UNSG keeps Board of Inquiry report secret – transmits summary only

The report of the UN Board of Inquiry on IDF military attacks that struck UN installations in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead — or the summary of this ultra-sensitive report — is not readily available, meaning I could not find it anywhere yet.  Nor could I find the test of the UNSG’s letter, which is supposed to have accompanied the report, or its summary.

It seems that the full report is being treated — by the UN, at least — as confidential.

The report summary was, however, apparently delivered to journalists at UNHQ/NY just before the regular daily Noon Briefing there (and, of course, after the summary + the UNSG’s letter was delivered to the 15 members of the UN Security Council).

Continue reading UNSG keeps Board of Inquiry report secret – transmits summary only

Israel complains about not-yet-published UN report

In an astonishing — and, sorry, I can’t help, but it’s also highly amusing — illustration of the matrix of the Israeli government, the Israeli media, the role of leaking, and attempts to influence international policy and opinion, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) sent out an email at 11:22 this morning denouncing a UN report that has not yet been released.

The MFA also partially reveals the contents of a letter that the UN Secretary-General has not yet sent to the UN Security Council.

The MFA communique states that “UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will today (Tuesday, 5 May 2009) send to the UN Security Council [in a “letter”, apparently] his response to the summary of the report of the internal inspection committee, which he previously formed. The committee examined the events in which nine UN installations were damaged during Operation Cast Lead”.

In the as-yet-unsent letter, according to the statement from Israel’s MFA, “Secretary General Ban criticizes the firing of Kassam rockets at Israeli towns, and praises the coordination between the Israel Defence Force (IDF) and the UN during Operation Cast Lead”.

This may come as a surprise to some in the UN. UNRWA officials recounted to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) team their frantic efforts, including listing their log of multiple phone calls over a two-hour period to various contacts in the IDF, to stop the closer-and-closer firing of White Phosphorus near the main UNRWA compound in Gaza City on 15 January.  HRW reported that UNRWA Gaza Field Administration Officer Scott Anderson, a retired U.S. army officer, who was in the UNRWA compound when the shelling started, “speculated that the IDF was ‘walking’ the artillery fire across the area – firing shells along an arc at evenly spaced intervals”.   The Human Rights Watch team later reported that no Israeli ground troops were operating in that area at the time, but it was crowded with Palestinian civilians and UNRWA personnel. As a result of the fires caused by the White Phosphorus, many millions of dollars of supplies were burned in the warehouse area of that UNRWA compound. A few days later, in the same UNRWA compound, UNSG BAN addressed television cameras of major international media while standing in front of the still-smoldering supplies.

The UN report at issue is that of the special Board of Inquiry set up by UNSG Ban Ki-Moon to look into IDF military strikes (the IDF says they were not intentional attacks) that hit some nine UN targets or installations in Gaza, including the main UNRWA Compound in Gaza City (that actually happened the day UNSG Ban arrived in Israel for a visit), and a UN school in the northern Gaza Strip a couple of days later, as well as several UN local staff workers.

The UN Board of Inquiry was headed by Ian Martin of the United Kingdom, and was looking at incidents involving death and damage at the the UN installations in Gaza during Israel’s 22-day military operation. The Board of Inquiry began work on 12 February, and its other members are Larry Johnson (United States), Sinha Basnayake (Sri Lanka) and Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Eichenberger (Switzerland).

The MFA statement said that “The State of Israel rejects the criticism in the committee’s summary report, and determines that in both spirit and language, the report is tendentious, patently biased, and ignores the facts presented to the committee. The committee has preferred the claims of Hamas, a murderous terror organization, and by doing so has misled the world. As noted by the Secretary General in his letter, during the course of its work the committee met with the Israeli team, which cooperated fully and with complete transparency. The Israeli team presented various intelligence materials, including videos, aerial photographs, eye-witness reports and other material. None of this information is reflected in the report”.

