 100% of any of these three freedoms. So they -- and we -- are works in progress.
But it's pretty hard to imagine pursuing much happiness if you happen to get sick, get cut off by your health insurance company, and find yourself on your way to medical bankruptcy. Isn't that the point where we invoke that other piece of great American mythology -- the one that says now we circle the wagons, pool our resources, and find a way for all of us to help all our fellow citizens?
Well, there's only one way to do that and that way is to use our government. The government is us; we pay for it, we own it. We need to make it work for us.
Sure, there are a lot of folks out there who are telling us we can't go down this road because it will lead us into the dreaded socialized medicine. A government takeover of health care.
So what? Forget the labels; that's propaganda. It's the same sleazy accusation that was used against FDR's New Deal in the Thirties and again in the 1960s in the right-wing efforts to demolish LBJ's Great Society.
But, in fact, it's exactly what we're already doing for our seniors under Medicare, for our men and women in uniform, for our veterans through the VA -- and for every member of Congress. Seems to work just fine for these folks.
So why is it going to be such a disaster for the rest of us?
When you think about how much we pay for health care and health insurance in America -- many times more than the most advanced countries in the rest of the world -- and understand that we get substantially worse results, one has to conclude we must be doing something wrong.
We need to fix a bunch of things beyond predatory, uncompetitive, profit-centered health insurance companies. But neutering these vultures would be a start.
Maybe it's time to tell our Congress persons how we feel.
Now, the first thing I want you to know is that I'm no health care policy expert. Far from it.
But, like the rest of us, I have a body and a mind that can get sick. So I'm a participant in the debate whether or not I want to be.
And being about to mark my eighty-first birthday gives me a shorter time to participate but, arguably, a heightened motivation.
Over these past months, I have been drowning in seas of data and analysis and opinions and lies and spin about health. But very little of it has actually been about health. A lot of it has been about process, such as the process in the sausage factory through which legislation gets crafted. But mostly it has been about money -- money headed for so-called health insurance companies.
Now, maybe I have a simplistic mind, but frankly I don't understand why health care and insurance companies keep appearing in the same sentences.
After all, these two things are not the same. Insurance companies are not in the health care business. They are in the risk business. They assess risk and then charge you a fee -- it's called a premium -- to protect you against that risk. Just like your car or your home insurance. If your car gets wrecked, the insurance company doesn't make it better; it gives you money so that you can make it better. Same with home insurance; if a storm tears your roof off, your insurance company will send a contractor to fix it.
So it is with health insurance. Health insurance companies don't do a thing to make you well if you're sick. That's the work that's done by physicians, nurses, hospitals and clinics. And these two groups -- health care professionals and health insurance companies -- are far from buddies. In fact, they're pretty intense enemies.
The reason is that the health insurance companies, being in the risk business, do whatever they can to reduce their risk. So they are more than likely to deny all or parts of the care your doctor is prescribing to make you better. Their loyalties are to their shareholders. Shareholders who've seen a run of great profits, based on ever-rising premiums, based in turn on generous government subsidies and an almost total lack of competition among all these companies.
Oh, I forgot to mention that our Congress, in its infinite wisdom, gave these health insurance companies the same antitrust exemption enjoyed by major league baseball. This means they can fix prices with impunity. Trouble is they haven't been staying fixed for long; premiums have been increasing exponentially year after year. And there's been no noticeable improvement in our health; in fact, our health has gotten steadily worse.
These companies go still further to reduce their risk. For example, if you get sick you're insurance is quite likely to be dropped -- an action the insurance companies antiseptically call "rescission." They rescind a lot. In other words, just when you're sick and need coverage the most, that's when they tell you "you're out!"
Then there's the "preexisting condition" gambit. I just read about three denials that seem really gross. One was refusing coverage to a victim of domestic violence, which the company ruled was a preexisting condition. The second refusal involved a newborn who the insurance company claimed was too fat. And that was followed by a third refusal -- because the infant was too skinny.
Maybe, like me, you've been reading Karen Tumulty's pieces in TIME on the health care issue. She captures the facts as well as anyone I've read. And she has assembled one hell of a chamber of horrors -- about people with serious but treatable illnesses who were told, essentially, to find a charity to help because we, the insurance company you've been paying to reduce your risk, have been too busy reducing our own. Very few happy endings here: patients have died as a result.
