Jan. 20


USA:

A Nuremberg Lesson----Torture scandal began far above 'rotten apples.'


"This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of
which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners
who were freed - were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but
were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and
men who laid violent hands on the detainees."

Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior
officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of
history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at
Auschwitz. Such a confusion demonstrates the depth of the United States'
moral dilemma in its treatment of detainees in the war on terror.

In past weeks, we have been treated to a show trial of sorts at Ft. Hood,
Texas, starring Cpl. Charles Graner and other low-ranking military
figures. The Graner court-martial and the upcoming trial of Pfc. Lynndie
England are being hyped as proof of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's
explanation for the Abu Ghraib prison tortures: A few "rotten apples" -
not U.S. policy or those who created it - are to blame.

Graner entered a "Nuremberg defense" - arguing that he was acting on
orders of his superiors. This defense was rejected in Ft. Hood as it was
in Nuremberg 60 years ago, when Nazi war criminals were found guilty of
crimes against humanity. A misled American public can choose to see in the
Graner verdict the proof of the "rotten apples" theory and of the notion
that Graner and the others acted on their own initiative. But what it
should see is a larger Nuremberg lesson: Those who craft immoral policy
deserve the harshest punishment.

Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales - then the president's
attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote that the Geneva
Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on terror. Gonzales
reasoned that our adversaries were not parties to the convention and that
the Geneva concept was ill suited to anti-terrorist warfare. In 1941,
General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht,
mustered identical arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of
Soviet soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva
"obsolete," a remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg, who cited it
as an aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death
penalty. Keitel was executed in 1946.

Keitel's remarks were made in response to a valiant memorandum prepared by
German military lawyers who argued that the interests of Germany's
soldiers, and the interests of morale and good order, would be served by
adhering to the Geneva treaty. Secretary of State Colin Powell, echoing
the opinions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. military lawyers, sent
Gonzales a letter that hit the same notes.

Rumsfeld and the White House would have us believe that there is no
connection between policy documents exploring torture and evasion of the
Geneva Convention and the misconduct on the ground in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq
and Afghanistan  misconduct that has produced at least 30 deaths in
detention associated with "extreme" interrogation techniques. But the
Nuremberg tradition contradicts such a contention.

At Nuremberg, U.S. prosecutors held German officials accountable for the
consequences of their policy decisions without offering proof that these
decisions were implemented with the knowledge of the policymakers. The
existence of the policies and evidence that the conduct contemplated in
them occurred was taken as proof enough.

There is no doubt that individuals like Graner and England should be held
to account. But where is justice - and where are the principles the U.S.
proudly advanced at Nuremberg - if those in the administration and the
military who seem most culpable for the tragedy not only escape punishment
but in some cases are slated for promotion?

Next week, the world will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. A
memorial prayer for the death camp victims will be read at the United
Nations. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will attend to
acknowledge that the depravities at Auschwitz were not the work of a few
"rotten apples" but the responsibility of a nation. Such a courageous
assumption of responsibility should provide a model for the United States,
which can still act to salvage its tradition and its honor.

(source: Commentary; Scott Horton is a New York attorney and a lecturer in
international humanitarian law at Columbia University; Los Angeles Times)






CONNECTICUT:

January 20, 2005----For Immediate Release----Contact: Renny Cushing 617
930 5196
(office)[email protected]


Statement of Renny Cushing, Executive Director on behalf of Murder
Victims' Families for Human Rights


We are pleased that as a result of Murder Victims Families for Human
Rights et als v. Theresa Lantz et als family members of murder victims and
others who oppose the death penalty will be able to assemble outside the
Osborne prison on January 26th without fear of being arrested and jailed
for expressing our opposition to executions.

Our action in Federal Court forced Connecticut officials to recognize that
the First Amendment to the US Constitution remains in effect even when
public employees are engaging in a ritual killing inside the walls of the
prison. The state's efforts to keep the execution a dirty little secret by
keeping citizens corralled far away from the death house, in a field in
the next town over from the prison, have failed. The voices of victims who
oppose the death penalty, people like Walt Everett, whose son was
murdered, Toni Bosco whose son and daughter in law were murdered, Art
Laffin, whose brother was murdered, and others who know the pain that
comes from homicide, will speak in front of Osborne prison next week with
this human rights message: Victims say "No executions in our name."

- - -

Our thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut for their
legal representation, and to our fellow Plaintiff's, Amnesty
International, The Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, and
the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

(source: MVFHR)






CALIFORNIA:

Killer who won't be back


Movie tough guy Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to halt a killers execution
yesterday.

Arnie, the Governor of California, rejected a plea by Donald Beardslee,
who murdered 2 women. The Terminator star - famed for screen catchphrase
"I'll be back" - ordered that Beardslee, 61, should be executed by lethal
injection.

Beardslee's lawyers had argued that he was mentally ill when he killed
Patty Geddling and Stacy Benjamin in 1981.

Patty, 23, was shot in the head and Stacy, 19, was garrotted and had her
throat slashed.

But Arnie said: "Nothing convinces me he did not understand the gravity of
his actions."

Beardslee - who murdered a woman in 1969 - was executed at San Quentin
Prison, near San Francisco, yesterday after choosing grapefruit juice as
his last meal.

It took officials 20 minutes to get the needles into him as he lay in the
death chamber.

Beardslee was the 1st person to be executed in California since Arnie was
elected Governor in 2003.

(source: The Sun (England) )



Reply via email to