Posted by Jack Healey

in The Huffington Post

Back in the late 1970′s, many governments in Latin America waged coordinated campaigns of major criminality within their respective borders and against their own citizens. People would just go missing and their government was responsible. Families were left with a hole where their father, mother, brother or sister had once been and there was no means of filling that hole. The human rights movement gave this phenomenon a name… “disappearance.” Naming this phenomenon helped human rights organizations mobilize against this evil practice. It gave this human rights abuse a face, a title, a handle and a short way to explain this government sponsored criminality.

Today, my sense is that we need another name for a phenomenon growing in our own government here in the United States. It is criminal as well. Since the attacks of 9/11, the U.S. government has tortured people captured in the course of the war on terrorism. It’s always called something else, like “enhanced interrogation;” but, make no mistake, it is torture. Obama has said that the U.S. government does not torture, but substantial evidence refutes this assertion. There are government memos detailing the allowable physical and psychological abuse that can be inflicted upon people held prisoner by U.S. forces. There is the testimony of those held in places like Guantanamo Bay and Bagram, and later released by the U.S. military. And then there are those horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners held at the Iraqi prison in Abu Ghraib.  The Obama administration is not interested in pursuing either the lawyers who actually approved of torture and wrote memos in support of it or the doctors who participated in monitoring the effects and prolonging the torture of detainees. This is very unlike the formerly repressive regimes in Chile, Argentina and Peru, where government abuses were investigated by succeeding administrations and human rights abusers were prosecuted.

People forget that, in Nazi Germany, the first two classes of professionals who went over to support Hitler were the doctors and lawyers. It is the same now for this new phenomenon. Before 9/11, the American government hated torture, enacted laws against it and pressured other governments to prevent it. The United States would cut off international aid to “human rights abusing nations.” We were the angels of democracy and condemned the devils of torture. No longer. Not after 9/11, when lawyers acting under the authority of the United States military effort decided that they could redefine torture. One of these lawyers ended up as a professor and the other is… hold on, a U.S. federal judge. Members of the medical profession, too, are guilty of enabling the U.S. military by offering questionable medical opinions regarding what type of treatment a prisoner can endure and then monitoring the abuse during the course of interrogations.

Somehow, the U.S. government would have the world believe that it knows who the bad guys are, even without any discernible due process. And so it only hurts those detainees who have already hurt us or could hurt us in the future. Few American soldiers went to jail after being photographed torturing prisoners in their custody. No generals were held accountable; no CIA agents; no Blackwater contractors. General Petraeus knows this and has spoken to the issue. More troubling, there is a double standard which hurts U.S. military efforts. The fact is that the generals and enlisted troops know that they can go to jail if they have been found to have mistreated prisoners, but military contractors performing the same function are more likely to avoid prosecution.

I propose using the word “shadows” to represent all of the people held without bail, judge and lawyer. “Enemy combatants” is the new word because the U.S. military would like to avoid using more traditional terms that suggest detainees have rights, even while in custody. The term is a sanitized form designed to suggest that the people in custody are somehow already guilty of acts against the United States. The United States should conform to some standard of transparency and publish the names of those held in its custody. The world’s greatest democracy should not be in the business of spiriting people out of sight and outside of a legal system with built-in safeguards. The United States should not create shadows while it pursues its security objectives.

If, in fact, American legal power can create a class of people who cannot avail themselves of the protections of an impartial judge and an attorney to represent them, then the United States will be stripped of its righteousness and be reduced to a military force in the world that operates off of old standards and old military habits. We will thus strip the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of their majesty and turn the U.S. into the policemen of the world, on every corner of the earth, mighty but not moral.

Posted by Jack Healey

in The Huffington Post

For those of us Americans who oppose torture, including the use of water-boarding during the interrogation of detainees, it is a national priority to address the past human rights abuses committed by U.S. military personnel and military contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan and the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. If the present system inherited from the Bush administration continues, there should be criminal convictions of military personnel for human rights abuses committed during the course of the “war on terror.” However, Congress seems to be in no mood to chase U.S. military operatives who have committed human rights abuses. Nor does the White House seem inclined to investigate, let alone prosecute, human rights abuses. Hopefully, the Supreme Court might be found to be a haven for rights. Just maybe. So, realistically then, aside from our appropriate rage and continuing protest, what can be done to reform how we protect our national interests while upholding human rights standards?

