Tomgram: Rebecca Gordon, Justice for Torturers?
If you happen to be a potential American war criminal, you've had a few
banner weeks. On May 9th, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter presented former
Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger with the
Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award, that institution's “highest
honorary award for private citizens.” In bestowing it on the 92-year-old
who is evidently still consulting for the Pentagon, he offered this praise:
“While his contributions are far from complete, we are now beginning to
appreciate what his service has provided our country, how it has changed the
way we think about strategy, and how he has helped provide greater security for
our citizens and people around the world.”
Certainly people “around the world” will remember the “greater security”
offered by the man who, relaying an order from President Richard Nixon for a
“massive” secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, used a line that
may almost be the definition of a war crime: “Anything that flies on anything
that moves.” The result: half
a million tons of bombs dropped on that country between 1969 and 1973 and at
least 100,000 dead civilians. And that’s just to start down the
well-cratered road to the millions of
dead he undoubtedly has some responsibility for. Public service indeed.
Meanwhile, speaking of American crimes in the Vietnam era, former
Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, who ran for president of the U.S. and then became
the president of the New School in New York City, was just appointed to
“lead” Fulbright University Vietnam, the first private American-backed school
there. Its opening was announced by
President Obama on his recent visit to that country. Only one small
problem: we already know of some children who won’t be able to apply for
admission. I’m thinking of the progeny-who-never-were of the 13 children
killed by a team of U.S. SEALs under Kerrey’s command and on his orders in
South Vietnam in 1969 (along with a pregnant woman, and an elderly couple whose
three grandchildren were stabbed to death by the raiders) -- all of whom were
reported at the time as dead Vietcong guerillas.
Crimes of the War on Terror
Should George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Others Be Jailed?
By Rebecca Gordon
"The cold was terrible but the screams were worse," Sara
Mendez told the
BBC. "The screams of those who were being tortured were the first thing
you heard and they made you shiver. That's why there was a radio blasting day
and night."
In the 1970s, Mendez was a young Uruguayan teacher with leftist
leanings. In 1973, when the military seized power in her country (a few months
before General Augusto Pinochet’s more famous coup in Chile), Mendez fled to
Argentina. She lived there in safety until that country suffered its own coup in
1976. That July, a joint Uruguayan-Argentine military commando group kidnapped
her in Buenos Aires and deposited her at Automotores Orletti, a former auto
repair shop that would become infamous as a torture site and paramilitary
command center. There she was indeed tortured, and there, too, her torturers
stole her 20-day-old baby, Simón, giving him to a policeman’s family to raise.
Mendez was an early victim of Operation Condor, a torture
and assassination program focused on the region’s leftists that, from 1975 to
1986, would spread terror across Latin America’s southern cone. On May 27th, an
Argentine court convicted 14
military officers of crimes connected with Operation Condor, issuing prison
sentences ranging from 13 to 25 years. Among those sentenced was Reynaldo
Bignone, Argentina’s last military dictator, now 88. (He held power from 1982
to 1983.)
Those convictions are deeply satisfying to the surviving victims and
their families, to the legal teams that worked for more than a decade on the
case, and to human rights organizations around the world. And yet, as just as
this outcome is, it has left me with questions -- questions about the length of
time between crime and conviction, and about what kinds of justice can and
cannot be achieved through prosecutions alone.
Operation Condor
Operation Condor was launched by the security forces of five military
dictatorships: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia. Brazil soon
joined, as did Ecuador and Peru eventually. As a Cold War anti-communist
collaboration among the police, military, and intelligence services of those
eight governments, Condor offered an enticing set of possibilities. The various
services could not only cooperate, but pursue their enemies in tandem across
national borders. Indeed, its reach stretched as far as Washington, D.C., where
in 1976 its operatives assassinated former
Chilean ambassador to the U.S. Orlando Letelier and his young assistant, Ronni
Moffitt, both of whom then worked at the Institute for Policy Studies, a
left-wing think tank.
