• Submitted by: admin
• Caribbean
• Events
• Guantánamo
• North America
• Politics and Government
• 01 / 23 / 2008

---

Unbeknownst to most Canadians, the Conservative government has apparently decided what constitutes torture. It's unfortunate, too, because while a debate has been raging south of the border, judgment has been passed here with a nary a discussion.

The destruction of CIA videotapes has been at the centre of major investigations by a Congressional committee and the U.S. Justice Department for some time.

The tapes were made in April 2002 and showed agents questioning suspected al-Qaeda operatives at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The case has raised serious questions about the tactics used by American intelligence agencies to secure information, including whether torture was used during the 2002 interrogations, and whether the tapes were destroyed to protect the agents and agency from legal and political fallout.

The United States has also been embroiled in a debate in recent years over what constitutes torture, and what are acceptable interrogation techniques in the post-9/11 world.

The question has lingered for years even as the U.S. has faced its share of embarrassing incidents involving its treatment of prisoners, including at Guantanamo Bay-where one Canadian citizen remains detained-in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Last Sunday, the U.S. director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, told The New Yorker magazine that he would define torture as "something that would cause excruciating pain." To that end, he said if he were subjected to waterboarding, in which a person's face is covered with a cloth and then water is dripped on it to simulate drowning, he would consider it torture. Yet he refused to condemn the practice as torture, and U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to rule on the question. Meanwhile, it's believed CIA operatives continue to use it and other questionable techniques in interrogations.

Last week, Amnesty International released a training manual prepared for Canadian diplomats so they would recognize signs of torture when dealing with consular cases.

The manual caused an instant furor as it included the U.S. and Israel in a list of countries suspected of practicing torture. Guantanamo Bay is listed specifically as an area of concern. The two Canadian allies were listed in the same breath as Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The manual also included a list of what constituted torture, namely forced nudity, sleep deprivation, isolation, blindfolding and-yes-waterboarding.

Ironically, the manual was part of a program devised after the Arar Inquiry, in which it was determined Canadian Maher Arar had been tortured in Syria after he was sent to the country by U.S. authorities using Canadian information that erroneously linked him to terrorist activities.

Following strong denials from the American and Israeli ambassadors to Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier quickly distanced his government from the offending manual. Not only would the document be reviewed and rewritten so the two countries were taken off the list, but Mr. Bernier insisted it did not reflect government policy or its position.

The U.S. government can honestly say it doesn't condone or practice torture. But that's because the question of what constitutes torture and what are acceptable interrogation techniques is a very grey area, and those listed in the training manual haven't been clearly defined in American law.

Our government, though, has effectively decided waterboarding, forced nudity (Abu Ghraib), isolation (Guantanamo Bay) and other borderline techniques are legal and do not constitute torture. Otherwise, it wouldn't have categorically stated that it does not think the U.S. practices torture when it's well known that the U.S. does use questionable techniques that many countries would consider torture (Israel has also been censured by human rights organizations for techniques used by its security forces in the Palestinian Territories).

Of course, if the government hasn't tacitly given some questionable interrogation methods like waterboarding its approval, then maybe there was another factor to its removal of the U.S. from the training manual.


(www.embassymag.ca)




Unbeknownst to most Canadians, the Conservative government has apparently decided what constitutes torture. It's unfortunate, too, because while a debate has been raging south of the border, judgment has been passed here with a nary a discussion.

The destruction of CIA videotapes has been at the centre of major investigations by a Congressional committee and the U.S. Justice Department for some time.

The tapes were made in April 2002 and showed agents questioning suspected al-Qaeda operatives at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The case has raised serious questions about the tactics used by American intelligence agencies to secure information, including whether torture was used during the 2002 interrogations, and whether the tapes were destroyed to protect the agents and agency from legal and political fallout.

The United States has also been embroiled in a debate in recent years over what constitutes torture, and what are acceptable interrogation techniques in the post-9/11 world.

