Obama Outsourcing Torture?

"An invaluable tool, (the CIA) said, is the practice in which U.S. agencies transfer individuals arrested in one country to another allied country that is able to extract information from them and relay it to the United States.”

Washington Post, 1 Nov. 2002

In their haste to fall over themselves in praising the Obama administration’s decision to close Guantanamo and CIA secret prisons, much of the media forgot to ask if that also applied to rendition. Rendition, a practice that began not with the now departed Bush administration but with its Democratic predecessor, involved the transferring of terrorism suspects from American control to the custody of American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. And how do these countries “extract information” from suspects. Here’s an account from the Washington Post of some of the methods employed by Jordan’s General Intelligence Department:

Former prisoners have reported that their captors were expert in two practices in particular: falaqa, or beating suspects on the soles of their feet with a truncheon and then, often, forcing them to walk barefoot and bloodied across a salt-covered floor; and farruj, or the "grilled chicken," in which prisoners are handcuffed behind their legs, hung upside down by a rod placed behind their knees, and beaten

We now have the apparent answer about rendition. The LA Times reported yesterday that it will continue as will the CIA’s power to kidnap people off the streets in foreign countries as it has done in widely publicized cases in Europe. The difference, according to one anonymous Obama official, is that “if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."  The Obama administration should be asked as soon as possible whether torture is within these “parameters.” If it is it is further evidence that the main difference between the Obama version of the war on terror and that of his predecessor is in the way that it is sold to the public.

Today's Obamameter: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (1 February)

Latest Post: Obama, Drugs Policy, and AIDS Prevention

Current Obamameter: Good (Early Sunshine Obscured by Gathering Clouds, Improving by Super Bowl)

10:10 p.m. GMT: President Obama gave a high-profile few minutes to NBC before tonight's American football Super Bowl. Interviewer Matt Lauer decided to get a bit serious, after asking Obama for his Super Bowl prediction (the President diplomatically said the Pittsburgh Steelers in a close, hard-fought game), on issues like the economic stimulus package. On Iraq, Obama said there would be "substantial" troop reductions by the time of next year's game.



5:10 p.m. GMT: Optimism over yesterday's Iraqi elections is now being tempered a bit. The turnout is now estimated at 51 percent, lower than the 59 percent for the January 2005 national elections and 76 percent for the November 2005 Parliamentary elections. Voters were deterred or hindered by tight security and registration problems.

5 p.m. GMT: In the latest clash in the Swat Valley in Pakistan, at least 43 civilians were killed in "cross-fire" between insurgents and Government forces, according to a Pakistani military official.

The confidential admissions verifies the reports of local residents. Earlier, Government forces claim they have killed 16 insurgents.

4:30 p.m. GMT: The Karzai Government in Afghanistan has struck back at Western criticism of "corruption", claiming that 80 percent of Afghan aid is in the hands of international organisations. Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta said:

When we have received 20 percent of the foreign aid, then it is better to be asked about that. The problem is that we are asked about the whole of the 100 percent, while we are unaware of the 80 percent.

Spanta linked the issue of corruption to that of the Government's relationship with foreign donors: ""What we need is better coordination, what we need is promoting the government's efficiency, what we need is good governance ... and a campaign against corruption on part of the government and the international community."

1 p.m. GMT: Three civilians, including two children, have died in Afghanistan in two separate incidents involving international forces.

10:45 a.m. GMT: According to early unofficial estimates, about 60 percent of Iraqis voted in yesterday's elections. Electoral commission officials say that the State of Law Coalition, the list backed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, are leading the polls in Maliki's strongholds of Najaf, Diwaniyah, Wasit, and Babil.

9:05 a.m GMT: The Observer of London reports that Binyam Mohamed, a British resident held at Guantanamo Bay for seven years, is close to death after a hunger strike that began on 5 January.

9 a.m. GMT: A suicide bomber in Afghanistan attacked a convoy of foreign troops this morning, wounded two civilians and a French soldier.

8 a.m. GMT: It will be some time before we have returns from Iraq's elections. Meanwhile, Juan Cole has an excellent summary and analysis of the vote.

Morning Update (7 a.m. GMT; 2 a.m. Washington): The sunshine comes from Iraq, where elections in 14 of 18 provinces were conducted peacefully and the civilian death toll in January was the lowest monthly figure since 2003.

The mist is in Afghanistan, with Kabul and US authorities floating a plan to arm special Afghan security forces to go into the countryside. The possible complications are highlighted in an MSNBC story of villagers' anger at civilian deaths from "special operations". Three US raids in recent weeks have killed up to 50 bystanders.


And the high clouds are from a so-far little-noticed story of how the Obama Administration, despite the acclaim for its more moderate position to international social issues, could be damaging the fight against AIDS (more on this in a separate post).

All Talk, No Clean Needles? The Obama Administration, Drugs Policy, and AIDS Prevention

Much praise has been given, quite rightly, to President Obama's new tone on US co-operation in international health and social programmes, such as his revocation of Ronald Reagan's "gag order" on American organisations assisting with health and family planning efforts.

Yet, whatever the good intentions, the Obama Administration already faces a serious test within its own ranks. State Department officials at a United Nations drugs conference in Vienna have been blocking any reference to "harm reduction" because the phrase might refer to proposals for the exchange of used needles and syringes. The proposals are supported by most delegations at the conference, including the European Union.



The White House website sets out Obama's position as "lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users." There has been no move, however, to change the current policy, and the State Department's officials are studiously adhering to it. The situation is further complicated because the State Department's global AIDS coordinator, Dr Mark Dybul, was forced to resign on 22 January, as he was a Bush appointee, and no replacement has been named.

A draft version of the UN declaration, dated 15 January, included language to "develop, review and strengthen" drug-treatment programs to include "harm reduction measures aiming at preventing and reducing the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use and dependence". The US, joined by Russia, Japan, and Colombia, insisted the language be removed. The clause was moved into a footnote but that was also rejected by the US.

The matter is urgent because the draft is to be ratified by the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs on 12-13 March.

There has been some public movement in the US on the issue. On Wednesday, three members of Congress asked Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, to act, and The New York Times had an editorial on Saturday calling for quick action by Obama. The story, however, has had little circulation in other media.

Enduring America in The Irish Times: Obama's Policies

The Irish Times has a nice summary of Thursday's discussion, organised by our partner The Clinton Institute for American Studies, on "Change in Washington". While the article leads with the hope of "the bad boyfriend factor" --- if your last boyfriend, let's say a Mr G W Bush, was horrible, then your next one is going to seem wonderful for a while --- it also offers the more cautious remarks of Enduring America's Scott Lucas as "a salutary study in realism".