By William Fisher
Her name is, let us say, Aya. She is a 20-year-old Egyptian, who is finishing her university study in Cairo while working as a journalist for a local newspaper. Soon after the US invasion of Iraq, she was in a downtown hotel lobby translating her Arabic notes for a visiting foreign journalist. It was a day when Cairo University students were demonstrating against the war in Iraq.
This is what she told me about what happened then. “All of a sudden two State Security officers came and asked the visiting journalist to show his ‘permit’ and he did not have one. So they left the guy and arrested me. They kept me there for six hours. Next day, I was arrested again and taken to their headquarters, where I was interrogated again by two State Security agents, and accused of spying on Egypt.
“They barraged me with questions like, “Why did you choose to film the interviews near the soldiers? What were you writing in your notebook? Why did you lie to the students and did not tell them where you were going? Why did you take $150 from the journalist? How did you know him? Are you a leftist? Do you usually participate in demos? What kind of articles do you cover in your magazine? Why did you sell your country to $150? Why you were asking students about the war in Iraq? Did you ask them about their opinion about the current regime? Why did the foreign journalist not have a permit to film? Why did you choose university students to interview? Why didn’t the students take money too?”
“I was finally released at 1am, Aya recounts, adding: ““I was lucky, I think because I threatened to let the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights know of my situation. The State Security didn’t want that kind of trouble. But while I was there I saw tens of students beaten up, screaming to confess to things that they had not done. And when I was leaving I saw three sets of parents who were crying, saying that they had not seen their kids in a month and did not know where they were. Later, I met many, many people who were arrested for weeks and tortured. Most of them were journalists who were covering the demos. What is also disgusting is that if someone is suspected of committing a crime and they cannot find him or want him to confess, they arrest his family, beat them up, take off all their clothes and sometimes try to rape his sisters or mom. “
Not long ago, President Mubarak proclaimed to the journalists’ organization that no journalist would ever again be put in jail for a ‘publishing offense’. But, according to Aya, “things are not getting any easier for journalists here. The presidential decree banning journalists from being imprisoned for publishing a story is simply fiction. The reason is that it is unconstitutional to issue a presidential decree while the parliament in session. So the issue is now being discussed in parliament, which means that a new law will be in the making for at least a couple of years. Meanwhile, she says, “I know tens of my fellow journalists who would write things that would put them in jail in a second.”
And many of them have. The 1996 press law allows prison sentences for libel, "insults" and "putting out false news." Many journalists and cyber-dissidents have been given jail terms and some are still in prison. The so-called Emergency Laws, enacted after the assassination of Pres. Anwar Sadat, give the government even more draconian power to stifle press freedom. As a result, Egyptian journalists and their employers are forced to practice self-censorship.
Aya says she has asked herself many times, “Can I really become a journalist in this country? Will I be able to write about important things and tell the truth?” She has considered emigrating to the UK or the US, but has now decided to stick it out in Egypt. “Perhaps if the world knows more about what is happening here, Egypt will be ashamed of itself and try and change its reputation. I only hope I will live to see the day when there are some real changes in my country.”
We hope so too.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
Monday, May 31, 2004
ANTI-TERRORISM TRUMPS HUMAN RIGHTS -- AGAIN
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
In a move that may be near-incomprehensible to most of the world, the US State Department this week removed Sudan from its blacklist of countries it says are uncooperative in its war on terrorism, at the same time leaving in place sanctions it imposed because Sudan has not severed all links with anti-Israeli groups such as Hamas – and both at a time when Khartoum’s stonewalling of distribution of food and medical supplies to desperate Christian and animist refugees in the western province of Darfur has created Africa’s most serious humanitarian crisis in decades.
The State Department said the reward was a gesture to the Islamic nation, which it said is close to signing a peace deal long sought by Washington. The peace deal would end Africa's longest-running civil war. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Sudan has "remarkably" improved the information it shares with Washington on militants. In 1998, it was considered a haven for terror groups and the United States fired missiles at a factory suspected of housing chemical arms.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "We have told the government of Sudan we will not normalize relations even with (a peace) agreement unless the crisis in Darfur is addressed."
According to Amnesty International, “Over the past few years hundreds of civilians, mostly from sedentary agricultural groups like the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa, have been killed or wounded, homes have been destroyed and herds looted by nomadic groups. Sometimes dozens of civilians have been killed in a single raid… Those who commit crimes, must be brought to justice, but international human rights standards of fair trial must be respected".
An Amnesty delegation was allowed to visit the area last January for the first time in 13 years. They found that Government forces had failed to protect Darfur’s local population and that its attacks were an attempt to drive them from their lands. Amnesty found that local leaders had been “arbitrarily thrown into prison without charge or trial and denied communication with the outside world for up to seven months. Leaders of nomad groups had been similarly treated. Special Courts…sentenced people to death without the presence of a lawyer.”
Human Rights Watch spent 25 days in West Darfur and the vicinity, documenting abuses in rural areas that were previously populated by Masalit and Fur communities. The organization charges that the Sudanese government is responsible for “ethnic cleansing” and crimes against humanity in the western region of Darfur. " There can be no doubt about the Sudanese government’s culpability in crimes against humanity in Darfur", said Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa Division of Human Rights Watch. A Human Rights Watch report also documents how “Janjaweed” Arab militias—whose members are Muslim—have destroyed mosques, killed Muslim religious leaders and desecrated Korans belonging to their enemies. Since August, wide swathes of farmlands, among the most fertile in the region, have been burned and depopulated. With rare exceptions, the countryside has now been emptied of its original Masalit and Fur inhabitants. Villages have been torched not randomly, but systematically – often not once, but twice. Livestock, food stores, wells and pumps, blankets and clothing have all been looted or destroyed.
This is not the first time the US has ‘rewarded’ states that commit severe and consistent violations of human rights. These nations are eligible for US aid; countries that fail to cooperate in the ‘war on terror’, or those that sponsor terrorist organizations, are not. The result is that US aid recipients include many of the most authoritarian nations of the Middle East. Thus far, there is little evidence that US diplomacy has brought about much more than cosmetic change in the human rights area. Now that US diplomats are struggling with their own country’s human rights abuses, political dialogue may achieve even less.
The message from the Bush Administration seems to be: ‘Not to worry. As long as you’re tough on terror, you’re OK with us.’
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
By William Fisher
In a move that may be near-incomprehensible to most of the world, the US State Department this week removed Sudan from its blacklist of countries it says are uncooperative in its war on terrorism, at the same time leaving in place sanctions it imposed because Sudan has not severed all links with anti-Israeli groups such as Hamas – and both at a time when Khartoum’s stonewalling of distribution of food and medical supplies to desperate Christian and animist refugees in the western province of Darfur has created Africa’s most serious humanitarian crisis in decades.
The State Department said the reward was a gesture to the Islamic nation, which it said is close to signing a peace deal long sought by Washington. The peace deal would end Africa's longest-running civil war. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Sudan has "remarkably" improved the information it shares with Washington on militants. In 1998, it was considered a haven for terror groups and the United States fired missiles at a factory suspected of housing chemical arms.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "We have told the government of Sudan we will not normalize relations even with (a peace) agreement unless the crisis in Darfur is addressed."
According to Amnesty International, “Over the past few years hundreds of civilians, mostly from sedentary agricultural groups like the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa, have been killed or wounded, homes have been destroyed and herds looted by nomadic groups. Sometimes dozens of civilians have been killed in a single raid… Those who commit crimes, must be brought to justice, but international human rights standards of fair trial must be respected".