The question has lingered for years even as the U.S. has faced its share of embarrassing incidents involving its treatment of prisoners, including at Guantanamo Bay-where one Canadian citizen remains detained-in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Last Sunday, the U.S. director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, told The New Yorker magazine that he would define torture as "something that would cause excruciating pain." To that end, he said if he were subjected to waterboarding, in which a person's face is covered with a cloth and then water is dripped on it to simulate drowning, he would consider it torture. Yet he refused to condemn the practice as torture, and U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to rule on the question. Meanwhile, it's believed CIA operatives continue to use it and other questionable techniques in interrogations.

Last week, Amnesty International released a training manual prepared for Canadian diplomats so they would recognize signs of torture when dealing with consular cases.

The manual caused an instant furor as it included the U.S. and Israel in a list of countries suspected of practicing torture. Guantanamo Bay is listed specifically as an area of concern. The two Canadian allies were listed in the same breath as Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The manual also included a list of what constituted torture, namely forced nudity, sleep deprivation, isolation, blindfolding and-yes-waterboarding.

Ironically, the manual was part of a program devised after the Arar Inquiry, in which it was determined Canadian Maher Arar had been tortured in Syria after he was sent to the country by U.S. authorities using Canadian information that erroneously linked him to terrorist activities.

Following strong denials from the American and Israeli ambassadors to Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier quickly distanced his government from the offending manual. Not only would the document be reviewed and rewritten so the two countries were taken off the list, but Mr. Bernier insisted it did not reflect government policy or its position.

The U.S. government can honestly say it doesn't condone or practice torture. But that's because the question of what constitutes torture and what are acceptable interrogation techniques is a very grey area, and those listed in the training manual haven't been clearly defined in American law.

Our government, though, has effectively decided waterboarding, forced nudity (Abu Ghraib), isolation (Guantanamo Bay) and other borderline techniques are legal and do not constitute torture. Otherwise, it wouldn't have categorically stated that it does not think the U.S. practices torture when it's well known that the U.S. does use questionable techniques that many countries would consider torture (Israel has also been censured by human rights organizations for techniques used by its security forces in the Palestinian Territories).

Of course, if the government hasn't tacitly given some questionable interrogation methods like waterboarding its approval, then maybe there was another factor to its removal of the U.S. from the training manual.
Unbeknownst to most Canadians, the Conservative government has apparently decided what constitutes torture. It's unfortunate, too, because while a debate has been raging south of the border, judgment has been passed here with a nary a discussion.

The destruction of CIA videotapes has been at the centre of major investigations by a Congressional committee and the U.S. Justice Department for some time.

The tapes were made in April 2002 and showed agents questioning suspected al-Qaeda operatives at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The case has raised serious questions about the tactics used by American intelligence agencies to secure information, including whether torture was used during the 2002 interrogations, and whether the tapes were destroyed to protect the agents and agency from legal and political fallout.

The United States has also been embroiled in a debate in recent years over what constitutes torture, and what are acceptable interrogation techniques in the post-9/11 world.

The question has lingered for years even as the U.S. has faced its share of embarrassing incidents involving its treatment of prisoners, including at Guantanamo Bay-where one Canadian citizen remains detained-in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Last Sunday, the U.S. director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, told The New Yorker magazine that he would define torture as "something that would cause excruciating pain." To that end, he said if he were subjected to waterboarding, in which a person's face is covered with a cloth and then water is dripped on it to simulate drowning, he would consider it torture. Yet he refused to condemn the practice as torture, and U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to rule on the question. Meanwhile, it's believed CIA operatives continue to use it and other questionable techniques in interrogations.

Last week, Amnesty International released a training manual prepared for Canadian diplomats so they would recognize signs of torture when dealing with consular cases.

The manual caused an instant furor as it included the U.S. and Israel in a list of countries suspected of practicing torture. Guantanamo Bay is listed specifically as an area of concern. The two Canadian allies were listed in the same breath as Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The manual also included a list of what constituted torture, namely forced nudity, sleep deprivation, isolation, blindfolding and-yes-waterboarding.

Ironically, the manual was part of a program devised after the Arar Inquiry, in which it was determined Canadian Maher Arar had been tortured in Syria after he was sent to the country by U.S. authorities using Canadian information that erroneously linked him to terrorist activities.