While the UN report will apparently call for further investigation, the MFA takes a stern tone to the contrary: “Israel views the publication of the report’s findings as the end of the internal UN inspection process. The UN is responsible for drawing its own conclusions regarding the means it should implement to contend with the complex reality in which a terror organization operates in proximity to UN installations without differentiation and in a manner that endangers UN activities. We expect clear statements and action from the UN in this regard”.

Is the Israeli MFA criticizing UNRWA for not taking action to prevent Hamas from being “in proximity to UN installations”?  (Even the massive firepower used during the IDF military operation in Gaza failed to do this.)?

And, is Israel in a position to declare the end of any UN investigation process?

In fact, as these words were being written, another UN team of independent investigators, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, yesterday began a week-long meeting to prepare for their fact-finding mission to the region. The Human Rights four-person team is headed by Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa, former prosecutor for International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and will include Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science at the University of London; Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders; and Colonel (retired from the Irish Armed Forces) Desmond Travers, member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations (IICI). This was reported yesterday on the UN News Centre website here.

And, in an entirely separate domaine, a UN Human Rights treaty body is meeting in Geneva today and tomorrow to review Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. The Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday that “Israel is likely to answer questions on its treatment of Palestinian detainees, the alleged existence of a secret interrogation center known as Facility 1391, the closure of the Gaza crossings, and the West Bank security barrier when it appears before the UN Committee Against Torture in Geneva on Tuesday and Wednesday”.

But, if a Haaretz report on Tuesday afternoon is correct, the UNSG may have already conceded several points in his as-yet-undelivered letter. Haaretz said that Ban wrote that the Board of Inquiry’s report “was not legally binding … In the letter, the UN chief condemned Hamas cross-border rocket fire on Israeli civilians, attacks that sparked the conflict and, according to the Israeli paper, were ignored by the UN committee in its report. Ban also commended the Israel Defense Forces for its close coordination with the world body during the 3-week operation, as well as the cooperation given by Israel with the report’s authors. He said his representatives were holding meetings with the Israeli government on implementing the report’s recommendations. The UN chief added there would be no further reports by the world body on the subject”.

So, far from reacting strongly in order to “save face”, has the UNSG already caved in to this Israeli pressure?

The Haaretz report added that “Ban made the comments in a letter he agreed to attach to the report at the request of Foreign Ministry director-general Yossi Gal, who traveled to New York on Monday for meetings with Ban’s aides on the matter”. This report in Haaretz can be read in full here.

Before the Israeli MFA response to the not-yet-released report, Israel’s most widely-read newspaper, Yediot Ahronot (in Hebrew), published an article containing very strong reactions from various Israeli officials, and by 8:24 am, its English-language website YNet had a slightly-softened version online.

A selected summary of items in the Hebrew press sent out to journalists by the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO) a short while later recounted that, according to Yediot Ahronot, “Israel livid: UN prepared deadly report on Gaza Strip operation. UN AGAINST IDF. UN report determines: IDF intentionally fired at UNWRA institutions and people in Gaza during ‘Cast Lead’. Israeli source: If they do not soften wording, this is an earthquake“.

But, from the reaction sent out by the MFA, we learn that the report has already been softened once. Israel now wants it softened even more. On top of that, Israel wants the UN to stop its “internal investigation process”. And the MFA is demanding that the UN to take an even clearer stance against Hamas, than it already has — the UN is an integral part of the Quartet [whose other three members are the U.S., European Union, and Russia], which has adopted it its entirety the Israeli conditions for refusing to deal with Hamas.

However, the UN has major humanitarian operations in the Gaza Strip, which it will not abandon even though Hamas is currently in charge there. And, the UN Security Council has in the Gaza Strip, and the UN has major humanitarian operations there, 1.5 Palestinians (the majority of whom are refugees) are crowded, living under an Israeli-imposed blockade administered by the military, and largely prevented by Israel from leaving. And, the UN Security Council Resolution (1860) adopted on 8 January, “Calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”.

“All I can say is that I am sooooo relieved that I can’t be accused of leaking this report”, said one UN spokesperson in Jerusalem. “But, what do the Israelis think they’re doing? I thought they were supposed to be so good at media management. What this will do is make it all the harder for the UN to back down from any stiff conclusions, and make it impossible to water down any more what might have been watered down already”.

