All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's anti-war radio.
Our next guest on the show is Laura Pitter.
She is counterterrorism advisor in human rights watches, terrorism and counterterrorism program monitors, analyzes, and writes on us.
Counterterrorism policies is a lawyer formerly worked for the United nations in both Bosnia and in Afghanistan after the current war there started.
And, um, human rights watch has this new report out.
Um, in fact, uh, well, let's see, first of all, the report is called getting away with torture.
And, uh, the press release is United States investigate Bush other top officials for torture.
So welcome to the show.
How are you doing today, Laura?
I'm fine.
Thank you for having me.
Well, I really appreciate you joining us here.
And this is the bottom line, right?
Is that human rights watch is officially as a NGO, uh, recommending as a policy that the leaders of the previous, uh, presidential administration, uh, be criminally investigated for torture.
That's correct.
There's now, um, really an overwhelming amount of evidence that basically, you know, shows that the Bush administration and senior level officials were involved in authorizing the use of torture.
And the Obama administration to his credit, he did ban torture and closed down the CIA program when he took office, but did not go far enough in actually investigating and prosecuting the authorization of these techniques.
Okay.
Now, uh, recently, uh, the justice department, uh, announced, well, I'll let you, uh, explain it, uh, legally the, the two cases that are being pursued somehow, exactly.
So, yeah, the inquiry that, um, that you're talking about is the Durham inquiry and it was an investigation into CIA abuse cases.
The initial investigation was going to be about a hundred cases.
And in the end they decided to investigate just two.
And the problem with that inquiry is that it was always too limited in scope.
It always just was going to look at abuses that occurred one in just the CIA detention program and two abuses that went beyond what was authorized by the administration.
The problem is that what was authorized was actually torture.
And so when Bush administration officials authorized the use of these techniques that amounted to torture, that's really where the criminal liability.
Is, um, now on that specific part of the story, uh, the, the two are, uh, two people who were murdered in the custody of the CIA or died in the custody of the CIA under a different circumstance from each other.
But anyway, uh, where they're saying that they might pursue that just the preliminary step has been passed and now they might pursue an actual criminal investigation on these two.
But, um, is it your understanding that it was only two that died in CIA custody and the other hundred and something that, uh, Colonel Larry Wilkerson and General Barry McCraffery and others have talked about, uh, all died in the custody of the U S military?
I mean, that was, like I said, that was one of the problems.
There were hundreds of other, uh, abuse cases that occurred outside the CIA program, but it is your understanding then that the CIA only murdered those two.
Well, you know, you can't say murder yet because they haven't been convicted, but they died in during CIA custody.
So the others were all supposedly allegedly in military custody.
Not all.
I don't think all of them, but, um, they were definitely more than two who died in U S custody, whether it was military or CIA.
I see.
Okay.
And now, and, and there were hundreds that were not, they weren't, they didn't necessarily die, but they were, you know, abused in really horrific ways that, um, they're now, you know, some of them are released and trying to rebuild their lives, but they were, in addition to being, you know, subject to this abuse, you know, they were also held and detained without ever being charged criminally and then, and then released.
Well, now one of the memos actually did specify, didn't it?
That if one of these people dies in your custody, we know that you meant well, and you were only trying to prevent a greater harm.
And so it's okay.
Well, the memos tried to, uh, basically say that, you know, should this conduct be claimed to amount to torture, that there would be some kind of a necessity or a justification defense available.
Uh, but you know, that, that's why these, that's why these issues need to be litigated.
That's why they need to be prosecuted.
Um, that, those are the types of defenses that they would raise, but, you know, these memos were, there's a lot of evidence.
These memos were drafted in order to get around the liability.
So there would be no immunity from prosecution.
If the memos were actually written and crafted in order to avoid liability.
And you have evidence that it really is like that sort of like a mob lawyer who gets prosecuted because he's not really representing the law.
He's telling them how they can get away with their crimes.
Yeah.
