When considering the day’s headlines, let’s not forget that the Bush administration, right now, is trying to convince lawmakers and the nation that it deserves more latitude and power when it comes to overseeing detention of suspected terrorists.
The more we hear stories like this one, the harder it is to believe that the administration even tries to push for more authority.
A government commission on Monday exonerated a Canadian computer engineer of any ties to terrorism and issued a scathing report that faulted Canada and the United States for his deportation four years ago to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured.
The report on the engineer, Maher Arar, said American officials had apparently acted on inaccurate information from Canadian investigators and then misled Canadian authorities about their plans for Mr. Arar before transporting him to Syria. […]
But its conclusions about a case that had emerged as one of the most infamous examples of rendition — the transfer of terrorism suspects to other nations for interrogation — draw new attention to the Bush administration’s handling of detainees. And it comes as the White House and Congress are contesting legislation that would set standards for the treatment and interrogation of prisoners.
“The American authorities who handled Mr. Arar’s case treated Mr. Arar in a most regrettable fashion,” Justice O’Connor wrote in a three-volume report, not all of which was made public. “They removed him to Syria against his wishes and in the face of his statements that he would be tortured if sent there. Moreover, they dealt with Canadian officials involved with Mr. Arar’s case in a less than forthcoming manner.”
You don’t say. Bush administration officials? Misleading another country about an innocent detainee they had tortured? Who would have guessed.
Arar was seized in September 2002, held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months and beaten repeatedly with a metal cable. He eventually confessed to having trained in Afghanistan — a country he’d never been to.
It’s the ideal time for the White House to claim credibility and moral authority, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, The Guardian has a new report detailing exactly which techniques Bush wants the CIA to be able to use on suspects.
Details emerged yesterday about the seven interrogation techniques the CIA is seeking to be allowed to apply to terror suspects. Newsweek magazine reported that a New York lawyer, Scott Horton, who has acted as an adviser to the US senate on interrogation methods, had acquired a list of the techniques. The details were corroborated by information obtained by the charity Human Rights Watch.
The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called “the attention grab” where a suspect’s shirt is forcefully seized; the “attention slap” or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the “belly slap”; and sound and light manipulation.
Some of these sound ridiculous. Why would the administration ask Congress for permission to grab a suspect by his or her shirt?
Others, however, appear to be far more serious, especially induced hypothermia and prolonged standing, which may not sound serious until you fully appreciate how the technique is executed.
Colin Powell said yesterday that he’s speaking out against the administration’s approach because Bush’s plan would add to growing doubts about whether the United States adheres to its own moral code.
“If you just look at how we are perceived in the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions,” Powell told the WaPo, “whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question whether we’re following our own high standards.”
I’m afraid it’s a little too late for that.