CHAPTER 2. UNITED STATES: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TURNS UP THE HEAT; MORE MASSIVE, SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS WITH THE PRETEXT OF PURSUING ITS "GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM"

The European Union: a well-established pattern of hypocrisy and collusion to ensure impunity for the empire.

The case of the flights via Europe operated by the CIA to transfer persons arbitrarily detained to centres where they were subjected to torture and other serious violations of their human rights.

Application of the Bush administration's doctrine of "Global war on terrorism" has involved tasking the the American secret services with jobs and missions both at home and all over the world that are comparable with those - including assassinations of Third World heads of state and political leaders, as well as mercenary incursions and imperialist acts of aggression - of McCarthyism and the worst stages of the Cold War.

The shock and scandal created in world public opinion by the revelation that the CIA were transporting terrorism suspects via Europe to be tortured recalls the terrible events that marked the brutality of the military dictatorships imposed with US collusion on Latin America in earlier decades; these were sadly only too eager to adopt the tactics of torture, extrajudicial execution and 'disappearance', learned at the sinister School of the Americas (SOA).

The new scandal also involved revelations concerning the existence in Eastern Europe of secret detention and torture centres maintained under CIA auspices, where violations of human rights as serious as those committed by US troops in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan are believed to have taken place. Both Washington and its European allies have hastened to deny the existence of such centres. It seems that, as soon as they were set up, every trace of there existence was covered up. The European authorities and their intelligence services, who were involved in these episodes up to their necks, have cooperated in maintaining a wall of silence and in hiding the relevant evidence.

Media reports of the "European Guantanamo" refer to a clandestine system of prisons across various countries, with a population of up to 100 inmates. According to the 'Washington Post', this network was set up by the CIA nearly four years ago, following the September 11 attacks.

The report says the network was developed on the strength of a document signed by Bush on 17th September 2001 (just six days after the attacks), giving the CIA wide powers to combat terrorism (including authority to kill or capture members al-Quaeda anywhere in the world).

The practice of transferring ("rendition" of) suspects as part of CIA covert operations has been orchestrated with close cooperation from the European foreign intelligence services, whose governments, like that of America, are parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture).

The centres where these people have been secretly held are clandestine locations hidden from any judicial scrutiny, where the rights of every human being and the most basic principles of International Law and other international legal obligations in the field of human rights - binding on all the states involved in this scandal - are flouted.

II. - United States: a pattern of massive, systematic violation of human rights

Despite the cloak of secrecy with which the Bush administration has sought to cover these facts, it is evident that the situation at the Guantanamo detention centre is no isolated case. On the contrary, there is a clear pattern of serious, systematic violation of human rights by the US government.

This pattern is apparent both in its domestic policies and those applied by its representatives in various parts of the world, whether in military bases like Guantanamo, prisons like Abu Ghraib in occupied countries or secret centres in the territories of its allies, in all cases maintained beyond the reach of the civil and judicial authorities.

Breaches of human rights within America's own borders
1. Violation of the civil and political rights of US citizens following introduction of the Patriot Act, whose provisions are marked by (among other things):

Considerable ambiguity and scope for arbitrary interpretation of the criminal law on terrorism, including revised definitions for 'Terrorist Activity' and 'Terrorist Group'. The drawing up of a list of terrorist groups and individuals is called for.

Restriction or removal of legal and procedural guarantees, including:

• Increased scope for indefinite detention of those suspected of committing terrorist acts.
• Closed fact-finding hearings and power to compel such suspects to testify without being charged.
• Denial of the right to legal representation.

More powers for the government and intelligence agencies to intercept terrorism-related communications via cable, word-of-mouth and electronics.

Scope for providing officials responsible for enforcing the law with information on the activities of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence services, without the need to clarify how such information was obtained

More powers for the police and intelligence agencies to detain, prosecute and deport immigrants viewed with suspicion.

Wider powers for the executive to seize property from organizations, individuals and even foreign states, on the strength of evidence of “being linked to terrorist attacks”.

Under this legislation and a subsequent presidential order signed by Bush in 2002, the NSA - the espionage unit tasked with intercepting communications - has monitored the international phone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people in the US without the necessary judicial authorization. This was admitted by Bush at a press conference on 17th December 2005. (The issue is discussed in greater detail later).

2. Constant breaches of rights in the US system of justice, whose victims are not just American citizens

The abduction of five Cuban anti-terrorist combatants who have been illegally detained in US jails since 1998 is the most serious case of violation of human rights ever committed against a Cuban on American soil. (See Chapter 4, Part I, which describes the breaches of the human rights of the five Cubans and their families).

3. Recourse to the death penalty in 1,000 cases in the US since its restoration 28 years ago

In the United States, an inmate is executed every ten days. Number 1,000 was John Hicks, aged 49, put to death at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville.

Between five and ten percent of America's death row population (numbering some 3,400 persons) are mentally ill.

In 2005, the US continued to pass and carry out the death sentence on prisoners with a history of serious mental illness. Such cases have included:

o Charles Singleton, executed on January 6th, 2004 in Arkansas. His mental condition deteriorated on death row to the extent that medication had to be administered by force.

o Kelsey Patterson, executed on May 18th, 2004 in Texas. He had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The Governor of Texas rejected a plea for pardon from the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles.

o James Hubbard, executed on August 5th, 2004 in Alabama. At 74, he was the oldest person to be put to death in America since 1977, and had spent more than a quarter of a century on death row. He reportedly suffered from dementia, an illness that at times made him forget who he was or why he had been sentenced to death.

On January 17th, 2006, US Army regulations on the execution of military prisoners were amended. The new rules appear in an army document of that date signed by Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker. Described as a major revision and effective as from February 17th, these measures relate to death sentences passed by courts martial and military tribunals. The news was accompanied by clarification from the Army that the reform of the legal rules in this area meant that the death penalty could be carried out elsewhere than at Fort Leavenworth (Kansas), previously the only defence establishment so authorized. Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, told the media that the new rules targeted the military tribunals being held in Guantanamo, because they do not want to transfer these people to US territory.

There are some 500 persons detained at the Guantanamo naval base as part of the war on terrorism launched by Washington in 2001.

4. Brutality of the forces of law and order

The use of force to the extent of extreme violence by the police and other public order agencies in the United States has been routine and a traditional practice among these, applied with particular viciousness in their dealings with the Afro-American and Hispanic minorities.

On September 23rd, 2005, FBI agents assassinated Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, leader of the Puerto Rican independence movement, in Puerto Rico. The killing reflected a policy of selective assassination among leaders in the Latin American region, planned and funded by successive US administrations via the tentacles of the CIA on the American continent, with the complicity of terrorist and paramilitary groups, including various units of the terrorist mafia of Cuban origin sheltering in Miami.

Also in 2005, several NGO's in the human rights field condemned the mistreatment and deaths in official custody caused by using new-generation Taser pistols. These powerful weapons shoot electric shock delivering darts and are in field or trial use in over 5,000 US police forces and prisons.

In the previous year, over 40 people had died after being shot with Taser pistols wielded by US police officers, increasing to 70-plus the total number of such deaths reported since 2001. Most of the victims were unarmed men who did not pose a serious threat at the time of being darted. Many had been subjected to several of these shocks and some to further violent measures, including pepper aerosols and dangerous methods of restraint, such as the 'hog-tie' (where the victim is left face down with wrists tied to ankles behind the back).

5. Racism, discrimination and xenophobia

The legacy of a deeply racist society, which enslaved part of its population and withheld the latter's rights for a century after granting official freedom, survives to the present day.

74% of white families own their homes, compared with 47% of those of African or Hispanic origins.

Among those below the poverty line, Afro-Americans outnumber whites three to one. It is five times more likely that a black man will die murdered than a white man in America. Afro-Americans' life expectancy is six years less than that of whites. For equal work, a black man's wages are 70% those of a white man.

According to a US Justice Department report, over 70% of the prison population is non-white. While the Negro race accounts for just 12.3% of America's population, 44% of the nation's prison inmates are black. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, some 32 million people have been subjected to investigation prompted by racial prejudice.

6. Violation of women's and children's rights

According to FBI statistics, in 2003 alone, 93,233 women were raped. The Bureau's figures show that a woman is sexually harassed every two minutes, while every six minutes a woman is raped.

Women are not paid the same as men for equal work.

Again in 2003, some 13 million children were living in poverty and 20 million belonged to families with very low incomes. Every year around 400,000 children are forced to prostitute themselves.

7. Introduction of anti-immigrant legislation

American law keeps immigrant workers illegal, to ensure a supply of extremely low-paid manpower with no social protection or employment rights. In November 2004, the Department of Homeland Security announced that 157,281 immigrants had been repatriated in a year, 8% more than in 2003, and that the number of foreigners without legal identification detained had shot up by 112%.

Such measures combined with the growing climate of xenophobia - encouraged by building border walls and organizing civilian border patrols to hunt down would-be immigrants - has led to annual increases in the numbers of Mexicans and Central Americans who in their desperate search for work lose their lives in the attempt to enter the US illegally through the "corridor of death" on the US-Mexico border. Between September 2004 and July 2005, such deaths exceeded 300.

On December 16th, 2005, the US House of Representatives approved a bill entitled Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act which makes 11 million unauthorized Latin American immigrants criminals and extends the scope of the crime to include individuals and organizations who help the migrants; it also orders the building of a wall over a thousand kilometres long on the Mexican border.

8. Violence at society level in the USA

According to a US Justice Department report published in November 2004, during 2003 there were 1,381,259 deaths, thefts and violent crimes - an average of 475 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The crimes included 16,503 murders, an increase on 2002 of 1.7%. One out of every 44 US citizens over age 12 was a victim of those crimes.

The United States has more owners of firearms than any other country, and the highest number of deaths by shooting. Every year, some 31,000 Americans die (accounting for over 80% of the nation's daily death toll) and 75,000 are wounded, in shootings.

9. American prisons: an inferno that is expanding and generates profits

On August 15th, 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported that over 40 of the nation's prisons had been judicially cited for brutality, bad food and lack of medical care and attention for the prisoners. On October 12th, 2004, the New York Times told its readers that at least 13% of the inmates of US jails were being sexually abused.

The jails have become one of America's most lucrative businesses, employing over 530,000 people. At its peak, the prison business was second only to General Motors in terms of the size of its workforce. The United States has over 100 private jails in 27 states. The top priority in these institutions is to make and increase profits, at the expense of prisoner re education and respect for human dignity. This dehumanizing aberration is planned to culminate with the placing of shares in some of these private prisons on the speculative stockmarket.

