Fiat justitia ruat caelum

America’s much abused moral authority

By Morris Davis, Saturday 5 March 2011 14.00 GMT

Once upon a time, Americans across the political spectrum were united behind efforts to prevent torture and punish torturers. The United States signed the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 1988 when Republican Ronald Reagan was president. A Democrat-controlled Congress ratified it in 1994. The CAT says, “No exceptional circumstance whatsoever … may be invoked as justification of torture,” a principle the US endorsed without reservation. The CAT requires nations to enact domestic laws criminalising torture, and in 1994, a torture statute was added to the US criminal code.

A Republican member of Congress sponsored the War Crimes Act in 1996, which made “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions – like torture – federal crimes. He wanted Americans abused by former adversaries to get the justice they deserved but had been denied. The measure passed a Republican-controlled Congress by unanimous consent and President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed it into law.

Americans were solidly against torture when they believed they were beneficiaries of anti-torture laws. But then, the 11 September 2001 attacks occurred – and created an exceptional circumstance used by some as justification to draw new lines between right and wrong.

Susan Crawford had held key posts in Republican administrations dating back to Reagan; then, in 2007, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates appointed her head of the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In an interview with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward published a few days before President George Bush left office in 2009, Crawford explained why she dismissed charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the so-called 20th hijacker. “We tortured Qahtani,” she said; “His treatment met the legal definition of torture.”

US government officials in other detainee cases reached similar conclusions:

• Judge James Robertson, in the case of Mohammedou Salahi, found “ample evidence” that “Salahi was subjected to extensive and severe mistreatment at Guantanamo.”

• Military commission judge Colonel Stephen Henley concluded that Mohammed Jawad endured “abusive conduct and cruel and inhuman treatment” and that his abuse “was not simple negligence but flagrant misbehaviour”. Judge Henley suggested those responsible “face appropriate disciplinary action.” None has.

• In the trial of East Africa embassy bomber Ahmed Ghailani, federal Judge Lewis Kaplan granted a motion to block the testimony of the only witness connecting Ghailani to the explosives used in the bombings. Ghailani said he revealed the identity of the witness while being tortured at a secret CIA site, an allegation US government prosecutors did not dispute. In his opinion granting the defence motion, Judge Kaplan said:

“The court has not reached this conclusion lightly. It is acutely aware of the perilous nature of the world in which we live. But the Constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests. We must follow it not only when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction. To do less would diminish us and undermine the foundation upon which we stand.”

In a memo in early 2003, Jack Rives, the US Air Force judge advocate general at the time and now executive director of the American Bar Association, warned senior government officials that “several of the exceptional (interrogation) techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law and the (military criminal code)” and put “the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusation”. Bush administration officials ignored the warning.

Philip Zelikow, a state department attorney in the Bush administration, told Congress:

“The US government adopted an unprecedented programme of coolly calculated dehumanising abuse and physical torment to extract information. This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one. It was a collective failure, in which a number of officials and members of Congress of both parties played a part, endorsing a CIA programme of physical coercion.”

In a speech in May 2009, President Barack Obama said that in the wake of 9/11, the US government made some decisions “based upon fear rather than foresight” and the nation “went off course”. He rejected the notion that “brutal methods like waterboarding” were necessary to keep America safe and added that such tactics “undermine the rule of law” and “alienate us in the world”.

President Obama recently warned Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi that the brutality inflicted on his own citizens was “outrageous and it is unacceptable”, saying it violates “international norms and every standard of common decency”. He said those responsible “must be held accountable”. President Obama ended his remarks by saying “the United States will continue to stand up for freedom, stand up for justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people.”

The United States cannot stand up for justice and the rule of law when it sits idly on its own record of torture. It diminishes the weight of its moral authority to influence others around the world when it treats its binding legal obligations as options it can choose to exercise or ignore. If President Obama is sincere about standing up for fundamental values, then America’s actions must live up to its rhetoric.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/torture-obama-administration or http://bit.ly/dOqmJY or http://tinyurl.com/6e5fmk2

Related Posts

Must we live forever At 65, modern Israel is falling short of Zionism's most basic goal By Matt Hill, Tuesday 16 April 2013   Soon after the founding of Isra...
Henry, why do you think? The cynicism of Israeli settlement policy By Ray Close, Tue 6/7/2011 In case anyone has any doubts about the cynical motivation that has often ins...
A load of old cobblers Syria and sarin gas: US claims have a very familiar ring By Robert Fisk, Sunday 28 April 2013   Is there any way of escaping the theatre o...
It hurts to write this sentence Behind the use of drones is a complacent belief that murdering Muslims is always justifiable By Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Sunday 28 April 2013   ...
After decades of instant vilification Boston explosions: 'Please don't be Arabs or Muslims' By Khaled A Beydoun, 16 Apr 2013 09:25   I texted my friend at 7:47am EST, extending...
Botched imperial partitions Tremors on mountains of tyranny By Pankaj Mishra, June 13, 2011 ... AT A dark moment in postcolonial history, when many US-backed despots see...
Individualism amid barbarism We can't tell the victims to leave mass graves in peace By Robert Fisk, Saturday, 18 June 2011 ... The Syrians say they discovered a mass gra...
Xenophobic panic "Conservatism Is True." By Andrew Sullivan, 16 Jun 2011 09:57 PM ... It's funny that Fareed Zakaria and I are now seen as beyond the conservati...
A threat or a promise? Eisenhower's worst fears came true. We invent enemies to buy the bombs By Simon Jenkins, Thursday 16 June 2011 21.00 BST ... Why do we still go...
The question of why Israel rubs Why do people hate Israel? (a self-test) By Bradley Burston, May.28, 2013 | 8:15 PM   Every year, the BBC World Service publishes a Countr...

Permanent link to this article: https://levantium.com/2011/03/05/fiat-justitia-ruat-caelum/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.