Those who engage in such practices in Pakistan would be well advised to take note.
In July, Human Rights Watch released a 107-page report, “Getting Away with Torture: The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees”, which presents information warranting criminal investigations of former US president George W Bush and senior administration officials, including former vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and CIA director George Tenet, for ordering practices such as waterboarding, the use of secret CIA prisons and the transfer of detainees to countries where they were tortured.
International law binding on the US obliges President Barack Obama to order criminal investigations into allegations of detainee abuse authorised by Bush and his other senior officials. The evidence of torture by the Bush administration is overwhelming. Bush publicly admitted that in two cases he approved the use of waterboarding and authorised illegal CIA secret detention and renditions programmes. Cheney was the driving force behind the illegal policies, chairing key meetings at which specific CIA operations were discussed, including waterboarding. Rumsfeld approved illegal interrogation methods amounting to torture. Former CIA director Tenet authorised and oversaw the CIA’s use of waterboarding, stress positions, light and noise bombardment, sleep deprivation and other abusive interrogation methods, as well as the CIA rendition programme.
Torture and other ill-treatment is unequivocally prohibited by the Convention against Torture and by the Geneva Conventions during wartime. The prohibition against torture is one of the most concrete of human rights. The Bush administration undermined this universal prohibition by contorting, beyond recognition, the legal definition of torture.
Defining torture as it had never been defined before, Bush’s Justice Department produced memos claiming that the “severe pain and suffering” threshold necessary to be considered torture had to rise to the level of “organ failure or serious impairment of body functions”. This definition — and a CIA secret detention programme — paved the way for an untold number of abuses by members of the military, the CIA and others carrying out Bush administration interrogation policies.
Bush sought to justify his authorisation of waterboarding on the ground that Justice Department lawyers said it was legal. While Bush should have recognised that waterboarding — a form of mock execution in which the victim nearly drowns — constituted torture without consulting a lawyer, there is also information that senior officials, including Cheney, sought to influence the lawyers’ judgment. The strategy to shape and hand-pick legal advice and then hide behind it only deserves to be rejected.
While the Obama administration has correctly decided to end abusive interrogation practices, unfortunately, President Obama has treated torture under Bush as an unfortunate policy choice rather than a crime. Hence, Obama’s policy change will remain easily reversible unless the legal prohibition against torture is clearly re-established. Yet, so far, not just Bush but the Obama administration too has successfully kept courts from considering the merits of torture allegations in civil lawsuits by making broad use of legal doctrines such as state secrets and official immunity.
If the US government does not pursue credible criminal investigations, other countries should prosecute US officials involved in these crimes in accordance with international law. They can pursue investigations and, if warranted, prosecutions before national judicial systems under the doctrine of ‘universal jurisdiction’. Universal jurisdiction is a crucial tool by which victims of grave international crimes can obtain redress. It acts as a ‘safety net’ when the state with the most direct jurisdiction over the crimes is unable or unwilling to conduct an effective investigation and trial.
If today, Bush and senior administration officials find themselves in this harsh spotlight, those who were complicit in the administration’s abusive policies should recognise that they too may eventually be held accountable.
Following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Pakistani authorities rounded up suspected members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. During the Bush administration, several hundred Pakistanis and foreign nationals living in Pakistan were simply taken into custody and handed over to the US without any due process. Many were then held at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan or transferred to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Undoubtedly, many were tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
Former president Pervez Musharraf explained his collaboration in the Bush administration’s abuse with some pride in his 2006 autobiography, In the Line of Fire: “We have captured 689 and handed over 369 to the United States. We have earned bounties totalling millions of dollars. Those who habitually accuse Pakistan of not doing enough in the war on terror should simply ask the CIA how much prize money it has paid to the Government of Pakistan.”
The CIA should not just be asked how much prize money it paid. It should — and someday will — be asked how far it was complicit in abuses including enforced disappearances, torture and illegal detention by the ISI and others in the Pakistani military. Today, evidence has been presented against Bush, his cabinet and his intelligence chief. Tomorrow, it may well be presented against Musharraf, his cabinet and his intelligence chief. Nobody is in office forever. And as Bush is beginning to discover, crimes have a way of catching up even with the most powerful of abusers.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 12th, 2011.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Mr Writer, tell us something we don't know. Why write about the obvious?
If Musharraf can travel the World freely making speeches I am sure that no one in the Bush administration is worried about traveling.
Why would the CIA chief have to explain anything? Or, as you suggest should happen, the ISI chief? These agencies are supposed to conduct these extralegal activities, that aren't officially supposed to take place, in the national interest (whether you agree with that 'national interest' is another matter). I would never want to see the head of the ISI under trial, nor any other member of the ISI, definitely not publicly.
@Desert Fox: You might accidentally be correct that no court ever tries any of the Bush- era war criminal for torture and murder. They will certainly go to their graves branded with what they did and nobody in the future will hold them out as "patriots."
A lecture on Human Rights by us! A line or two on our hypocrisy would be welcome specially now that you are in New York. But rabid nationalism always seems to get in the way of our humanity and facts.
Ahmadiyas - can we stop ostracizing them? Shias - can we stop killing them? Christians and Hindus - can we stop trying to convert and marginalize them?Mr Hasan chooses to write about US individuals associated with torture. If he chooses to think about Pakistanis officials, military and police personnel who routinely carry out torture, he will end up with a never ending list. Of course it is easier to shout at the US bad boys.
@Ali Dayan: You and I both know that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gates, Rice, Powell, Tenet or for that matter any other US government official will never be tried by any court, anywhere in the world. Not in the Hague, not anywhere. Obama should also be tried for bombing the hell out of FATA and Waziristan. A new statistic shows a drone strike for every two days Obama was in office. If the whole US administration,including the US President can lie to the world that Raymond Davis, a military/CIA contractor for Blackwater/Hyperion/Xe, was a diplomat when infact he wasn't. Then get him released, how do you expect any President to be tried. With all due respect, I think you can fantasize, but what you dream of is far from reality. If this were a third world dictator, then the interpol would hunt him down. Until such time, I find your article an exaggeration.
Mr Ali Dayan:
It takes a lot of courage to be the Pakistani Director of Human Rights Watch. And people like me that may be supportive of HRW and Amnesty Internaational from the comforts of their home, and safety of the West can only applaud you. It is much easier to make a 10 or 20 Dollar contribution to these organizations, but even to find time to be an activist requires a motivation that only people like you, sensitive to what the victims of political repression and in the extreme torture undergo and can empathize with understand. HRW much like Amnesty international did not stop at being critical towards the Bush Administrations policies during the tenure of that Administration. After Saleem Shazad's killing your name was highlighted by news orgaizations and one can only wonder with amazement about your own courage to be indentifiable for such important causes, the vey building blocks of an open society that we all hope Pakistan transforms into one day. Please carry on the good work and to all those right minded people who do identify with the necessary work of the HRW please do make financial contributiions to show support of these rudimentary but very important developments against human rights abuses.
Good Luck
They never thought its gonna happend like that.
Mr. Ali Dayan ! Please keep writing on regular basis.