Torturile în anchetele CIA

    17

    Recent în SUA, Senatul a luat decizia de incepere a cercetării legate de posibila utilizare a torturii în anchetele din unele închisori administrate de CIA. Acuzația pornește de la premisa că prizonierii de război sau cei consideraţi terorişti sunt ţinuţi în închisori ale CIA, de genul celor de la Guantanamo unde ar fi supuşi unor tratamente şi interogatorii brutale, în care factorii de manipulare psihologică joacă un rol important: scufundarea în apă rece până aproape de înec ( aşa numita water bording), privarea senzorială, plasarea şi menţinerea cu forţa în poziţii inumane, privarea de somn, umilirile şi abuzurile sexuale, injectarea unor substanţe psihotrope. Acuzatorii susțin că acestea sunt tehnici folosite în mod curent pentru a-i influenţa, a-i controla şi în cele din urmă a-i dezorienta pe prizonieri, astfel încât aceştia să declare ceea ce vor anchetatorii.

    Anul trecut în mai, Departamentul de Justiţie al SUA a dat publicităţii un raport în care condamnă tehnicile de interogare folosite de CIA şi de Pentagon. Presa americană și europeană vorbea încă din 2005 despre implicarea psihologilor în elaborarea şi aplicarea acestor tratamente, considerate inumane.

    Barack Obama a aprobat inființarea unei unități de elită pentru cercetare – bazându-se pe experţi din întreagul guvern, nu doar CIA – care va respecta liniile directoare militare ale SUA.

    Dick Cheney a criticat din nou administraţia Obama şi a refuzat să-și schimbe poziția lui și anume că metodele de interogare dure au fost eficiente.

    Doua postări remarcabile in blogosfera românească:

    Albert Camus, drepturile teroristului si drepturile omului de Vladmir Tismăneanu

    Drepturile teroristului şi închisorile CIA de Ioan T. Morar

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email
    DISTRIBUIȚI
    Articolul precedentTestamentul politic al lui Nicolae Steinhardt
    Articolul următorAberanta Britanie laburistă
    Cosmin Cărbunaru
    Am trăit, un timp, într-un regim politic ce reducea o persoană la o simplă piesă în mâna statului. Apoi, am avut de îndurat o perioadă moștenirea instituțională a acestui regim. Acum, observ că într-un fel sau altul se militează pentru același lucru dar sub altă formă. Ca să putem să ne bucurăm de ”Societatea deschisă”, trebuie să cunoaștem și să fim atenți la ”dușmanii săi”. Am absolvit științele politice, în București. Acum doresc să cunosc mai bine Europa Centrală si de Est. "God's Playground" , așa cum a fost numită Polonia de Norman Davies, se poate caracteriza toată această zonă, unde se pot întâlni, ușor, dorințe de libertate cât și întruchipări ale ”banalității răului”. În același timp sunt pasionat de istoria ideilor și ideologii politice.

    17 COMENTARII

    1. Cosmin,

      1. sunt teroristi, nu prizonieri de razboi; nu au luptat in uniforma militara si nu respecta regulile razboiului, ergo nu beneficiaza de protectia vreunei conventii.

      2. administratia Obama da dovada de iresponsabilitate incercand sa recastige procente pe seama CIA-ului.

    2. Rasmussen: Support for closing Gitmo rapidly dropping

      Seventy-five percent (75%) of U.S. voters are at least somewhat concerned that dangerous terrorists will be set free if the Guantanamo prison camp is closed and some prisoners are transferred to other countries. Fifty-six percent (56%) are very concerned.
      A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 24% are not concerned about the potential danger.

      Support for the president’ s plan to close the prison camp for suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba continues to erode. It’s been steadily dropping since Obama announced the camp closure just after taking office in January. Only 32% of voters now favor closing the prison camp, down six points from May and down 12 points since the President announced his decision in January.

      Fifty-five percent (55%) now oppose closing the prison, with 13% not sure. In January, just after the president announced his decision, just 42% were opposed.

    3. „prizonierii de război sau cei CONSIDERATI terorişti sunt ţinuţi în închisori ale CIA” e o afirmatie corecta. Afirmatia incorecta este: „1. toti sunt teroristi 2. nu beneficiaza de protectia vreunie conventii”.
      FALS, FALS.
      Conform informatiilor publice, usor accesibile de exemplu pe http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm,sau pe Wikipedia 🙂

      2. e falsa cf.
      ” After the Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006 that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[4]”
      1. e falsa petnru ca pentru ca „teroristii” nu au fost judecati si condamnati si pt ca:
      -Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge.
      Three British Muslim prisoners, now known in the media as the „Tipton Three”, were released in 2004 without charge. The three have alleged ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution being committed by U.S. forces at Guantánamo Bay.[41] Former Guantánamo detainee Mehdi Ghezali was freed without charge on July 9, 2004, after two and one-half years internment. Ghezali has claimed that he was the victim of repeated torture.

      Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.
      etc.

    4. cosmin,
      Despre waterboarding – sau „simularea innecului”, unde detinutul este imobilizat pe spate cu capul inclinat in jos, fata acoperita cu o carpa peste care se toarna apa, opinia generala este ca face parte din tehnicile de tortura.

      Este principalul capat de acuzare asupra unor oficiali CIA si asupra Administratiei Bush.

      DAR – prin waterboarding au fost obtinute informatiile (de la Khalid Sheik Mohammed!) care au condus la prevenirea atentatului tip 9/11 de la Los Angeles. KSM – daca este nevoie, vom da amanunte despre acest „ingeras” – a devenit ca o „pasare cantatoare” in urma aplicarii waterboarding-ului.

      In ianuarie 2009, presedintele Obama a emis un ordin care interzice waterboarding-ul. Utila numai din punct de vedere propagandistic, interzicerea waterboardingului de catre Obama, era efectiva din timpul Administratiei Bush – alaturi de decretul de inchidere a Guantanamo – a avut drept consecinta si redeschiderea dosarului „torturilor CIA”.

      In ultimile zile, discutiile despre torturile CIA au fost folosite de Administratia Obama ca o perdea de fum pentru a distrage atentia opiniei publice americane.

      @slamistu’

      Despre numarul celor care vor fi detinuti chiar si de Obama se va mai discuta. Cea mai mare problema a noii administratii este ca vrea sa scape de detinuti cat mai repede, iar pentru asta face greseli.

    5. „heavy (metal) torture”

      „In 2003, ‘Enter Sandman’, palyed by Metallica, was in the news because of its use by American interrogators during the Iraq War. Interrogators exposed prisoners to the song for hours at a time, the hope being that under the pressure of listening to music that was „culturally offensive,” the prisoners would break their resistance”.

    6. orice paleste in fata cecurilor ce vroiau resuscitarea economiei si probabil au ajuns si la teroristi.
      parca traim un vis urat.
      e cu mult mai tragico-comic decat cei 100 de specialisti ai constantinescului ce a transmis craciun fericit imamilor fanatici.

    7. bai si ca o ciudatenie si mai mare: eu nu am primit nici un cec pana acum!
      pardon, am primit unul de $600 de la Bush.

    8. @francesco: „Despre numarul celor care vor fi detinuti chiar si de Obama se va mai discuta. Cea mai mare problema a noii administratii este ca vrea sa scape de detinuti cat mai repede, iar pentru asta face greseli.”
      Nu numarul ma interesa ci faptul ca s-au sustinut aici doua lucruri false: ca toti „sunt” teroristi si ca nu se afla sub incidenta vreunei conventii. E o problema creata de administratia Bush, nu inteleg de ce i se imputa lui Obama.

    9. Pai nici macar armata de activisti obamici nu sustine ca la Gitmo s-ar afla poeti si visatori neintelesi de fiarele neocon!
      Ai impresia ca la Gitmo se poate ramine – dupa verificari amanuntite – doar pentru ginduri necurate sau pt neplata tichetului de parcare?
      Multi nu pot fi adusi in fata justitiei pt ca ar trebui divulgate informatii furnizate de serviciile de securitate din alte tari. Se vb. de 80-100 de indivizi care vor ramane fara proces in custodia SUA. Restul vor fi judecati. Unii au fost eliberati – transferati in Europa – doar pt ca nu se puteau aduce documentele in instanta, iar retinerea lor nu mai era „utila”.

      Revin referitor la waterboarding: exista pareri divergente in legatura cu aceasta metoda de interogare, dar a dat rezultate si a salvat mii de vieti americane. Si nu numai. Acum se cauta solutii pt. ca noua echipa de interogare a lui Obama nu are la dispozitie decat cele 19 tehnici aprobate prin manualul militar. Teroristii le cunosc si isi rad in barba, de acum inainte nu vor mai spune nimic.

    10. slamistu, scuza-ma, dar ma faci sa rad cu micutele tale probleme gitmoiste. Intotdeauna m-au amuzat teribil cetatenii care nu mai pot sa doarma la noapte de grija „victimelor” de la Guantanamo. Nu pot sa nu ma gandesc la ce v-ar face „victimele” astea daca le-ati pica in mana. :mrgreen:

      1. Al Qaida a semnat Conventia de la Geneva? Nu.
      2. Al-qadistii lupta imbracati in civil si violeaza toate regulile razboiului? Da.
      3. Americanii luati prizonieri de muslimi beneficiaza de Conventia de la Geneva? Nu.