10. Further erosion of press freedom

America has always been a country in which what gets published is decided by the power elites which control the media. The Bush administration has set about intensifying this systematic censorship, taking it to the absurd levels of pro-government bias apparent in the media treatment of the invasion of Iraq.

On September 27th, 2004, the Association of American University Presses, the Association of American Publishers and other organizations filed a complaint with the Manhattan (New York) District Court, concerning the fact that the US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) had banned publication of articles by Cuban, Iranian or Sudanese authors in American magazines and other publications, thereby obstructing the free flow of information.

A widely-reported case was that of the eight American journalists tried and found guilty for refusing to disclose their sources. In recent years, over a dozen foreign journalists have been detained at US airports.

Much media attention was also devoted to the scandal relating to the treatment of New York Times journalist Judith Millar. During several months of 2005, Millar refused to appear before a jury seeking to discover who in the present US administration leaked the identity of the secret CIA agent Valerie Plame. For refusing to reveal her sources to the Justice Department, she was held in contempt of court and imprisoned for 85 days.

Various organs of the media reported that she had dealt directly with the office of Vice President Dick Cheney and had written several articles on the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and on the activities of Bin Laden, based on information presumably supplied by the White House hawks, to the detriment of the objectivity and veracity that should characterize serious journalism.

11. Negligence and contempt regarding the needs of poor and low-income citizens

Washington's delayed and negligent response to the devastation and suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina exposed the stark face of American poverty and the ineffectiveness and indifference of the authorities in the world's richest nation in addressing the impact of natural disasters on the low-income segment of its population. Described in some sections of the media as "genocide" practised on New Orleans' citizens of African descent and its poor, Washington's response abandoned thousands to their fate in Katrina's wake, including being left without necessary medical attention. Some 3,000 people died, a number comparable with that of the September 11 victims. This time however, there was no declaration of "global war" on poverty.

Via the mass media, the whole world was witness to the dramatic accounts of the victims and the indifference of the government and of FEMA, the federal agency tasked with preventing and dealing with disasters.

The Bush administration declined the humanitarian aid proffered by Cuba within hours of the worst natural disaster in American history. The Cuban government was ready to send over 1,000 doctors and other health professionals willing to work free of charge in the worst-hit towns and donate the medicines needed for Katrina's thousands of victims, regardless of differences of creed or ideology. The doctors were organized into the “Henry Reeve International Contingent of Doctors Specialized in Disasters and Major Epidemics", officially established by President Castro on September 19th, 2005.

 

b) Violations of human rights perpetrated by US authorities outside their territory in the context of the "global war on terrorism"

Beyond US territory and in the name of the campaign against terrorism, American troops have committed serious breaches of human rights against an unknown number of persons under arbitrary detention in military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Guantanamo naval base and presumably also in secret centres in Europe and elsewhere.

Indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without charge or trial, accompanied by torture, is by any standards an aberration and an affront to human dignity.

The flagrant violations of International Law, including International Humanitarian Law and of the American Constitution itself, include confining prisoners in cramped cells 24 hours a day, keeping them handcuffed during the extremely short exercise periods, the cruelty towards the men's families deriving from the uncertainty of their own situation, repeated interrogations without access to a lawyer and the possibility of execution following an unfair trial with no right of appeal.

Various measures have been adopted by the Bush administration to grant “carte blanche” for the perpetration of atrocities against prisoners under the jurisdiction and control of American troops based all over the world.

Since October 2001, Bush had promulgated the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” (the Patriot Act), which provides scope for the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists.

On November 13th, 2001, using his powers as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, President Bush signed Military Order No.1 enabling the US government to detain anyone it decided to class as an international terrorist or as linked to international terrorism, indefinitely and with no right of appeal.

Likewise, he authorized the setting up of the "ad hoc military tribunals", tasked with judging foreigners accused of terrorism, within and beyond US borders.
On February 7th, 2002, Bush issued a new directive on the treatment of detainees, informing all US military personnel that every prisoner taken in the war on terrorism was an "illegal combatant" and did not fall within the definition of a prisoner of war.

Denied the status of prisoners of war, the "illegal combatants", wherever held, are totally at the mercy of the US government, without any legal protection - existing in what has been called a "legal limbo".

The serious consequences of such measures were soon apparent. On April 28th, 2004 CNN flashed around the world photographs showing torture and other forms of mistreatment against Iraqi prisoners by US troops at the Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad.

In the wake of the scandal, President Bush and other senior Washington officials were quick to affirm that the problem was confined to Abu Ghraib and certain maverick US soldiers. The resulting need to clean up its image explains the Bush administration's declassification of certain documents on June 22nd, 2004.

Among other things, these papers revealed the scope of American agents for evading the international ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, even arguing that the President could ignore national legislation and international law banning such treatment. Among the latter are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture).

The documents made public also showed that President Bush's decision not to apply the Geneva Convention to those captured in Afghanistan was based on the counsel of his legal adviser Alberto Gonzales, to the effect that the measure adopted would give the US interrogators a free hand in the "war on terror" and impede the prosecution of American agents for war crimes.

The documents included a political memorandum dated February 7th, 2002 in which Bush says that although American values require that detainees be treated with humanity, there were people who had lost their legal right to such treatment.

Other documents leaked to the press during 2004 convinced international public opinion that Washington had envisaged the possible use of torture and mistreatment of detainees long before the Abu Ghraib scandal.

These included a report by US Major General Antonio M. Taguba on his investigation in Iraq during 2004, and a confidential report drawn up in February of that year by the International Red Cross Committee.

The former document revealed numerous incidents involving criminal abuse of a sadistic, flagrant and gratuitous nature, committed against various detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison between October and December 2003. It also disclosed that American agents had hidden several of the prison's detainees from the International Red Cross Committee, referring to these as "ghost detainees". It subsequently emerged that one of these prisoners had died in custody - another of the several known deaths in which torture or mistreatment was regarded as a contributory factor.

The report's conclusions include the following:

1. “Several US Army Soldiers have committed egregious acts and grave breaches of international law at Abu Ghraib/BCCF and Camp Bucca, Iraq. Furthermore, key senior leaders in both the 800th MP Brigade and the 205th MI Brigade failed to comply with established regulations, policies, and command directives in preventing detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and at Camp Bucca during the period August 2003 to February 2004.

2. Approval and implementation of the recommendations of this AR 15-6 Investigation and those highlighted in previous assessments are essential to establish the conditions with the resources and personnel required to prevent future occurrences of detainee abuse”.

The confidential report of the International Committee of the Red Cross addressed to the chiefs of the US forces in Iraq was leaked to the Wall Street Journal in May 2004.

It revealed systematic cases of physical and psychological coercion which in some cases amounted to torture, practised on persons arrested on suspicion of security breaches or considered valuable for intelligence purposes. According to the report, these conclusions were submitted to the coalition on various occasions, orally and in writing, throughout 2003. Specifically, the Committee informed the coalition of its findings in the period (between March and November 2003) during and after its 29 visits to 14 prisons in Iraq, and submitted certain of its conclusions directly to the highest level of the occupation authorities.

Another source of information on the use of torture has been the testimony of its victims who have been released and have described the torments they were subjected to by US forces, in public statements.

The victims' allegations relate to interrogation methods that included long periods in painfully "uncomfortable" positions, exposure to extreme cold and music played at full volume, as well as threats of torture and execution. They say they were subjected to weeks and even months of isolation, sometimes in suffocatingly hot conditions or cold produced by air conditioning at an extreme setting, as a punishment for not cooperating during interrogation or for breaking prison rules.

The impact and international pressure caused by such reports prompted the US military to conduct a series of investigations.

On September 9th, 2004, Gen. Paul Kern, who oversaw one of the investigations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there had been up to 100 cases of "ghost detainees" under the custody of the American armed forces. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted having authorized the omission from each prison register of at least one detainee.

"Ghost detainees" and the CIA's secret European centres and transfer operations

Allegations of the possible existence of "ghost detainees" held in undisclosed locations outside the United States circulated in the media and in statements to the press by various international NGOs. The scandal did not really break however until the end of 2005, at which point the Bush administration and its European allies were embarrassingly implicated.

In the American press, the story appeared in the Washington Post on November 2nd, 2005. It reported that the CIA had transferred alleged members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network to the centres mentioned for interrogation, beyond the bounds of any legal framework, and that various Eastern European countries were hosting these centres - dubbed "black sites" - in their territory.

CIA “front companies” with aircraft have participated in the secret operations transferring alleged terrorists, which involved stopovers at various European airports.

A New York Times article in May 2005 mentions the seven “front companies” owned by the CIA which have taken part in the transfer of persons via Europe. It reports that the CIA has at least 26 planes, of which ten or more have been acquired since the September 11 attacks.

According to an article in the December 1st, 2005 edition of The Guardian, some 26 CIA aircraft landed and took off at European airports in operations designed to facilitate the abduction and transfer of alleged terrorists, who were conducted to clandestine prisons.

The paper's source was the Federal Aviation Administration and aeronautical industry registers. In total, the CIA is reported to have arranged over 800 secret flights in Europe.

The scandal included landings and overflights by the CIA planes at the British airports in Prestwick and Glasgow (Scotland), at Frankfurt, the Ramstein US Air Base and even Berlin-Schönefeld in Germany, the commercial and military airports at Le Bourget in Paris, some twenty stopovers at Palma de Mallorca and Canarias, at Diyarbakir in Turkey, and who knows how many more.

According to the reports, the persons transferred and detained - some for more than three years - are seen by Washington as key figures, given the possibility of their having taken part in terrorist operations. The figure circulating among the media is around 100 persons.

The identities of these prisoners held incommunicado without legal rights or access to a lawyer - a situation that could be described as "forced disappearance" - are unknown.

An article published in the Washington Post on November 18th, 2005 claims that the CIA has set up a chain of clandestine anti-terrorist centres in 24 countries.

According to the article, US secret service officials acknowledge that these locations, known as Counterterrorist Intelligence Centers (CTICs) are funded by the CIA and are equipped with highly-sophisticated technology.

It describes the CTICs as part of planned adjustments to the Agency's mission initiated in the wake of the September 11 attacks. According to the source, American agents based in Europe, the Middle East and Asia take decisions on a daily basis at such secret installations regarding the capture of suspects and their interrogation.

The Post article says that the centres operate independently of the alleged secret prisons ("black sites") which the Agency has set up in eight countries.

On the same subject, in another Post article printed on 24th November, journalist Dana Priest reports that the CIA has a multinational coordination centre in Paris, with delegates from the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Australia, and that the CTIC scheme envisages not just the establishment of secret prisons in any allied nation, but also bilateral cooperation with most of the world's secret services.