I mean, that's, there's, there's evidence to that effect that these were clearly intended in order to, you know, protect those who were authorizing the abuse from any kind of criminal liability.
In fact, they thought justice department, um, it's called a declination, uh, a declaration that they would not be prosecuted for this, um, for this type of conduct.
And the justice department refused, even the Bush administration justice department refused to give up a sort of an, it's called an authorization before the conduct occurred saying that they would not be prosecuted for it.
So, you know, in addition, we're also calling for not just a full criminal inquiry, but also, uh, that the government really seriously look into compensation for some of the victims because a lot of them have brought claims is hundreds of, um, you know, individuals have made claims against the U S government for the abuse that they were subjected to.
And they've, um, they have all their claims have been denied by the courts, not based on the merits, you know, the fact that they don't have any real claims, but based on the fact that to litigate the claims would reveal state secrets and therefore they can't, they won't hear the claims.
But when the courts have done that, they've also asked the government to look into compensating these people because if they were indeed subject to these, um, abuses, they should be compensated.
And the U S is under an obligation to compensate under the convention against torture, which they are a signatory of.
And now which, uh, aside from the Geneva conventions, which American, uh, federal criminal laws have been violated here?
Well, there's the anti-torture act, which prohibits torture.
Um, and we have prosecuted individuals under that act.
Um, the son of the Liberian dictator, Charles Taylor, for example, was, um, prosecuted under the anti-torture act.
Um, there's also conspiracy statutes for torture that would also, uh, come into play.
So there's domestic law that applies here and that can be used.
Charles Taylor.
So the, the law applies to dictate American law applies to dictators of foreign countries, but not to politicians and inside the United States right now.
Well, that's the anti-torture act applies to, you know, everybody, even U S citizens.
It's meant to.
Yes.
Right.
I got you.
Okay.
So, um, now as far as, uh, the rendition program, oh, well also the war crimes I wonder about the, the jurisdiction there, the language of it.
Uh, if, if it says anything about, you know, executive privilege or secrecy loopholes or anything in there.
Well, they would raise those issues as a defense, um, you know, so that's why these things have to be litigated.
But the anti-torture act is very clear that it bars the use of torture and, um, you know, conspiracy to commit torture.
So even if they didn't actually commit the act themselves, um, but authorized others to do so, and they could be part of the conspiracy could be prosecuted under that act.
Okay.
Now, uh, I want to see if I can break down a little bit about, um, for example, Donald Rumsfeld's role, uh, somewhat separate from George tenants role, perhaps.
I'm not sure.
Uh, and particularly the case of Al Qahtani down there at Guantanamo Bay where time magazine, I think released the logs of some of his torture.
Uh, and then, uh, a judge down there, a military commission judge actually said we tortured Qatani, right?
Yes.
A judge said that what he was subjected to amounted to torture.
So, you know, that's, um, it seems like enough to take to the grand jury right there.
You know, I don't know.
Uh, all right.
Well, I'm sorry.
We'll have to hold it right there.
Everybody it's Laura Pitter from human rights watch and their new report is called getting away with torture.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm talking with Laura Pitter, counterterrorism advisor for human rights watch about their new report, uh, recommending the investigation, the criminal investigation of the Bush administration for torture.
And, uh, I wanted to ask you something.
I don't think I've heard addressed too often, Laura, which is, um, whether the black sites themselves, whether people were being tortured at that former Soviet gulag in Poland or not, is it, was it illegal for the CIA to have that secret prison in Poland at that former Soviet gulag?
Well, the problem with the CIA sites is we still don't know a lot about a lot of this stuff has not been declassified.
So, you know, what occurred there, um, allegedly, um, would, you know, amount to torture.
Absolutely.
And I'm saying besides torture, is it just, is it a crime just for having a secret prison and holding them in a secret prison, even if they're being given cupcakes and air conditioning?
Well, in communicado detention where they're held, you know, in a lot of people were held in solitary confinement and, you know, not informed, none of their families were informed of their, where they were, they were essentially disappeared and sometimes for, for several years.
So yes, it'd be, it definitely is a violation.