An Amnesty delegation was allowed to visit the area last January for the first time in 13 years. They found that Government forces had failed to protect Darfur’s local population and that its attacks were an attempt to drive them from their lands. Amnesty found that local leaders had been “arbitrarily thrown into prison without charge or trial and denied communication with the outside world for up to seven months. Leaders of nomad groups had been similarly treated. Special Courts…sentenced people to death without the presence of a lawyer.”
Human Rights Watch spent 25 days in West Darfur and the vicinity, documenting abuses in rural areas that were previously populated by Masalit and Fur communities. The organization charges that the Sudanese government is responsible for “ethnic cleansing” and crimes against humanity in the western region of Darfur. " There can be no doubt about the Sudanese government’s culpability in crimes against humanity in Darfur", said Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa Division of Human Rights Watch. A Human Rights Watch report also documents how “Janjaweed” Arab militias—whose members are Muslim—have destroyed mosques, killed Muslim religious leaders and desecrated Korans belonging to their enemies. Since August, wide swathes of farmlands, among the most fertile in the region, have been burned and depopulated. With rare exceptions, the countryside has now been emptied of its original Masalit and Fur inhabitants. Villages have been torched not randomly, but systematically – often not once, but twice. Livestock, food stores, wells and pumps, blankets and clothing have all been looted or destroyed.
This is not the first time the US has ‘rewarded’ states that commit severe and consistent violations of human rights. These nations are eligible for US aid; countries that fail to cooperate in the ‘war on terror’, or those that sponsor terrorist organizations, are not. The result is that US aid recipients include many of the most authoritarian nations of the Middle East. Thus far, there is little evidence that US diplomacy has brought about much more than cosmetic change in the human rights area. Now that US diplomats are struggling with their own country’s human rights abuses, political dialogue may achieve even less.
The message from the Bush Administration seems to be: ‘Not to worry. As long as you’re tough on terror, you’re OK with us.’
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE…
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
The flagrant hypocrisy of the Arab press over the Al Ghraib prisoner abuse issue in Iraq can inspire only deep doubt about the recent Arab League pronouncements of dedication to democratic reforms.
Egypt, America’s closest ‘strategic ally’ in the Middle East and a major recipient of US aid, provides a prime example.
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, one of Egypt’s leading commentators, charged in Al-Ahram, the country’s most prestigious newspaper, that Israel “is now cooperating with the US and furnishing it with interrogation techniques based on torturing detainees and extracting confessions…part of an undertaking extending… to civilian contractors who inflict torture in return for a fee...An Israeli human rights organization…has recently discovered… an Israeli version of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp…where people arrested in Lebanon and Palestine are interrogated under conditions very similar to those we now know prevail in Iraqi prisons...results obtained through torture in the Israeli concentration camps have been an encouragement for what is now going on in Iraq. State-sponsored terrorism of prisoners is also a lucrative business. Thanks to the ill-defined ‘war on terror’, those willing to inflict torture on enemy aliens stand to be handsomely rewarded.”
Maybe so, maybe no. But Mr. Sid-Ahmed conveniently misses the point.
The point is that reputable sources have documented dozens of cases of torture and death in detention in Egypt for decades. For example, a report by Human Rights Watch, submitted to the Egyptian Government and the Arab League last February, says torture in detention is “epidemic, a widespread and persistent phenomenon affecting large numbers of ordinary citizens who find themselves in police custody as suspects or in connection with criminal investigations. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation. In most cases, detainees are tortured to obtain information and coerce confessions, sometimes leading to death in custody…. Methods include beatings with fists, feet, and leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence.”
Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill treatment have shown a disturbing rise in the past two years, HRW says -- at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. In the September-November 2003 period alone, Egyptian human rights organizations reported four deaths.
Over the past decade, suspected Islamist militants have borne the brunt of these acts. Recently, however, increasing numbers of secular and leftist dissidents – and journalists -- have also been tortured by police and security officials. In March and April 2003, for example, demonstrators and alleged organizers of public protests against the US-led war in Iraq were tortured and ill treated in detention. Police and state security agencies continue to use torture in order to suppress political dissent.
Egyptian authorities fail to investigate the great majority of allegations of torture. In the few cases where officers have been prosecuted for torture or ill treatment, charges were often inappropriately lenient and penalties inadequate. This lack of effective public accountability and transparency has, according to HRW, led to “a culture of impunity” and contributed to the institutionalization of torture.”
The Prosecutor General’s office opened criminal investigations in some of the cases of death in detention following formal complaints by human rights lawyers and family members. But, says HRW, “none of these investigations have led to criminal prosecution or disciplinary actions against the perpetrators.” Cruelty while in detention carries a maximum penalty of one year, or a fine not to exceed L.E. 200 [$30].
Another reason for Egypt’s failure to investigate and punish acts of torture by law enforcement is that it has appointed the fox to guard the henhouse. Says HRW: “There is an apparent conflict of interest in placing the responsibility to monitor places of detention, order forensic exams, and investigate and prosecute abuses by officials within the same office that is responsible for ordering arrests, obtaining confessions, and successfully prosecuting criminal suspects.”
The entire world abhors what has happened to Iraqi detainees. But the difference between Egypt and the United States is that the US is doing something to stop it.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
By William Fisher
The flagrant hypocrisy of the Arab press over the Al Ghraib prisoner abuse issue in Iraq can inspire only deep doubt about the recent Arab League pronouncements of dedication to democratic reforms.
Egypt, America’s closest ‘strategic ally’ in the Middle East and a major recipient of US aid, provides a prime example.
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, one of Egypt’s leading commentators, charged in Al-Ahram, the country’s most prestigious newspaper, that Israel “is now cooperating with the US and furnishing it with interrogation techniques based on torturing detainees and extracting confessions…part of an undertaking extending… to civilian contractors who inflict torture in return for a fee...An Israeli human rights organization…has recently discovered… an Israeli version of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp…where people arrested in Lebanon and Palestine are interrogated under conditions very similar to those we now know prevail in Iraqi prisons...results obtained through torture in the Israeli concentration camps have been an encouragement for what is now going on in Iraq. State-sponsored terrorism of prisoners is also a lucrative business. Thanks to the ill-defined ‘war on terror’, those willing to inflict torture on enemy aliens stand to be handsomely rewarded.”
Maybe so, maybe no. But Mr. Sid-Ahmed conveniently misses the point.
The point is that reputable sources have documented dozens of cases of torture and death in detention in Egypt for decades. For example, a report by Human Rights Watch, submitted to the Egyptian Government and the Arab League last February, says torture in detention is “epidemic, a widespread and persistent phenomenon affecting large numbers of ordinary citizens who find themselves in police custody as suspects or in connection with criminal investigations. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation. In most cases, detainees are tortured to obtain information and coerce confessions, sometimes leading to death in custody…. Methods include beatings with fists, feet, and leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence.”
Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill treatment have shown a disturbing rise in the past two years, HRW says -- at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. In the September-November 2003 period alone, Egyptian human rights organizations reported four deaths.
Over the past decade, suspected Islamist militants have borne the brunt of these acts. Recently, however, increasing numbers of secular and leftist dissidents – and journalists -- have also been tortured by police and security officials. In March and April 2003, for example, demonstrators and alleged organizers of public protests against the US-led war in Iraq were tortured and ill treated in detention. Police and state security agencies continue to use torture in order to suppress political dissent.