Our military people believe that the present system of detaining and interrogating people suspected of being connected to terrorism allows for C.I.A. and Blackwater types to enjoy relative immunity while the average soldier runs a risk of going to jail for following orders. Thus, in cases where someone with good information is picked up and he or she needs to be interrogated properly and efficiently, we have a split in American military operations at a critical time. The prisoner, it is assumed, has real information which would save lives and help our soldiers avoid bodily harm. How best to get this information is the question. Who is responsible for that work? How can the United States operate so that the rules of warfare are not violated? And how can the United States credibly assert that it is not torturing detainees? The average soldier is not likely to know the rules and appropriate procedures for interrogating detainees. The C.I.A. and Blackwater types are not to be trusted without oversight and enforceable guidelines. A clear-cut process is needed.

My answer is a new kind of ‘SWAT’ team (Stop Water-boarding and Torture) for the military. I believe that a fundamental and structural change in the military is required to ensure that some degree of transparency and accountability is maintained for the treatment of detainees. The military should set up the SWAT school (unlike the School of the Americas which has taught torture methods) in order to teach military and C.I.A. personnel how to best get information and data from a prisoner while conforming to international human rights standards. The use of military contractors for interrogation of detainees should be banned outright, unless they are made to conform to the same standards as that of our enlisted personnel.

The SWAT school will work to develop efficient methods for training people to achieve the goal of getting information that will help prevent terrorist activity and/or bodily harm while keeping in mind human rights standards. Presently, this task is left to the darker side of our intelligence agencies or to some untrained soldier. Because of their lack of training or the lack of accountability, a person charged with interrogating a detainee can resort to the use of violence. Because interrogators are under pressure from their superiors to deliver good information, they can feel compelled to use whatever means necessary to extract information from those in their custody. When an interrogator cannot deliver, he/she may think that torture is the means to get what they feel they need to relax the pressure from a commanding officer. Furthermore, battle field conditions sometimes do not allow for the luxury of time to obtain information from a prisoner. So the closest soldier gets the nod to do the dirty work. He or she knows that, in their case, if they violate the rules, prosecution can result. If left to the darker side of our intelligence agencies, there is little threat of prosecution and so operatives can torture detainees with impunity.

What is needed is a training center unit that can develop people for deployment wherever the U.S. military is engaged in combat and the capture of prisoners. The established center would set appropriate standards with input from Congress and the White House. With clear standards for human rights protection in place, prosecutions would result without question in a case where human rights are violated during the course of an interrogation. Once this “SWAT school” is fully implemented into the operations of the military, the world might believe the U.S.A. when it says it is not torturing people in its custody. It would restore the balance between protecting our national interests and maintaining human rights standards for individuals.

Posted by Jack Healey

in The Huffington Post

Amazingly, the Washington Post carried an editorial on March 10 questioning Hillary Clinton’s approach to human rights in her new position as Secretary of State. The Post claims that she undercuts her own State Department’s human rights reporting by praising Turkey and Hosni Mubarek of Egypt at a time when their media is under fire for speaking of human rights abuses. The Post added that she was dismissive of China’s human rights abuses on her recent visit. This act called forth moans and groans from human rights communities around the world, especially from the Tibetan and Burmese refugees.

The Democratic victory of hope and change brought hope and possible change to two areas. The first is how Americans are seen the world over and secondly, how American foreign policy would be altered in an Obama administration. The clarity of the president’s executive order that there will be no torture lifts the spirits of any activist in the world.

Another day of hope for Americans occurred on the first day of the senate hearing for Leon Panetta. The second day, confirming U.S. continuation of rendition, left many of us human rights people confused. Rendition returned on the second day.

Thus, some clarity and some confusion. Nothing new in human rights or American foreign policy.

Let us go back in time, past President Bush. In terms of human rights he is too easy to speak of and too easy to hit with any wild swing. He spread democracy with a gun barrel and drones. The moralism of the right folded under its own mistakes and missteps. A Justice department that approves of torture is just not comprised of that which is decent.

But pre-Bush was an interesting time. Prisoners were moving from their cell-blocks to presidencies. Revolutions were soft, pink, violet, usually non-violent and victorious. The total collapse of the USSR was celebrated with the sounds of hammers and sickles, as the Berlin Wall crumbled into dust. Southern Africa sifted from white minority rule to elections based on majority rule, with little blood shed before or after the change. Latin America, after suffering for decades, was freed of its many military dictatorships. Human rights had been elevated onto the tables of all governments , whether they liked it or not. The people and media remembered by all were not the heads of states, but the people of great proven decency like Biko, Mandela, Tutu, Romero, Aquino, Scharof, and Havel , to name a few. The unique possibility of having a single standard for human rights was looming large in the minds of activists. The United Nations even created a new position of Assistant Secretary of human rights in Vienna at the 1993 Human Rights Conference. Human rights groups began popping up all over the world and growing in numbers. The 90s saw a time of human rights explosion.