Same thing happens if you get health insurance at work but lose your job. You can buy something called COBRA -- if you can afford to pay three or four times what you were paying when you had a job.
Gee, it must be wonderful to run a company set up to take risks on people getting sick -- but which has only healthy customers!
Now, here's another wrinkle to think about. How'd we get to this place where employers provide health insurance to their employees? And take it away when they fire you. Well, I'm told this practice started back in World War Two when the U.S. had wage and price controls. Your wages couldn't be increased so along came health insurance to make up the difference -- and give employers even more economic power over those who work for them.
Seems downright un-American to me.
In fact, seems to me this whole health care debate is struggling to reconcile two contradictory narratives we Americans invented to help us understand ourselves and our history. One is the narrative of rugged individualism. In this bit of mythology, everyone is John Wayne and nobody needs anyone's help to meet tough challenges -- least of all the government's help.
Then there's that other bit of American mythology, the part that talks about how, when the going gets rough for our fellow citizens, we all rally round and share our energy and our wisdom and our compassion to make things right again.
Neither of these narratives is true, but we like to believe both of them anyway, even if they are myths and contradictory myths at that.
Now, it seems to me there's a third bit of American mythology that's getting overlooked. That's the bit that talks about certain inalienable rights we all have, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's from our Declaration of Independence, written by our Founding Fathers.
I like to think of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not as states of being, but as goals. That's because we've never achieved 100% of any of these three freedoms. So they -- and we -- are works in progress.
But it's pretty hard to imagine pursuing much happiness if you happen to get sick, get cut off by your health insurance company, and find yourself on your way to medical bankruptcy. Isn't that the point where we invoke that other piece of great American mythology -- the one that says now we circle the wagons, pool our resources, and find a way for all of us to help all our fellow citizens?
Well, there's only one way to do that and that way is to use our government. The government is us; we pay for it, we own it. We need to make it work for us.
Sure, there are a lot of folks out there who are telling us we can't go down this road because it will lead us into the dreaded socialized medicine. A government takeover of health care.
So what? Forget the labels; that's propaganda. It's the same sleazy accusation that was used against FDR's New Deal in the Thirties and again in the 1960s in the right-wing efforts to demolish LBJ's Great Society.
But, in fact, it's exactly what we're already doing for our seniors under Medicare, for our men and women in uniform, for our veterans through the VA -- and for every member of Congress. Seems to work just fine for these folks.
So why is it going to be such a disaster for the rest of us?
When you think about how much we pay for health care and health insurance in America -- many times more than the most advanced countries in the rest of the world -- and understand that we get substantially worse results, one has to conclude we must be doing something wrong.
We need to fix a bunch of things beyond predatory, uncompetitive, profit-centered health insurance companies. But neutering these vultures would be a start.
Maybe it's time to tell our Congress persons how we feel.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable -- A Must-Read.
By William Fisher
For me, David Cole has long been the gold standard for his exquisite knowledge of our Constitution and his relentless dedication to its values.
So, when I read that the Georgetown University law school prof had a new book out, I quickly got my copy. I wasn’t disappointed, and you won’t be either.
Cole’s new book is two things: First, a collection of six of the previously-published “torture memos” written between 2002 and 2006 by lawyers at the Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel. Yes, the ones that used law to justify the “enhanced interrogation techniques” now so well known. And, second, Cole’s commentary on this distortion of the law and its implications for our society.
This book is a must-read for the latter alone. In chillingly uncomplicated prose, Cole argues that these memos are the real “smoking gun” in the torture controversy because they demonstrate that the culpability lies not merely with the CIA interrogators who may have exceeded Justice Department legal guidance, but with the legal guidance itself – the “incredible arguments advanced to give them a green light.”
As we all now know, that sloppy and craven legal analysis contorted the law to authorize clearly illegal CIA tactics. And it continued to do so in secret even after the Bush Administration sought to assure the public that it was abiding by the very laws it was breaking.
Yet, at about the same time as the torture memos were being published – and the nation prepared to mark the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks –those who ordered and wrote these memos were busily defending themselves.