How many people suffered grievously or died due to Operation Condor? A
definitive number is by now probably beyond recovery, but records from Chile’s
secret police suggest that by itself Argentina’s “dirty war” --
the name given to the Argentine junta’s reign of terror, “disappearances,” and
torture -- took the lives of 22,000 people between 1975 and 1978. Thousands
more are thought to have died before that country’s dictatorship ended in 1983.
It’s generally believed that
at least another 3,000 people died under the grimmest of circumstances in
Chile, while thousands more were tortured but lived. And although its story is
less well known, the similar reign of terror of the Uruguayan dictatorship
directly affected the lives of almost every family in the country. As Lawrence
Wechsler wrote in
a 1989 article in the New Yorker:
“By 1980, one in every fifty Uruguayans had been detained at some point,
and detention routinely involved torture; one in every five hundred had
received a sentence of six years or longer under conditions of extreme
difficulty; and somewhere between three hundred thousand and four hundred
thousand Uruguayans went into exile. Comparable percentages for the United
States would involve the emigration of thirty million people, the detention of
five million, and the extended incarceration of five hundred thousand.”
And what was the U.S. role in Operation Condor? Washington did not (for
once) plan and organize this transnational program of assassination and
torture, but its national security agencies were certainly involved, as
declassified Defense Department communications indicate. In
his book The Condor
Years, Columbia University journalism professor John
Dinges reported that
the CIA provided training for Chile’s secret police, computers for Condor’s
database, telex machines and encoders for its secret communications, and
transmitters for its private, continent-wide radio communications network.
Chilean Colonel Manuel Contreras, one of Condor’s chief architects (who was
then on the CIA payroll), met with CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters four
times. And what did the CIA get in return? Among other things, access to the
“results” of interrogation under torture, according to Dinges. "Latin
American intelligence services," he added, “considered U.S. intelligence agencies their allies and provided timely
and intimate details of their repressive activities. I have obtained three
documents establishing that information obtained under torture, from prisoners
who later were executed and disappeared, were provided to the CIA, the FBI and
the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency). There is no question that the U.S.
officials were aware of the torture.”
Justice Delayed
Why did it take 40 years to bring the architects of Operation Condor to
justice? A key factor: for much of that time, it was illegal in Argentina to
put them on trial. In the first years of the new civilian government, the
Argentine congress passed two laws that granted these men immunity from
prosecution for crimes committed in the dirty war. Only in 2005 did that
country’s supreme court rule that those impunity laws were
unconstitutional. Since then, many human rights crimes have been
prosecuted. Indeed, Reynaldo Bignone, the former dictator, was already in jail
when sentenced in May for his role in Operation Condor. He had been convicted
in 2010 of kidnapping, torture, and murder in the years of the dirty war. As of
March, Argentina’s Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) had recorded 666
convictions for participation in the crimes of that era.
But there’s a question that can’t help but arise: What’s the point of
bringing such old men to trial four decades later? How could justice delayed
for that long be anything but justice denied?
One answer is that, late as they are, such trials still establish
something that all the books and articles in the world can’t: an official record
of the terrible crimes of Operation Condor. This is a crucial step in the
process of making its victims, and the nations involved, whole again. As a
spokesperson for CELStold the Wall
Street Journal, “Forty years after Operation Condor was formally founded,
and 16 years after the judicial investigation began, this trial produced
valuable contributions to knowledge of the truth about the era of state
terrorism and this regional criminal network.”
It took four decades to get those convictions. Theoretically at
least, Americans wouldn’t have to wait that long to bring our own war criminals
to account. I’ve spent the last few years of my life arguing that
this country must find a way to hold accountable officials responsible for
crimes in the so-called war on terror. I don’t want the victims of those
crimes, some of whom are still locked
up, to wait another 40 years for justice.
Nor do I want the United States to continue its slide
into a brave new world, in which any attack on a possible enemy anywhere or any
curtailment of our own liberties is permitted as long as it makes us feel
“secure.” It’s little wonder that the presumptive Republican presidential
candidate feels free to run around promising yet more torture and murder. After
all, no one’s been called to account for the last round. And when there is no
official acknowledgement of, or accountability for, the waging of
illegal war, international
kidnapping operations, the indefinite
detention without prospect of trial of prisoners
at Guantánamo,and, of course, torture, there
is no reason not to do it all over again. Indeed, according to Pew Research
Center polls, Americans are nowmore willing to
agree that torture is sometimes justified than they were in the years
immediately following the 9/11 attacks.
