Convicted of torture, (wasn't it 'enhanced interrogation'?) in the US!

[sabrina 1]

I know most people are familiar with this case, but in light of what has happened this past few days, Obama's flip-flop on releasing the damning evidence that the US does indeed 'torture', I couldn't help thinking about it again and would like to see someone in our laughable excuse for a news media ask the defenders of torture why they think this war criminal is any different from the ones they are currently bending over backwards to defend:

Taylor's son sentenced in US for torture in Liberia

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/09/charles-taylor-jr-torture-liberia


Tried in the US? For torture? How can that be considering the policy of the US on war crimes committed by their own government? Why did the US government not just 'look forward to the future and move on from the past' in this case' as they are pleading we do with our own torturers?

Son of ex-Liberian president Charles Taylor was sentenced to 97 years in prison today in landmark torture case that grew out of a US investigation into arms trafficking in Liberia.

Charles ''Chuckie'' Taylor Jr was convicted in October of leading a campaign of torture against people opposed to his father's rule. Although he wasn't charged with killing any of them, his indictment alleged that he killed at least one of seven victims.

97 years! This trial and conviction should send a message to human rights violators everywhere, we are told by the prosecutors, that the US will not tolerate such abuses. This should make us proud of our government for demonstrating to the world our intolerance for the inhumane treatment of anyone no matter what the excuses are, (Liberia's excuse? They were 'fighting terrorism).

It should, if only it were true ~

The son was charged under a 1994 law that permits the federal government to prosecute anyone suspected of carrying out torture outside the country as long as the suspect is a US citizen, legal resident or is present in this country, regardless of nationality.

Federal authorities, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the FBI, said they were proud of prosecuting the landmark case because it sends a powerful message to torturers who might try to evade justice by sneaking into the United States - as Taylor tried to do in March 2006 when he was arrested after flying from Trinidad to Miami on a false passport.

A powerful message indeed and to think that Taylor tried to avoid prosecution 'by sneaking into the US'! Where did he get the idea that he would be safe from prosecution for torture by sneaking into the US?

At trial, witnesses accused him and his soldiers of horrific torture in the west African country. Among the techniques: electric shock, molten plastic, lit cigarettes, hot irons, bayonets and biting ants shovelled onto people's bodies. Prisoners were kept in water-filled pits covered by heavy iron gates and barbed wire.

If anyone is wondering why Taylor didn't use US/CIA torture policies in his own defense, well his lawyer DID try:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94916484

In pre-trial motions, Caridad also sought access to a classified list of interrogation techniques approved and used by the CIA, saying he believes that some of the acts his client is charged with are similar to interrogation techniques approved by the United States. U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga denied the request.

I wonder if the words of ICE Acting Assistant Secretary John Torres caused Cheney, Bybee et al to shake a little in their boots:

''We see this as a landmark investigation and conviction that provides a deterrent against those who want to use the United States as a safe haven,''

I don't know, so far the US seems to be the safest haven, at least for US torturers which imo, makes the conviction of 'Chuckie' Taylor (he is a US citizen btw) by the US government at the very least, hypocrisy of unbelievable proprotions.

I would think, until we rejoin the civilized world in terms of human rights abuses, that prosecutions such as this one ought to be conducted by countries who still have some moral authority in this area. The US doesn't have the standing to do so until we begin to acknowledge, rather than hide, the massive amount of evidence against the Bush administration's torture policies and at least begin the process of seeking justice for the victims of these war crimes.

I'd like to feel proud that the US government helped bring some justice to the victims of the brutal Taylor regime. I'm glad for the victims, but just can't summon up any pride in the fact that it was this government who are currently in the process of attempting a cover-up and diminishment of the brutal human rights abuses committed by members of the Bush administration.

Glenn Greenwald wrote very effectively about the hypocrisy of this case also:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/31/torture/

Even in the U.S., it's hard to believe that federal prosecutors who work for the Bush DOJ were able to convey the following words with a straight face:

A recent Justice Department court filing describes torture - which the U.S. has been accused of in the war on terror - as a "flagrant and pernicious abuse of power and authority" that warrants severe punishment of Taylor.

"It undermines respect for and trust in authority, government and a rule of law," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Heck Miller in last week's filing. "The gravity of the offense of torture is beyond dispute."

Yes, Glenn, and I'm sure the world agrees with you. So damaged is the reputation of the US that I have actually seen some sympathy for this brutal war criminal's claims, that 'The US did it so what crime did I commit that is any different'?

Emmanuel had argued in previous court papers that he was being unfairly prosecuted for acts similar to those committed by U.S. personnel in Iraq and elsewhere.

The administration of President George W. Bush has been criticized by some around the world and in Congress for using aggressive interrogation techniques. Justice Department memos were seen as providing legal underpinnings for some of the techniques.

I think that argument had some merit, considering WHO was doing the prosecuting, sadly.



It's hard to argue with Taylor's claim with 'a straight face' at this point in our history, and that is the saddest thing of all.




There simply aren't words to describe the disgust I feel that this country is actually 'debating torture' and that the number one suspect in these crimes against humanity, is winning the debate and our president is helping him to do so.

Shame on the torturers and on all those who enabled them, either by their silence, complicity or now, refusal to bring them to justice.

[sabrina 1]

1. I meant to add that Taylor's father

Charles Taylor, brutal dictator and former friend and business partner of Pat Robertson, (they were in the diamond business together airc) is being prosecuted for war crimes in the Netherlands. It will be hard for him to argue, as his son did, that the gov. of that country is hypocritical by trying him for crimes against humanity. The focus can remain on the crimes he is charged with, and that's why I believe the US needs to stay out of prosecutions for torture until we regain some respect in the world.