Following strong denials from the American and Israeli ambassadors to Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier quickly distanced his government from the offending manual. Not only would the document be reviewed and rewritten so the two countries were taken off the list, but Mr. Bernier insisted it did not reflect government policy or its position.

The U.S. government can honestly say it doesn't condone or practice torture. But that's because the question of what constitutes torture and what are acceptable interrogation techniques is a very grey area, and those listed in the training manual haven't been clearly defined in American law.

Our government, though, has effectively decided waterboarding, forced nudity (Abu Ghraib), isolation (Guantanamo Bay) and other borderline techniques are legal and do not constitute torture. Otherwise, it wouldn't have categorically stated that it does not think the U.S. practices torture when it's well known that the U.S. does use questionable techniques that many countries would consider torture (Israel has also been censured by human rights organizations for techniques used by its security forces in the Palestinian Territories).

Of course, if the government hasn't tacitly given some questionable interrogation methods like waterboarding its approval, then maybe there was another factor to its removal of the U.S. from the training manual.
Unbeknownst to most Canadians, the Conservative government has apparently decided what constitutes torture. It's unfortunate, too, because while a debate has been raging south of the border, judgment has been passed here with a nary a discussion.

The destruction of CIA videotapes has been at the centre of major investigations by a Congressional committee and the U.S. Justice Department for some time.

The tapes were made in April 2002 and showed agents questioning suspected al-Qaeda operatives at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The case has raised serious questions about the tactics used by American intelligence agencies to secure information, including whether torture was used during the 2002 interrogations, and whether the tapes were destroyed to protect the agents and agency from legal and political fallout.

The United States has also been embroiled in a debate in recent years over what constitutes torture, and what are acceptable interrogation techniques in the post-9/11 world.

The question has lingered for years even as the U.S. has faced its share of embarrassing incidents involving its treatment of prisoners, including at Guantanamo Bay-where one Canadian citizen remains detained-in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Last Sunday, the U.S. director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, told The New Yorker magazine that he would define torture as "something that would cause excruciating pain." To that end, he said if he were subjected to waterboarding, in which a person's face is covered with a cloth and then water is dripped on it to simulate drowning, he would consider it torture. Yet he refused to condemn the practice as torture, and U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to rule on the question. Meanwhile, it's believed CIA operatives continue to use it and other questionable techniques in interrogations.

Last week, Amnesty International released a training manual prepared for Canadian diplomats so they would recognize signs of torture when dealing with consular cases.

The manual caused an instant furor as it included the U.S. and Israel in a list of countries suspected of practicing torture. Guantanamo Bay is listed specifically as an area of concern. The two Canadian allies were listed in the same breath as Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The manual also included a list of what constituted torture, namely forced nudity, sleep deprivation, isolation, blindfolding and-yes-waterboarding.

Ironically, the manual was part of a program devised after the Arar Inquiry, in which it was determined Canadian Maher Arar had been tortured in Syria after he was sent to the country by U.S. authorities using Canadian information that erroneously linked him to terrorist activities.

Following strong denials from the American and Israeli ambassadors to Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier quickly distanced his government from the offending manual. Not only would the document be reviewed and rewritten so the two countries were taken off the list, but Mr. Bernier insisted it did not reflect government policy or its position.

The U.S. government can honestly say it doesn't condone or practice torture. But that's because the question of what constitutes torture and what are acceptable interrogation techniques is a very grey area, and those listed in the training manual haven't been clearly defined in American law.

Our government, though, has effectively decided waterboarding, forced nudity (Abu Ghraib), isolation (Guantanamo Bay) and other borderline techniques are legal and do not constitute torture. Otherwise, it wouldn't have categorically stated that it does not think the U.S. practices torture when it's well known that the U.S. does use questionable techniques that many countries would consider torture (Israel has also been censured by human rights organizations for techniques used by its security forces in the Palestinian Territories).

Of course, if the government hasn't tacitly given some questionable interrogation methods like waterboarding its approval, then maybe there was another factor to its removal of the U.S. from the training manual.