|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Bush admits secret prisons, demands Congress sanction drumhead
tribunals
By Joe Kay and Barry Grey
8 September 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged the existence of secret
US prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency where detainees
have been abused and denied all legal rights. Bush made clear
that he had authorized the CIA prisons and insisted that they
continue to operate.
This is an extraordinary admission by a US president, as the
existence of secret prisons is a clear violation of international
law, which requires that powers holding prisoners captured in
wartime allow the International Red Cross access to all incarceration
sites.
Bushs acknowledgement came in a speech in which he announced
that his administration had transferred 14 prisoners from such
CIA facilities to Guantánamo Bay, where they are under
the auspices of the Pentagon. Bush said he was pushing for a new
congressional act that would sanction military commissions to
prosecute these prisoners, allegedly top lieutenants of Osama
bin Laden who planned the 9/11 attacks as well as the attack on
the US destroyer Cole and the bombing of two US embassies in East
Africa.
The administration is pushing this bill in response to last
Junes ruling by the US Supreme Court, which struck down
the military commissions established by executive decree shortly
after September 11, 2001, on the grounds that they violated fundamental
civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution as well as Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
The administrations bill would provide congressional
sanction for the military commissions banned by the Supreme Court,
retaining provisions explicitly denounced by the high court while
making a verbal affirmation of the Geneva Conventions. The bill
would allow the commissions to use evidence obtained through coercion
as well as hearsay evidence, and deny defendants the right to
see classified evidence used against them.
Employing double-talk and lies, Bush acknowledged that the
CIA interrogators, having failed to pry loose information by normal
means from Abu Zubaydah, one of the fourteen transferred prisoners,
resorted to an alternative set of procedures, which
obtained results. In the next breath, Bush insisted that the US
does not torture.
Not only does this empty claim contradict the acknowledgement
of alternative procedures to extract information from
resistant prisoners, it flies in the face of previous admissions
by government sources that the CIA subjected its prisoners to
such methods as waterboardinga form of torture
in which prisoners are made to think they are drowning.
As Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights
said in an interview on the Democracy Now radio program
on Thursday, the president... is asking the American public
and Congress to approve a program of torture going forward.
In his speech on Wednesday, Bush called Common Article 3 vague
and undefined. The provision prohibits cruel treatment
and torture, outrages upon personal dignity
and humiliating and degrading treatment. It further
prohibits the passing of sentences and the carrying out
of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which
are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.
Bush warned that some believe our military and intelligence
personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could
now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act...
In other words, the US has been violating international law,
particularly the Geneva Conventions, and the Supreme Court ruling
could expose government officials, including Bush himself, to
war crimes prosecution. Therefore, Congress must pass legislation
to provide a pseudo-legal cover for what the government has done
and will continue to do.
There are some indications that the military commissions could
be used against US citizens as well as non-citizens. The White
House has stated this is not the case. However, Olshansky noted
in her interview that a draft of the administrations bill
previously leaked to the press used the word people
instead of aliens or non-citizens, indicating
that the military commissions jurisdiction would extend
to Americans.
Bush did not attempt to explain why these alleged terrorists
could not be tried in normal civilian courts. The answer, however,
is not difficult to fathom. A civilian court would be obliged
to throw out all evidence extracted through torture or other illegal
means, and since those held in secret CIA prisoners had been denied
all due process rights, this elementary principle would exclude
the entire government case against them.
Moreover, a public civilian trial would run the risk, from
the standpoint of the Bush administration and the US ruling elite,
of enabling the defendants to expose the illegal and abusive methods
used against them.
There is a definite political logic to the administrations
moves. Since 2001, the Bush administration has argued that the
president, as commander in chief, has virtually unlimited powerspowers
that trump constitutional rights and international law. Among
the first steps in this direction were the decisions to establish
the military commissions and assert that the Geneva Conventions
would not apply to individuals the administration declared were
members of Al Qaeda.
Since then, the government has engaged in widespread violations
of international and domestic law: torture, illegal detentions
(including of US citizens), extraordinary rendition, massive spying
operations directed against the American population. A series
of Supreme Court rulings have placed certain limits on the assertion
of unlimited powers, and among these was the June ruling against
the military commissions.
In its efforts to obtain congressional sanction for its military
commissions, the administration has faced resistance mainly from
a handful of Republican senators. John McCain, John Warner and
Lindsey Grahamall of whom have close ties to sections of
the militaryhave favored a tribunal system somewhat less
brazen in its disregard for due process rights. They would, for
example, bar evidence obtained through coercion as well as the
use of secret evidence.
There are several factors motivating the opposition of these
senators, including concerns that the open repudiation of international
law is severely damaging the credibility of American imperialism
and its ability to posture as a defender of democracy. It was
McCain who pushed, in 2005, the Detainee Treatment Act, which
ostensibly banned all inhumane methods in interrogation. (See
McCain-Bush
anti-torture measure gives legal cover for continued
abuse). There is also concern within the military that
an open policy of abuse could encourage other countries to use
similar tactics against captured US soldiers.
Such considerations were evidently behind pressure within the
military that led this week to the publication of a new Army Field
Manual that maintains formal adherence to the language of Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The new draft also specifically
prohibits certain techniquessuch as the use of dogs and
waterboardingthat have been employed at Abu Ghraib and by
the CIA.
The Bush administration had wanted to eliminate the Geneva
Convention language from the Army Field Manual. It also wanted
to include a secret, classified appendix that would allow for
more abusive techniques.
The answer of the administration to its evident defeat on this
issue is to more aggressively assert its right to torture under
the auspices of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is not
covered by the Army Field Manual.
By transferring alleged planners of 9/11 and other terrorist
attacks from CIA custody to Guantánamo, the administration
hopes to intensify pressure on Congress to pass its military commissions
bill, while branding Democrats who oppose it as allies of those
who plotted the mass murder of innocent Americans.
The Democrats have followed the lead of the Republican critics
of the administrations military commissions bill. Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid indicated the position of his party
when he praised the administration for its decision to try the
14 transferred prisoners, arguing only that the commission be
set up according to a bipartisan proposal being drafted
by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
What no one in the political establishment is raising is the
extraordinary threat posed to democratic rights by the administrations
proposals. All sides in the official debate accept the premises
of the so-called war on terror and the necessity to
eviscerate the Bill of Rights.
See Also:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld speeches: A new
drumbeat for war
[2 September 2006]
One year after Katrina disaster:
No accountability for US political elite
[30 August 2006]
Bush press conference on Iraq:
Were not leaving so long as Im the president.
[23 August 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |