US Government Documents: Proof of "Ghost Detention", Torture, Death

Last night we closed an update with a note that CNN had just reported on hundreds of pages of documents obtained by Amnesty International USA, New York University’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, and the Center for Constitutional Rights — which established that the Pentagon sought loopholes in the Geneva Conventions to hide “ghost detainees”. They also confirmed that the Bush Administration delayed the release of Guantanamo Bay detainees to avoid negative publicity.

This morning the American Civil Liberties Union has released two pages from a Department of Defense document concerning the death of two detainees at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan:

"In both cases, for example, [prisoners] were handcuffed to fixed objects above their heads in order to keep them awake. Additionally, interrogations in both incidents involved the use of physical violence, including kicking, beating, and the use of "compliance blows" which involved striking the [prisoners] legs with the [interrogators] knees. In both cases, blunt force trauma to the legs was implicated in the deaths. In one case, a pulmonary embolism developed as a consequence of the blunt force trauma, and in the other case pre-existing coronary artery disease was complicated by the blunt force trauma.

Seven years after the Bush Administration effectively set aside the Geneva Conventions, declaring they were not relevant to US detentions from Guantanamo Bay to Camp Bagram to CIA "black sites" in North Africa and Eastern Europe, five years after Abu Ghraib, here are the documents establishing not only that detainees were tortured and, yes, murdered. Here is the evidence that US Government officials sanctioned the renditions and "enhanced interrogations" and that they were willing to lie to cover up the programme they had authorised.

It was with a sense of expectation that I have just turned to the headlines in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times of London. And here is what I found: nothing. I cannot find the story in any "mainstream" US or British newspaper this morning.

Full credit to CNN. And full credit to Harper's, Mother Jones and The Raw Story because, without outlets such as these, "ghost detainees" --- and what happens to them --- would remain, well, ghosts.

Afghanistan: Karzai Talks Back to Washington

Morning Update (6:10 a.m. GMT; 1:10 a.m. Washington): Afghan President Hamid Karzai (pictured), trying to counter US Government criticism of his leadership, has offered a conciliatory line on CNN:

U.S. forces will not be able to leave soon in Afghanistan because the task is not over. We have to defeat terrorism. We'll have to enable Afghanistan to stand on its own feet. We'll have to enable Afghanistan to be able to defend itself and protect for its security.

Then, the United States can leave and, at that time, the Afghan people will give them plenty of flowers and gratitude and send them safely back home.

Beyond the headline, it should be noted that Karzai was less than effusive about the proposed US troop surge, "Any addition of troops must have a purposeful objective that the Afghan people would agree with." He said that the new American forces should be placed on the border and in the fields fighting the drug trade rather than in Afghan villages.

And Karzai maintained his criticism of the US military's killing of civilians:

These activities are seriously undermining the confidence of the Afghan people in the joint struggle we have against terrorism and undermining their hopeful future. We'll continue to be a friend. We'll continue to be an ally. But Afghanistan deserves respect and a better treatment.

The Afghan President played down any responsibility for corruption, which the Obama Administration has increasingly attributed to Karzai's negligence or misrule. ""Sure, corruption in the Afghan government is as much there as in any other Third World country," he said. ""Suddenly this country got so much money coming from the West, suddenly so many Afghans came from all over the world to participate. Suddenly there were projects -- suddenly there was this poverty that turned into some sort form of prosperity for this country."

Today's Obamameter: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (7 February)

Latest Post: Obama vs. The Military (Part 2) - The Battle for Iraq Continues
Latest Post: Obama vs. The Military: The Battle for Afghanistan Continues
Latest Post: Twitter and the Obama Foreign Policy of Engagement: Style or Substance?

8:45 p.m. We've just put up a separate post on another heated battle between President Obama and the military, this one over Iraq.

3:15 p.m. Reports that another Iranian blogger, Omid Reza Mirsayafi, has been jailed.

3:10 p.m. Pitching in for America. In his speech at the Munich Security, NATO's Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has backed the US call for a military "surge" in Afghanistan, criticising Europe's response: ""I'm frankly concerned when I hear the United States is planning a major commitment for Afghanistan but other allies are already ruling out doing more."

I'm not sure Scheffer appreciates that European leaders thinking the military-first initiative in Afghanistan, as a dubious if not losing cause, will drain the alliance rather than bolster it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel paid lip service to the military effort but did not commit to additional deployment, especially in southern and central Afghanistan, while French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for all his warm talk of security "from Vancouver to Vladivostok", did not mention Afghanistan at all.

3 p.m. Hope in Somalia? The new President, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, has arrived in Mogadishu for the first time since his election. He will be holding talks with politicians, tribal elders, and Islamic resistance groups to try to establishing a functioning government.