Media reports indicate that the secret CIA prisons are located in US military bases in Europe. In recent years and following realignment of the US military presence worldwide, there have been downsizings or relocations of the large bases and replacement with less static, more modern installations to enable periodic deployment of forces in other theatres of operations.

This trend is contributing to a situation in which the traditional notion of a military base is being superseded, while the large bases are disappearing or being transformed, in parallel, the US military presence abroad is being stepped up.

This also explains the references to "prison planes" and rooms that in practice are secret CIA prisons, which can be set up and dismantled easily.
Coinciding with these reports, in November 2005 various sections of the media cited statements by the chairman of the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, concerning leaks from the American intelligence community during 2005 which had "done irreparable harm to our ability to effectively conduct the war on terror". On November 11th, 2005, the Committee ordered an investigation into an alleged leak of secret information concerning CIA prisons.

III. - The European Union: a consistent pattern of hypocrisy and conspiratorial support to the empire's impunity

It came as no surprise to any of the analysts that several EU member states, ostensibly champions of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute, adopted bilateral agreements recognizing immunity for US agents the world over from application of the Court's mandate. The CIA's unpunished illegal operations in Europe in the context of Washington's "global war on terrorism" has highlighted the hypocrisy of the EU governments and their complicity in the dubious actions of the empire's leading figures.

Various EU nations identified with and even took part in the US invasion of Iraq, and have refrained from questioning the legitimacy or legality under international law of the doctrine of "preventive war". Some others, while not sending troops, provided intelligence to the aggressors or readily accepted the occupation as soon as it took place.

The Central and Eastern European nations referred to in the above-mentioned Washington Post article denied knowledge of the secret CIA prisons in their respective territories or of the clandestine traffic in prisoners accused of having links with terrorism.

Nonetheless, one of these, the Czech Republic, has openly acknowledged that a month ago the United States tried to persuade it to accept prisoners on its soil. According to Czech Home Affairs Minister Frantisek Bublan, there was no proof that the prisoners in question, who were concentrated at Guantanamo, were linked to al-Qaeda. The Americans had asked if they would accept certain persons on an asylum basis.

Despite the statements of the various countries refusing to allow, or denying having allowed, the setting up of clandestine CIA-controlled centres within their borders, NGOs have evidence that certain known CIA aircraft have transported prisoners suspected of being members or leaders of al-Qaeda.

a) US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's European tour

On seeing the reports of the secret CIA flights and of the possible existence of clandestine detention centres on European soil, several European leaders expressed surprise and even went so far as to ask Mr Bush for clarification.

Given the national climates of opinion, most of the governments of the countries involved denied all knowledge of such activities.

Evidence for the alleged existence of clandestine CIA prisons in Europe forced both Washington and its European accomplices onto the defensive, aware that this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of generalized, worldwide condemnation of the torturing of prisoners using the "war on terrorism" as the pretext.

Heading off such criticism was of such importance that on 5th December 2005, the US Secretary of State began a five-day tour taking in Germany, the Ukraine, Belgium and Romania, bearing the public message that the United States neither used nor condoned torture.

During her lighting tour of Europe, Ms Rice neither admitted nor refuted at any time the claimed existence of prisons in European countries. Indeed, far from defending herself, as expected, from the criticisms by the leaders of Europe, she impressed on her opposite numbers the need for cooperation, reminding them of their involvement in what Washington had been doing.

In a statement in Washington before starting the tour, the Secretary of State affirmed that "It is up to those governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us to prevent terrorist attacks against their own country or other countries, and decide how much sensitive information they can make public".

Among pronouncements at Andrews Airbase before the trip, Rice criticised the countries that had condemned the alleged existence of secret CIA prisons for terrorist suspects in Eastern Europe, claiming that the interrogation of these detainees was providing information that contributed to "saving European lives".

In the meantime, White House National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told the Fox News TV channel that the United States was not moving terrorist suspects around the world to torture them. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan went so far as to state cynically (on December 2nd, 2005) that the United States led the world in matters of human rights!

In Germany, Rice said her country was acting in accordance with the law and did not practise torture. It had thought it necessary to seek a balance between defence of the citizenry in the campaign against global threats, and the maintenance of democratic rules.

Her remarks in Berlin included the assurance that America would follow through on Washington's commitment to protect US citizens in the context of the "new wars" and terrorism. They had an obligation to protect US citizens from groups that set out to murder, as had happened in New York, Madrid, Casablanca and many other cities, she said.

She was welcomed at Kiev by Ukrainian premier Yuri Yejanurov and President Víctor Yushenko, beneficiary of financial support from Washington - as a trustworthy ally of the US and the EU - at the end of 2004.

Rice's visit coincided with preparations for the country's entry into the EU and NATO, despite considerable public opposition to the nation's diplomatic leanings towards the West.

In Romania, she had no need to spend much time on explanations. During her three short hours in Bucharest, Rice evaded the question of secret CIA fights in Europe and got assurances from the Rumanian government of silence about the existence of prisons for torturing terrorist suspects in its territory.

She took the opportunity to formalize an alliance with President Traian Basescu for the siting of military bases, as a first step in the creation of an Eastern European intervention force with the help of the Pentagon.

Romania reassured the White House of its willingness to maintain its military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, as part of the US-allies' forces in the invaded territories.

During her stay in Brussels, on 7th December Rice attended a dinner with the NATO and EU foreign ministers. It is unclear what she said to her opposite numbers, but the references in the media to the reactions of the hitherto more critical and sceptical foreign ministries, were to "acceptance" and "satisfaction" after hearing Rice's "arguments".

The Europeans' "satisfaction" appears to have emerged promptly after a reminder from Rice that each of its governments knew perfectly well what was happening and shared responsibility for it.

Meantime, former Secretary of State Colin Powell was saying that the Europeans did have knowledge of the CIA's secret flights. In an interview on the British BBC World TV channel on December 18th, 2005, he accused Europe of disingenuousness in denying knowledge of the practice of moving terrorism suspects to other countries to evade US jurisdiction.

According to Powell, the policy was neither “new nor unknown” to Europe's leaders. He criticized America's European allies for feigning ignorance of the 'renditions' and rejected suggestions that these governments were surprised at reports that their airports were being used in relocating alleged terrorists.

He went on to say that “most of our European friends cannot be shocked that this kind of thing takes place... The fact that we have, over the years, had procedures in place that would deal with people who are responsible for terrorist activities, or suspected of terrorist activities, and so the thing that is called rendition is not something that is new or unknown to my European friends."

On February 6th, 2003, in the framework of the Club of Eight, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - together with Spain, Italy, Portugal, the UK and Denmark - signed a Document pledging unconditional support for Washington's stance on the war on terrorism. Just a week later, the Vilnius Group (Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria and Latvia) followed suit and expressed their readiness to enter into a coalition with the United States.

The US thus succeeded in fracturing Europe. In this same period, Bulgaria offered Washington its disused military bases to accommodate troops being withdrawn from bases in Germany. Meantime, the US was also concentrating forces in Romania in preparation for attacking Iraq, following Turkey's refusal to allow its territory to be used for the purpose. Months before, Romania had undertaken to sign an accord with the United States guaranteeing immunity for US troops on its soil from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

On June 25th, 2003, the US and the EU signed an agreement for mutual judicial support for the campaign against terrorism. The legal document representing the agreement is obscure in the extreme. It was signed on the basis of Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union, in the name of the Union - not in those of its member states.

The peculiarity of this agreement is that its interpretation can evolve in step with changes in the definition of terrorism and in the criminal-law procedures adopted by the parties. A system of consultation is consequently provided for, to enable such adaptations to be carried out (Article 11 of the document).

To some extent, the accord has led to legalizing intervention by the US intelligence services (including via infiltration missions) in European national territories, as part of the war on terrorism, as well as to combat organized crime and the drug trade. The only requirement is that the US Justice Secretary must inform his opposite number in the European country where the operation is to be carried out.

In 2003, within the framework of the anti-terrorism campaign, the US Justice Secretary had approved intelligence and infiltration operations in mosques (while recording the names of all US citizens who practise the Islamic religion), in the associations opposing globalization and in the political groups against the war on Iraq (including the Not in Our Name coalition).

The Europeans gave the Bush administration carte blanche to pursue its anti-terrorist crusade in their territory.

This is not the first time the EU has weakly conceded a cloak of impunity to the neofascist Washington regime, which breaks international law, wages wars of conquest disguised as combating terrorism, while sheltering Luis Posada Carriles, the Western Hemisphere's most dangerous terrorist, and detaining on its soil five young Cuban anti-terrorist combatants.

With its 'no' vote, the EU prevented the holding in 2003 of a special session of the Human Rights Commission to debate the humanitarian situation imposed on the Iraqi people by US military aggression.

In 2005, the EU members of the Commission also opposed a draft resolution tabled by Cuba at the 61st session seeking no more than an impartial, independent investigation of the situation of the detainees at the Guantanamo naval base.

This new scandal confirmed yet again the hypocrisy and double standards among the European governments and their inability to take up positions independent of the views of the Empire.

b) Statements by European leaders about the secret CIA prisons and flights

NORWAY

“When Condoleezza says that the United States has never had this kind of prison camp, tortured prisoners or violated European airspace, illegally, we must believe what she tells us” (Jonas Gahr Støre, Minister of Foreign Affairs, following the meeting on December 7th, between the EU and NATO foreign ministers).

(SOURCE: THE AFTENPOSTEN NEWSPAPER. EDITION: DECEMBER 9th, 2005. INTERNATIONAL SECTION. BRUSSELS CORRESPONDENT: ALF OLE ASK.)

 

DENMARK

“Denmark cannot ban the CIA from using Danish airspace to transport prisoners suspected of terrorism". (Per Stig Møller, Minister of Foreign Affairs).

“The CIA has the right for using the Danish airspace to carry out its ghost flights to transport prisoners suspected of terrorism”, declared Per Stig Møller, Minister of Foreign Affairs, last Wednesday.

(SOURCE: JYLLANDSPOSTEN, THURSDAY, JUNE 9th, 2005)

HUNGARY

“Hungary has not received any request from the United States regarding the construction of secret prisons in Hungary". "We have never received such a request from the Americans. If we had, we would naturally have refused". (Ferenc Gyurcsány, Prime Minister, in statements on the Tények programme on the TV2 channel.)

"The United States has not approached Hungary regarding the construction of secret penitentiary colonies designed to hold and interrogate al-Qaeda terrorists". "I regarded the notion as absurd, as well as the assumption that Hungary had secretly received such prisoners". (András Tóth, political Secretary of State responsible for running the national security service, reacting to reports on the matter).