Egyptian authorities fail to investigate the great majority of allegations of torture. In the few cases where officers have been prosecuted for torture or ill treatment, charges were often inappropriately lenient and penalties inadequate. This lack of effective public accountability and transparency has, according to HRW, led to “a culture of impunity” and contributed to the institutionalization of torture.”
The Prosecutor General’s office opened criminal investigations in some of the cases of death in detention following formal complaints by human rights lawyers and family members. But, says HRW, “none of these investigations have led to criminal prosecution or disciplinary actions against the perpetrators.” Cruelty while in detention carries a maximum penalty of one year, or a fine not to exceed L.E. 200 [$30].
Another reason for Egypt’s failure to investigate and punish acts of torture by law enforcement is that it has appointed the fox to guard the henhouse. Says HRW: “There is an apparent conflict of interest in placing the responsibility to monitor places of detention, order forensic exams, and investigate and prosecute abuses by officials within the same office that is responsible for ordering arrests, obtaining confessions, and successfully prosecuting criminal suspects.”
The entire world abhors what has happened to Iraqi detainees. But the difference between Egypt and the United States is that the US is doing something to stop it.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
ANOTHER LOST OPPORTUNITY IN IRAQ
By William Fisher
By banning television cameras from showing the courts martial of the US military personnel accused of carrying out the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, America has lost a golden opportunity.
Here was a chance to show the world -- especially the Arab world -- how our military justice system works. Reaction from ‘the Arab street’ to the first such trial strongly suggests that Iraqis and others in the Middle East have missed a valuable learning experience. And that US authorities have made yet another miscalculation.
People interviewed by major news organizations in the Middle East felt the trial was too short -- obviously unaware that the defendant, Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, had entered a guilty plea, thus eliminating the time-consuming presentation of evidence to a jury. They were also unaware that the ‘Special’ court martial that heard the Sivits case can only hand down prison sentences of up to one year, or that others will be tried by ‘General’ courts martial, which are empowered to impose longer sentences, up and including the death penalty. They were also unaware that there is very little difference between the civil and military systems of justice.
Americans have learned a great deal about the US justice system over the past decade by watching live criminal and civil trials on television. Much of this knowledge has come from watching high profile prosecutions of celebrities. Nonetheless, Americans now know a good deal more about legal procedure, legal precedents, and about the roles of the judge, jury, witnesses, prosecutors and defense attorneys. They know how important good lawyers are. And most of the evidence indicates that those involved in legal proceedings have become quite comfortable with the non-intrusive techniques developed for cameras in the courtroom.
But more importantly, watching justice play out on the small screen teaches viewers a lot about the transparency of the process. This would be particularly valuable in the Middle East, where this central attribute of good governance is in very short supply.
The US spokesmen in Iraq said they decided against cameras because they were fearful of making this first court martial appear to be ‘a show trial’. Even though print media were allowed to cover the proceedings, the no-TV decision virtually insured that Iraqi and other Arab audiences would conclude that the trial was secret. Because they still believe that what they read in newspapers is government propaganda, and because secret trials are what they’re used to.
If the US military was fearful of showing its dirty linen in public, they have shot themselves in the foot. What they could have shown is that the military has high standards and aggressively prosecutes those who violate them – regardless of rank. So far, they have chosen rumor over transparency. In so doing, they have played directly into the hands of those who attack the United States for torturing prisoners.
But it is not too late for the Pentagon to reconsider this decision. Many trials lie ahead. The US military would do itself – and the nation – a real service by putting our cameras where our rhetoric is.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
eedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By banning television cameras from showing the courts martial of the US military personnel accused of carrying out the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, America has lost a golden opportunity.
Here was a chance to show the world -- especially the Arab world -- how our military justice system works. Reaction from ‘the Arab street’ to the first such trial strongly suggests that Iraqis and others in the Middle East have missed a valuable learning experience. And that US authorities have made yet another miscalculation.
People interviewed by major news organizations in the Middle East felt the trial was too short -- obviously unaware that the defendant, Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, had entered a guilty plea, thus eliminating the time-consuming presentation of evidence to a jury. They were also unaware that the ‘Special’ court martial that heard the Sivits case can only hand down prison sentences of up to one year, or that others will be tried by ‘General’ courts martial, which are empowered to impose longer sentences, up and including the death penalty. They were also unaware that there is very little difference between the civil and military systems of justice.
Americans have learned a great deal about the US justice system over the past decade by watching live criminal and civil trials on television. Much of this knowledge has come from watching high profile prosecutions of celebrities. Nonetheless, Americans now know a good deal more about legal procedure, legal precedents, and about the roles of the judge, jury, witnesses, prosecutors and defense attorneys. They know how important good lawyers are. And most of the evidence indicates that those involved in legal proceedings have become quite comfortable with the non-intrusive techniques developed for cameras in the courtroom.
But more importantly, watching justice play out on the small screen teaches viewers a lot about the transparency of the process. This would be particularly valuable in the Middle East, where this central attribute of good governance is in very short supply.
The US spokesmen in Iraq said they decided against cameras because they were fearful of making this first court martial appear to be ‘a show trial’. Even though print media were allowed to cover the proceedings, the no-TV decision virtually insured that Iraqi and other Arab audiences would conclude that the trial was secret. Because they still believe that what they read in newspapers is government propaganda, and because secret trials are what they’re used to.
If the US military was fearful of showing its dirty linen in public, they have shot themselves in the foot. What they could have shown is that the military has high standards and aggressively prosecutes those who violate them – regardless of rank. So far, they have chosen rumor over transparency. In so doing, they have played directly into the hands of those who attack the United States for torturing prisoners.
But it is not too late for the Pentagon to reconsider this decision. Many trials lie ahead. The US military would do itself – and the nation – a real service by putting our cameras where our rhetoric is.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
eedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE…
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
The flagrant hypocrisy of the Arab press over the Al Ghraib prisoner abuse issue in Iraq can inspire only deep doubt about the recent Arab League pronouncements of dedication to democratic reforms.
Egypt, America’s closest ‘strategic ally’ in the Middle East and a major recipient of US aid, provides a prime example.
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, one of Egypt’s leading commentators, charged in Al-Ahram, the country’s most prestigious newspaper, that Israel “is now cooperating with the US and furnishing it with interrogation techniques based on torturing detainees and extracting confessions…part of an undertaking extending… to civilian contractors who inflict torture in return for a fee...An Israeli human rights organization…has recently discovered… an Israeli version of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp…where people arrested in Lebanon and Palestine are interrogated under conditions very similar to those we now know prevail in Iraqi prisons...results obtained through torture in the Israeli concentration camps have been an encouragement for what is now going on in Iraq. State-sponsored terrorism of prisoners is also a lucrative business. Thanks to the ill-defined ‘war on terror’, those willing to inflict torture on enemy aliens stand to be handsomely rewarded.”
Maybe so, maybe no. But Mr. Sid-Ahmed conveniently misses the point.
The point is that reputable sources have documented dozens of cases of torture and death in detention in Egypt for decades. For example, a report by Human Rights Watch, submitted to the Egyptian Government and the Arab League last February, says torture in detention is “epidemic, a widespread and persistent phenomenon affecting large numbers of ordinary citizens who find themselves in police custody as suspects or in connection with criminal investigations. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation. In most cases, detainees are tortured to obtain information and coerce confessions, sometimes leading to death in custody…. Methods include beatings with fists, feet, and leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence.”
Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill treatment have shown a disturbing rise in the past two years, HRW says -- at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. In the September-November 2003 period alone, Egyptian human rights organizations reported four deaths.
Over the past decade, suspected Islamist militants have borne the brunt of these acts. Recently, however, increasing numbers of secular and leftist dissidents – and journalists -- have also been tortured by police and security officials. In March and April 2003, for example, demonstrators and alleged organizers of public protests against the US-led war in Iraq were tortured and ill treated in detention. Police and state security agencies continue to use torture in order to suppress political dissent.
Egyptian authorities fail to investigate the great majority of allegations of torture. In the few cases where officers have been prosecuted for torture or ill treatment, charges were often inappropriately lenient and penalties inadequate. This lack of effective public accountability and transparency has, according to HRW, led to “a culture of impunity” and contributed to the institutionalization of torture.”
The Prosecutor General’s office opened criminal investigations in some of the cases of death in detention following formal complaints by human rights lawyers and family members. But, says HRW, “none of these investigations have led to criminal prosecution or disciplinary actions against the perpetrators.” Cruelty while in detention carries a maximum penalty of one year, or a fine not to exceed L.E. 200 [$30].
Another reason for Egypt’s failure to investigate and punish acts of torture by law enforcement is that it has appointed the fox to guard the henhouse. Says HRW: “There is an apparent conflict of interest in placing the responsibility to monitor places of detention, order forensic exams, and investigate and prosecute abuses by officials within the same office that is responsible for ordering arrests, obtaining confessions, and successfully prosecuting criminal suspects.”
The entire world abhors what has happened to Iraqi detainees. But the difference between Egypt and the United States is that the US is doing something to stop it.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
By William Fisher
The flagrant hypocrisy of the Arab press over the Al Ghraib prisoner abuse issue in Iraq can inspire only deep doubt about the recent Arab League pronouncements of dedication to democratic reforms.
Egypt, America’s closest ‘strategic ally’ in the Middle East and a major recipient of US aid, provides a prime example.
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, one of Egypt’s leading commentators, charged in Al-Ahram, the country’s most prestigious newspaper, that Israel “is now cooperating with the US and furnishing it with interrogation techniques based on torturing detainees and extracting confessions…part of an undertaking extending… to civilian contractors who inflict torture in return for a fee...An Israeli human rights organization…has recently discovered… an Israeli version of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp…where people arrested in Lebanon and Palestine are interrogated under conditions very similar to those we now know prevail in Iraqi prisons...results obtained through torture in the Israeli concentration camps have been an encouragement for what is now going on in Iraq. State-sponsored terrorism of prisoners is also a lucrative business. Thanks to the ill-defined ‘war on terror’, those willing to inflict torture on enemy aliens stand to be handsomely rewarded.”
Maybe so, maybe no. But Mr. Sid-Ahmed conveniently misses the point.
The point is that reputable sources have documented dozens of cases of torture and death in detention in Egypt for decades. For example, a report by Human Rights Watch, submitted to the Egyptian Government and the Arab League last February, says torture in detention is “epidemic, a widespread and persistent phenomenon affecting large numbers of ordinary citizens who find themselves in police custody as suspects or in connection with criminal investigations. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation. In most cases, detainees are tortured to obtain information and coerce confessions, sometimes leading to death in custody…. Methods include beatings with fists, feet, and leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence.”
Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill treatment have shown a disturbing rise in the past two years, HRW says -- at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. In the September-November 2003 period alone, Egyptian human rights organizations reported four deaths.
Over the past decade, suspected Islamist militants have borne the brunt of these acts. Recently, however, increasing numbers of secular and leftist dissidents – and journalists -- have also been tortured by police and security officials. In March and April 2003, for example, demonstrators and alleged organizers of public protests against the US-led war in Iraq were tortured and ill treated in detention. Police and state security agencies continue to use torture in order to suppress political dissent.
Egyptian authorities fail to investigate the great majority of allegations of torture. In the few cases where officers have been prosecuted for torture or ill treatment, charges were often inappropriately lenient and penalties inadequate. This lack of effective public accountability and transparency has, according to HRW, led to “a culture of impunity” and contributed to the institutionalization of torture.”
The Prosecutor General’s office opened criminal investigations in some of the cases of death in detention following formal complaints by human rights lawyers and family members. But, says HRW, “none of these investigations have led to criminal prosecution or disciplinary actions against the perpetrators.” Cruelty while in detention carries a maximum penalty of one year, or a fine not to exceed L.E. 200 [$30].
Another reason for Egypt’s failure to investigate and punish acts of torture by law enforcement is that it has appointed the fox to guard the henhouse. Says HRW: “There is an apparent conflict of interest in placing the responsibility to monitor places of detention, order forensic exams, and investigate and prosecute abuses by officials within the same office that is responsible for ordering arrests, obtaining confessions, and successfully prosecuting criminal suspects.”
The entire world abhors what has happened to Iraqi detainees. But the difference between Egypt and the United States is that the US is doing something to stop it.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
BUSH’S MEDICAL SLEIGHT-OF-HAND
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
Remember the billions for HIV-AIDS President Bush pledged in his 2003 State of the Union address? Those funds were to put two million people in Africa and the Caribbean on life-saving antiretroviral drugs. Has this promise gone the way of ‘No Child Left Behind’? Or the new mission to the moon and Mars? Or the huge stockpiles of WMD in Iraq?
According to Dr. Paul Zeitz, president and executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, the Bush administration’s recent announcement of new "fast-track" approval of combination drugs for HIV/AIDS “looks great for public relations.” But, Dr. Zeitz contends that “Bush is slowing down an internationally recognized, World Health Organization-run, multilateral approval process for generic AIDS medicines.”
Says Dr. Zeitz: “On closer inspection, we learn that President Bush continues to block or delay access to the high-quality generically manufactured drugs that can save lives today. Actually, African governments, the World Bank, UNICEF, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria and non-governmental organizations like Doctors Without Borders are all already using WHO-approved medicines to treat AIDS patients around the world.”
Zeitz adds: “The Bush administration has attempted to put a positive media ‘compassion’ spin on its global AIDS programs, while it simultaneously slows progress and relentlessly implements an arrogant, unilateralist and ideological policy that consistently undermines global efforts by nearly all other stakeholders.”
Should we be surprised? Hardly, because this would not be the first time the Bush Administration has chosen ideology over science. For example:
Sex Education. President Bush has consistently supported the view that sex education should teach “abstinence only” and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) initiative called “Programs That Work” identified sex education programs that have been found to be effective in scientific studies and provided this information through its web site. In 2002, all five “Programs That Work” provided comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and none were “abstinence-only.” CDC has now ended this initiative and erased information about these proven sex education programs from its web site. Information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC web site. The CDC replaced a comprehensive fact sheet on condoms with one emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.
Stem Cell Research. In banning federal funding for research on new stem cell lines, President Bush stated that “more than 60 genetically diverse" lines were available for potential research. Soon thereafter, HHS Secretary Thompson acknowledged that the correct number was only about 24 to 25. Still later, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni told Congress that only 11 stem cell lines were widely available to researchers. Recently, none other than Mrs. Nancy Reagan has gone public, urging the president to rethink his stem cell policy.