According to the MFA leak, “The Secretary General further emphasizes in his letter that the UN inspection committee is not a judicial body and is not authorized to examine legal issues”. That, of course, is one explanation for the apparent fact that the UN Board of Inquiry report does not accuse Israel of war crimes.

The Yediot Ahronot article in Hebrew (translation into English supplied by a UN contact) reported that “The report was placed on the UN secretary general’s desk a few days ago, and it is liable to generate a diplomatic earthquake. The report’s authors chose to ignore Israel’s contentions and determined unequivocally: Israel deliberately fired at UN institutions even though it knew it was forbidden. The report accuses Israel of disproportionate fire and excessive use of force. The report also states that Israel shot at Palestinian civilians unnecessarily and excessively. It should be noted that the report is worded one-sidedly and includes numerous and grave charges against Israel. On the other hand, the report almost entirely ignores Hamas and the rocket fire at Israeli communities”.

As a result, the article said, this report’s findings would — if left as is — “open up the possibility of charging top Israeli officials in legal institutions all over the world and drag Israel into deep diplomatic mud”.

Yediot Ahronot reported that “A person on the American delegation to the UN told Yedioth Ahronoth yesterday: ‘Except for accusing Israel of war crimes, this report has everything. This is a report that is unprecedented in its gravity toward Israel, and Israel will have to lick the wounds of the report for many years, if the current wording is accepted as is’ … A member of the French delegation said yesterday that if the report’s conclusion are accepted, Operation Cast Lead is liable to drag Israel into a relentless diplomatic war that was worse than what it underwent during the second Intifada”.

So, according to this article in Yediot Ahronot, “When the intention to make the report public became known, the new Foreign Ministry secretary general, Yossi Gal, left for New York to receive the draft of the report and to hold talks with top UN officials to persuade them to delay publication, to change some of the sharp language and to promise that in the press conference that will take place after the report comes out, that the secretary general will balance the harsh findings in it. Israeli officials are very troubled by the timing of the publication—on the eve of President Shimon Peres’s meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon tomorrow [Tuesday] morning. Peres is expected to have held a harsh talk last night with the secretary general and to demand of him to delay publication. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also called the UN secretary general from Rome and had a harsh talk with him. As far as is known, the secretary general made it clear that it was not possible to change the content of the report or to delay publication. The pressure is therefore focusing now on having the secretary general try to minimize the damage in the remarks he will make at the press conference that he is expected to hold after publication”.

The English-language version of this story, published on YNet, reported that “Although the report does not accuse Israel of committing war crimes and does not include a recommendation for legal proceedings, Jerusalem views it as a one-sided and even hostile document, as it fails to mention the Hamas terror directed ceaselessly at the civilian population in Israel. After receiving the report, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon deliberated for several days on how to respond to it. He eventually worded a summarizing and ‘softened’ three-page document, which he plans to submit to the Security Council on Tuesday. The original report included a recommendation to probe two incidents which involved the use of phosphorus, but this recommendation was not adopted by Ban, as he believes it exceeded the mandate given to the committee. The board of inquiry was led by Ian Martin, the former secretary-general of Amnesty International. As noted by Ban, the IDF and Israeli Foreign Ministry fully cooperated with the committee. The Israeli Information Forum held a conference call Tuesday morning to discuss the issue. Representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office demanded that Israel refrain from capitulating or apologizing following the UN report. One of the decisions made was to remind the world that Hamas is a terror organization which caused the war and operated among civilian population and near UN facilities, firing thousands of rockets into Israel. The PM’s Office reps also said that the IDF’s operation in Gaza followed numerous warnings. ‘The responsibility lies on the shoulders of the Hamas terror organization, which conducted the offensive on Israel’s citizens’, one of them said.  Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman discussed the issue with the UN chief in recent days, seeking to minimize the damage caused by the report. Foreign Ministry officials stressed that the report did not deal with the entire Gaza offensive, but only with the incidents in which UNRWA facilities were fired on. President Shimon Peres, who is currently visiting the United States and is scheduled to meet with Secretary-General Ban, has also been recruited for the diplomatic battle against the report”… This YNet report can be read in full here.