Torture and the U.S. Prison System
In a recent piece of mine, I focused on
Abu Zubaydah, a prisoner the CIA tortured horribly, falsely claiming he was a
top al-Qaeda operative, knew about a connection between Saddam Hussein and
al-Qaeda, and might even have trained some of the 9/11 pilots. “In another kind
of world,” I wrote, Abu Zubaydah “would be exhibit one in the war crimes trials
of America’s top leaders and its major intelligence agency.” Although none of
the charges against him proved true, he is still held in isolation at
Guantánamo.
Then something surprising happened. I received an email message from
someone I’d heard of but never met. Joseph Margulies was the lead counsel in Rasul v. Bush, the
first (and unsuccessful) attempt to get the Supreme Court to allow prisoners at
Guantánamo to challenge their detention in federal courts. He is also one of
Abu Zubaydah’s defense attorneys.
He directed me to an article of his, “War Crimes in
a Punitive Age,” that mentioned my Abu Zubaydah essay. I’d gotten
the facts of the case right, he assured me, but added, “I suspect we are not in
complete agreement” on the issue of what justice for his client should look
like. As he wrote in his piece,
”There is no question that Zubaydah was the victim of war crimes. The
entire CIA black site program [the Agency’s Bush era secret prisons around the
world] was a global conspiracy to evade and violate international and domestic
law. Yet I am firmly convinced there should be no war crimes prosecutions. The
call to prosecute is the Siren Song of the carceral state -- the very
philosophy we need to dismantle.”
In other words, one of the leading legal opponents of everything the war
on terror represents is firmly opposed to the idea of prosecuting officials of
the Bush administration for war crimes (though he has not the slightest doubt
that they committed them). Margulies agrees that the crimes against Abu
Zubaydah were all too real and “grave” indeed, and that “society must make its
judgment known.” He asks, however, “Why do we believe a criminal trial is
the only way for society to register its moral voice?”
He doubts that such trials are the best way to do so, fearing that by
placing all the blame for the events of those years on a small number of
criminal officials, the citizens of an (at least nominally) democratic country
could be let off the hook for a responsibility they, too, should share.
After all, it’s unlikely the war on terror could have continued year after year
without the support -- or at least the lack of interest or opposition -- of the
citizenry.
Margulies, in other words, raises important questions. When people
talk about bringing someone to justice they usually imagine a trial, a
conviction, and perhaps most important, punishment. But he has reminded me of
my own longstanding ambivalence about the equation between punishment and
justice.
Even as we call for accountability for war criminals, we shouldn’t
forget that we live in the country that jails the largest
proportion of its own population (except for the Seychelles
islands), and that holds the largest number of prisoners in the world. Abuse
and torture -- including rape, sexual humiliation,
beatings, and prolonged
exposure to extremes of heat and cold -- are routine
realities of the U.S. prison system. Solitary confinement -- presently being experienced by
at least 80,000 people in our prisons and immigrant detention centers -- should
also be considered a potentially psychosis-inducing form of torture.
Every nation that institutionalizes torture, as the United States has
done, selects specific groups of people as legitimate targets for its
application. In the days of Operation Condor, Chilean torturers called their
victims “humanoids” to distinguish them from actual human beings. Surely,
though, the United States hasn’t done that? Surely, there’s no history of the
torture of particular groups? Sadly, of course, such a history does exist, and
like so many things in this country, it’s all about race.
The practice of torture in the U.S. didn’t start with those post-9/11 “enhanced interrogation techniques,” nor
with the Vietnam War’s Phoenix
Program, nor even with the nineteenth century U.S. war in the
Philippines. It began when European settlers first treated native
peoples and enslaved Africans as subhuman savages. As southern farmers started
importing captured Africans to augment their supply of indentured English
labor, they quickly realized that there was little incentive for those slaves
to work -- none but the pain of whippings, mutilations, and brandings, and the
threat of yet more pain. Torture and slavery, in other words, were fused at the
root. From the first arrival of black people on this continent, it has been
permissible, even legal, to torture them.
