Category: War on Terror

The U.S. Department of Justice has revised its 2002 stances on torture, tightening restrictions on what is acceptable during interrogations.

American troops in Iraq will no longer be allowed to inflict “severe pain” while interrogating suspects after US justice officials broadened their controversial definition of torture in the wake of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

The Justice Department has quietly revised a previous legal memorandum which held that mistreatment amounted to torture only “if it produced severe pain equivalent to that associated with organ failure or death”.

The memorandum signalling the U-turn was posted unannounced on the Justice Department’s website on Thursday night. Human rights groups say the change amounts to a tacit admission that the previous definition was too loose and paved the way for the abuses of Iraqi prisoners by American troops at Abu Ghraib last year.

Trent Duffy, a spokesman for George W Bush, said that the Justice Department sought comments from the president’s office of legal counsel before pressing ahead with the changes. He said it was to “reiterate the president’s determination that the United States never engage in torture”.

I think the description “u-turn” is quite an exaggeration of what actually amounts to a scope change.

In fact, the president goes further than I personally would. I am against torture as being generally counter-productive and unwarranted but, were the situation dire enough, I would say all bets were off. I guess I’m not a fan of the word “never” when its usage places restrictions that may eventually have tragic consequences. This ties in with my opposition to ever taking the nuclear option off the table during any conflict or ruling out putting boots on the ground as needed.

Michael Ratner, the president of the US-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, which has sued the Bush administration over its interrogation policies, said that the redefinition “makes it clear that the earlier one was not just some intellectual theorising by some lawyers about what was possible. It means it must have been implemented in some way,” he said.

“It puts the burden on the administration to say what practices were actually put in place under those auspices.”

I disagree with Ratner here. It does not necessarily follow, though it is possible, that anything now restricted was actually implemented as policy, nor is there any requirement on the Bush administration to spell out any actual application of the now-altered policy.

In the original memorandum, which is devoted to a US convention against torture, officials from the Justice Department say that torture should cover only “extreme acts and severe pain”.

It adds: “When the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm.”

The new memo revises the definition to say that torture could include “severe physical pain” and “severe physical suffering”. It notes that physical suffering is difficult to define.

It also rejects an assertion in the original memo that torture could be said to occur only if the interrogator intended to cause the harm that resulted.

David Scheffer, a senior human rights official in the State Department during the Clinton administration, said that while the Justice Department’s revision exercise was commendable, it still left too many judgments in the hands of interrogators.

We are still fighting a civilized war against an uncivilized foe. That’s fine — let’s proceed with one hand potentially tied behind our back. However, if things go poorly, I’d rather a few later suffer the anguish of their actions than we willingly surrender our society for the sake of niceties.

Long an exporter of terror, in all reality if not officially, Saudi Arabia is increasingly having to deal with the Islamist bastards that it has allowed to spawn coming home to roost.

Islamic extremists set off bombs and battled with police in the Saudi capital Wednesday night, leaving nine militants and one bystander dead and causing oil prices to jump as the insurgents signaled they will keep up attacks despite the kingdom’s crackdown on al-Qaida.

A car bomb was detonated by remote control near the Interior Ministry in central Riyadh — killing a bystander, according to Saudi TV — followed soon after by an explosion when two suicide attackers tried to bomb a troop recruitment center.

The gunmen who set off the ministry blast fled, but then engaged in a gunbattle with police in northern Riyadh that killed seven militants and wounded an undetermined number of officers, police said.

The attacks came two weeks after al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden called on his followers to focus attacks on his homeland. While damage to the Interior Ministry was minor, it was a bold assault on the government body at the center of Saudi Arabia’s war on other Islamic extremists.

Prince Ahmed bin Abdel Aziz, the deputy interior minister, told Saudi TV the attackers were all Saudis. He said they were “terrorists (who) took a great risk, because they know that their end is imminent.”

Trust me, the end of Saudi terrorists is very far from imminent.

The first explosion went off around 8:30 p.m. near the Interior Ministry, a huge modern high-rise in a complex that includes a luxury hotel. Two militants set off a car bomb by remote control in a traffic tunnel near the ministry, police said. A limousine driver was killed, Saudi TV said.

….

