Max's Politburo

The American casualty of Abu Ghraib?

Spare a few moments to ponder the fate of an all-but forgotten Charles Graner, notorious torturer at Abu Ghraib.  Injustice has many faces, and this one is hard to get to grips with but noteworthy indeed...

The full story is here, courtesy of Salon.com.  An excerpt: 

The detainee held on charges related to the so-called war on terror is clad in an orange jumpsuit. His wrists are shackled to a leather belt cinched tight around his waist. A short chain connects his ankles, so he can only shuffle down the barren hallways of the prison, escorted by a guard at each arm.

[…] You remember [Charles] Graner, the alleged ringleader of abuse at Abu Ghraib who showed up in those harrowing photos back in 2004.

He has spent more than 29 months in solitary confinement over the past four years, allowed out of his narrow cell during some of that period only to stretch his legs, alone, for one hour a day. In solitary, he has almost no contact with other human beings. He is allowed no radio, no TV and, in a disorienting twist, no watch or calendar to mark the brutal grind of passing time.

[…] it is easy to argue that Graner deserves whatever he gets.  Graner is now the only person involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal who is still behind bars.

[…] 
Years of revelations, however, show that the prisoner abuse started at the top, yet nobody who ordered the abuse has ever been tried or convicted of anything. The Army convicted a handful of soldiers from Abu Ghraib in courts-martial focused almost exclusively on acts captured by the soldiers' own digital cameras, not on policy decisions from above. As the nation prepares to change presidents, the administration that sanctioned, encouraged or ordered the abuse of prisoners taken in the war on terror is about to leave office, having long ago decided that no one in a position of authority will be held accountable.

The Bashir indictment: what a terrible idea

Yesterday, amid much feel-good righteousness from Western op-ed commentators, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, accused Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. 

Dictators don't come much nastier than Bashir, and the accusations in the indictment are undoubtedly true.  And yet the ICC's move is an incredibly bad idea.  In fact it's reckless and may have lasting consequences for the authority of the court and other 'indepdendent' international institutions.

The ICC was created to seek justice for crimes against humanity, independently and without concern for politics.  But being apolitical does not mean taking no account of the political impact of its actions.  With this indictment, the ICC has politicized itself and -- in standing up for its independence -- may end up losing it.

There was an enlightening piece in Sunday's Observer (before the indictment was released) by Julie Flint and Alex de Waal on the likely ramifications of this move.  Worth a read, but my interpretation is here:

Bashir's is the first ICC indictment against a sitting head of state.  There are two ICC arrest warrants outstanding for members of his government.  The day after the announcement, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is quoted as asking Bashir to cooperate with the UN.  Who is he kidding?  From Bashir's perspective the international community is clearly out to get him. Whatever shred of cooperation he may have offered before will now evaporate.

What are the possible outcomes of an arrest warrant being issued for Bashir?  He turns himself in?  Not likely.  He is arrested?  Virtually impossible.  He snubs his nose, retrenches and defies everyone?  Certainly.  So, what will be the ramifications of the ICC indictment?  Pick your favourites from the list:

1. The ICC loses credibility because its most high profile indictment of the year is defied and ignored.
2. The ICC damages its neutrality because Muslim countries will (wrongly) interpret this indictment against a head of state as motivated by Western persecution.
3. The UN forces in Darfur, already under attack by the Janjaweed (7 soldiers killed on Tuesday), are further isolated and become totally ineffective.  All semblance of cooperation from the government ends.
4. Relief workers may be threatened and UN humanitarian flights, which depend on Sudan government clearance, become disrupted.
5. The fragile north-south peace agreement, which relies partly on the successful arbitration of The Hague's Permanent Court to define boundaries in the Abyei region, comes under pressure and risks breaking.
6. Other regional leaders make a mental note not to cooperate with the court and other international institutions.

