Since the release of photos in April 2004 of detainees being
tortured by U.S. troops at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq,
international human rights groups have criticized what they say is
the Bush administration’s inadequate response to evidence of
torture at U.S.-run prisons abroad.
At recent meetings of the board of Human Rights Watch, there has
been “a lot of unhappiness” about the Pentagon’s
refusal to submit to scrutiny, said Khaled Abou el Fadl, a UCLA law
professor and a member of the board of Human Rights Watch.
Also a presidential appointee to the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom and a scholar of Islamic law, Abou
el Fadl said human rights organizations are frustrated by the
administration’s insistence on investigating allegations of
torture by U.S. soldiers internally.
Spokesmen for the Bush administration maintain that the
government has many of the same objectives as human rights groups,
and say all allegations of abuse are investigated.
This disagreement is indicative of the stark disconnect that
exists between human rights organizations and the current
administration.
The Department of Defense says internal investigations and
prosecutions show it is committed to preventing torture and poor
treatment of prisoners, but human rights organizations such as
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human
Rights continue to level sharp criticisms at the Pentagon.
Human rights groups allege that the use of torture by U.S.
interrogators was widespread at the detention centers in
Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and others. And new allegations of
abuse continue to surface. The British newspaper The Guardian
published an article Feb. 18 which alleged ““ based on
documents from U.S. military investigations ““ that there is
evidence of torture and rape of detainees by U.S. forces in
Afghanistan, and of a subsequent cover-up.
In the face of widespread allegations of torture, international
organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
say the Bush administration has been unwilling to take the
necessary steps to stop it.
Abou el Fadl said human rights organizations have been denied
access to detainees in military prisons, and the International
Committee of the Red Cross has only been granted partial
access.
Amnesty International released a report Jan. 6 titled
“Guantánamo: an Icon of Lawlessness,” which called
the prison “a symbol of the government’s attempt to put
itself above the law.” Published as Guantánamo entered
its fourth year of operations, the report criticized interrogation
methods and practices that have been used at the prison such as
hooding, sleep deprivation, use of dogs to induce fear, the denial
of legal proceedings Amnesty says the detainees are entitled to by
international law, and the secrecy with which the prison is
operated.
And when the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal
Council issued an opinion on the definition of torture at the end
of last year, stating that the term torture did not necessarily
encompass acts that were “cruel, inhuman or degrading,”
Physicians for Human Rights censured it sharply. The groups said
the opinion is an indication that the Bush administration is not
serious about stopping torture.
Human rights organizations also say that while President Bush
has said he abhors torture, his administration has not defined
torture broadly enough. Abou el Fadl said this attitude makes human
rights organizations wary of trusting the administration to prevent
torture and punish those who engage in it.
“We are sort of fidgeting around with whether
international law a) applies, b) needs to be reinterpreted, hence
implying what we confessed we did is legitimate, justified,
defensible,” Abou el Fadl said.
“It is one thing when you say “˜trust us’ and
you are just repentant as hell, and it is another when you say we
should be able to inflict suffering that doesn’t amount to
torture,” he said. “In some administrations,
“˜trust us’ would have been received with more
willingness.”
Human Rights Watch has called for accountability higher up the
chain of command.
Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2005 said “when a
government as dominant and influential as the United States openly
defies that law and seeks to justify its defiance, it also
undermines the law itself and invites others to do the same.”
The report suggests that the United States’ reaction to their
criticisms was undermining human rights efforts in countries like
Sudan, which is currently experiencing its own humanitarian
crisis.
The Department of Defense, the State Department and the Army say
they take such criticisms seriously. But they stand by their claims
that they are taking appropriate action.
“I think the proof is in the pudding ““ look how many
people are held up to scrutiny,” said Dov Schwartz, a
spokesman for the U.S. Army. Schwartz said the Army does a good job
judging itself and that investigations are going on to determine
what went wrong and to make sure it does not happen again.
Only a few low-ranking officers have been convicted of abusing
prisoners. Specialist Charles Graner, the alleged ringleader of the
abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, received 10 years in prison last
month, the most severe sentence to date. But Sgt. Michael Shavers,
a spokesman for the Department of Defense, said a number of
investigations are ongoing.
According to the Department of Defense, eight reviews,
investigations and inspections are in progress, and three more are
planned. These investigations are based on more than 950
“comprehensive interviews of everybody who might have
information germane to the investigation,” Shavers said.