Or, more accurately perhaps, using the straw-man of an investigation of the CIA to deflect attention away from their conduct.
Exhibit A is John Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California's law school, who was the Bush Administration’s go-to guy for legal justifications. In a recent op-ed, Yoo warns us about the dire consequences that await the nation as the Justice Department pursues its investigation of CIA operatives.
Yoo invokes Jimmy Carter, who he describes as “a young fresh face” campaigning for the presidency by attacking the CIA: "Our government should justify the character and moral principles of the American people, and our foreign policy should not short-circuit that for temporary advantage," Carter says. He promises to never "do anything as president that would be a contravention of the moral and ethical standards that I would exemplify in my own life as an individual."
“He wins the election and begins to decimate the intelligence agencies,” Yoo writes, and then recalls, “The Carter administration's national-security record should not serve as a model for any president. But unless Obama changes course, he risks duplicating the intelligence disasters of the '70s, and endangering the nation.”
Yoo reminds us that several of the detainees the CIA tortured “were directly involved with the planning and execution of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. They were captured at a time when our government feared a second wave of attacks.”
“Our nation's leaders made the difficult decision to use coercive interrogation methods to learn as quickly as possible what these hardened al-Qaida operatives knew,” he writes, adding:
“As one of many government lawyers who worked on these counterterrorism programs, I can attest to the terrible pressure of time and events in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Knowledgeable officials expected that al-Qaida would try again — soon — and in a more devastating fashion.”
And, then, in true Dick Cheney mode, he admonishes: “As we pause to remember the Sept. 11 attacks eight years later, fair-minded people should take heart that there has been no follow-up attack in the United States. To the contrary, several plots have been foiled and the terrorists are on the run. This was not the result of luck —it is because of the hard work of members of the military and our intelligence agencies.”
“Their reward,” he laments, “is an open-ended investigation, and in some instances the disturbing reopening of cases closed by career prosecutors.”
“Even the most fervent antiwar activists should welcome an effective intelligence service. If the CIA had accurately judged Iraq's lack of WMD in 2003, the war might not have occurred. If the CIA had decapitated al-Qaida's leadership in the 1990s (the plans were vetoed by President Bill Clinton), the 9/11 attacks may have been headed off and the invasion of Afghanistan rendered unnecessary,” he writes.
“Persecuting the CIA risks another (Pearl Harbor) or major intelligence failure,” Yoo concludes.
But, hold on now, this is not about an investigation of the CIA. That’s John Yoo’s smoke-screen. This is about a bunch of highly-educated but ideologically-challenged lawyers who exploited our post-9/11 hysteria to try to rewrite the Constitution.
Paradoxically, it is precisely during times of such hysteria that we most urgently need the Constitution and its principles of fairness and equity. Resisting – not caving to -- the temptation to compromise those principles would have been the benchmark for discovering those who truly believe.
I first came across David Cole several years ago, when he was doing a lot of advocating on behalf of donors to Muslim-oriented charities whose organizations were shut down by our Treasury Department with virtually no legal due process on vaguely-defined suspicions that they were supporting terrorist causes.
Cole likened that situation to the guilt-by-association tactics of the McCarthy era. He never weighed in on the guilt or innocence of those charities. But he was downright bulldoggish in his insistence that this was precisely the time we should apply the rule of law – not the law of the Wild, Wild, West soundbite. A position the Obama Administration has now also embraced.
For me, that defines a lawyer’s lawyer. For our country, it defines the future of our Constitution and the sacred legal structures that keep us from flying apart.
John Yoo is far from any lawyer’s lawyer.
(“The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable”, by David Cole, Published by The New Press, September 8, 2009.)
For me, David Cole has long been the gold standard for his exquisite knowledge of our Constitution and his relentless dedication to its values.
So, when I read that the Georgetown University law school prof had a new book out, I quickly got my copy. I wasn’t disappointed, and you won’t be either.
Cole’s new book is two things: First, a collection of six of the previously-published “torture memos” written between 2002 and 2006 by lawyers at the Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel. Yes, the ones that used law to justify the “enhanced interrogation techniques” now so well known. And, second, Cole’s commentary on this distortion of the law and its implications for our society.