The Defence Minister and head of national security told journalists that the Hungarian government had not received any request from the United States regarding the transfer of terrorists to jails in Hungary. "Emphatically, the Hungarian government has received no such request. Such prisons do not and will never exist in Hungary". (Ferenc Juhász, Minister of Defence).

(SOURCE: HVG. NOVEMBER 3rd, 2005)

As regards the American plane that landed at Budapest in October 2005, presumed to belong to one of the CIA's front companies and to have transported terrorism suspects from America to Eastern Europe, government spokesman András Batiz revealed that this was not the first time this aircraft had touched down in Hungary.

He added: “What happened was that a plane from Iceland was heading for the Middle East and requested permission to land in Hungary. All its papers were in order. The five crew members spent the night in Budapest and resumed their journey the following morning. This had happened before, although the destination was different. They weren't carrying any prisoners".

(SOURCE: Magyar Rádió. Budapest, November 4th.)

The Secretary of State, the politician responsible for the secret service, described the press reports of secret CIA prisons in Hungary as baseless rumours.

At the Commission session addressing European affairs in the parliament, András Tóth denied that in the case of Hungary there had been any rendition of prisoners or any prisons.

(SOURCE: Magyar Rádió BudapesT, DECEMBER 7th.)

POLAND

On December 18th, Poland's president Aleksander Kwasniewski agreed that CIA flights from America may have terminated in Poland, but denied that prisoners were being held secretly on Polish soil.

Speaking on public television, he said "Does the fight against terrorism need solidarity? Yes it does. Does it need cooperation by the special services? Yes it does. Were there secret flights? Probably". He added, however, that there were "no [secret] prisons or prisoners" in Poland.

(SOURCE: XINHUA, DECEMBER 19th, 2005)

On December 13th, 2005, Zbigniew Siemiatkowskit, former Polish intelligence agency (IA) chief, said he had been informed of various CIA flights over Poland, but had never heard of any secret CIA jails in his country.

Speaking on Radio Zet, he told listeners that CIA flights could have taken place without his knowledge, since such activities were monitored by other institutions and officials, such as the Home Security Agency and its staff.
Asked if it was possible that prisoners of the CIA were tortured in Polish territory, he replied: "It's difficult for me to know everything that happens in the wide sphere I supervise, but its also hard to believe that such activities could take place without the IA knowing about them".

Polish premier Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said on Monday that the government would complete its investigation into alleged secret CIA prisons in Poland next week.

(SOURCE: Xinhuanet DECEMBER 13th, 2005 – WARSAW)

On 8th December, the Polish government announced it had authorized an investigation by the Council of Europe into alleged clandestine detention centres set up by the CIA on Polish soil. Premier Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz told a press conference: "We are ready to do whatever it takes in Poland to ensure that there are no prisons or places of this kind in Poland".

(SOURCE: VARSOVIA, DECEMBER 8th, (EP/AP)

On the same day, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs, Ludwik Dorn, announced that Poland would not be inviting international inspectors to investigate alleged CIA jails and torture of terrorism suspects.

As regards the CIA planes that overflew Poland or landed there, he knew everything there was to know on the subject, saying that the press reports were reasonably accurate.

The Polish press reported a single touchdown by a CIA aircraft, at Szymany airport in the outskirts of Olsztyn.

Asked whether the CIA could have operated in Poland without the knowledge of the Polish authorities, Dorn replied: "That would imply total loss of control by the Polish secret services and a crisis with incalculable consequences". He added that the affair would be investigated in depth, because if the secret services had kept information from the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister, some very serious measures would have to be taken.
(SOURCE: EFE, December 8th, 2005.)

According to Stern magazine, alleged terrorists were interrogated at a CIA camp at Stare Kiejkuty, near Szymany. Regarding the information supplied by a Polish intelligence official at Kiejkuty, the magazine reported that the American camp was located in the grounds of the intelligence agents' school there. It was surrounded by bushes and a wall three metres high. Reporters spotted vehicles with dark glass windows, the same that had been on the runway at Szymany airport when the CIA planes had landed. The Americans had been staying at the camp for the last 5-6 years. According to Stern, each group remained for up to six months.

(SOURCE: Rzeczpospolita, December 15th, 2005)

ESTONIA:

On 8th November, the Estonian government affirmed that there were no clandestine jails in Estonia where the CIA held prisoners suspected of terrorism.

The Executive confirmed that in January 2003, a CIA plane, bearing the tail number N313P, landed in Parnu, Estonia, and left the country the same day. It affirmed, however, that the flight in question was not related to the affair of the alleged secret prisons. According to a government press office communiqué, "the flight was to do with ordinary, routine cooperation between Estonia and the United States in relation to security; the plane was not carrying, nor did it collect, any prisoners".

(SOURCE: EFE AGENCY. VILNA, Lithuania, November 8th, 2005.)

SPAIN

According to Spanish Defence Minister José Bono, Spain has "no evidence or indication of any kind" that the United States has been guilty of "illicit activities" in relation to the alleged use of Palma de Mallorca airport by CIA planes, as a possible stopover in transporting prisoners to secret jails. "I'm not prepared to demand explanations from the government nor an ally nation based on mere assumptions for which we have no evidence, no indication and no basis", he said.

Home Affairs Minister José Antonio Alonso, for his part, called for caution until the results of a judicial investigation into the matter were known. Interviewed on the Telecinco TV channel, he said it was up to the judges to investigate whether there had been secret US flights with terrorists aboard destined for other countries, which had made stopovers in Spain. However, should this prove to have been the case, the matter was one of "very serious, intolerable events", since they would break both the rules governing the relations between states and Spanish law. "Spain must have full knowledge of what is being carried on any form of transport - an aircraft, for instance - that crosses our territory, among other things so that we can apply our laws", he added.

(SOURCE: EL PAIS, NOVEMBER 15th, 2005)

Extracts from statements by Miguel Angel Moratinos Cuyaubé, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, to the Foreign Affairs Committee, regarding the information available to and action by the Spanish government in relation to the possible use of Spanish airports in international flights transporting prisoners or detainees (November 24th, 2005):

There were stopovers in the Canary Islands, as well as those in the Balearics.

Between January and November 2005, there were 16 stopovers of this nature, lasting more than 24 hours. These were given official clearance, while their purpose and mission was clearly established in accordance with the cooperation agreement.

On last November 16th, both my department's Director General of Foreign Policy and the Director General of Foreign Policy for Europe & North America met with Daniel Fried, US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe & Eurasia in the morning of that day, as did during the afternoon, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and for Latin America. In both meetings, the Spanish side expressed concern over this delicate issue, requesting relevant information and explaining Spain's position. The American side said that so far as the United States knew, it had never broken Spanish law and that there had been no prisoners aboard the flights that made stopovers on Spanish soil.

Based on the information it possesses, provided to the Chamber and the results of the investigation carried out, the Spanish Government is certain that all those stopovers made in accordance with the defence cooperation agreement between Spain and the United States were legal, as were the stopovers by civil aircraft that were not merely technical, refuelling stops.

The Public Prosecutor's office has launched an investigation so as to dispel any remaining doubt, including in relation to the technical stopovers which, being merely for refuelling, lasted less than two hours. The Spanish government had requested and obtained assurances from the authorities in the United States - a country it regards as a friend and ally - that so far as they knew, the stopovers effected by their aircraft did not involve breaking Spanish law.

As regards the validity of the bilateral treaty on cooperation in matters of defence between the United States and Spain and the 2002 protocol, he stated that there had been no change in the basic assumptions and, as he had said in previous statements, all steps that had been taken in its implementation for operational, military or defence reasons had been studied in detail and properly reported. 16 planes had landed at Gando, many of which were not on the list because they had been the subject of communications and authorizations within the normal framework of the permanent Spanish American Committee, and had posed no problem of any kind in US-Spanish relations

ITALY

Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi affirmed that he had no knowledge that CIA planes had made illegal stopovers in Italy, but supported the EU's request to Washington to clarify the alleged irregular operations of its secret services in Europe. Following a meeting in Rome with Spanish premier José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Berlusconi also stated that he had no evidence of clandestine CIA jails on Italian soil.

(SOURCE: EFE. DECEMBER 2nd, 2005)

In statements made on 21st December 2005, Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi defended US covert operations. "When it's a question of saving human lives, governments have the right to use secret methods, because you can't fight terrorism while operating by the book".
(SOURCE: EL PAIS, DECEMBER 21st, 2005)

UNITED KINGDOM

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw requested Washington, in the name of the EU, to "clarify" the allegations that the US had broken international law by detaining and transporting a large number of terrorism suspects to secret jails.

Straw's letter to US Secretary of State Rice, dated November 29th, 2005, reads as follows:

"As the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, I am writing to you on behalf of the European Union following media reports suggesting violations of international law in the alleged US detention or transportation of terrorist suspects in or through EU member states. This matter was discussed by EU Foreign Ministers at the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on November 21st.

"The reports have attracted considerable parliamentary and public attention. The EU would therefore be grateful for clarification the US can give about these reports in the hope that this will allay parliamentary and public concerns”.

(SOURCE: See the appendix to this chapter)

At a press conference held on December 12th, 2005, the Prime Minister's spokesman was asked whether the British government had authorized the use of its territory for stopovers on flights carrying persons to sites where they could be tortured. The spokesman replied that in no way had the government allowed or participated in any action involving torture.

(SOURCE: The website of the Prime Minister's Office)

UK premier Tony Blair sought to justify the secret CIA flights via Europe carrying alleged terrorism suspects.

According to The Guardian, digital version, Blair defended the idea of transferring these people to other states for interrogation, albeit opposing torture under any circumstances.
He told The Guardian that he had no knowledge regarding the allegations about torture or detention centres in Europe. He added that Washington had been transporting terrorist suspects to other nations "for years".

Blair then clarified that there had never been detention centres in Britain for torturing suspects, often transferred later to the illegal Guantanamo naval base in Cuba.

He regarded the detention of some 500 persons in an improvised prison at this military installation as "an anomaly" which should be ended.

But he remarked in the same breath that the suspects concerned were people it was necessary to detain for reasons of the campaign against international terrorism, an argument consistent with his government's initiatives in tightening security measures at home.

(SOURCE: Extracts from a PRENSA LATINA Agency report, December 8th, 2005)

According to the December 16th, edition of The Times, at least three clandestine CIA flights with terrorism suspects aboard had refuelled at Scotland's Prestwick Airport.

It quoted as its source Chris Yates, a recognized aviation expert and editor with the Jane's Information Group, saying the flights took place in the weeks following the September 11th attacks.

The expert cited photographic evidence, flight logs and airport data showing that the CIA used Prestwick and (London) Luton civilian airports and the military airbases at Mildenhall, Brize Norton and Northolt for the purposes mentioned.