A half hour later, a second explosion shook the city. Two suicide bombers tried to drive into a troop recruitment center about five miles away, but they came under fire from police and set off their explosives prematurely. The two bombers died, but there were no other reports of casualties.

The two militants behind the ministry blast, apparently joined by accomplices, later fought with police in a northern district of the capital. The gunmen, armed with automatic weapons and grenades, holed up in a building and were killed while fighting with officers who surrounded the structure, police said.

….

The explosions took place at night, when few employees were at the ministry or the recruitment center. Past militant attacks, including some claimed by al-Qaida, appeared designed to maximize casualties, but drew heavy criticism when many of the dead were Arab and Muslim.

It is interesting to see the extremists buckle slightly under public pressure. Perhaps they should employ some pollsters and focus groups.

Extremists have staged a number of attacks recently, but none on the scale of dramatic operations early this year and last year that killed dozens.

Early Wednesday, a suspected militant was killed in Riyadh after tossing a bomb and shooting at security agents, a security official said. On Tuesday, another suspect and a bystander were killed in a shootout in the same Riyadh neighborhood, an Interior Ministry official said. One suspect was captured in that incident.

The extremists’ biggest attack recently came Dec. 6, when militants said to belong to al-Qaida’s Saudi branch stormed the U.S. consulate in Jiddah, killing nine people.

Ten days later, bin Laden issued his audiotape — his first message in years directed specifically at Saudis. He praised those who carried out the consulate raid and urged his followers to attack the kingdom’s oil installations to weaken both the West and the Saudi royal family.

Saudi forces have cracked down on al-Qaida — killing and arresting a large number of its suspected top figures in the country — after the large attacks early in the year.

In May, gunmen attacked oil company compounds in Khobar, 250 miles northeast of Riyadh, and killed 22 people, 19 of them foreigners. Earlier the same month, attackers stormed the offices of an American company in Yanbu, 220 miles north of Jiddah, killing six Westerners and a Saudi.

On April 21, a suicide bomber struck a government building in Riyadh, killing five people. In November 2003, a suicide bombing at a Riyadh housing compound killed 17 people, most of them Muslims working in Saudi Arabia.

Long ago, the Saudis sold their souls, supporting terrorism abroad and allowing radicalism to fester at home. They now are seeing the bills coming due, and the longterm stability of the government must soon come into question if changes aren’t made at the very roots of Saudi society.

Oh my!

First, the Sunnis:

Iraq’s Top Sunni Party Withdraws from Jan. Election

Iraq’s top Sunni Muslim party said Monday it was withdrawing from Jan. 30 elections because relentless bloodshed would keep people from voting in the long dominant Sunni north and west.

“The Iraqi Islamic Party is withdrawing from the elections because we do not think the situation will improve in the next few weeks to give conditions for credible elections,” party Secretary-General Tareq al-Hashimi said.

Persistent violence in Sunni Arab cities, most of which are under curfew, has raised fears that voters there will be too intimidated to cast their ballots, skewing the poll in favor of Iraq’s 60-percent Shi’ite Muslim majority.

The Islamic Party’s list of 275 candidates would still appear on ballot papers which were already being printed, a spokesman for Iraq’s Electoral Commission told Reuters.

Farid Ayar said the Commission had received no formal request for withdrawal, but if it does, any votes cast for the Iraqi Islamic Party would be considered “invalid.”

The leading mainstream Sunni religious party, along with at least 16 other Sunni and secular parties, had threatened to boycott the poll unless it was postponed by up to six months to ensure that voters across the country could take part.

But most, including the Islamic Party itself, later fielded lists of candidates for the poll to elect a 275-seat National Assembly that will draft a constitution and appoint a cabinet.

Counter this with Secretary Powell:

Powell Says Next Iraqi Government Should Assure Sunni Representation

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says the transitional Iraqi government to be set up after next month’s elections will have to “find a way” to assure that Sunni Muslims are fairly represented. U.S. officials are concerned that the insurgency and a poor turnout by Sunnis could largely exclude them from a new national assembly.

Mr. Powell says there is no provision in Iraq’s Transitional Administrative Law for handing Sunnis seats in the new national assembly that they don’t win in the January 30 election.

But he is making clear the Bush administration’s view that Sunnis should have an adequate role in the new government that will be chosen by the assembly.