This book is a must-read for the latter alone. In chillingly uncomplicated prose, Cole argues that these memos are the real “smoking gun” in the torture controversy because they demonstrate that the culpability lies not merely with the CIA interrogators who may have exceeded Justice Department legal guidance, but with the legal guidance itself – the “incredible arguments advanced to give them a green light.”
As we all now know, that sloppy and craven legal analysis contorted the law to authorize clearly illegal CIA tactics. And it continued to do so in secret even after the Bush Administration sought to assure the public that it was abiding by the very laws it was breaking.
Yet, at about the same time as the torture memos were being published – and the nation prepared to mark the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks –those who ordered and wrote these memos were busily defending themselves.
Or, more accurately perhaps, using the straw-man of an investigation of the CIA to deflect attention away from their conduct.
Exhibit A is John Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California's law school, who was the Bush Administration’s go-to guy for legal justifications. In a recent op-ed, Yoo warns us about the dire consequences that await the nation as the Justice Department pursues its investigation of CIA operatives.
Yoo invokes Jimmy Carter, who he describes as “a young fresh face” campaigning for the presidency by attacking the CIA: "Our government should justify the character and moral principles of the American people, and our foreign policy should not short-circuit that for temporary advantage," Carter says. He promises to never "do anything as president that would be a contravention of the moral and ethical standards that I would exemplify in my own life as an individual."
“He wins the election and begins to decimate the intelligence agencies,” Yoo writes, and then recalls, “The Carter administration's national-security record should not serve as a model for any president. But unless Obama changes course, he risks duplicating the intelligence disasters of the '70s, and endangering the nation.”
Yoo reminds us that several of the detainees the CIA tortured “were directly involved with the planning and execution of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. They were captured at a time when our government feared a second wave of attacks.”
“Our nation's leaders made the difficult decision to use coercive interrogation methods to learn as quickly as possible what these hardened al-Qaida operatives knew,” he writes, adding:
“As one of many government lawyers who worked on these counterterrorism programs, I can attest to the terrible pressure of time and events in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Knowledgeable officials expected that al-Qaida would try again — soon — and in a more devastating fashion.”
And, then, in true Dick Cheney mode, he admonishes: “As we pause to remember the Sept. 11 attacks eight years later, fair-minded people should take heart that there has been no follow-up attack in the United States. To the contrary, several plots have been foiled and the terrorists are on the run. This was not the result of luck —it is because of the hard work of members of the military and our intelligence agencies.”
“Their reward,” he laments, “is an open-ended investigation, and in some instances the disturbing reopening of cases closed by career prosecutors.”
“Even the most fervent antiwar activists should welcome an effective intelligence service. If the CIA had accurately judged Iraq's lack of WMD in 2003, the war might not have occurred. If the CIA had decapitated al-Qaida's leadership in the 1990s (the plans were vetoed by President Bill Clinton), the 9/11 attacks may have been headed off and the invasion of Afghanistan rendered unnecessary,” he writes.
“Persecuting the CIA risks another (Pearl Harbor) or major intelligence failure,” Yoo concludes.
But, hold on now, this is not about an investigation of the CIA. That’s John Yoo’s smoke-screen. This is about a bunch of highly-educated but ideologically-challenged lawyers who exploited our post-9/11 hysteria to try to rewrite the Constitution.
Paradoxically, it is precisely during times of such hysteria that we most urgently need the Constitution and its principles of fairness and equity. Resisting – not caving to -- the temptation to compromise those principles would have been the benchmark for discovering those who truly believe.
I first came across David Cole several years ago, when he was doing a lot of advocating on behalf of donors to Muslim-oriented charities whose organizations were shut down by our Treasury Department with virtually no legal due process on vaguely-defined suspicions that they were supporting terrorist causes.
Cole likened that situation to the guilt-by-association tactics of the McCarthy era. He never weighed in on the guilt or innocence of those charities. But he was downright bulldoggish in his insistence that this was precisely the time we should apply the rule of law – not the law of the Wild, Wild, West soundbite. A position the Obama Administration has now also embraced.
For me, that defines a lawyer’s lawyer. For our country, it defines the future of our Constitution and the sacred legal structures that keep us from flying apart.
John Yoo is far from any lawyer’s lawyer.
(“The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable”, by David Cole, Published by The New Press, September 8, 2009.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