Other media quoted reported that the three flights identified by Yates "were directly related to known cases of torture".

According to the expert, at least two of these landed and took off at Prestwick in very much the same way, increasing suspicion that they were loaded on British soil.

He said that these executive jets and Boeing 737s hired by the CIA were given special clearance for stopovers at US military bases worldwide.

The Times saw this testimony as raising strong doubts regarding the recent statement by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to the effect that the CIA had never used British airports for such purposes.

(SOURCE: Extracts from a PRENSA LATINA Agency report, December 16th, 2005)

GERMANY

At a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, US Secretary Rice said that when they make mistakes they work very hard to correct them. This was her first public reference to the seizing of Jaled al Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese origin who claims to have been abducted in 2004, transported to Macedonia and from there to a US prison in Afghanistan, where he was tortured.

Merkel said that "the American government has of course accepted that this [abduction] was a mistake", and according to German radio has announced that the current Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Stein Meier would appear before a parliamentary committee considering the issue.

Rice did not mention the al Masri case specifically, but said such matters would be dealt with by the courts there in Germany and, if necessary, in the American courts as well.

Merkel, for her part, expressed satisfaction with Rice's assurances and predicted effective cooperation between Berlin and Washington. "It was important to me that the Secretary of State should repeat that" she said, and looked forward to forging closer relations with America on her visit to Washington in January 2006.

(SOURCE: YAHOO NEWS, DECEMBER 6th, 2005)

ROMANIA

Rumanian President Traian Basescu, accompanied by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to Rumania, said "if anyone wants to visit any location suspected of having been used for detention and torture, Rumania offers access to its entire territory”.

(SOURCE: THE NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 8th, 2005)

In Bucharest, Secretary Rice signed an agreement for sitting US military bases in Rumania. In her presence, President Basescu again denied the existence of illegal prisons in the country and reaffirmed its full cooperation with the CIA.

The signing by Rice and her Rumanian opposite number, Mihai Razvan Ungureanu, took place in the Cotroceni presidential palace, in the presence of head of state Traian Basescu, and premier Calin Popescu Tariceanu.

Describing the accord as "historic" at a press conference, after a discussion with Basescu, Rice recalled that 16 years on from the collapse of communism, Rumania was a member of NATO and was cooperating with the United States in the operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Western Balkans.

She described Rumania as one of America's "best friends" and the relationship as belonging to the good part of the history of the struggle for freedom and democracy.

For his part, the Rumanian president said of the agreement for siting military bases that Rumania was thus entering the circuit of global security and was becoming a solid pillar of regional security.

The bases will be located at the military Mihail Kogalniceanu airport and in the military complexes at Babadag, Cincu y Smardan, all near the Black Sea coast.

(SOURCE: EFE, DECEMBER 7th, 2005)

The Rumania president Traian Basescu today admitted the existence of flights by aircraft in the service of the CIA, but denied knowing the identity of the agency to which the planes belonged.

Speaking on the Realitatea TV channel, he denied ever having known which US agency was operating the aircraft that landed at Mihail Kogalniceanu Airport.

He knew that US government planes had touched down there, but rejected suggestions that human rights were violated in this case with the collusion of the local authorities.

The airbase, bearing the same name as the civilian airport, was used by the Pentagon to move troops taking part in the operations against Afghanistan and Iraq, in October 2001 and March 2003 respectively.

(SOURCE: PRENSA LATINA, Bucarest, February 9th, 2006).

FRANCE

Speaking on the 'France' public radio station on December 8th, 2005, French Foreign Affairs Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said he lacked "any kind of information that would enable me to confirm" the suggestion that prisoners had been transported in CIA flights via France to be tortured.

He added that "France, the birthplace of human rights, did not accept torture" and called for caution until such time as the allegations against America of secretly imprisoning Islamic terrorists in European jails operated in breach of international conventions were proved.

A plane had landed on July 20th, 2005 at Le Bourget military airport on the outskirts of Paris, having taken off from Norway. Le Figaro quotes Norwegian press sources in reporting the case.

Douste-Blazy also said that assurances had been received from Ms Rice at the EU-NATO meeting, regarding Washington's respect for the sovereignty of the European nations and its obligations under the International Conventions on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment.

(SOURCE: EUROPA PRESS, December 8th, 2005)

Philippe Douste-Blazy, French Foreign Minister, denied the possibility that CIA aircraft had overflown France between 2002 and 2005. "There are no data to confirm that these reports are true" he said, adding later that "the United States is a real partner. We're friends".

(SOURCE: “France-Inter” PUBLIC RADIO STATION.)
Extracts from an interview given by the French Foreign Minister, Douste-Blazy. (SOURCE: WEBSITE OF THE FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTRY, December 2nd, 2005)

(Question: Are you now confirming that these flights did in fact take place?)

We're looking into that now. It's perfectly possible that there were flights. It seems these were private flights. As you know, for that kind of flight there's no prior authorization, all they have to do is submit the flight plan. Hundreds of planes overfly France every day. So it's entirely possible these two flights took place. As regards the conclusions to be drawn, that's another matter.

(Question: In any case, do you think the US authorities should have been obliged to keep you informed about such flights?)

As I said before, there are procedures, which vary according to the type of aircraft. That's governed by the Chicago Convention of 1944. In the case of a private plane that doesn't belong to any particular government, there is no prior authorization, just the requirement to submit the flight plan. That means there's a freedom of transit, a freedom of stopover, provided a flight plan has been submitted.

However, in the case of planes owned by states, there is an authorization procedure, issued as and when required or of the 'blanket' type for certain kinds of mission. Judging from the reports in Le Figaro, we're talking about the first category, that of a plane not owned by any state.

(Question: If I understand correctly, there were two flights using private planes. Do you not have grounds for complaint to the US authorities in this case?)
The fact that some planes overfly France, some American planes - America being an ally and friend - is no surprise. It's nothing to write home about. There are hundred of flights over French territory every day, so that in itself is no grounds for complaint. Then there's the question of what those planes were carrying and we're going to be looking into that. But the simple submission of a flight plan tells us nothing about what's happening inside the plane.

(Question: I don't quite understand the difference between a private flight and a governmental one. The CIA is an agency of the American government or US state).

Yes, but the distinction is valid according to the type of plane, in other words its owner, according to who is the owner, if it is private or governmental. I'm referring to the Chicago Convention of 1944. In the case of a private plane, all that's needed is a flight plan; when it’s a governmental plane, it's subject to a system of prior authorization.

(Question: And the CIA requested nothing?)

In this particular case, I don't know what further information we have. We're looking into all this.

(Question: Would it be a problem if they were transporting prisoners without any official order, Guantanamo style?)

In the first place, that's not the situation. We don't know what was on those planes. Also, what you mention is included in the request for explanation Jack Straw has sent to the American authorities in the name of the European Union. We're now waiting for Ms Rice, for the American authorities, to explain about the overflights. Ms Rice has said she will do so during her European visit next week. So we're waiting to hear their explanations.

For the rest, clearly, the European countries have said it many times, they are bound by international law. International law makes certain provisions, notably those relating to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

(Question: Can we conclude that, officially, France was unaware of this coming and going of terrorism suspects?)
Your expression "coming and going", even if the Le Figaro report is confirmed, applied to a flight in 2002 and another in 2005, is very slow coming and going. However, I can confirm that we know about these press reports, that we do not know whether they are true and that we will verify the validity of this information.

(Question: It may be that you didn't know, but can we rule out the possibility of some very close relationship between the US and French services dating from September 11th, 2001. Can you now confirm that the French services were unaware of this transfer of prisoners by the CIA?)

I'm speaking to you on behalf of the Foreign Ministry and after some contacts with the Defence Ministry and other administrations. My information leads me to believe that we were unaware of either of the two flights in question.

(Question: Apart from the flight plan, what other information are private planes required to provide?)

You would have to ask civil aviation. I think there are some details regarding the crew, but I don't know exactly what information is called for. You should ask the Civil Aviation Authority headquarters.

AUSTRIA

The plane, a Hercules C-130 operated by Tepper Aviation, identified itself as a civilian flight from Frankfurt (Germany) to Bakú, but looked suspicious to the Austrian authorities, who sent up a two-fighter escort, as Austrian aviation chief Eric Wolf told listeners on national radio.

The escort planes took photographs but had no grounds for interception, General Wolf said, partly confirming a report the preceding Tuesday in the German Berliner Zeitung. Newspaper. The events took place on 21st January 2003.

(SOURCE: LA JORNADA, NOVEMBER 25th, 2005.)

 

IV. - Treatment of the issue by various European institutions

Amid increasing reports of secret CIA prisons in Europe and the transfer of prisoners on flights operated by the CIA itself via Europe, various European authorities have issued statements regarding the issue.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

On November 7th, 2005, the Council of Europe resolved to set up a group to investigate the alleged CIA detention centres on European soil, within a few days of the emergence of the first reports.

The investigating committee is chaired by former Swiss public prosecutor and senator Dick Marty, who has not only enquired into the alleged existence of secret CIA jails in Europe, but also the use of European airports and airspace in transporting terrorism suspects to countries where they were tortured.

The Council's Secretary General, Terry Davis, has formally requested information on the matter from the parliaments of the 46 member states under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of the enquiry is to determine whether the member states are observing the Convention.

Marty told the media that in progressing the investigation, he planned to use the geographical coordinates taken in 2002 by the European Space Agency's satellite centre, which would enable the existence of such prisons to be determined. He also said he would be asking EUROCONTROL, the civil and military agency in charge of the security of the air routes for information regarding these allegations about the CIA.

He gave the European governments until February 21st, 2006 to respond with information regarding any involvement by their officials "in the illicit deprivation of liberty of an individual or in transporting individuals deprived of their liberty in this way, including where such deprivation of liberty took place at the instigation of an agency of another state".

In the light of the enquiries made, on December 13th, 2005 Marty filed a preliminary report with his conclusions, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly. In statements to the press, he said that "the legal procedures in process in some countries suggest that the individuals were abducted and transferred to other countries without compliance with legal standards".

He added that "the information gathered to date tends to support the allegations concerning the transfer and temporary detention of individuals, without any legal representation, in European countries".

He also commented that the United States had never formally denied such allegations, while he "deplored the fact that no information or explanation" had been provided by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her European visit, in response to the numerous questions about alleged CIA prisons.

In the course of his investigation, Marty sought precise information from the Director General of EUROCONTROL and maintained direct contact with various NGOs.

He said that while it was still too early to assign responsibility or say that any of the member states were involved in illegal operations, the seriousness of the allegations and the mutual consistency of the information gathered up to then justified an in-depth investigation.

Marty added that contacts between secret services are normal, and even necessary, as regards the antiterrorism campaign, although governments should exercise proper control over them.