The Israeli MFA, in its statement emailed around this morning, said that “Immediately upon the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead, and unrelated to the UN investigation, Israel carried out independent inquiries into the damage caused to the UN installations. The findings of these inquiries were published two weeks ago, and proved beyond doubt that the IDF did not intentionally fire at the UN installations. Not only have the Hamas terrorists not conducted such inquiries, they have use violence and intimidation against citizens of Gaza as tools to prevent them from presenting the actual truth. In this manner they have deceived the investigators, the UN and public opinion. Israel emphasizes that despite the fact that it was cleared of suspicions of war crimes raised during Operation Cast Lead [apparently, the MFA means here that Israel was cleared by itself, or by the IDF preliminary investigation released recently] , the report completely ignores the eight years of attacks against Israel that preceded the decision to initiate the operation, and ignores the difficult circumstances on the ground as dictated by Hamas and its methods of armed operation. As a terror organization, Hamas chose to position the battlefield in congested built-up areas, and in so doing, not only deliberately attacked Israeli civilians, as is determined in the report, but also put the lives of Palestinian civilians at risk and cynically and manipulatively used them as human shields. The IDF took various precautions to prevent damage to installations and vehicles belonging to the UN and other international organizations. These installations were marked on the operational maps according to information provided by the UN and the other international organizations. Officers and soldiers were briefed accordingly prior to and during the mission. Surprisingly, the report lays no responsibility on the Hamas organization, which placed its installations and dispatched its men to confront the IDF in proximity to the UN installations”.

International law experts, however, are nearly unanimous in arguing that, contrary to what the MFA is claiming here, a state has a responsibility not to fire on an area where it knows there are civilians — unless, and this is a big loophole, the military value of the target is so high that it is absolutely essential to do so.

An op-ed contribution published in the Jerusalem Post today, written by Rabbi Arik Ascherman, one of the leading figures in the Rabbis for Human Rights organization, made the same point, but argued on the basis of Jewish moral teachings rather than international law.

In his article, Rabbi Ascherman writes: “I don’t know the truth about Gaza. I doubt that many of you reading these words know either. As a Jew, a rabbi, an Israeli and a Zionist, I desperately want to believe the IDF that there was nothing to the transcripts from the Rabin Academy, or any other investigated incident. But, I can’t. And, I need to know. I must know whether my country is living up to commitments we made to ourselves in our Declaration of Independence 61 years ago that Israel’s foundation be ‘freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel’, and that ‘it will be faithful to the principles of the charter of the United Nations’. The Jewish tradition I am sworn to uphold demands that, even when pursuing a just cause such as self-defense, we must do so through just means (midrash) … May we reduce the threat to our soldiers by violating the teaching allowing us to kill those coming to kill us but forbidding us to kill innocents even to save ourselves (Sanhedrin)? Are we content saying, “Our hands did not shed this blood” (Deut 21:8), or do we accept responsibility if we haven’t done enough to prevent bloodshed (Sotah)? ”

In his piece, Rabbi Ascherman also states “That is why Rabbis for Human Rights and other Israeli human rights organizations are calling for an independent state investigation not in the hands of the IDF”.

An independent state investigation means, of course, an Israeli investigation. Many Israeli human rights figures have noted that if Israel did an investigation of its own that others would find credible, then the calls for further “fact-finding”, and “inquiry” would quiet down. But, they say, as it is, the facts that the UN and other international bodies are steadily producing will surely be used — failing a credible Israeli investigation — by other national or international courts.

With the time difference between Jerusalem and New York, it is just about now that UNHQ/NY officially opens for work. So, the rest of this story is still to come …

Investors: Newspaper industry future is dismal. Watchdog: press freedom is slipping. Are these phenomena related?