Global Warming. Reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed; The White House added so many hedges to the climate change section of the EPA's report card on the environment that former administrator Christie Whitman deleted the section rather than publish one that was so scientifically inaccurate.
Missile Defense. A top Defense Department official told a Senate panel that by the end of 2004, the system would be 90% effective in intercepting missiles from the Korean peninsula. In April 2003, the General Accounting Office found the President’s plan unworkable and even dangerous. The claim of 90% effectiveness “is not supported by any publicly available evidence, and it appears not to comport with the Pentagon’s own classified estimates.”
Wetlands Policy. Comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld. Scientists at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the Interior Department, had prepared such an analysis showing that the new Corps proposal would “encourage the destruction of stream channels and lead to increased loss of aquatic functions.” The Interior Secretary, however, failed to submit the scientists’ comments to the Corps. The Corps subsequently issued rules that weakened key wetland protections.
Abortion and Breast Cancer. Social conservatives campaigned to require women to be “counseled” about an alleged risk of breast cancer from abortions, the National Cancer Institute revised its web site to suggest that studies of equal weight conflicted on the question. In fact, there is scientific consensus that no such link exists.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the president trusted the people enough to level with them?
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
By William Fisher
Remember the billions for HIV-AIDS President Bush pledged in his 2003 State of the Union address? Those funds were to put two million people in Africa and the Caribbean on life-saving antiretroviral drugs. Has this promise gone the way of ‘No Child Left Behind’? Or the new mission to the moon and Mars? Or the huge stockpiles of WMD in Iraq?
According to Dr. Paul Zeitz, president and executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, the Bush administration’s recent announcement of new "fast-track" approval of combination drugs for HIV/AIDS “looks great for public relations.” But, Dr. Zeitz contends that “Bush is slowing down an internationally recognized, World Health Organization-run, multilateral approval process for generic AIDS medicines.”
Says Dr. Zeitz: “On closer inspection, we learn that President Bush continues to block or delay access to the high-quality generically manufactured drugs that can save lives today. Actually, African governments, the World Bank, UNICEF, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria and non-governmental organizations like Doctors Without Borders are all already using WHO-approved medicines to treat AIDS patients around the world.”
Zeitz adds: “The Bush administration has attempted to put a positive media ‘compassion’ spin on its global AIDS programs, while it simultaneously slows progress and relentlessly implements an arrogant, unilateralist and ideological policy that consistently undermines global efforts by nearly all other stakeholders.”
Should we be surprised? Hardly, because this would not be the first time the Bush Administration has chosen ideology over science. For example:
Sex Education. President Bush has consistently supported the view that sex education should teach “abstinence only” and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) initiative called “Programs That Work” identified sex education programs that have been found to be effective in scientific studies and provided this information through its web site. In 2002, all five “Programs That Work” provided comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and none were “abstinence-only.” CDC has now ended this initiative and erased information about these proven sex education programs from its web site. Information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC web site. The CDC replaced a comprehensive fact sheet on condoms with one emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.
Stem Cell Research. In banning federal funding for research on new stem cell lines, President Bush stated that “more than 60 genetically diverse" lines were available for potential research. Soon thereafter, HHS Secretary Thompson acknowledged that the correct number was only about 24 to 25. Still later, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni told Congress that only 11 stem cell lines were widely available to researchers. Recently, none other than Mrs. Nancy Reagan has gone public, urging the president to rethink his stem cell policy.
Global Warming. Reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed; The White House added so many hedges to the climate change section of the EPA's report card on the environment that former administrator Christie Whitman deleted the section rather than publish one that was so scientifically inaccurate.
Missile Defense. A top Defense Department official told a Senate panel that by the end of 2004, the system would be 90% effective in intercepting missiles from the Korean peninsula. In April 2003, the General Accounting Office found the President’s plan unworkable and even dangerous. The claim of 90% effectiveness “is not supported by any publicly available evidence, and it appears not to comport with the Pentagon’s own classified estimates.”
Wetlands Policy. Comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld. Scientists at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the Interior Department, had prepared such an analysis showing that the new Corps proposal would “encourage the destruction of stream channels and lead to increased loss of aquatic functions.” The Interior Secretary, however, failed to submit the scientists’ comments to the Corps. The Corps subsequently issued rules that weakened key wetland protections.
Abortion and Breast Cancer. Social conservatives campaigned to require women to be “counseled” about an alleged risk of breast cancer from abortions, the National Cancer Institute revised its web site to suggest that studies of equal weight conflicted on the question. In fact, there is scientific consensus that no such link exists.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the president trusted the people enough to level with them?
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
…
By William Fisher
Of course, Arabs are outraged by the awful photographs of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in Iraq. We are all outraged. But one has to question whether there is not more than a little hypocrisy in the reactions of most Arab governments and of the Arab League itself.
A spokesman for the League said in Cairo, "It is beyond the words of despicable acts and disgust that we feel at watching such photographs."
What’s wrong with this picture is that many of the Middle East’s Arab states, as well as Israel, have long, bloody, and current histories of torture and death among prisoners while in detention. Egypt is near the top of the list, and the Cairo-based and gravely dysfunctional Arab League is well aware of it.
Egypt’s record was comprehensively documented in a February 2004 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), along with detailed recommendations to the League and to the Government of Egypt for corrective actions. To date, neither party has done anything to remedy the situation.
The findings? HRW documented dozens of cases of torture and death in detention. Torture in Egypt, the Report says, is “epidemic, a widespread and persistent phenomenon affecting large numbers of ordinary citizens who find themselves in police custody as suspects or in connection with criminal investigations. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation. In most cases, detainees are tortured to obtain information and coerce confessions, sometimes leading to death in custody. “ Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill treatment have shown a disturbing rise in the past two years, HRW says -- at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. In the September-November 2003 period alone, Egyptian human rights organizations reported four cases of deaths in custody.
Methods include beatings with fists, feet, and leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence.
In the past decade, suspected Islamist militants have borne the brunt of these acts. Recently, however, increasing numbers of secular and leftist dissidents have also been tortured by police and security officials. In March and April 2003, for example, demonstrators and alleged organizers of public protests against the US-led war in Iraq were tortured and ill treated in detention. Police and state security agencies continue to use torture in order to suppress political dissent.
Egyptian authorities fail to investigate the great majority of allegations of torture. In the few cases where officers have been prosecuted for torture or ill treatment, charges were often inappropriately lenient and penalties inadequate. This lack of effective public accountability and transparency has led to “a culture of impunity” and contributed to the institutionalization of torture.”
The Prosecutor General’s office opened criminal investigations in some of the cases of death in detention following formal complaints by human rights lawyers and family members. But, says HRW, “none of these investigations have led to criminal prosecution or disciplinary actions against the perpetrators.” Moreover, Egypt’s Penal Code fails to provide for effective punishment of law enforcement officials responsible for torture and ill treatment. It states that any official who subjects persons to “cruelty,” including physical harm or offences to their dignity, “shall be sentenced to an arrest period of no longer than one year, or with a fine not to exceed L.E. 200 [$30].”
One of the reasons for Egypt’s failure to investigate and punish acts of torture by law enforcement is that it has appointed the fox to guard the henhouse. Says HRW: “There is an apparent conflict of interest in placing the responsibility to monitor places of detention, order forensic exams, and investigate and prosecute abuses by officials within the same office that is responsible for ordering arrests, obtaining confessions, and successfully prosecuting criminal suspects.”