      Cat despre cum se aplica faimosul articol 3 al Conventiei la Gitmo,

      Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and U.S. Detainee Policy
      http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/wm2303.cfm

      Defining CA3

      Common Article 3 is the third article common to each of the four Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions codify much, albeit not all, of the law regulating armed conflict and the humane treatment of persons detained during armed conflict. The four conventions, as most recently revised and expanded in 1949, comprise a system of safeguards that attempt to regulate the ways wars are fought and to provide protections for individuals during wartime. The conventions themselves were a response to the horrific atrocities of World War II. The first convention covers soldiers wounded on the battlefield, the second covers sailors wounded and shipwrecked at sea, the third covers prisoners of war, and the fourth covers civilians taken by an enemy military or otherwise impacted.

      What CA3 precisely requires and what it forbids is subject to debate. According to the actual language of CA 3, detainees „shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” but the term humanely is never defined. „[O]utrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,” are strictly prohibited, whatever they may be. Also prohibited are „cruel treatment and torture,” but again, there is no definition of these terms. CA3 is a good statement of principles, but aside from banning murder and hostage-taking, it provides no concrete guidance to anyone actually holding detainees.

      Nonetheless, CA3 is a part of U.S. treaty and criminal law. Congress, in the 1999 amendments to the War Crimes Act, made it a crime to violate CA3. For certain acts, such as murder, taking hostages, and obvious acts of torture, the prohibited conduct should be clear, since Congress has defined the elements necessary to prove these crimes in statutory law.

      But what exactly constitutes „outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”? No universal or even national consensus as to the definition of these terms exists. There is, however, no doubt that what constitutes humiliation or degradation, as distinct from acceptable treatment, is highly context-specific and culture-dependent. For example, any custodial interrogation or incarceration entails elements of humiliation that would be unacceptable in other contexts. Likewise, some societies find placing women in a position of authority, as guards or interrogators, over detained individuals unacceptable; for other cultures that believe in basic gender equality, these practices are not even remotely humiliating. Even Jean Pictet, the world-renowned human rights attorney who helped draft the Geneva Conventions and led the International Committee of the Red Cross, noted that with respect to CA3, the drafters wanted to target those acts that „world public opinion finds particularly revolting.” This is a highly uncertain guide.

      Pictet also stated that the outrages upon personal dignity referenced by the treaty were of a sort „committed frequently during the Second World War.” This too gives little guidance. Presumably, the prohibition would include forcing ethnic or religious minorities to wear insignia for purposes of identification, such as the infamous yellow star imposed by the Nazi regime on the Jewish population of Germany and occupied Europe. What else it may include is very much open to debate; the Axis Powers were ingenious in the area of humiliating and degrading treatment.

      Principles of CA3

      In interpreting this important provision, the United States would be justified in following some basic principles inferred from CA3.

      First, CA3 imposes obligations on the parties to a conflict. This suggests that to violate the provision, the conduct must be both of a sort that world opinion finds „particularly revolting” and systemic, undertaken as a matter of policy rather than simply the actions of individual miscreants or criminals. Thus, although the treatment of some detainees by a few guards may have been outrageous, humiliating and degrading—and perhaps criminal—it would not violate CA3 unless it was ordered as a matter of policy or the responsible authorities failed to suppress and punish the conduct once it became known to them. All allegations of mistreatment are required to be investigated as a matter of written order.

      Likewise, the use of the law of war paradigm cannot, by definition, be a violation of CA3, even if its specific application produces a less than ideal result. For example, detaining individuals believed to be enemy combatants is no violation of CA3, even if subsequent review concludes that their status classification was erroneous and they were not, in fact, enemy combatants. Under the same logic, and despite some oft-invoked but misguided criticisms of the U.S. detention policy, detaining captured enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities and not charging them with specific criminal offenses does not violate CA3.

      Second, the purpose of CA3 was to compel compliance with the most basic requirements in the context of a civil war or other internal conflict, where it was acknowledged that the other provisions of the four conventions would not apply. Thus, it is a fair assumption that CA3 should not be interpreted as simply incorporating those other Geneva Convention provisions into the conflicts to which CA3 is applicable. Outrages upon personal dignity would not, therefore, include simply denying captives the rights and privileges of honorable prisoners of war under the third convention or of civilian persons under the fourth.

      Third, CA3, like any other specific treaty provision, should be construed in the context of the overall treaty regime of which it is a part. In this regard, the overarching purpose of the 1949 Conventions (and all of the other laws of war-related treaty norms) has been to ensure that the popular passions aroused by war and even the consideration of military necessity do not vitiate the fundamental requirements of humane treatment. To suggest that, for example, the wartime standards of treatment should be fundamentally superior to the peacetime standards would turn this logic upside down and is untenable. Accordingly, such incarceration-related practices as single-cell confinement and involuntary-feeding—which, subject of course to appropriate safeguards, are used in civilian penal institutions of many Western democracies—cannot, by definition, infringe CA3.