Now, are there specific laws like the war crime statute or the torture statute that, uh, like implementing the Geneva conventions, that kind of thing, or would it just be judicial precedent or what the fifth amendment means?
Or what's the law here?
Yeah.
I mean, under the Geneva conventions, there are, um, you know, things, things that must be followed.
You have to inform, uh, first of all, the ICRC of, you know, where they are and have ICRC access and also, um, you know, it needs, somebody needs to know where these people are.
They can't just be held in secret somewhere without anyone having any idea of, of, of where they are, their whereabouts, they're essentially disappeared at that point.
So yes, the Geneva convention would protect against something like that.
And now these are the ghost prisoners that we're talking here, uh, at the black sites, uh, who, I guess they say all ended up at Guantanamo Bay, but do we really know that, that there are no more, uh, CIA black sites in the world?
Well, that's what we were told, but we, you know, we have no way of confirming that.
Well, they were using a Navy ship as a black side off the coast of Somalia a week ago, right?
Yes, they were apparently.
Um, but you know, they did give ICRC access to the prisoner there.
So we're not sure exactly when that access happened, but you know, he was informed, they were informed that he was there and, um, you know, they wound up prosecuting in federal court, which is actually a positive development.
Well now, so I, I hate to be all realistic and parade rainy and that kind of thing, but this isn't going to happen in a million years.
I mean, what you've done here is you wrote a great history book about, uh, official torture from the very top down during the Bush years, but, uh, there's not ever going to be an attorney general in America with the courage to implement your program here, right?
Well, one, I'm not so sure about that, but two, regardless of what, whether the administration is going to act on these recommendations or not, we call for investigations into abuses everywhere in the world, whenever they happen.
And the U S is no exception.
So, um, of course there's going to be resistance to holding such an investigation, but we're still going to call for it.
And we do call for other things as well.
Like the opening of a nine 11 type inquiry, nine 11 commission type inquiry.
And also, like I said before, compensating the victims.
I think that's actually an option that might be viable.
Well, and of course, like you said, the problem with that is the secrecy.
If they're allowed to make their case in court, then that might as well be a commission itself right there as all those stories come out and that's what they don't want.
Well, that's what we're saying.
And that's, well, that, and that's what the courts have actually recommended is compensate.
If you as a government know that abuse happened, compensate them outside the judicial context, like other, other governments have the UK, for example, has established a similar type of compensation fund for the victims.
So it's not unprecedented and not unheard of.
And it is a realistic, it is something realistic to ask for.
Does human rights watch have an official position on if someone's been tortured, that means they've done their time.
They ought to be released after that or, you know, we don't have it.
We don't have a position on that, but they are, you know, they're sort of separate issues.
I mean, judges in the past in litigation, for example, in the Galani trial in New York, decided that those were separate issues that they the crime that occurred was separate from what actually happened to the individual.
But that what happened to the individual, the way they were treated could be taken into account when deciding a sentence, for example.
Right.
And also, you know, any kind of civil litigation that might result would be separate as well, you know, claiming damages for the abuse that you suffered.
And now this may be separate from this exact report, but are you guys calling for the end of all military commissions and that the accused terrorists get civilian trials?
Well, our position has always been that the military commissions are an ad hoc system of justice that doesn't produce verdicts that are going to be viable because they're always going to be subject to appellate challenges.
There are just so many procedural problems with the commissions that it doesn't make any sense to try anybody there.
The federal courts have prosecuted hundreds and hundreds of terrorism cases much more efficiently and much more fairly than the six total that have been prosecuted in the military commission.
So it's just an unsustainable system there.
And it needs to be.
Yeah, it needs to be closed down and stopped.
And now part of the story about the Spanish government's investigation of the Spanish judge and his investigation of the tortured lawyers and the different departments in the vice president's office and so forth had been put on hold because he said, well, we have to give the Americans time.
We have to give them a chance to pursue this.