Egypt, a close American ally and one of the largest recipients of US aid, is party to all the international human rights treaties prohibiting torture and mandating investigations, and torture is forbidden by Egypt’s Constitution. Moreover, the country now has an official human rights commission, headed by former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Gali.
Let us hope the US military will mete out swift and appropriate punishment to the American soldiers who disgraced their country. And let us hope that Egypt and other Arab governments are watching – and learning.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
…
By William Fisher
Of course, Arabs are outraged by the awful photographs of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in Iraq. We are all outraged. But one has to question whether there is not more than a little hypocrisy in the reactions of most Arab governments and of the Arab League itself.
A spokesman for the League said in Cairo, "It is beyond the words of despicable acts and disgust that we feel at watching such photographs."
What’s wrong with this picture is that many of the Middle East’s Arab states, as well as Israel, have long, bloody, and current histories of torture and death among prisoners while in detention. Egypt is near the top of the list, and the Cairo-based and gravely dysfunctional Arab League is well aware of it.
Egypt’s record was comprehensively documented in a February 2004 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), along with detailed recommendations to the League and to the Government of Egypt for corrective actions. To date, neither party has done anything to remedy the situation.
The findings? HRW documented dozens of cases of torture and death in detention. Torture in Egypt, the Report says, is “epidemic, a widespread and persistent phenomenon affecting large numbers of ordinary citizens who find themselves in police custody as suspects or in connection with criminal investigations. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation. In most cases, detainees are tortured to obtain information and coerce confessions, sometimes leading to death in custody. “ Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill treatment have shown a disturbing rise in the past two years, HRW says -- at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. In the September-November 2003 period alone, Egyptian human rights organizations reported four cases of deaths in custody.
Methods include beatings with fists, feet, and leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence.
In the past decade, suspected Islamist militants have borne the brunt of these acts. Recently, however, increasing numbers of secular and leftist dissidents have also been tortured by police and security officials. In March and April 2003, for example, demonstrators and alleged organizers of public protests against the US-led war in Iraq were tortured and ill treated in detention. Police and state security agencies continue to use torture in order to suppress political dissent.
Egyptian authorities fail to investigate the great majority of allegations of torture. In the few cases where officers have been prosecuted for torture or ill treatment, charges were often inappropriately lenient and penalties inadequate. This lack of effective public accountability and transparency has led to “a culture of impunity” and contributed to the institutionalization of torture.”
The Prosecutor General’s office opened criminal investigations in some of the cases of death in detention following formal complaints by human rights lawyers and family members. But, says HRW, “none of these investigations have led to criminal prosecution or disciplinary actions against the perpetrators.” Moreover, Egypt’s Penal Code fails to provide for effective punishment of law enforcement officials responsible for torture and ill treatment. It states that any official who subjects persons to “cruelty,” including physical harm or offences to their dignity, “shall be sentenced to an arrest period of no longer than one year, or with a fine not to exceed L.E. 200 [$30].”
One of the reasons for Egypt’s failure to investigate and punish acts of torture by law enforcement is that it has appointed the fox to guard the henhouse. Says HRW: “There is an apparent conflict of interest in placing the responsibility to monitor places of detention, order forensic exams, and investigate and prosecute abuses by officials within the same office that is responsible for ordering arrests, obtaining confessions, and successfully prosecuting criminal suspects.”
Egypt, a close American ally and one of the largest recipients of US aid, is party to all the international human rights treaties prohibiting torture and mandating investigations, and torture is forbidden by Egypt’s Constitution. Moreover, the country now has an official human rights commission, headed by former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Gali.
Let us hope the US military will mete out swift and appropriate punishment to the American soldiers who disgraced their country. And let us hope that Egypt and other Arab governments are watching – and learning.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other areas for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration
Friday, May 14, 2004
GOOD BOYS (ALMOST) GONE BAD
William Fisher
The year was 1951. The Korean War was raging. I was drafted into the Army and sent for basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey. After basic, I was assigned to a military police company based at the then First Army headquarters on Governors Island in New York harbor.
Since I had a college degree and had worked for a couple of years in journalism, it was, of course, logical that they should make me a cop. My MP company had three missions. It directed traffic on and off the ferries that connected our Island with New York City. It sent teams of MPs to patrol dangerous combat zones like Times Square looking for soldiers who were AWOL, drunk, or otherwise mischievous. And it patrolled the Island itself looking for similar types of miscreants.
They gave me several weeks of MP training. This consisted mostly of lectures on the Code of Military Justice and demonstrations and exercises in making arrests and subduing over-athletic detainees, learning proper dress and radio code numbers like civilian cops have, and completing the paperwork required for each detainee. I can’t recall any mention of the Geneva Conventions, perhaps because they had been ratified only a year or two earlier. Then they gave me my MP armband and an enormous .45 caliber sidearm. I looked like George Patton!
My company commander was the Superintendent of Schools in a smallish city upstate New York. But my chain of command, as I understood it, went from me to my desk sergeant – the man who ran our police station. Sgt. Duffy, we’ll call him, was regular army. He was a caricature of a Georgia redneck. Like many of the regular army people I met, he was rabidly anti-black (called Negro back then), rabidly anti-Semitic, rabidly anti-Northerner, rabidly anti-university, and a big off-duty drinker.
But the scariest thing about Sgt. Duffy was his barely concealed rage. Sgt. Duffy was just plain sadistic. “You find a GI messing up -- I don’t care what he’s done -- and you treat him rough, and he won’t be back. And no exceptions!” Sgt. Duffy admonished his young MPs. Repeated often enough, Sgt. Duffy created an environment of revenge, retribution, and, most importantly, power and domination. We were the bosses. We were empowered!
That bizarre message resonated among the frustrated young MPs in our squad – all draftees, all angry at the Army for drafting us, all angry at the regular army drill sergeants who had made basic training a living hell, all angry at the thought that any day we could get orders to ship out to Korea to become combat MPs, the most dangerous job in the Army.
Mercifully, that anger rarely surfaced among the young MPs – there weren’t that many ‘bad guys’ to for us to arrest. But one night I was on car patrol around the Island when I spotted a car parked where it shouldn’t have been. I took my flashlight and approached the car. In the back seat, a GI and a WAC (that was the Women’s Army Corps) were doing what girls and boys usually do in back seats of cars.
I knocked on the window and called out “you need to move this car, right now!” No response. I used my flashlight to knock on the window again. The window now opened and the GI inside yelled out “I have permission to park here”, and closed the window again. I now banged on the window more aggressively. A door opened and a Staff Sergeant got out. “Piss off, Private!” he shouted. I could smell the booze as he approached me. “Piss off”, he shouted in my face.
I felt myself getting angry at having my power questioned. “Look”, I said, trying to calm this very drunk soldier. “Let’s not get you into trouble. You could lose a stripe. Why don’t you just move your car to a parking space, and we’ll both be on our way?”
Next thing I knew an arm was coming toward me. I ducked and did what I had learned in basic training. I grabbed his hand with both of mine and twisted it downward, forcing his body to go in the same direction. Then I forced the arm I was holding behind his back, and clicked on one handcuff. I pushed him toward the railing where the car was parked, and used it to attach the other cuff. I told the WAC to stay in the car. Then I called Sgt. Duffy for backup. Just like NYPD Blue!