      There is no doubt that the intentions reflected in CA3 are laudable, but it is a less than perfect standard for the law of war, which must provide real and precise answers to an entire range of specific questions. Indeed, CA3’s language is ambiguous, capacious, and difficult to apply in some circumstances. Fortunately, U.S. detention operations in general, and post-2006 in particular, have featured conditions for detainees that—structured in ways that provide more than sufficient compliance with CA3—compare favorably with any detention facilities in the history of warfare.

      Tu chiar crezi ca americanii i-ar fi dus la Guantanamo doar pentru ca se plictiseau si nu aveau unde chinui musulmani?

      Bugsy > Ma, am inteles ca Enter Sandman a fost destul de convingatoare :mrgreen: „Dreams of war, dreams of liars/ Dreams of dragons fire/ And of things that will bite!/

    11. On the evening of August 8, a suicide bomber wearing a belt full of explosives approached the exterior walls of the French embassy in Mauritania’s capital city of Nouakchott. He shouted “Allahu akbar” and blew himself up. Two embassy security guards, or gendarmes, and another person were injured.

      Ten days later, al-Qaeda’s North African arm — al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) — claimed responsibility. Reuters identified the bomber as a local jihadist named Abu Obeida Musa al-Basri.

      It barely made the news.

      […]
      Six weeks ago, an American missionary named Christopher Leggett was shot in the head and killed as he crossed the street in Nouakchott, Mauritania’s capital; al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. In 2007 four French tourists, including two children, were killed in the southern Mauritanian town of Aleg; three AQIM jihadists are awaiting trial. But before the French embassy was attacked, there had been no suicide bombings on record in the country.

      “This operation came in reaction to the hostility of the Crusaders — led by France — and their apostate agents against Islam and its people,” AQIM declared in a statement earlier this week, which included photographs of the now dead suicide bomber posing with weapons on a desert backdrop.

      Targeting France is a leap from AQIM’s earlier stated goal, which focused on targeting Jews and Americans. The Jamestown Foundation reports that AQIM leader Abu Anas Abd al-Rahman al-Shinqiti recently appeared in a video denouncing any form of democracy in Mauritania and promising attacks on Western facilities throughout North Africa for meddling. “Democracy will lead to Jewish-American occupation [of Mauritania] and to the proliferation of the parties of Satan,” he declared.

      Positioning France as the new Great Satan appears to have come — at least in part — in response to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s stance against burqas. In June, Sarkozy told the French parliament that burqas were “not welcome” in France and compared having to wear one as analogous to being in a prison. “The problem of the burqa is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman’s freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering,” Sarkozy said.

      Five days later, al-Qaeda issued a statement threatening “revenge” on France. Sarkozy’s statements, al-Qaeda said, were a declaration of war against Muslim sisters and it was therefore their duty to seek revenge “by every means and wherever we can reach them.” Whether or not al-Qaeda’s jihadists can attack France at home remains unknown. But its reach certainly extends to French outposts in Africa, such as the embassy in Mauritania.

      sunt stiri care nu reusesc sa treaca de cenzura mainstram media.

    12. @vad ca aici se joaca pingpong cu propriile obsesii. Ma scuzati ca v-am deranjat. Totusi poate citesti si postarea mea:
      1.After the Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006 that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

      2.775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge.
      Adica mai mult de jumate din teroristii astia deosebit de periculosi au fost eliberati fara sa fie acuzati de ceva. Dar numai dupa ce au fost torturati si violati vreo cateva luni. Hai sa ne hlizim.

    13. Obama admin to transfer six Guantanamo prisoners
      One prisoner, Mohammed Jawad, could be sent back to Afghanistan as early as Friday. But authorities are still considering criminal charges in U.S. court that accuse him of throwing a grenade that wounded two American soldiers and their translator in late 2002, so there is a chance he may not be released.

      omu’ e clar nevinovat. ce aveti fratilor cu el de a aruncat o grenada nevinovata catre a bunch of infidels?

      The Miami Herald reported that Congress was told two detainees would be moved to Portugal and two would be sent to Ireland. Already, 11 prisoners have been sent overseas since President Barack Obama took office in January.

      p’astia ii mutam in anglia sa le dea aia drumu ca e mai umani si nu ii violeaza.

      Earlier this week, another judge on the court, Gladys Kessler, ordered the release of Yemeni Mohammed Al Adahi, who was accused by the U.S. government of being a bodyguard for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

      The Justice Department spokesman said the agency was also reviewing that ruling and all of the detainees’ cases were being reviewed for possible prosecution in U.S. courts, military commissions or releasing them.

      da. bodigardul lui bin laden care nu avea habar ce se intampla si a fost arestat pe nedrept de imperialista cia.

      slamistule aveti un mare aliat in leftisti – asa ca ce va mai faceti griji?

    LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here