On January 24th, this year, Marty filed an interim report on his enquiries with the Council of Europe Assembly in Strasbourg. In this document, he is highly sceptical of the notion that the European governments were unaware of what the CIA was doing.

Quoting statements by US and European officials, press reports and papers by NGOs, he refers to "a great deal of coherent, convergent evidence pointing to the existence of a system of 'relocation' or 'outsourcing' of torture" to other countries. However, he did not find conclusive proof of the existence of secret jails.

The "renditions" (transfers of detainees to the United States or third countries) affected over 100 persons during recent years. It involved, he reports, hundreds of flights chartered by the CIA, via several European countries.

The document, which is highly critical of the American authorities, claims that the present US administration is operating from the standpoint that the principles of legality and human rights are incompatible with the efficient combating of terrorism. Marty calls on the European governments not to condone illegal practices in their respective territories, or to allow their security agents to participate in these.

His report mentions over 100 people secretly transported, and over 100 flights; in Germany alone there were over 300 landings by two planes presumably chartered by the CIA. It describes as highly unlikely the possibility that the European governments - or at least their secret services - were unaware of what was happening.

According to the report, "It has been proved - and in fact never denied - that individuals have been abducted, deprived of their liberty and transported in Europe to be handed over to countries in which they have suffered torture," Neither CIA Director Peter Goss nor Secretary Rice had denied the existence of secret detention centres. In discussions with her European opposite numbers, Rice had even defended the need to continue with the "Extraordinary Renditions".

The report includes numerous statements - some anonymous but others by well-known American figures - to the effect that the 'renditions' and secret jails open the door to degrading treatment and torture.

In a notable comment, Michael Scheuer, one of the architects of the 'rendition' system, says that the White House itself was even more inclined than the CIA to turn a blind eye in matters involving legal scruples. as regards shipping prisoners off to other countries, he described it as very convenient to have someone to do your dirty work for you.

Marty's report includes some questions, among them: "Does this mean that torture is so easy to use in this day and age? Is it enough for one's own secret services not to be physically present ...?" and recalled that another Council of Europe committee - the Venice Committee - was due to report in March on the legal consequences of such practices, including the responsibility of the European states in the light of the relevant international conventions and of international law.

Marty goes into detail on the case of Abu Omar, a refugee in Italy suspected of links with Islamic terrorism, who was abducted in the streets of Milan in February 2003.

The report refers to this case as a clear indication that the method (abduction of suspects abroad) exists. Moreover, while expressing doubt that the government or intelligence services were unaware of the operation, it again castigates the United States, since it was quite clear that the Italian police and courts were kept in the dark.

Marty says: "This lack of co-operation with and confidence in the authorities officially mandated to fight crime is bound to have very serious consequences, challenging the very functioning of the law-based State and its democratic foundation".

He also has trouble believing "that such an approach to relations between authorities in different countries can provide any valid basis for genuine co-operation among States endeavouring together to combat the worst threats facing us in modern times."

He reports having received “detailed” information from the European aviation security agency EUROCONTROL on the flight plans of certain planes, and from the Torrejón de Ardoz (Madrid) European Satellite Centre, but adds that it was not yet possible to indicate the importance or scope of this information.

Published in the Sunday newspaper 'Sonntagsblick', the document reveals that 23 Iraqi and Afghan citizens were interrogated at a US base in Rumania. Similar centres had been set up in the Ukraine, Kosovo, Macedonia and Bulgaria.

From the political point of view, Marty regards these convergent indications as sufficiently concrete to provide grounds for action. He adds that only the governments can clarify the case, however.

European Parliament

The European Parliament set up an ad-hoc committee to investigate the allegations of illegal CIA operations in Europe, in December 2005.

As in the case of that established to look into the sinking of the Prestige oil tanker, the committee was created under a resolution that requested the Council of Europe - which was also investigating the allegations - to provide information in this connection. It similarly requested the EU to seek clarification regarding the CIA flights and secret jails in Europe.

The Committee's term in being, membership and similar matters were defined at a plenary session of the European Parliament on January 12th, 2006. It comprises 46 representatives and has an initial mandate of 12 months.

It is scheduled to submit an interim report within the next four months, covering the questions of whether, in European countries, the CIA or other intelligence agencies abducted, arrested, transported, held in secret centres, tortured or otherwise violated the human rights of alleged terrorists.

It is also tasked with finding out whether the CIA used EU member states in transporting prisoners, many of whom were apparently transferred to the illegal US naval base at Guantanamo.

At the end of the day, it must provide the information needed to determine whether the alleged operations broke Article 6 of the EU treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or other international regulations.

The committee's terms of reference include looking into possible cases of detention of European citizens, and whether member states participated in illegally depriving such people of their liberty.

Most of the sessions will be public, although the parliamentarians are entitled to meet behind closed doors if, for example, they need to review confidential information.

The committee started work with a request to the 25 member states for their cooperation in its enquiries.
The experts, who include Spanish Euro MP Elena Valenciano (Party of European Socialists - PSE) and José Ignacio Salafranca (European People's Party - PPE), called on the various governments to guarantee unrestricted access to the necessary documents.

At its inaugural meeting, the Committee elected as second deputy chairman Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (Greek, PPE) and as third such deputy Cem Ozdemir (Germany, Greens party). The presenter of the final report will be the Italian socialist Giovanni Claudio Fava. The Committee's schedule included meetings on Tuesday January 31st and a second session in Strasbourg during the week of February 13th.

The Liberal Euro MP Sarah Ludford, deputy chairman of the Committee, proposed inviting US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, US Vice President Dick Cheney and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as well as Swiss senator Dick Marty, tasked by the Council of Europe with investigating alleged CIA illegalities in Europe.

However, various sections of the press have pointed out that the European Parliament's ad-hoc committee - which appointed as Chairman Carlos Coelho (Portugal, PPE) on January 26th - does not have the legal right to compel the attendance of the authorities it invites.

V. – Breaches of International Law

In conformity with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, constitutes the foundations of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

This precept implies an obligation erga omnes for all UN member states by virtue of the Organization's founding charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to promote universal and effective observance of human rights and the basic freedoms.

While the Universal Declaration lacks force of law, the indefinite detention of hundreds of alleged terrorists in various parts of the world has placed the prisoners in a situation of defencelessness, in which the universal principle of good faith no longer applies.

The serious violations of human rights which many NGOs and Human Rights Commission experts have been condemning since the United States and its closer allies launched the "global war on terrorism", unmask the neofascist tendency that marks the Bush administration's foreign policy.

There are legal obligations in international instruments on human rights —such as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment — which are indeed binding on the United States and nearly all the European nations, which have been blatantly, brazenly violated.

The silence among the European governments when confronted with such conceptual monstrosities as "illegal combatants" is deeply worrying and has alarmed international public opinion, especially given that all the EU member states are signatories to the four Geneva conventions of August 1949 and its additional protocols.

Not according prisoner-of-war status to the detainees at Guantanamo and other secret jails in various parts of the world violates several rights and basic principles of Humanitarian International Law. A prisoner of war cannot be transferred by the power detaining him, must be treated with respect for his person, honour, state of health and age; must be held in conditions that maintain certain standards of health and safety; must be entirely free to practise his religion; within a week of capture, he must be given details of his imprisonment, of the authorities and his state of health, and is entitled lodge complaints about the imprisonment regime.

Similarly, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ratified by nearly every European country, defines among the crimes falling within the Court's jurisdiction those classified as against humanity and war crimes. As regards crimes against humanity (Article 7), these include:

- Torture (letter f)
- Forced disappearance (letter i)
- Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health (letter k).

Article 8 defines war crimes and provides that, for the purposes of the Statute, these include "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

- (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
- (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
- (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
- (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement".

There is human rights legislation that defines the rights which the EU member states are obliged to observe. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1952), amended on December 20th, 1971, enshrines the right to a fair and open trial without undue delay, to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, prohibits discrimination, torture and abuse of law. In this context, all the EU's national constitutions and laws reflect the obligation not to breach the conventions on human rights or the basic rules of international law.

What are the fundamental rights and freedoms endorsed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are flouted when someone is detained indefinitely and submitted to abuse, cruelty and inhuman or degrading treatment?

• Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
• Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
• Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
• Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
• Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
• Article 11.1 Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Certain violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) resulting from the measures and actions perpetrated by the United States in its "global war on terrorism".

Violation of Art. 2

By holding terrorism suspects for indefinite periods at military bases and other secret detention centres in various parts of the world, without formal charge, the US government is contravening Art. 2.1 of the Covenant, which provides that every signatory state must guarantee the rights recognized in the Covenant of every person in its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, financial standing, birth or any other social characteristic.

As regards jurisdiction, under a ruling by the US Supreme Court on June 28th, 2004 in the cases of Rasul vs. Bush and al-Odah vs. United States, relating to foreigners captured outside the United States and imprisoned at the Guantanamo naval base as "enemy combatants", the federal district courts are competent to entertain writs of habeus corpus in their respective jurisdictions; such competence extends to cases of foreigners detained in a territory over which America exercises full and exclusive jurisdiction.

This means that, like any other party to the Covenant, the United States must observe and guarantee the rights identified in the instrument to anybody under its effective authority or control, at home or abroad.

As stated in General Observation No.15 issued at the 27th session of the Human Rights Committee (1986), the enjoyment of the rights recognized by the Covenant is not restricted to citizens of the party state, but applies to every individual, regardless of nationality.

This principle is effective regardless of the circumstances under which such authority or control is acquired, and includes by means of forces forming a party state's national contingent undertaking an international peacekeeping or similar operation.

Under General Observation No.31 issued by the Committee on March 29th, 2004, the obligation imposed by Art. 2.1 is binding with immediate effect on all the party states; thus the Patriot Act and the presidential orders authorizing indefinite detention of alleged terrorists contravene this Covenant article as well as Art.27 of the Vienna Convention on treaties, which provides that a party state cannot invoke provisions of its domestic legislation to justify failing to comply with the terms of a treaty.

While Art.2.2 allows the signatory nations to implement the rights recognized under the Covenant in accordance with its domestic constitutional procedures, the same principle means that they cannot invoke domestic constitutional or other law to justify non-compliance with or misapplication of obligations incurred under the treaty. The Human Rights Committee accordingly states, in General Observation No.24, that any departure from the provisions of Article 2, given its scope and aims, would be incompatible with the Covenant.

The Committee maintains that the legal duty arising from Art. 2.1 is simultaneously positive and negative, in the sense that party states must refrain from infringing the rights recognized in the Covenant, while any restriction on such rights will be governed by the relevant provisions of the Covenant. Where such restrictions are to be applied, states must explain the need for these and can adopt only the measures genuinely required in pursuit of legitimate aims concerned with ensuring constant, effective protection of the rights recognized by the Covenant. That means they can never invoke or apply restrictions that encroach upon the essentials of a right recognized by the Covenant.