It was 20-or-so minutes before my backup arrived, and all the while my ‘prisoner’ was shouting unprintable threats and insults, and I was getting angrier by the second. It would have been so easy to, as the TV cops say, ‘tune him up’, and I was seriously tempted. After all, this was all about control and domination!
Thankfully, I managed to restrain myself, and I’m glad I did. That’s what I was trained to do. But I have to wonder: How would I have behaved in Abu Ghraib prison?
edback to: wfisher206@aol.com
The year was 1951. The Korean War was raging. I was drafted into the Army and sent for basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey. After basic, I was assigned to a military police company based at the then First Army headquarters on Governors Island in New York harbor.
Since I had a college degree and had worked for a couple of years in journalism, it was, of course, logical that they should make me a cop. My MP company had three missions. It directed traffic on and off the ferries that connected our Island with New York City. It sent teams of MPs to patrol dangerous combat zones like Times Square looking for soldiers who were AWOL, drunk, or otherwise mischievous. And it patrolled the Island itself looking for similar types of miscreants.
They gave me several weeks of MP training. This consisted mostly of lectures on the Code of Military Justice and demonstrations and exercises in making arrests and subduing over-athletic detainees, learning proper dress and radio code numbers like civilian cops have, and completing the paperwork required for each detainee. I can’t recall any mention of the Geneva Conventions, perhaps because they had been ratified only a year or two earlier. Then they gave me my MP armband and an enormous .45 caliber sidearm. I looked like George Patton!
My company commander was the Superintendent of Schools in a smallish city upstate New York. But my chain of command, as I understood it, went from me to my desk sergeant – the man who ran our police station. Sgt. Duffy, we’ll call him, was regular army. He was a caricature of a Georgia redneck. Like many of the regular army people I met, he was rabidly anti-black (called Negro back then), rabidly anti-Semitic, rabidly anti-Northerner, rabidly anti-university, and a big off-duty drinker.
But the scariest thing about Sgt. Duffy was his barely concealed rage. Sgt. Duffy was just plain sadistic. “You find a GI messing up -- I don’t care what he’s done -- and you treat him rough, and he won’t be back. And no exceptions!” Sgt. Duffy admonished his young MPs. Repeated often enough, Sgt. Duffy created an environment of revenge, retribution, and, most importantly, power and domination. We were the bosses. We were empowered!
That bizarre message resonated among the frustrated young MPs in our squad – all draftees, all angry at the Army for drafting us, all angry at the regular army drill sergeants who had made basic training a living hell, all angry at the thought that any day we could get orders to ship out to Korea to become combat MPs, the most dangerous job in the Army.
Mercifully, that anger rarely surfaced among the young MPs – there weren’t that many ‘bad guys’ to for us to arrest. But one night I was on car patrol around the Island when I spotted a car parked where it shouldn’t have been. I took my flashlight and approached the car. In the back seat, a GI and a WAC (that was the Women’s Army Corps) were doing what girls and boys usually do in back seats of cars.
I knocked on the window and called out “you need to move this car, right now!” No response. I used my flashlight to knock on the window again. The window now opened and the GI inside yelled out “I have permission to park here”, and closed the window again. I now banged on the window more aggressively. A door opened and a Staff Sergeant got out. “Piss off, Private!” he shouted. I could smell the booze as he approached me. “Piss off”, he shouted in my face.
I felt myself getting angry at having my power questioned. “Look”, I said, trying to calm this very drunk soldier. “Let’s not get you into trouble. You could lose a stripe. Why don’t you just move your car to a parking space, and we’ll both be on our way?”
Next thing I knew an arm was coming toward me. I ducked and did what I had learned in basic training. I grabbed his hand with both of mine and twisted it downward, forcing his body to go in the same direction. Then I forced the arm I was holding behind his back, and clicked on one handcuff. I pushed him toward the railing where the car was parked, and used it to attach the other cuff. I told the WAC to stay in the car. Then I called Sgt. Duffy for backup. Just like NYPD Blue!
It was 20-or-so minutes before my backup arrived, and all the while my ‘prisoner’ was shouting unprintable threats and insults, and I was getting angrier by the second. It would have been so easy to, as the TV cops say, ‘tune him up’, and I was seriously tempted. After all, this was all about control and domination!
Thankfully, I managed to restrain myself, and I’m glad I did. That’s what I was trained to do. But I have to wonder: How would I have behaved in Abu Ghraib prison?
edback to: wfisher206@aol.com
LABOR PAINS
By William Fisher
May Day has come and gone in Egypt, and only one thing was missing: Labor.
As reported in Al Ahram, Egypt’s leading daily newspaper, “On May 1st police forces overwhelmed a group of activists holding a May Day demonstration in Tahrir Square (in downtown Cairo) calling for a 40 per cent increase in wages.”
There are three problems with a 40 per cent wage increase – or any. The first is that Egypt’s 21 million workers are understandably seeking a larger slice of a pie that has been getting smaller year-by-year. The second is that labor in Egypt has no political power. The third is that if it had any power, the police would squash it like a roach.
Egypt’s economy is in freefall. Unemployment and under-employment has been rising and working conditions getting worse. Most Egyptian workers live well below the poverty line.
The public sector – the government and the industries it owns – remains the country’s largest employer, despite years of efforts to privatize. Governments produce nothing and the enterprises they run are customarily poorly managed, over-staffed and inefficient.
Meanwhile, prices have been rising steadily. The price of basic staples has gone up between 33 and 109 per cent -- onions have increased by 500 per cent. Over five million people live in shantytowns, and over 100,000 Egyptians are diagnosed with cancer every year as a result of pollutants." According to Manpower and Training Minister Ahmed El-Amawi, improved investment is the key to solving many of the problems. And yet, according to a report by the Chambers of Commerce Federation, 800 factories in the new industrial satellite cities have stopped production as a result of economic recession. Investment in Egypt has dwindled to a trickle.
Organized labor is an oxymoron. It has no political constituency. The channels through which workers can express their demands are extremely limited. Labor activists have long pressed for an open trade union system to allow for multiplicity. The General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) is seen to be a government puppet in its endorsement of the unified labor law passed last year. Labor activists like Kamal Abbas, head of the Centre for Trade Union Workers' Services (CTUWS), believe part of the problem stems from the committee established under the law to decide on minimum wage, the restrictions of strike action, and limited time contracts. The committee, which is under the leadership of the Minister of Planning, has yet to take any action.
The legal system still provides an avenue for workers, but the current law impedes worker access to the courts. Petitions now go to the Appeals Court as opposed to courts of first instance, and there are only eight Appeals Courts in the country. Last year alone, more than 1,000 cases were backlogged. Moreover, the five-member committee established under the new law to look into labor complaints does not convene regularly. The group includes representatives of the Federation, the judiciary and the business community, but business people rarely attend, so the committee does not convene.
The Nasserist Party, which rails against privatization, American neo-colonialism and unemployment, has announced the formation of a Labor Front coalition of labor offices at political parties and labor activists. It has initiated a campaign to make sure workers understand their rights under the new law and can press for those rights. But most observers believe the political parties can do little since they are subject to heavy-handed government restrictions. Thus, there is
no organized labor constituency.
For many years, the United States, the European Union, and other donors have poured tens of millions of dollars into helping Egypt build a more competitive private sector and a more business-friendly policy environment for them to operate in. Significant funding has also been devoted to upgrading human capital: training programs to give the workforce the skills needed to survive in a 21st century environment. Yet university grads drive taxis or emigrate to the US and Europe. In 2001, 80 per cent of university graduates were unemployed a year after their graduation.