Investor Warren Buffett said at a meeting of shareholders of a big American company (Berkshire Hathaway Inc.) over the weekend, according to a report on Yahoo Finance that “the future of the newspaper industry is dismal:’For most newspapers in the United States, we would not buy them at any price … They have the possibility of going to just unending losses’. As long as newspapers were essential to readers, they were essential to advertisers, he said. But news is now available in many other venues, he said. Berkshire has a substantial investment in Washington Post Co. Buffett said the company has a solid cable business, a good reason to hold on to it, but its newspaper business is in trouble”. This report can be read in full here.

Continue reading Investors: Newspaper industry future is dismal. Watchdog: press freedom is slipping. Are these phenomena related?

Condoleezza Rice on waterboarding: "I did not authorize anything … "

On 1 May, Scott Horton, a New York attorney with an interest in international law, especially human rights law, and a contributing editor to Harper’s Magazine, posted an extraordinary recent amateur video, taken from Youtube, on his No Comment blog (located on Harper’s website).

Horton’s post is entitled “Condi’s really bad day“, and can be read in full here.

The Youtube video (uploaded by reynagarcia621) that Horton dissects in his blog post shows former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talking with Stanford University students on 27 April — and denying that she had authorized … well, yes, torture.

“We did not torture anyone”, she said (at 4:07 minutes into the video).

In this video, taken by a student, Rice said that “in terms of enhanced interrogation, rendition, and all the issues around the detainees, Abu Ghraib was not a policy … and it was wrong”.

But, she went on about “enhanced interrogation”, saying that “anything that was legal and that was gonna make this country safer, the President wanted to do — nothing that was illegal and nothing that was gonna make the country less safe … You cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that we faced … foreign policy is full of a lot of tough choices, very tough choices”.

Continue reading Condoleezza Rice on waterboarding: "I did not authorize anything … "

Since Gaza war, more sick Palestinians subjected to Israeli security questioning as condition for travel for medical treatment

Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHR-Israel) has just published a new report stating that “at least 438 sick Gazan medical patients have been summoned for interrogations by Israel’s General Security Services (GSS) — otherwise also known as Shin Bet, or Shabak — at Erez Crossing into and out of Israel, as a precondition for the review of their applications for an exit permit for the purpose of accessing medical treatment outside of the Strip, between January 2008 and March 2009.

That is, the patients must come for an “interview” with the feared Shin Bet even before their application for an exit permit for medical treatment is even examined.

According to PHR-Israel, this policy of interrogation of sick patients began in August 2007 – about six weeks after the Hamas rout of Fatah security forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007.

The data collected by PHR-Israel “points to [a recent] increase in the ratio of the number of interrogations to the total number of applications submitted to the authorities at Erez Crossing”,
meaning that more sick and ill Palestinian patients have been interrogated recently, and forced to provide information, as a precondition to exit Gaza for medical care.

Continue reading Since Gaza war, more sick Palestinians subjected to Israeli security questioning as condition for travel for medical treatment

Western Sahara talks to resume on small scale prior to formal negotiations?

AFP has reported that “Algeria’s government on Friday welcomed a call by the UN Security Council for Morocco and the Polisario independence movement to resume talks on the future of Western Sahara  … The 15 Council members unanimously voted on Thursday to extend the mandate of a UN mission in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until April 2010.  Member countries call upon both sides ‘to continue negotiations under the auspices of the Secretary-General (Ban Ki-moon) without pre-conditions and in good faith’, the council’s latest resolution said … The two sides agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire in 1991, but a promised self-determination referendum never materialised … Ban’s envoy to Western Sahara, Christopher Ross, toured the north African region earlier this year, and returned to win UN backing for a plan to ‘hold small, informal talks in preparation for a fifth round of negotiations’.  He concluded that the conditions were not yet appropriate for a fifth round of formal talks, following four sets without a breakthrough in Manhasset, a New York suburb”. This report can be read in full here.

I don’t know what Algeria is so pleased about. This business of “without pre-conditions” simply seems to mean forget what the UN Security Council previously endorsed, which is a referendum in which Sahrawis from Western Sahara would vote to decide if they want independence, or integration with Morocco.