….

At a news conference here, Mr. Powell said the law provides only for the direct election of legislators, but that the government they choose should reflect the religious and ethnic makeup of the country:

“I think that for the government to be representative, and for the government to be effective, the transitional national assembly would certainly have to take into account the ethnic mix of the country, and find a way to make sure that all segments of the country believe that they are playing a proper role in the government. That’s the way the Iraqi Interim Government was formed and the current ministries operate, and it would seem to me to be sensible for the transitional government to do the same thing,” Mr. Powell says.

Iraq’s Shiites, who make up about 60 per cent of the population and were largely denied power under Saddam Hussein, are energetically campaigning in the elections.

….

Mr. Powell said having the election as scheduled January 30, with maximum participation, is essential. He said the United States is encouraging Sunnis to join in the effort, and to, in his words, “say no to terrorism, no to murder, and yes to democracy.”

He said as part of that effort, the United States is talking to other Arab governments, urging them to encourage Iraqi Sunni leaders to turn out the vote.

And then there’s the sonofabitch bin Laden:

Osama Bid to Hijack Vote

Terror chief Osama Bin Laden has made a blatant bid to destroy Iraq’s elections.

In a chilling audiotape broadcast yesterday, the al-Qaeda leader urged all Iraqi Muslims to boycott the poll on January 30.

Bin Laden also said he was PLEASED with the “gallant work” of evil terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — the man responsible for beheading 62-year-old British hostage Ken Bigley.

The tape was aired by Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera and the voice seemed to be Bin Laden’s.

He tells Iraqis: “This constitution is infidel and therefore everyone who participates in this election will be considered infidels.

“Beware of henchmen who speak in the name of Islamic parties and urge people to participate in the election.”

Bin Laden goes on to describe al-Zarqawi as the “emir of al-Qaeda in Iraq” and urges Muslims there “to listen to him”.

Jordanian al-Zarqawi and his henchmen are responsible for numerous car bombings and beheadings of foreign hostages.

If Osama’s recent releases are anything to judge by, there are two things he is concerned for — his life and his movement. These concerns are driven by two fears, and those are President Bush and progress towards a return to civilization by the world of Islam. He tried but failed to sway the U.S. to reject Bush, and now he is working to persuade the Iraqi people to reject democracy. Osama knows all too well that a free and prosperous society, even in a Moslem nation, will not willingly turn back the clock the centuries his beliefs require. Instead, such a society could potentially shine like the Lighthouse of Alexandria to the surrounding peoples. This could be more of an end of Osama than his death ever could be.

It is important that the January elections go forward, and every terroristic action stresses this importance. That said, ideally the results of the elections would represent the will of the Iraqi people. With the election scheduled for a little over a month away, possibilities are still being considered to counter those working for the Saddamist past or an Islamist alternative future, including this.

Iraq’s electoral commission is considering setting aside seats in the country’s national assembly for Sunni Arab politicians and other groups if their supporters don’t vote in the country’s Jan. 30 elections for fear of attacks by insurgents, a U.S. official said Sunday.

Authorities are looking to counter the effects of threats by insurgents, who have vowed to attack voters and polling stations, said Marine Maj. Jim West, intelligence operations officer for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Fallujah.

The prospect of attacks and intimidation has led some Iraqis, especially in Sunni areas west of Baghdad, to say they’re too afraid to vote. Particularly at issue is the Sunni-dominated Anbar province, where the insurgents are strong.

“They’re trying to find out several different courses of action to ensure that the Sunni population is not disenfranchised from the government,” West said. “That is to ensure that even if the insurgents are able to stop the election process in one area, that these people will still be represented.”

The New York Times first reported the idea in its Sunday editions, citing an anonymous western diplomat who said the option had been presented to an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, an influential Shiite cleric who has urged Shiites to take part in the vote.

Shiites comprise about 60 percent of Iraq’s population, with Kurds and Sunni Arabs making up 20 percent each. Some American and Iraqi leaders fear the legitimacy of the election would be jeopardized if Sunnis don’t vote.

West said the electoral commission was particularly worried about the Anbar province, which includes the restive cities of Ramadi and Fallujah. He stressed that it was up to Iraq’s electoral commission and government to decide how to handle the vote, and the idea was one of many the interim Iraqi government was considering.