And it's only their universal jurisdiction statute, I guess, says that they're not allowed to pursue these things unless they have whatever the legal standard is, every reason to believe that the torturers in question are going to get away with it back home, that they're not they will not be pursued in their home country.
And so I wonder whether now that it's been announced officially that only two cases of homicide inside the CIA will only ever be investigated here.
None of the lawyers, none of the principals.
Does that make it more likely that the Spanish or other governments under their universal jurisdiction statutes could go ahead and criminally indict George Bush and Dick Cheney and George Tenet and the rest of these people?
It certainly makes it more possible.
I mean, it was, you know, under enormous pressure, even from the Obama administration, the Spanish prosecutors decided to go forward with this case.
But then to coming to the pressure later suggested that perhaps they should allow Obama to, you know, see what happened with the Durham inquiry.
But now that that's concluded, then it's clear that only two cases are being prosecuted.
Then I imagine it's going to come up again in Spain.
Absolutely.
And now, is it a problem that dictators often face that they can't travel to certain parts of the world or else they'll be indicted?
It is.
It is.
And it happened in in the case of Bush just in February.
In fact, he was planning to go to Switzerland for a conference or a talk in front of a group.
And a some human rights lawyers brought a complaint or threatened to bring a complaint with the Swiss authorities against him for his role in the abusive interrogation program.
And the announcement that the complaint might be issued basically stopped him from coming.
He canceled his trip.
So it puts pressure on on individuals when the universal jurisdiction statutes are exercised.
I'm not sure how the law works as far as the Pinochet precedent or something, but he was arrested in England and then extradited to Spain to be prosecuted for crimes committed in Chile.
And I wonder whether that means Bush and Cheney are in danger if they go to France or England or if they go to Sweden or something, that they'll be indicted in Switzerland or Spain and then brought for trial.
Well, certainly that went into Bush's calculation when he canceled this trip.
So, well, I mean, that was within the one country, Switzerland.
I mean, would he be afraid of going to Sweden because he could be indicted in Switzerland like the Pinochet thing there?
Well, it's a it you know, who knows how far he would, you know, I can't get into his mind and tell you what he's afraid of.
What I mean is, does that that that precedent basically stands what happened to Pinochet that he could be arrested in one country and brought to another country and extradited to a third country?
Yes, absolutely.
I mean, there'd have to be an arrest warrant and indictment issued.
But, yes.
Right.
OK, that's all I was trying to get to is a legal issue.
I'm sorry.
No problem.
I know you human rights watch people are great, but I know that you don't have a crystal ball.
So we'll leave we'll leave that mind reading out.
But now.
I guess, you know, I wanted to ask, too, about Connelly's rice and Colin Powell, they, according to ABC News story, were there in the White House helping to, quote, choreograph the torture of Katani.
And now they you know, it wasn't Donald Rumsfeld who owned Guantanamo and George Tenet.
It was the CIA guy helping with the orchestration.
This was the secretary of state and the national security adviser in the room.
And I wonder whether that makes their liability any different or is the secretary of state just as liable for being in there, you think?
Well, we have to look at Attorney General Ashcroft was there, too.
Pardon me.
Didn't mean to leave him out.
You know, I mean, that's why we're calling for a full investigation, because they're they're the roles of everyone.
It's been put together with bits and pieces of things that have been declassified and interviews that have been had in books.
But, you know, something more substantial needs to be put together that lays there.
Each of these individuals rolls out and we've named the four who clearly have very high levels of responsibility and others, those who authorized the memos themselves and drafted the memos themselves, you know, may have liability as well.
And there may be other government officials that, you know, are in some of these documents and and things that come out that are also responsible.
All right.
Well, with that, I'll let you go.
But I thank you very much for your time and for your great work there.
No problem.
Thanks for having me.
Everyone, that's Laura Pitter from Human Rights Watch.
She is a counterterrorism adviser to their program there.
The new report is called Getting Away With Torture.
And you can also find the press release by searching United States Investigate Bush.
Other top officials for torture.
That's it for the show today.
We'll see y'all tomorrow bright and early.