Now, the international community as represented in-or-by the UN Security Council is saying, forget it, that didn’t work, you’ve cost us a lot of time and money (in peace-keeping missions, diplomatic meetings, and whatever) so the time has come to be realistic, and what you will get to vote on is just whether or not you’ll agree to autonomy within the Kingdom of Morocco. That’s it.

And that’s what gives diplomacy a bad name.

See our previous post here. This post was written just before the fourth round of talks in Manhasset, 11-13 March 2008.

But, by the way, this diplomatic “realism” didn’t start with the U.S. — it started with UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar, a royalist if ever there was one, who was on quite good terms with King Hassan of Morocco, who began floating this proposal to just forget the referendum the UN Security Council had authorized, and work on “negotiations” to persuade the Polisario to agree to the autonomy proposal that Morocco had always wanted…

Restrictions on Palestinian workers tightening, checkpoint problems growing

Yaakov Katz has reported in the Jerusalem Post that “The IDF will begin on Friday [1 May] to sanction Palestinian workers who stay in Israel beyond the time allotted to them in military-issued permits, The Jerusalem Post has learned. Under new guidelines that go into effect on Friday and were approved by OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni and the head of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria Brig.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai, Palestinians could lose their work permits if they exceed the approved time limit. Some permits allow Palestinians to remain overnight in Israel while others allow them to enter Israel in the morning and return to the West Bank by nightfall. ‘The sanctions will not be immediate but will begin at a later stage’, one official said … It was not clear what the sanctions would include, but officials said that if the workers did not abide by their permit’s conditions they could lose them. ‘Staying in Israel illegally is a dangerous phenomenon that involves criminal and terrorist activity’, the official explained. ‘This is a security precaution’. In addition, the IDF will only allow Palestinian workers into Israel via 13 West Bank crossings that use computerized systems to record identities and times. Starting Friday, the Palestinians will also have to return exclusively via these computerized crossings”. This report was published here.

The overcrowding is growing at the checkpoints, which are becoming fewer and fewer, as alternatives are relentlessly eliminated. The congestion at Qalandia, the main checkpoint between Jerusalem and Ramallah, is appalling. Last Wednesday, which was Israel’s Independence Day according to the Jewish calendar — and therefore a holiday, meaning less traffic, but also greater security measures — it took 45 minutes, yes, 45 minutes, just to cross Qalandia going to Ramallah.

The good women of the Israeli organization Machsom Watch [Checkpoint Watch] published a report on the Qalandia checkpoint on 26 April stating that “We arrived at Qalandia just before 7am … From the moment we arrived we didn’t stop for a moment to deal with problems that arose … The first thing we dealt with was a father with a 11 year old son who said that soldiers at the check in windows took his ‘kushan’ ( birth certificate), cut it up with scissors and told him to go home. His father said that the boy had a very important exam today and that it is crucial for him to get to school. We alerted everyone possible and achieved that the DCO representative and a policeman went to every one of the windows and looked through everything and didn’t find any birth certificate whole or cut up. It took a long time and the father refused to leave and go through Hizma although he possesses a Jerusalem resident ID.  In the end the policeman let the father and the son go through without the birth certificate. The mystery of the vanished birth certificate was not solved … Today we met a young man who was shot during the Gaza war and was returning from Nablus hospital. Naturally he only had a permit to leave Gaza and not to return to Gaza. It took many phone calls to the Gaza DCO to communicate with the Ramallah DCO so that the Qalandia computer sees the end of the communication and can issue a permit or the day for the man to return home to Gaza … We met a man from a village near Nablus. He has to undergo an operation at the St John’s eye hospital [in East Jerusalem]. When we called the medical section of the humanitarian dept of the army we were told that the man didn’t supply all the necessary documents and has to return home to his doctor and do it. Nothing will be done if all the documents are not submitted … Road 443: People who live in villages close to road 443 cannot just get on it but have to go to Qalandia and proceed from there back to 443 to the gates opened to workers in settlements. Today we met two men who did just that but were not allowed to go through the checkpoint. We actually didn’t manage to figure out what the problem was and sadly had to conclude that that’s just the idea – the rules are unclear and forever changing and vague … The whole time we felt the heavy Kafkesque atmosphere all around. And that is a very important part of the way the laws of occupation are applied”. The full report can be read here.

