|
|
 |
|
CNS Story:
|
TORTURE Dec-8-2005 (880 words) With photo and graphic. xxxn
Religious groups, retired general back anti-torture amendment
By Patricia Zapor
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Policies that are unclear about the torture of prisoners damage U.S. international interests and credibility and are an offense against human rights, said panelists who included a retired Army general, a former adviser to the departments of State and Defense and representatives of Jewish and Catholic organizations.
As the House prepared to take up an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of prisoners and spelling out what that means, supporters of the McCain amendment on torture and abuse rallied backers from diverse backgrounds.
Steve Colecchi, director of the Office of International Justice and Peace of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the bishops support the amendment because the church teaches respect for fundamental human rights and dignity.
"The many reports of prisoner abuse by members of the U.S. armed forces tarnish the reputation of our country," Colecchi said at a Dec. 7 media briefing sponsored by Human Rights First. But, he said, they also "make it less likely that other countries and people will collaborate with us in the struggle against terrorism, and they compromise the moral standing of our nation as we seek to win the hearts and minds of others."
He said respect for the dignity of every individual, whether ally or enemy, must be the foundation of the pursuit of security, justice and peace.
"There can be no compromise on the moral imperative to protect the basic human rights of any individual incarcerated for any reason," Colecchi said. "In a time of terrorism and great fear, our obligation to respect basic human dignity and human rights, even of our worst enemies, gains added importance."
The briefing came on the same day Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a news conference in Kiev, Ukraine, that existing prohibitions on cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment extend to all U.S. personnel in the United States and elsewhere.
The Bush administration has been criticized around the world recently for how prisoners are treated in the name of combating terrorism. Last year's reports of abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have been followed more recently by news stories about secret prisons operated by the United States in Eastern Europe and others alleging mistreatment of prisoners who were being transferred aboard clandestine flights.
The amendment introduced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would make the Army Field Manual on interrogation the standard for questioning anyone in military custody. The manual prohibits techniques such as mock executions, electric shock, abnormal sleep deprivations and any form of beating.
The amendment passed the Senate by a 90-9 vote. The House-passed version of the Defense appropriations bill did not include the McCain amendment.
A House vote on the provision was expected before Congress recesses for Christmas.
At the Dec. 7 briefing, Rabbi Brian Walt, director of Rabbis for Human Rights, said Jews are particularly sensitive to the issue of state-sponsored torture because of their history of being victims of torture. One of the readings used annually during the high holy days recounts the fate of 10 rabbis who were tortured under Roman authorities, he explained.
Rabbi Walt said only an absolute ban on such treatment is acceptable. A letter from more than 500 rabbis to President George W. Bush and members of Congress notes that Jewish tradition calls for humane treatment even of one's adversaries and that rabbinic texts strongly prohibit acts of humiliation.
Retired Brig. Gen. David R. Irvine, who taught interrogation and military law for 18 years at the Sixth Army Intelligence School, said the McCain amendment is necessary because, while the Army field manual is clear in what it means by prohibited torture and abuse, "individuals in high positions have very deliberately changed the definition of torture."
Under a recent Defense Department memorandum to define how much pain interrogators can inflict, a questioner could go so far as to break a subject's fingers one by one without violating the directive, Irvine said.
"This fuzzying of definitions can only be overcome by a strong statement from Congress that a bright line is there" to define how prisoners must be treated, he said.
William Howard Taft IV, former legal adviser to former Secretary of State Colin Powell and a former deputy Defense secretary, said military personnel themselves have been unclear what the rules are because they regularly receive different advice.
Stephen Rickard, director of the Washington office of the Open Society Policy Center and a longtime human rights activist, said Rice's comments in Kiev "have to be parsed incredibly carefully to see if there's even a change" from current U.S. policies he said are ambiguous.
In light of ambiguous directives from the Defense Department, he said, and the news about Abu Ghraib and secret prisons, Rickard said, "this administration doesn't have any credibility" when it argues that Congressional action is not necessary.
Colecchi said he heard that as House, Senate and White House negotiators try to come up with a version of the amendment all are willing to support, the possibility has been raised of including exceptions for when torture might be permitted.
"Any exception says people are expendable, that some people's human rights don't count," he said. "There is no exception to a fundamental moral principle."
END
Copyright (c) 2005 Catholic News Service/USCCB. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed.
CNS · 3211 Fourth St NE · Washington DC 20017 · 202.541.3250
|
|
|
|