Fallujah was emptied before a U.S.-led invasion that began Nov. 8 to root out the insurgents who had overrun the city. The government allowed people to start returning to some neighborhoods in the devastated city days ago as part of their bid to get Fallujah resettled for the vote.

West said Iraqi leaders were still working to ensure that all major population centers take part in the vote. He said American and Iraqi officials had talked about the 1st Marine Expeditionary force helping with security by giving local officials intelligence information, setting up cordons and “outer security,” and providing more training to make sure polling places are safe.

The United States does not want to have a visible presence at polling stations for fear that people would see the vote as an American, not Iraqi, process.

“It’s an Iraqi election and the Iraqis need to conduct this election and want to conduct this election on their own,” West said. “We’re willing to help however they would like our help but we are not trying to get more involved by any means more than what they feel like they need.”

West also said people in Fallujah need not register beforehand. Many Iraqis are on population lists compiled for a rationing system worked out under the U.N. oil-for-food program, and he said people could become eligible to vote by showing up on polling day and validating their name on those lists.

I have little, if any, initial objections to such a move. The vote has to go forward to get the government into Iraqi hands and I’m not afraid of little hurdles that allow this. I’ll mull it over a bit while the situation develops, but the Iraqi people need to get their hands on a say in their government and their country’s direction. That is the best hope for their future.

Looking for evidence of foreign involvement in Iraq’s troubles? There’s this pathetic tale.

For weeks, Mohammed Ahmed Abdul-Rahman could only wonder where his son had gone. Then the mystery was solved in a will.

“I am in Iraq, seeking martyrdom. I hope we are all forgiven,” Abdul-Rahman quoted his son’s will as reading, saying in a weekend interview that an unknown caller from Jordan had told him how to find the document three weeks after 20-year-old Hossam Abdul-Rahman vanished in September. He said he doesn’t know whether his son is dead.

While only a few cases of Yemenis going to Iraq to fight have been documented, security officials say they are keeping a close eye on travelers leaving this country at the tip of the Arabian peninsula, where Islamic teaching is strong.

Abdul-Rahman has taken the rare step of going public with his story, and is accusing Islamic extremists of brainwashing his university son.

Although its government supports the U.S.-led war on terror, Yemen has long been a center of Islamic militancy, and has suffered several attacks and bombings in recent years. The security officials say they are trying to determine whether Yemeni individuals or groups were financing trips to Iraq or helping with travel logistics.

A group of Yemeni clerics recently endorsed a call by 26 Saudi religious leaders to support the insurgency in Iraq, saying the attacks on U.S.-led forces are a legitimate form of resistance.

An Islamic activist in the capital said that while he was not aware of any direct attempts by Islamic groups to recruit Yemeni fighters to go to Iraq, he was supportive of such travel.

“I support it, because it is a duty. They are going to fight occupiers of Arab and Muslim land,” said Ali al-Kurdi. “Any Muslim who is hesitant in helping Iraqis is a sinner.”

He said recent reports in the local media have encouraged others to make the trip.

According to figures compiled by The Associated Press, there have been at least 12 cases of Yemeni men who have made their way into Iraq. The security officials said that three people suspected of trying to join the insurgency in Iraq were detained at the airport. Others are reported to have died in Iraq.

Authorities watching for travelers to Iraq are focusing on those leaving for Syria and Jordan, security officials said. Yemenis don’t need visas to travel to either country, which both neighbor Iraq.

Sadly, some could read this and still believe the war against radical Islamic terror should solely be about Osama bin Laden.

In a fast reaction to yesterday’s bombings, Iraqi authorities have rounded up 50 suspects, including some said to be rather unusual.

Iraqi authorities detained 50 suspects in connection with an explosion in the Shia holy city of Najaf that killed at least 54 people and wounded 142, and thousands of mourners attended funerals for the victims on Monday.

Najaf police chief Ghalib al-Jazaari said those arrested included “elements” who had allegedly confessed to having links with the intelligence services of neighbouring Syria and Iran.

This is no proof positive of the oft-denied involvement of Iraq’s neighbors in the country’s struggles. However, the circumstantial evidence mounts, providing more and more support to the obvious conclusion.