CIA's Secret Kidnappings
By NAT HENTOFF
On March 16, the House of Representatives, in a stunning 420-to-2
vote, passed an amendment to the emergency Iraq supplemental appropriation by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) forbidding the
use of any funds that violate the legal obligations of the international Convention Against Torture, which this nation signed.
Congressman Markey has led the charge against the CIA's practice of sending terrorism suspects to countries cited by our own
State Department for torturing their prisoners.
The media took little notice of this bipartisan move to try
and end the administration's outsourcing of torture - which President Bush continually says is not happening, despite mounting
evidence from human rights organizations, freed tortured detainees, and journalists worldwide.
As Congressman Markey says: "The war against terrorism includes
a war against those who engage in torture. ... This amendment reaffirming our commitment to end the practice of torture is
just the beginning. ... Torture is unacceptable and the U.S. has a responsibility to take the lead in ending this practice."
On March 17, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill,
"The Convention on Torture Implementation Act," that would end these "extraordinary renditions," as the CIA calls them.
The CIA claims, with a straight face, that its station chief
in the countries to which these suspects are transferred must obtain an assurance from that country's security offices that
these prisoners - sometimes kidnapped by the CIA off the streets of other nations - will not be tortured.
Dana Priest of The Washington Post, who has broken many stories
about this outsourcing since late 2002, quotes a CIA official engaged in these renditions that violate both American and international
laws. That person describes these so-called assurances torture will not happen as "a farce."
She writes that "another U.S. government official who visited
several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said: 'It's beyond that.
It's widely understood that interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used.'"
It's not only Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and
Human Rights First who are indignant over what they have learned about this practice. In countries where these kidnappings
have taken place - such as Italy, Germany, Sweden and Canada - there are now official investigations of the complicity of
their own security forces in these violations of the international Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed by President Reagan and ratified years later by the Senate in 1994).
Meanwhile, the CIA declared on March 18 that "all CIA interrogation
techniques, both past and present, are lawful and do not constitute torture." I have doubts about the credibility of that
statement, especially concerning past techniques; but what about the methods of extracting information from prisoners the
CIA sends to countries where there is no doubt that torture is a regular method of obtaining information (which is then provided
back to the CIA)?
Says CIA Director Porter Goss that "of course, once they're
out of our control, there's only so much we can do." When Goss appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee he was
asked by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about his agency's own use of waterboarding, a technique where a prisoner is convinced
he will be drowned unless he gives up the required information. Goss answered that waterboarding is "an area of what I would
call professional interrogation techniques."
It has long been up to Congress, under the separation of powers,
to thoroughly investigate the CIA's past and present adherence to the International Convention Against Torture, and the CIA's
outsourcing of torture. The Markey amendment ending the funding for "extraordinary renditions" could become a law if Sen.
Leahy's bill on implementing the convention is passed.
As of this writing, however, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, shows no sign of holding a hearing. Leahy may have to get his bill on the floor by proposing an
amendment to another bill. If he does, and if he succeeds in the Republican-controlled Senate, and the subsequent House-Senate
conference committee, will President Bush sign into law an assurance to the world that, indeed, we will not violate American
and international laws against torture?
More to the point, how many Americans care enough about our
involvement in torture to emphatically declare their opposition to this practice by telling their members of Congress?
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First
Amendment and the Bill of Rights.