By virtue of Art.2.3, apart from effectively protecting the rights recognized by the Covenant, party states must ensure that everyone has access to effective means of claiming their rights.

Thus, anyone whose rights have been violated during the antiterrorist crusade must have the right to institute proceedings in the American courts to seek reparation or compensation for the infringing of those fundamental rights and freedoms.

Importantly in this context, the Human Rights Committee has insisted that party states establish judicial and administrative mechanisms within their respective legislative frameworks to handle complaints regarding violation of rights - especially administrative machinery that implements the general requirement to investigate such complaints promptly, in detail and effectively via independent, impartial agencies. The fact that a party state fails to investigate such complaints can be construed as a breach of the Covenant. Cessation of such violations is an essential element of the right to proper redress.

Breach of Article 4

The measures taken by Washington have infringed rights which cannot be suspended under any circumstances, according to the provisions of Art. 4.2 of the Covenant, even in exceptional circumstances that threaten the life of a nation. This applies to the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or treatment, enshrined in Arts. 6 and 7 of the Covenant respectively.

Breach of Article 7

Visits to the detention centre at the Guantanamo naval base by agencies as diverse as the Intenational Red Cross Committee, the British security services and the FBI have resulted in written reports and statements to the media openly questioning the legitimacy of the interrogation methods used by the US military there, as well as the conditions under which the prisoners are held, these having produced a visible deterioration in their health.

In this context, the states party to the Covenant have a duty to ensure that those responsible for infractions amounting to offences under domestic legislation or international law must be brought to trial; the offences in question include torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 7), arbitrary execution (Art.6) and forced disappearances (Arts. 7 and 9). Failure to bring the perpetrators of such infractions to justice can be construed as a breach of the Covenant.

According to General Observation No.31 of the Human Rights Committee, Art.7 of the Covenant also implies a duty on member states to take measures to prevent agencies or individuals from torturing or inflicting cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment on persons in their power.

The impunity with which, historically, such grave violations of human rights have been committed, has contributed to the repetition of these serious breaches of the letter of the Covenant. Significantly, under Opinion No.31 of the Human Rights Committee, such infractions of the Pact, when committed as part of generalized or systematic aggression against the civil population, are classifiable as crimes against humanity (see Art.7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

Accordingly, applying the opinion of the experts on the Human Rights Committee, in those cases where a public official or government agent has violated rights enshrined in the Covenant, the party state concerned cannot relieve the perpetrator of personal responsibility under the law, as has happened with certain amnesties and immunities in the past.

No official post empowers its incumbent to grant legal immunity to persons responsible for infractions of this kind. The states party to the Covenant are also required to remove other obstacles to prosecution in such cases, including the defence of obeying the orders of a superior or, where prescriptions apply, unduly short periods of prescription.

Breach of Articles 9, 10 and 14

The uncommon and irregular nature of the Bush administration's "global war on terrorism" and its indefinite duration pose great challenges to observance of the international instruments on human rights and humanitarian international law.

The very concept of "illegal combatant" and the judicial aberration created by the setting up of "ad hoc military tribunals” run counter to the universal criminal-law principle of due process.

Persons are made subject to arbitrary military regulations that envisage the possibility of torturing prisoners under interrogation. Prisoners have no opportunity to call witnesses, and if they want a legal representative other than the military one assigned to them, they must first plead guilty - a requirement that breaches the universal principle of presumption of innocence.

The definitions under the Patriot Act of "terrorist activity" and "terrorist group" are so wide and ambiguous that they could be applied to any person or group, citizen of or foreigner in the country concerned.

The discretion granted to the Executive in deciding such matters is such that those involved have no means of objecting. There is no homogeneous and legally-justified criterion for classifying those to be included on the list of terrorists or terrorist groups.

The police and other security forces are granted authority to apply this complex antiterrorist legal and administrative regime with minimal supervision by the judicial apparatus.

The scope allowed to the police for detaining a terrorism suspect indefinitely, without a warrant, without formal charge and without trial, have made arbitrary detention common practice among the US authorities in pursuit of their declared war on terror.

Various rights are being seriously eroded by the application of these measures: the right to be presumed innocent, to be informed without delay of the charge, to be tried within a reasonable period and not to be obliged to incriminate oneself.

The secret transporting via Europe of suspected terrorists, in illegal CIA operations, could also acquire a mantle of dubious "legality" under the Patriot Act and certain laws passed in European countries in the context of the antiterrorism campaign. The European states party to the Covenant which turned a blind eye to the CIA flights in question not only breached the terms of this international instrument on human rights, but also the European Convention on Human Rights itself.

Breach of Article 26

The detention of thousands of people worldwide in the context of a "global war on terrorism" has intensified xenophobia, discrimination and racism. Features that provoke discrimination and suspicion include skin colour, physical appearance, educational status, religion and even nationality.

This trend has been boosted by prominent coverage in the Western media of negative stereotypes, associating terrorist activity with certain nationalities, ethnic groups and even movements for national liberation or against neoliberal globalization.

Thus Washington's promulgation of the Patriot Act and application of other measures are breaching Art.26 of the Covenant, which establishes that all persons are equal in the eyes of the law and have the same right to its protection, without discrimination.

VI. - Internal debate in America over the breaches of human rights committed in the course of the antiterrorist campaign

The debate on this subject within American society has been ambivalent. While individuals and whole sectors of public opinion are openly questioning the Bush administration's policy of riding roughshod over human rights in prosecuting its "global war on terrorism", there are still significant political forces that seek to justify these brutal practices on the pretext of the antiterrorist campaign. The climate of fear and insecurity generated by the White House hawks, aided and abetted by the mass media, has touched a nerve among some sections of the population.

In the US Congress, which originally supported Bush's "global war on terrorism", some dissident voices are being raised, prompting other members supportive of the present administration's aggressive policy, to promote actions designed to clean up its image, to give it a sheen of "legitimacy and legality".

Renowned human rights institutions have adopted a more forthright stance, going so far as to file suits in the US courts seeking observance of the constitution and of the human rights of the torture victims.

Public statements on Guantanamo by former US presidents Carter and Clinton

Former US president William Clinton has been one of the critics of the human rights abuses at Guantanamo, expressing the view that the US base should be cleaned up or shut down; it was time for an end to the reports from there about people being mistreated.

He said the test for judging whether harsh treatment of terrorist suspects was justified was whether it challenged the "fundamental nature" of American society.

He believes there are two very serious practical objections to prisoner abuse: in the first place, if the US gets a reputation for mistreating people, its own soldiers will be in greater danger; secondly, if they mistreat someone, he will eventually say what he knows his persecutors want to hear, just to make them stop.

Former president Jimmy Carter has called for closure of the Guantanamo naval base. He said in Atlanta that the US government was creating a highly embarrassing situation that was damaging its reputation.

Actions in the US Congress

• The McCain amendment

Recently and with bipartite support in both branches of Congress, Republican Senator McCain's amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for the year ended September 30th, 2006 passed into law.

The amendment was designed to ban cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment of anybody held in United States custody.

The bill was adopted by the House on December 19th, by 308 votes to 106. The corresponding votes in the Senate, on December 21st, were 93 and zero, while 7 senators did not vote.

The government had initially opposed the amendment, arguing that it would hamstring its antiterrorist campaign, and threatening to use its veto. However, it soon became clear that the amendment did not seek to tie the authorities' hands or to challenge its methods for combating terrorism. It was a purely cosmetic exercise. As various independent analysts perceived, the amendment appeared and passed into law in parallel with another bill providing "protection" for interrogators. In practice, legal aid and other safeguards were provided for CIA agents and other civilians on Washington's payroll, hauled before the courts for abuses committed against the detainees.
If prosecuted for abuse, the government is obliged to supply them with a lawyer and bear all the costs of their representation. They will also be allowed to claim in their defence that they were acting under orders.

In an editorial in its edition of December 16th, 2005, the New York Times regretted that the McCain amendment had been linked to another, sinister one introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Carl Levin (Michigan), which allows the admission of testimony obtained under duress and curtails the rights of suspected terrorists held at the Guantanamo naval base and elsewhere.

The Washington Post was of like mind, describing as "incredible" the fact that the Graham-Levin amendment allowed evidence obtained by torture to be taken into consideration by the military tribunals that decide whether prisoners should be sent to Guantanamo as "enemy combatants".

Temporary suspension of the Patriot Act

Given the provisions under the temporary renewal of application of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act ("USA Patriot Act" for short) signed by President Bush on October 26th, 2001, various measures included in this law were to be re-examined and confirmed to a pre-set timetable.

On December 22nd, the US Senate renewed these measures for just five weeks.

On February 2nd, 2006, the Senate renewed the act for a second time (another five weeks). The voting, 95 to 1, confirmed that in the House of Representatives the previous evening.

On this basis, the delegates have additional time to prepare a definitive text.

The Democrats and a small group of Republicans have tried to introduce safeguards for individual freedoms in the legislation relating to action by the forces of law and order.

According to the leader of the Senate Democrats, Harry Reid, the government must be given the tools needed to combat terrorism, but with limits to ensure that its powers are not abused. The decision meant a defeat for President Bush, who on various occasions has emphasized that he would not accept a short-term extension of the Act.

While the Act was approved quickly, its adoption attracted sharp criticism from NGOs in the human rights field, intellectuals, journalists and lawyers associations inside and outside the United States.

Like similar laws adopted in America's Western ally nations, this legislation threatens the effectiveness of many of the principles won in battles for civil rights in various parts of the world, and has created a climate favouring the proliferation of xenophobic and racist sentiments. It has also whipped up collective hysteria, with fears of further terrorist attacks, bolstering the positions of the more conservative, reactionary, warmongering factions among the main industrialized powers, notable the United States itself.

Since these laws were passed, critics have warned of the dangerous precedent they are creating, in opening the door to violation of human rights - mainly civil and political. They enhance the executive's power in relation to that of the judiciary, creating a permanently "exceptional" situation in which they can ride roughshod over the most basic civil and political rights.

The scandal of spying on the communications of US citizens without legal authorization

The extension in Congress of the Patriot Act for just a month coincided with the revelation that Bush had authorized the NSA to spy on and intercept the communications of American citizens with prior legal permission.

According to revelations in the December 16th, edition of the New York Times, in 2002 President Bush authorized an espionage agency to intercept Americans' and foreigners' phone calls and e-mails arriving or originating in the United States, without a warrant.