What worked well for the ICC in the cases of Charles Taylor and Slobodan Milosevic is that these guys were either being military expelled from power or were already ex-dictators on the run.  No one cares if an ex-dictator is hauled before the court and locked up.  But that possibility is in itself some deterrent for existing dictators, eg that there may be justice once you step down. 

But indicting a sitting head of state will always be perceived as a political act by half the world.  And it will never lead to an arrest, weakening the authority of the Court.  But now the cat is out of the bag... 

Teenagers at Guantanamo

For a few years post-9/11 the US had the benefit of the doubt.  Bush was given pretty wide latitude to interpret US laws aggressively in order to pursue the war on terror.  Most countries were happy to turn a blind eye -- even collaborate -- with the CIA's rendition programme and other tactics by this deeply aggrieved nation.  But this article in Salon.com reminds us just how far this has gone, and why that goodwill has been so squandered...  Here's an excerpt:

June 24, 2008 | GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba -- When Mohammed Jawad took the stand in a courtroom at the U.S. Naval base here late last week, he described a litany of abuse he has endured while detained at Guantánamo, including a sleep deprivation regime known colloquially as the "frequent flyer" program.

"Day and night, they were shifting me from one room to another room," Jawad said. "I don't remember how much time I slept, but it was only a short time before they were knocking on my door and shifting me from place to place. No one answered me why they were giving me this punishment."

Military records showed that during a 14-day period in May 2004, Jawad was moved from cell to cell 112 times, usually left in one cell for less than three hours before being shackled and moved to another. Between midnight and 2 a.m. he was moved more frequently to ensure maximum disruption of sleep.

Such tactics used against a detainee would have been severe under any circumstances -- Department of Defense guidance limits sleep deprivation to a maximum of four days -- but in the case of Jawad, they are particularly disturbing because he was a scared and suicidal teenager at the time. Jawad's military-appointed lawyer, Maj. David Frakt, described the tactics as "sadistic and pointless," and moved to dismiss the charges against his client on grounds of torture.

Jawad was arrested by Afghan police in December 2002 after allegedly throwing a grenade into a U.S. army vehicle in Afghanistan that severely injured two U.S. soldiers and their Afghan translator. Frakt argues that Jawad was drugged and forced to fight with Afghan militia. Jawad doesn't know his exact birth date, but was 16 or 17 years old at the time. In early 2003, he was brought to Guantánamo.

According to government records obtained by the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, more than 20 detainees under the age of 18 have been brought to the prison camp since 2002. The treatment of underage prisoners at Guantánamo, largely in defiance of international law, is one of various ways in which the Bush administration's policies have tainted prospects for Guantánamo detainees ever to be brought to justice under U.S. law.

Although most of the 20 juvenile detainees have now been released, three remain, having spent more than a quarter of their lives at Guantánamo. The other two juvenile detainees were each only 15 years old when they were apprehended. Mohammad El Gharani was arrested at a mosque in Pakistan and brought to Guantánamo in early 2002. Omar Khadr, a Canadian, was apprehended in July 2002 after a firefight in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of a U.S. soldier. Held for several months in Afghanistan, he was barely 16 when he arrived here later that same year.

Vengeful justice breeds radicals

How on earth do two wrongs make a right here??

The wife of one of the failed July 21 suicide bombers was jailed for 15 years yesterday for keeping secret details of his plot to cause carnage on the London Underground.

Yeshi Girma, 32, who has three children by the bomber Hussein Osman, wept throughout the hearing at the Old Bailey and threw her hands in the air as the sentence was handed down.

Her sister, Mulu Girma, 24, a model, and brother, Esayas Girma, 22, were each jailed for ten years for helping Osman to escape a police manhunt and withholding information from the authorities.

Judge Paul Worsley told the three siblings that the sentences he was able to pass by law were "woefully inadequate to reflect the enormity of what you were about in July 2005".

How does locking up Yeshi Girma help in any way?  All I see is three radicalised children growing up without a mother, aunt or uncle...

Is her sentence a deterrent to other young plotters' wives?  I doubt it.