Then the war on Iraq hit and democracy became a bullet in the gun of the American foreign policy. Rendition, the act of moving people to other countries to get information through torture, spread, becoming state policy. As did holding people without trials and listening in on whoever the government felt they should. Gitmo and Abu became common words for abuse.

All of these changes after the turn of the century can be argued to have been the result, and the appropriate response, of the 9/11 attack. If so, then we Americans can do whatever we want, if and when we are attacked, or perceived to be attacked. No single standard exists for human rights in such an instance. My guess is many Americans would approve of torture in these circumstances. Water boarding was approved by many, but by none who had ever experienced it.

Next time torture is brought up in the Senate, why not test it publicly on TV?… “Today Senator Bond of Missouri, who approves of water boarding, will give us an example of how this technique works.” Then let Senator Bond testify to the public how this practice does not terrify the depth of one’s soul to the max. Let us see a senator taste it before he approves of it for others. Confusion would not follow. Clarity about a single standard for human rights at the State department and the Senate levels would be achieved. Those in torture chambers in China, Egpyt, Turkey, Burma, etc., would cheer so loud that the new Secretary of state would hear the sound.

Our new administration campaigned for hope and change, but they did not arrive in the White House without the individuals of the U.S. and of the world who supported them and lifted them to this place. The seeds of this change have been sown and it is time for us as a country to guide our leaders towards an ethical standard for human rights, to step out of the darkness of these last few years and re-enter the spirit of MLK Jr, Nelson Mandela, Biko, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi and beyond.

It is possible for prisoners to become rightful leaders, for countries to become democratic, for military dictatorships to fall, for torture victims to be freed. If the new administration were a boat, this ship would leave a strange and wiggly wake. But it is still in its infancy, and with our knowledge of past victories in human rights, it is time for people to take our leaders’ hands and show them the way. The Secretary of State needs to return to her own words she spoke in China, “Women’s rights are Human Rights”.

Posted by Jack Healey

in The Huffington Post

As in horseshoes, basketball and love, “almost” does not count. It is either a score, or not, in sports. It is in love, or not in love. It is the same with torture. A government that almost tortures does torture. The act debases the individual suffering torture and breaks the law as well. The torture victim spends the rest of their lives trying to make their shame into their glory. Many do not make it. Many never really come back. Many victims do come back but never is the horror forgotten for long.

Looking into one’s own military for criminal violations of abusing prisoners is hard to do. Here in America, the new administration is not hastening to do that for understandable reasons. It is hard. Harder yet, but necessary, is to avoid looking like they are just chasing and embarrassing the predecessors. But looking back is necessary for two reasons; crimes must be researched and pursued (nature of the law) and we must help victims receive justice.

Looking into the daily use of torture around the world will certainly terrify the toughest of us. The abusing governments on every continent always and forever say, “it is necessary for the safety of the nation.” All nations have “good” reasons to torture until the human rights groups show up– probing, asking, looking at wounds, checking with families, speaking with guards and lawyers looking for patterns of torture.

Today in Burma, the military junta is torturing its people. Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, won 82% of the votes in the 1990 election. This means she should be Prime Minister of her country. The military placed her under house arrest shortly after this election to prevent her from assuming her role. She is an “almost leader.” There was almost a democracy. But as in horseshoes and basketball and love and torture, almost is not good enough. And the small difference between what should be and what is, has resulted in a human rights crisis. The almost government of Burma is still not representing its people.

Accountability goes with the rule of law, or there eventually is none. If we do believe that torture is necessary in some cases, why not make that a national discussion? Nations have found many ways to handle a human rights crisis. Truth commissions. Presidential pardons. Amnesty after truth. Many nations have found a way to expose the truth and then unite the country around the truth of the past.

A worldwide dialogue with torture victims will bring a tsunami of tears that would wash our shore and embarrass the supporters of torture to no end. Millions are tortured. Some governments call it “physical pressure.” Some call it “getting the truth.” Some know the data gotten from the victim is useless and they know torture is a warning to others, not a device to get correct data. But one must also accept the reality of the victim. The victim always wants the truth to be told. Exceptions are few. When a nation does torture, it joins other nations doing the same. If we eliminate torture and find another way to deal with the offenders, we can join the courageous nations of Chile, Argentina, Rwanda and South Africa who have risen above their horrific pasts to set an example, and finally rid the world of this routine state practice.

Leaders in our country are beginning to wrestle with whether we should prosecute the people of our past. We can find a way to resolve our past and heal our wounds. As we move into the new year, with a new administration and a new outlook on the world, let us work toward “no on torture” both at home and around the world. No more almosts. Almost is not good enough.