This information was confirmed at a presidential press conference three days later. He defended the legality of the programme and the idea that the executive power should act fast, without waiting for applications to the courts for authorization. He claimed that as Commander In Chief of the armed forces he was constitutionally entitled to tap phone lines with the aim of protecting the citizenry, without a court order.

He also said the White House had informed Congress on the matter more than a dozen times. According to press sources, these reports went to a handful of congressmen who swore to keep the secret, as well as others under orders not to discuss the matter or seek external legal opinions.

The democrat senator, John D. Rockefeller IV, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, reported having written to Vice President Cheney the day he first heard about the programme, in July 2003, to express his concerns about these operations. House of Representatives Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi had also written a letter to Cheney, not made public, to register her worries in the same connection.

The President's position was endorsed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (chief of the White House lawyers when the programme was launched), by Dick Cheney, by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was National Security Adviser at that time) and other government officials.

Gonzales, author of the "legal" pretexts for torture as an aid to interrogation, has developed another theory which says that when Congress, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, authorized the President to employ such force as was appropriate and necessary, it indirectly approved domestic espionage without a court order. Significantly, this view means that anything is possible, because it would be up to the president to decide what was appropriate and necessary, and even if his actions broke the law, if he had thus decided, they must be correct.

Supporting arguments of this kind may make no sense to many, but are not new. More than 30 years ago, President Richard Nixon, beset by accusations, spoke a phrase which now appears to have been adopted by the Bush administration: “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal”.

However, various experts have warned that the Fourth Amendment bans unjustified pursuit and detention. They also point out that the law which sets up the court tasked with enforcing these orders could have reacted promptly to any government request, since it even allows the president to act first and ask for judicial authorization later. The court in question is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), set up in the 1970s under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

This court, which sits behind firmly-closed doors, has 11 members and is based at the Justice Department headquarters. Its members are federal judges. Under the 2001 Patriot Act, the Court approves surveillance orders in terrorism investigations. Of the 5,000-odd requests received by the Justice Department, it is believed that only a handful have been denied.

The scandal culminated with international press reports of the resignation of a member of the FISC, district court judge James Robertson, who notified Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts of his decision, without giving explanations.

Judge Robertson resigned his post because he regarded the presidential authorization for spying on Americans suspected of links with terrorism as "legally questionable".

According to two colleagues, quoted in the press, he had also voiced fears that Bush's programme of espionage without the mandatory judicial order, could have been used to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Services Act.

His resignation occurred in the wake of requests for Congress investigations from two Republican senators, Chuck Hagel and Olympia J. Snowe. Both questioned the validity of the Patriot Act's sanction for the programme and the dearth of information passing from the White House to Congress.

They joined forces with Democrats Dianne Feinstein, Carl M. Levin and Ron Wyden in calling for a joint enquiry into the programme by the Senate's judicial and intelligence panels.

The FISC's presiding judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been informed about Washington's espionage programme, had already expressed the same concerns in 2004, and had insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that no phone taps or e-mail interceptions were being performed without a judicial order.

While the debate about ignoring the need for warrants has just surfaced, various human rights organizations in America and elsewhere have been warning of such dangers associated with the Patriot Act ever since its approval in 2001.

From the moment when the intelligence services and police got their "wide powers" under the Act to intercept communications, no-one in the United States or anywhere else has been safe from breach of their communications privacy, in the form of listening-in and even recording by the intelligence services of the United States and its allies.

Condemnation by American civil organizations

A few days before news broke of the NSA's surveillance without warrant of American citizens' communications, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that FBI antiterrorist investigators were checking up on American anti-war, environmentalist, pro civil rights and similar organizations.

The Union announced that Washington was spying on Americans, without apology, unnecessarily and without regard for the Constitution. It urged its members to hold the Bush administration responsible for secretly authorizing clandestine listening-in on the communications of Americans and others on US soil.

The ACLU documents, published in the course of proceedings against the FBI for its treatment of organizations which had planned demonstrations at the political conventions last year, show that the Bureau launched a preliminary terrorism investigation of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals organization (PETA).

VII. - Position of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the secret prisons

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) repeatedly has applied to the US authorities for permission to visit the detainees at the covert locations.
Apart from those held at Bagram and Guantanamo, the Committee has publicly expressed concern for the plight of an unknown number of prisoners in secret jails. It describes getting information on these persons and arranging to see them as a humanitarian priority and a logical extension of its current work regarding detention in Afghanistan and at the Guantanamo naval base.

Red Cross spokesperson Antonella Notari has said that the organization is worried about an indefinite number of people captured as part of President Bush's "global war on terrorism".

She said the organization would like to be notified about and have access to people held in unspecified detention centres. This would be a consistent continuation of what they were already doing, which included visiting detainees in US centres in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Guantanamo naval base. She added that the Red Cross had known for some time that the United States was holding suspected terrorists at secret locations, but had had no means of finding out where they were or how many prisoners were involved.

The fact that the Red Cross has been denied access to these detention centres was admitted by State Department legal advisor, John Bellinger, who said in Geneva that the organization had access to all the prisoners at Guantanamo but not all the similar detainees elsewhere.

The ICRC has regularly visited prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo and has voiced its worries to the authorities in Washington over the legal limbo in which the detainees remain.

In a report on its activities dated April 30th, 2005, the Committee refers to major differences of opinion as regards the legal rules applicable to the US government's response to terrorism. It adds that the ICRC is especially concerned about the plight of an indefinite number of people held incommunicado in covert centres apparently beyond the bounds of any legal framework.

VIII.- Statements by the representatives of the UN human rights machinery concerning the violations of human rights by the United States in the war on terrorism

• UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, has also expressed her concern over the practices marking the war on terrorism.

She says the UN regards the use of secret detention centres is a form of torture, equating to a "disappearance", and is a breach of the Convention against Torture.

While recognizing the need for governments to protect their citizens, Arbour stressed the requirement to observe the ban on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

• Human Rights Commission Special Rapporteurs.

Rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak, concerned about the UK's new antiterrorist law, has called on the British authorities not to deport suspects to countries where there is a risk of their being tortured or otherwise abused.

In a communiqué, the expert says that the guarantees London plans to negotiate with other countries that deportees will not be tortured are neither adequate nor sufficient, apart from being inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

He comments that the fact that such guarantees are being sought shows that the deporting nation perceives a high risk that the deportee will be tortured or abused when he arrives at the destination.

As regards the British Prime Minister's statements of August 5th, 2005 to the effect that the persons concerned would be deported, Nowak adds that diplomatic guarantees are not an appropriate means of eliminating this risk.

He has also condemned the cruel methods of force-feeding used on prisoners on hunger strike at the Guantanamo naval base. He reports that the lawyers of the detainees concerned have filed well-substantiated allegations that in some cases the nasal tubes used were so thick they left the prisoner bleeding and vomiting.

Other thematic procedures of the Human Rights Commission have also voiced concerns in this context, notably the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

Recently, a team of Commission Rapporteurs announced its decision not to accept an invitation from the US authorities to visit the Guantanamo naval base, in the light of Washington's refusal to accept conditions that would have enabled a credible, objective and fair investigation. The team comprised the Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Ms. Leila Zerrougui; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr.Leandro Despouy; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mr. Manfred Nowak; the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mr. Paul Hunt. (See also Part V, Chapter 1).

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions recently submitted a report (E/CN.4/2006/7) to the 62nd session of the Commission recording its concerns regarding the secret jails.

The Group reported having received information from reliable sources in various communications regarding the existence of the "black sites" or covert prisons in various parts of the world, where prisoners were held secretly in conditions that were unsupervised and otherwise unknown.

According to the report, prisoners had apparently been transferred between countries in flights of durations ranging from three to eight hours, had been detained at these locations for 18 months to two years and had been transferred again to a third country, at all times under the supervision of US agents.

The Group comments that the practice of moving prisoners, known as "rendition" or "extraordinary rendition" is presumably a technique of the antiterrorism campaign whereby persons suspected of activities relating to terrorism are sent by a government to foreign territory.

According to information received by the Group, the detainees at these locations have never been officially charged with any crime, nor have they been brought before any judicial or administrative authority responsible for their detention, so that they could challenge the legality of their imprisonment. They have been held incommunicado, in underground cells without windows, without access to the outside world or their families - who were in ignorance of their whereabouts - or legal representation. They were not allowed to speak to anyone apart from their interrogators and were subjected to music at high volume day and night.

The Group was concerned that "renditions" were taking place without recourse to any recognized legal procedure (such as deportation or extradition) and without allowing the prisoners' access to a legal advisor or a judicial authority to which they could appeal against the transportation. Another worry of the Group is the very existence of these secret jails, which are outside the scope of judicial control or protection of human rights, making it easy for the governments concerned to evade their relevant international responsibilities and obligations.

It has reiterated its concern that secret detentions without judicial control, especially during interrogation, leads to increased recourse to torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The experts state that arbitrary detention of this kind, lacking any legal basis whatever, is in contravention of all the international regulations on human rights and implies such serious violations of the rights of detainees as: forced disappearance; not permitting access to a lawyer, to relatives, to medical attention; failure to inform the families of the place of detention; use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The Group's report emphasizes that the detention of terrorism suspects under these conditions, without charge and without the prospect of a trial to determine their guilt or innocence, is in itself a serious denial of their basic human rights, in contravention of international humanitarian law and the international instruments on human rights.

The Cuban people and government share the concerns expressed by the international community for the plight of those arbitrarily detained in the name of the "global war on terrorism" at the Guantanamo naval base and other detention centres that have been identified or still remain secret.

The international community should raise its voice to put an end to impunity for these crimes, and demand that those responsible for torture, forced disappearance and other grave offences committed in the name of the "global was on terrorism" are charged and brought to justice.

APPENDIX III. TEXT OF THE MCCAIN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 2007

SEC. 1003. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

Text of another amendment to the Bill providing a certain degree of impunity for interrogators

SEC.1004. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN AUTHORIZED INTERROGATIONS.

a) Protection of United States Government Personnel.--In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or extinguish any defense or protection otherwise available to any person or entity from suit, civil or criminal liability, or damages or to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal offense by the proper authorities.

b) Counsel.--The United States Government may provide or employ counsel, and pay counsel fees, court costs, bail, and other expenses incident to the representation of an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent described in subsection (a), with respect to any civil action or criminal prosecution arising out of practices described in that subsection, under the same conditions, and to the same extent, to which such services and payments are authorized under section 1037 of title 10, United States Code.

APPENDIX IV - PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF TORTURE AT THE ABU GRHAIB PRISON, IRAQ

APPENDIX V - LETTER FROM BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY, JACK STRAW, TO CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NOVEMBER 29TH, 2005