In addition, Gen. Janis Karpinski, the commander of the 800th
military police brigade which at the time was responsible for
administering Abu Ghraib, had her command suspended. Thirty-two
soldiers are in various stages of court martial trials and 55 were
punished outside of the judicial system with letters of reprimand,
forfeiture of pay, or extra duty. Fourteen Marines were
court-martialed and five punished non-judicially, and seven members
of the Navy also received non-judicial punishment.
“There have been individuals which have been investigated
in more than 100 cases, and which have been punished, but there is
not evidence of a systemic problem,” Shavers said.
In response to accusations that human rights groups have been
denied access to the prisons, Shavers said the Geneva Convention
established the International Committee of the Red Cross as the
human rights organization that has access to all detainees in the
Department of Defense’s control.
Simon Schorno, spokesman for the Washington branch of the ICRC,
has declined to comment on statements made by human rights
groups.
Human rights organizations are not satisfied with the
administration’s answers. They see the abuse as systemic, and
say the administration has been uncooperative.
Erin Callahan, the western regional director for Amnesty
International, said her organization had reports documenting
prisoner abuse at Guantánamo more than two years ago, but when
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch presented the reports
to the White House, they did not get a response.
Callahan said the administration only started responding to
accusations of torture and ill treatment when the photos from Abu
Ghraib made responding unavoidable.
“They are responding now, but their response is not
adequate,” she said, adding that Amnesty International is
calling for an independent commission of inquiry and for
accountability higher up the chain of command.
“It seems like the administration has spent more time
trying to figure out clever ways to defend the use of torture or to
define it differently than trying to address the problem that we
are engaging in torture,” she said.
Callahan said the prosecutions of low-level military personnel
are “not nearly enough,” but she does not fault the
military.
“They have held the people they are assigned to prosecute
responsible for their acts,” she said. “I
wouldn’t place the blame on the prosecution or the military
police. It comes from the administration.”
Many human rights organizations have accused the administration
of either directly ordering or creating a political climate which
tolerated torture. They support their claims in part with several
e-mails from the FBI, including a May 2004 e-mail which refers to
an executive order authorizing the use of interrogation methods
such as hooding and sleep deprivation long after the administration
said such practices had been halted.
Abou el Fadl said human rights organizations are not happy with
their relationship with the Pentagon, but spokesmen for the U.S.
government are reluctant to respond directly to allegations of
conflicts.
Spokesmen from the Department of Defense, the State Department
and the Army consistently said they take all accusations of abuse
seriously, and that human rights are central to U.S. policy.
“Advocacy of human rights and democracy is a cornerstone
of U.S. foreign policy,” said Lou Fintor, a spokesman for the
State Department.
Fintor said the State Department publishes reports about human
rights around the world, and they are proud that foreign
governments and human rights organizations such as Human Rights
Watch recognize these reports as an “encyclopedic record of
global human rights concerns.”
Fintor said the 2004-2005 report, which is scheduled to be
released in April, will include sections about Sudan and the United
States.
“While there have been some setbacks and many more
challenges remain, we believe that when we finish, the record will
show that we have made significant progress, and Iraq elections
promise still greater progress in the future,” he said.
At UCLA, student groups are split about the issue.
Matt Knee, chairman of Bruin Republicans, said he trusts the
U.S. military more than human rights organizations when it comes to
terrorism.
“Looking at the records of a lot of these organizations
have in dealing with Israel and Palestinians, they have been
unrealistic and sometimes biased regarding counter-terrorism
operations,” Knee said.
“They are overly trusting of released prisoners from
Guantánamo. It’s in these people’s interest to
make accusations,” he said.
But members of the International Humanitarian Club and the
Muslim Students Association are more inclined to side with human
rights organizations.
“The general problem is that the Bush administration fails
to take the blame for things that they do wrong, and that is really
dangerous because it gives them open license to keep doing things
they have done wrong in the past,” said Samer Araabi, a
second-year business economics and political science student who is
on MSA’s political action committee.
“I’m sure in certain ways they are well intentioned,
but sacrificing human rights in order to secure them is blatant
hypocrisy,” he said.
Student branches of human rights groups are also getting
involved.
This week from Tuesday to Friday Amnesty International UCLA will
hold a program called “All in Your Own Backyard” in an
effort to educate the UCLA community about local human rights
issues like sweatshops, labor abuse and child prostitution.
“Unfortunately we are not addressing Guantánamo Bay,
but the larger issue is human rights in general, and human rights
abuses are allowed to happen in this country,” said Casey
Johnson, a graduate student in Latin American studies and president
of Amnesty International UCLA.
Human rights groups and their student branches want to galvanize
local reaction because they feel the government is not doing enough
to stop human rights abuses, Johnson said.