Do legal memos on torture exonerate Private Graner and Lynndie England?

The Washington Post reports that the recent release of Justice Department [Office of Legal Affairs] memos [addressed to the CIA] authorizing the use of “harsh interrogation techniques” has given Army Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr and other soldiers [including Lynndie R. England] “new reason to argue that they were made scapegoats for policies approved at high levels. They also contend that the government’s refusal to acknowledge those polices when Graner and others were tried undermined their legal defenses. Graner remains locked up at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, about halfway through a 10-year prison sentence for detainee abuse, assault and dereliction of duty. His lawyer said this week that he is drafting appeals arguments centered largely on the revelations in the memos and a newly released congressional investigation into the interrogation practices … When the photos of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in 2004, U.S. officials portrayed … Graner as the ringleader of a few low-ranking ‘bad apples’ who illegally put naked Iraqi detainees in painful positions, shackled them to cell doors with women’s underwear on their heads and menaced them with military dogs … Graner and other defendants — including Lynndie England, who was photographed holding a naked detainee by a leash — were blocked by military judges from calling senior U.S. officials to the stand at their trials in 2004 and 2005. The government would not acknowledge any policy or procedure that could have led to what the world saw in the photographs. Some of what the guards at Abu Ghraib did, such as throwing hooded detainees into walls, echoes tactics authorized in the Justice Department memos, such as ‘walling’, in which interrogators were allowed to push detainees in CIA custody into a flexible wall designed to make a loud noise … Charles Gittins, a Virginia lawyer who represents Graner, said he has been fuming since reading the memos. He said he has long believed that there was no way Graner and the other Army Reservists invented techniques such as stress positions, leashing and the use of dogs, and he says the documents confirmed his suspicions … Gittins said he hopes to convince the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces that top officials improperly influenced the court and kept evidence from the defense. According to the memos and congressional documents, U.S. officials reverse-engineered techniques from U.S. survival training courses designed to teach troops how to endure capture and interrogation. Justice and Defense department officials approved the use of dogs, nudity, stress positions, sleep deprivation and other techniques. Those tactics, according to the documents, were put into use at the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in the CIA’s secret prisons, and eventually were adopted in Afghanistan and Iraq after then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s approval was forwarded from officials at Guantanamo to Capt. Carolyn Wood, a military intelligence officer. She told investigators that she then sought approvals in Afghanistan for the tactics and brought them with her to Iraq and Abu Ghraib. Senior officers in Iraq also approved the methods there”.

Whatever the similarities — and there are many — the Washington Post article notes that “the Abu Ghraib photographs also depicted some actions, such as punching or stomping, that bear no relation to the techniques described in the memos, as well as others that were improvised by guards, such as forcing detainees to masturbate or to form human pyramids while naked”.

This article can be read in full here.

Some of the comments on this article argue that, regardless of orders emanating from above, the Army prison guards were nonetheless still guilty of abuse and torture: lrobby1 commented, for example, that “Private Graner was brutally sadistic toward the Iraqi detainees. There are videos on Google here that show him torturing prisoners. The other guards were also guilty of horrifically abusing military detainees and they should all be punished. Lawyers for the DOJ, including Alberto Gonzales, legitimized the torture of military detainees and provided justification for their abuse. But neither the legal memos nor the authorizations by Rumsfeld and others approved of urinating on prisoners, pulling out pubic and chest hairs, sexual molestation, electrocution, pyramiding detainees, sodomizing prisoners or dragging them naked on concrete floors … no one knows exactly how many people were disappeared into blacksites and ultimately killed. While I still believe that a thorough investigation of those involved in the authorization of torture should be conducted, lawyers should be disbarred and Bush Administration officials should be prosecuted, I also believe that Pvt. Graner and the other guards were justifiably punished for their own actions”.