And it didn’t stop with emancipation. After the end of slavery, southern
states began the practice of convict leasing -- arresting former slaves and
then their descendants, often on trumped-up charges, and renting them out as
labor to farmers and later coal mine owners who had the power and legal right
to whip and abuse them as they chose.
Then there’s lynching. Many
people think of it as an extrajudicial death by hanging. As it was
practiced in the Jim Crow South, however, it was a form of public,
state-approved torture, often involving the castration or disembowelment of the
living victim, sometimes followed by death by fire.
Lynching thus continued the practice of treating black minds and bodies as
legitimate targets of torture. So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that, of the
more than two million prisoners in the United States today, 40% are black,
while the U.S. population is only 13% black.
Here’s the problem, then. When we say that putting George W. Bush, Dick
Cheney, and other top officials in their administration in prison for war
crimes would be justice, we endorse a criminal justice system that is more
criminal than just, and where torture is a daily occurrence.
Do we want to do to Bush, Cheney, and their accomplices essentially what
they did to their victims? There is, of course, a certain appeal to the
idea of someday seeing such powerful white men among the suffering, tortured
millions in our prison system, or even -- like the supposed “dirty bomber”José Padilla and
Abu Zubaydah -- in perpetual solitary confinement.
And yet, would this truly provide even a facsimile of justice, given
that American prisons are hardly instruments of justice to begin with? Those
opposed to the acts at the heart of America’s never-ending war on terror were
heartened when President Obama ordered the
CIA “black sites”
dismantled globally. We continue to demand the closing of Guantánamo (something
that looks increasingly unlikely to happen in his presidency). How, then, can
we find justice through a prison system that uses similar methods on an
everyday basis here in the U.S.?
Forty Years to Go?
And then, of course, there is the question: Whom should justice truly
serve?
The first answer is: the victims of the "war on terror,"
including those who were tortured, those detained without trial, the civilian
"collateral damage" of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and
the "unintended"
victims of drone assassinations. Then there are all
those in the rest of the world who have to live with the threat of a
nuclear-armed superpower that has in these years regularly refused to recognize
the most basic aspects of the rule of law.
Many who work with survivors of organized repression like Operation
Condor say that their primary desire is not the punishment of their oppressors
but official acknowledgement of what happened to them. In his New
Yorker article, Wechsler, for instance, pointed out that, for the victims of
torture, accountability may not be identical to punishment at all.
“People don't necessarily insist that the former torturers go to jail --
there has been enough of jail -- but they do want to see the truth
established... It's a mysteriously powerful, almost magical notion, because
often everybody already knows the truth -- everyone knows who the torturers
were and what they did, the torturers know that everyone knows, and everyone
knows that they know.”
Seeing “the truth established” was the purpose behind South Africa’s
post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Torturers and murderers on both sides of the anti-apartheid struggle were
offered amnesty for their crimes -- but only after they openly acknowledged
those crimes. In this way, a public record of the horrors of apartheid was
built, and imperfect as the process may have been, the nation was able to
confront its history.
That is the kind of reckoning we need in this country. It started with
the release of a summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on
the CIA’s torture program, which brought many brutal details into the light.
But that’s just the beginning. We would need a full and public accounting not just
of the CIA’s activities, but of the doings of other military and civilian
agencies and outfits, including the Joint Special Operations Command. We also
would need a full-scale airing of the White House’s drone assassination
program, and perhaps most important of all, a full accounting of the illegal,
devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Justice would also require -- to the extent possible -- making whole
those who had been harmed. In the case of the “war on terror,” this might begin
by allowing torture victims to sue their torturers in federal court (as the
U.N. Convention against Torture requires). With one exception, the
Obama administration has until now blocked all such efforts on national
security grounds. In the case of the Iraq War, justice would undoubtedly also
require financial reparations to repair the infrastructure of what was once a
modern, developed nation.
We’re unlikely to see justice in the “war on terror” until that cruel
and self-defeating exercise is well and truly over and the country has
officially acknowledged and accounted for its crimes. Let’s hope it doesn’t
take another 40 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.