The US Faces a Moment of Truth on Torture

[undeterred]

By Alice Speri November 1, 2014

The Obama administration has the opportunity to make its stance on torture clear in the coming weeks. For the first time since the president took office, the White House is sending a delegation to testify before the Committee Against Torture in Geneva in November. In December, back at home, they'll need to explain their controversial decision to withhold up to 2,100 photos of US soldiers abusing Iraqi and Afghan detainees in their custody.

If the current administration wants to distance itself from the abuses of the previous one — an intention the president has stated repeatedly from his first day in office — human rights advocates say this is the time to show it, not merely by condemning or prohibiting torture, but by unequivocally stating that it is illegal anywhere, and coming clean on violations the US has committed over the last decade. In 2009, a day after taking office, Obama made clear his condemnation of the Bush administration's practices and signed an executive order prohibiting torture as an interrogation tactic. As part of the same effort, he also ordered Guantanamo closed, which has yet to happen. The president's policy has been, from day one, to break away from the Bush years, which brought the US the Patriot Act and its abuses, Guantanamo, Bagram, and the Abu Ghraib scandal. But prohibiting torture by executive order is not the same as admitting it is universally illegal — a principle that advocates argue the US agreed to uphold when it signed the UN Convention Against Torture.

Up to 2,100 Photos of US Soldiers Abusing Prisoners May Soon Be Released

In 2005, Bush administration officials argued that the treaty didn't actually apply to the CIA and special forces outside US territory — a selective reading that some military and intelligence lawyers in the current administration are still defending, as the New York Times recently reported. Now the Committee Against Torture wants the US to spell out its position. The Times' revelation has also raised fears among human rights advocates that the US may still try to use the same Bush-era argument to justify behavior internationally recognized as illegal. Human rights activists are demanding that US officials take an unambiguous stand on the matter once and for all.

"The US has a unique opportunity in Geneva to reject the untenable and harmful position regarding torture and ill treatment that were put forward by the previous administration," Laura Pitter, a national security researcher at Human Rights Watch, told VICE News. "You have to give Obama credit for the executive order that was issued when he first took office, but they still need to go further and make clear that the convention against torture applies outside US borders as well."

Read more: https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-faces-a-moment-of-truth-on-torture

'The Obama administration is basically saying that they want to preserve the option of engaging in this sort of criminal conduct overseas and at the same time they want the public and the international community to trust that they will not do it.'

[Autumn]

1. No fear, the US will sweep this little problem under the rug. This administration has embeaced this

[rhett o rick]

2. We talk about "this administration" as if it were something more than a figurehead.

The decisions about spying and torture are made by the very powerful NSA/CIA Security State. The current Security State has the same leaders, the same programs, the same unlimited funding, the same carte blanche authority, the same lack of any oversight, as they have spanning both administrations. Even if President Obama wanted things to change, he isn't as powerful as the NSA/CIA Security State.

[CJCRANE]

3. I think Bernie Sanders is right when he says it will take millions of people to push

the political will in the right direction, by following up on voting with activism.

[rhett o rick]

7. What he also said was that to buck the Ruling Oligarchs a candidate will have to be ready

to risk everything including his/her family. Very scary message. He knows that the Ruling Oligarchs will not give up power without a huge fight.

[Autumn]

4. I think he is as powerful as the NSA/CIA Security State.

Transparency would be on his side.

How are things with you?

[rhett o rick]

5. Things are good, thanks. Howz about yourself?

I made it 90 days w/o a hide and for the hell of it, put my name in to be a host. That lasted about 2 weeks. It's my own fault. I push it a little, tho usually my hides are ticky tacky. No complaints (because I could get a hide for complaining, LOL).

"I think he is as powerful as the NSA/CIA Security State" Here's how I see it. When he walks into the office of the Presidency, he finds a very powerful and highly secretive NSA/CIA organization with programs in place that he can't understand. I expect that they tell him that if they were forced to make significant changes, no telling what the outcome would be, in the manor of either a indirect threat or direct threat. They'd explain that a terrorist strike would be on him. Who could he get to back him up if he wanted to oust Gen Alexander, Gen Clapper, and Brennan? Maybe the military but I doubt it. They are probably tight with the Security State.

It sounds a little bit paranoid, but it doesn't matter. Either he isn't given a choice or he chooses to support the very powerful NSA/CIA Security State. Not good either way. And I don't think it will improve with H. Clinton.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. "MUST. LOOK. FORWARD."

Translated: "We don't give a flying f/ck about it. Not our concern. NEXT!"