1:40 p.m. Reason Number 452 why the Obama Plan for Iraq Withdrawal Should be Set Aside: Collapsing Oil Prices.

The latest effort from the US military to rationalise a long-term stay comes from Lieutenant General Frank Helmick, the commander of the training of Iraqi forces. Because of diminished revenues, Helmick says, "They are not going to be able to grow as fast as they want to grow."

12:15 p.m. Biden's speech is over. He finally got to the one to watch in next weeks, calling on NATO to support US efforts in Afghanistan.

12:05 p.m. Biden offers two important confirmations: "American will not torture" and "American will act aggressively against climate change".

There are also signs of an emerging and important relationship: after Nicolas Sarkozy's call this morning for a new security arrangement "from Vancouver to Vladivostok", Biden has pointedly praised France's new cooperative relationship with NATO.

And there's a jab at Russia: ""We will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence". Specifically, US will not join Moscow in recognising the independence of South Ossetia.

11:55 a.m. Vice President Joe Biden now speaking at the Munich Security Conference. Despite the bigging up of the speech by US officials, nothing significant so far. It's pretty much a restatement of the Obama Inaugural Address and general line on issues such as Iran. Interesting but vague statement: "America will do more. That's the good news. The bad is America will ask for more cooperation."

11:30 a.m.An interesting development, given the state of play in US-Iran relations. The Department of the Treasury has designated as a terrorist organisation the Party of Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK), which operates against Iranian security forces to "free" the "occupied lands of Kurdistan".

Stuart Levey, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, stated that PEJAK is a branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is battling Turkey has been struggling. (Ali Yenidunya)

9:15 a.m. Eight Pakistani police have been killed in a bomb attack in Punjab province. In Afghanistan, the Interior Ministry claims 10 militants have been killed.

8:20 a.m. And there's a separate entry on the continuing battle between President Obama and the military over the build-up of US troops in Afghanistan.

8:10 a.m. We've just posted a separate entry on a possible State Department initiative, using Twitter, to support engagement with Iran.

Morning Update (7:45 a.m. GMT; 2:45 a.m. Washington): The Kyrgyzstan Government is not backing down on its decision to close the US Manas airbase. President Kurmanbek Bakiyev said that "all due procedures" were being pursued for a speedy conclusion.

The Government is claiming that it receives too little payment for the base. In support of its case, and to ensure public support, it is also citing ecological concerns and highlighting the case of a Kyrgyz citizen killed by a US serviceman.

North Korea, offering a contrast to its hard-line rhetoric in recent days about relations with South Korea and its missile programme, has signalled to a former senior US diplomat that it is willing to discuss nuclear disarmament if its requests for aid are met.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has visited Iraq and praised the provincial elections, which we analysed in detail yesterday.

Obama vs. The Military (Part 2): The Battle for Iraq Continues

The US military, having fought Barack Obama since Day 2 of his Administration over withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, have now tipped their hand. They are seeking a 23-month limit on withdrawal, although there is a compromise proposal of 19 months also in play.



Genius/General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, and General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq, who both have been supporting and/or leading the opposition to Obama, are in favour of the longer timeframe. One of their leakers confirmed, "Odierno and Petraeus have said that we really need 23 months to do this without jeopardizing the security gains that we've secured."

How far are the military opponents of Obama pushing this? In their version of events, the President hasn't seen the alternative proposals, which means the media are being informed before the White House.

Obama's staff are holding the line that all the proposals have been tabled --- with the President getting an assessment from the military of the risks of each ---  but nothing has been decided: "There's been a very good back and forth in a very logical process that has allowed the president to hear from commanders and forces at all levels. Fact is that they are coming to a meeting of the minds on troops and on the need for a diplomatic and political strategy to end the war in Iraq and ease the strain on the troops and their families."

Obama vs. The Military: The Battle for Afghanistan Continues

The Pentagon continues to put pressure on President Obama to approve in full its request for additional troops in Afghanistan. The Department of Defense told media on Friday that the US was still on track for the build-up of five brigades, including three in the next few weeks, by summer.

Privately, however, Pentagon officials and the military are making their concerns known:

We need to get troops to Afghanistan soon because the spring fighting season begins in April. But there has been concern that a large initial deployment could force [the military's] hand in Iraq.

That is an interesting statement because it indicates the military has created a problem for itself: it is hard both to justify the rapid build-up in Afghanistan and opposition to the President's timetable for a drawdown of US forces in Iraq.

Expect Obama to play on that --- indeed, it is likely that he already has done so. But also expect the military to be even more vocal in public about its worries if the President doesn't give them part of their plan soon.