The government’s plans for an inquiry into the UK’s role in torture and rendition after 9/11 are in disarray after human rights groups queued up to denounce it as a sham and lawyers for the victims said they were boycotting the hearings.
Their anger was prompted by the publication of the detailed terms of references and protocols under which the inquiry will be run by Sir Peter Gibson, a retired judge. It showed that key hearings will be held in secret and the cabinet secretary will have the ultimate say over what the public will and will not learn.
Individuals subjected to rendition and torture during the so-called war on terror will not be permitted to ask questions of MI5 or MI6 officers and the inquiry will not seek any evidence from foreign intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, about British involvement in the torture and abuse of detainees.
The protocol states that the aim is to “establish a reliable account of what happened”, but critics point out that it also says the inquiry “will not request evidence from the authorities of other countries or their personnel”.
There are also doubts about how far the inquiry will go to uncover evidence about operations in which British troops secretly rendered detainees to prisons where they were likely to be abused.
And in the US
In August, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder — under continuous, aggressive prodding by the Obama White House — announced that three categories of individuals responsible for Bush-era torture crimes would be fully immunized from any form of criminal investigation and prosecution: (1) Bush officials who ordered the torture (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld); (2) Bush lawyers who legally approved it (Yoo, Bybee, Levin), and (3) those in the CIA and the military who tortured within the confines of the permission slips they were given by those officials and lawyers (i.e., “good-faith” torturers). The one exception to this sweeping immunity was that low-level CIA agents and servicemembers who went so far beyond the torture permission slips as to basically commit brutal, unauthorized murder would be subject to a “preliminary review” to determine if a full investigation was warranted — in other words, the Abu Ghraib model of justice was being applied, where only low-ranking scapegoats would be subject to possible punishment while high-level officials would be protected.
Yesterday, it was announced that this “preliminary review” by the prosecutor assigned to conduct it, U.S. Attorney John Durham, is now complete, and — exactly as one would expect — even this category of criminals has been almost entirely protected, meaning a total legal whitewash for the Bush torture regime:
The Justice Department has opened full criminal investigations of the deaths in CIA custody of two detainees, including one who perished at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. officials said Thursday.
The decision, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., means continued legal jeopardy for several CIA operatives but at the same time closes the book on inquiries that potentially threatened many others. A federal prosecutor reviewed 101 cases in which agency officers and contractors interrogated suspected terrorists during years of military action after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but found cause to pursue criminal cases in only two. . . .
So really what is there to say? If you enjoy inflicting pain, manipulating people, raping and killing people, then opt for a career in the military or intelligence. You will also be able to sell your ‘skills’ as a mercenary later. You will not only be protected from the law, you will be rewarded, only fools indulge in such practices of torture and murder in the civil sphere where they may be caught and subject to criminal trial (often as ‘serial killers’ to a salivating media, who oddly when it is an official person doing the same acts lose all interest in the case), nope, go the official route and you will be tickey-boo.
Of course this also has two important effects, firstly it is entirely intentional that we torture and thus create more anger and enemies, our security establishment must engage in job creation and this is the surest route, we will be killing a hundred years from now from seeds sown now. Secondly, other than it playing into the hands of our bloodthirsty establishment, I cannot condemn anyone for using lethal force in self defence against known and remorseless torturers. Barring our countries being invaded and surrendering to an occupying force we will not see our war criminals held to account.
So that’s your enlightenment Western superiority for you in a nutshell.