While there has been some progress in private sector development, government policy, capital, regulatory and practice constraints continue to place virtually insurmountable obstacles in the path of growth, except for the already wealthy. This chokes off investment and leads to still higher unemployment. Moreover, It is the wealthy who are able to use their contacts to practice ‘crony capitalism’, who tend to get most of the benefits of donor funds, who use their money to lubricate permitting and customs procedures, and who have access to the banking system.
In that environment, the prospects for substantial advances for workers are less than minimal. And so are the prospects for Egypt’s rise out of poverty and under-development.
dback to: wfisher206@aol.com
May Day has come and gone in Egypt, and only one thing was missing: Labor.
As reported in Al Ahram, Egypt’s leading daily newspaper, “On May 1st police forces overwhelmed a group of activists holding a May Day demonstration in Tahrir Square (in downtown Cairo) calling for a 40 per cent increase in wages.”
There are three problems with a 40 per cent wage increase – or any. The first is that Egypt’s 21 million workers are understandably seeking a larger slice of a pie that has been getting smaller year-by-year. The second is that labor in Egypt has no political power. The third is that if it had any power, the police would squash it like a roach.
Egypt’s economy is in freefall. Unemployment and under-employment has been rising and working conditions getting worse. Most Egyptian workers live well below the poverty line.
The public sector – the government and the industries it owns – remains the country’s largest employer, despite years of efforts to privatize. Governments produce nothing and the enterprises they run are customarily poorly managed, over-staffed and inefficient.
Meanwhile, prices have been rising steadily. The price of basic staples has gone up between 33 and 109 per cent -- onions have increased by 500 per cent. Over five million people live in shantytowns, and over 100,000 Egyptians are diagnosed with cancer every year as a result of pollutants." According to Manpower and Training Minister Ahmed El-Amawi, improved investment is the key to solving many of the problems. And yet, according to a report by the Chambers of Commerce Federation, 800 factories in the new industrial satellite cities have stopped production as a result of economic recession. Investment in Egypt has dwindled to a trickle.
Organized labor is an oxymoron. It has no political constituency. The channels through which workers can express their demands are extremely limited. Labor activists have long pressed for an open trade union system to allow for multiplicity. The General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) is seen to be a government puppet in its endorsement of the unified labor law passed last year. Labor activists like Kamal Abbas, head of the Centre for Trade Union Workers' Services (CTUWS), believe part of the problem stems from the committee established under the law to decide on minimum wage, the restrictions of strike action, and limited time contracts. The committee, which is under the leadership of the Minister of Planning, has yet to take any action.
The legal system still provides an avenue for workers, but the current law impedes worker access to the courts. Petitions now go to the Appeals Court as opposed to courts of first instance, and there are only eight Appeals Courts in the country. Last year alone, more than 1,000 cases were backlogged. Moreover, the five-member committee established under the new law to look into labor complaints does not convene regularly. The group includes representatives of the Federation, the judiciary and the business community, but business people rarely attend, so the committee does not convene.
The Nasserist Party, which rails against privatization, American neo-colonialism and unemployment, has announced the formation of a Labor Front coalition of labor offices at political parties and labor activists. It has initiated a campaign to make sure workers understand their rights under the new law and can press for those rights. But most observers believe the political parties can do little since they are subject to heavy-handed government restrictions. Thus, there is
no organized labor constituency.
For many years, the United States, the European Union, and other donors have poured tens of millions of dollars into helping Egypt build a more competitive private sector and a more business-friendly policy environment for them to operate in. Significant funding has also been devoted to upgrading human capital: training programs to give the workforce the skills needed to survive in a 21st century environment. Yet university grads drive taxis or emigrate to the US and Europe. In 2001, 80 per cent of university graduates were unemployed a year after their graduation.
While there has been some progress in private sector development, government policy, capital, regulatory and practice constraints continue to place virtually insurmountable obstacles in the path of growth, except for the already wealthy. This chokes off investment and leads to still higher unemployment. Moreover, It is the wealthy who are able to use their contacts to practice ‘crony capitalism’, who tend to get most of the benefits of donor funds, who use their money to lubricate permitting and customs procedures, and who have access to the banking system.
In that environment, the prospects for substantial advances for workers are less than minimal. And so are the prospects for Egypt’s rise out of poverty and under-development.
dback to: wfisher206@aol.com
Saturday, May 08, 2004
A TALE OF TWO CITIES
By William Fisher
This is a story about Fallujah and the Americans, but it begins in Egypt.
In the first few months of my three-year stay in Cairo, telephone service was a constant and frustrating nightmare. When you picked up the phone to make a call, back would come a recorded (in Arabic, of course) message, “you are not authorized to make this call.” When (and if) the phone rang, it would disconnect immediately.
I finally decided to take time off from my work to present myself at the ‘Central’ – the phone company office – to let them know in no uncertain terms that I was their paying customer and that I expected the service I was paying for.
When I asked Said, my driver, to take me to the phone company, he enquired about the problem. I told him. His response: “Let me handle it.” My suspicion was he would handle it ‘the Egyptian way,’ promises would be made, but in the end nothing would get done. But I played along.
We arrived at the Central and Said asked to see the head man. He mentioned that he had with him ‘an American manager’ interested in technology. In minutes, we were escorted through an enormous hall lined with telephone switching equipment, and into the boss’ office. The office was a huge room littered with old cups of coffee, ashtrays piled high with ancient cigarette butts, files covering the floor, and an IBM computer and a stack of huge Dickensian ledger books hiding the surface of the boss’s desk.
From behind the ledgers emerged a large man with a beer belly. Said addressed him. With my half-dozen Arabic words, I understood him to be introducing both of us. This was followed by much smiling and shaking of hands. Said must have introduced me as Donald Trump or Bill Gates, because the boss and his underlings all seemed embarrassingly deferential. The boss’ name was Hesham.
Said and Hesham started talking. Coffee arrived. I heard Said mention the name of the village where he was born. (I learned later that Hesham was born a quarter-mile up the road from Said, and they had many friends in common.) A broad smile covered Hesham’s face. Little pastries arrived and there was more talking and more coffee. Then Hesham rose and beckoned me to come with him. He led me down the rows of switching equipment, explaining the whole setup in Arabic while Said translated for me into English.
I asked some questions that stretched my technical knowledge to its limits. Hesham answered them all. Back in his office, more coffee. None of this gringo Nescafe; this was real coffee, and I was now totally wired with caffeine. After five or 10 minutes more of seemingly rambling conversation, Said gave me the funny glance he always used when he needed to be in charge.
He rose and I rose with him. I shook Hesham’s hand and thanked him for his time and hospitality. As Said and I headed for the door, Hesham said (I later learned), “what’s your friend’s phone number?” Said wrote it on a slip of paper. Hesham took the paper and went down the rows of switches. He stopped and summoned one of his underlings to climb up one of the very tall ladders to the switch for my phone number. He pulled it out of its socket and handed it to Hesham. Hesham examined it and suddenly looked very embarrassed. He barked a few commands at the technician, who went away and returned in less than three minutes with a box from which he took a shiny new switch, which he put into its housing.
We all shook hands again, and Said and I headed out.
Back at my apartment overlooking the Nile, I discovered I had a twenty-first century telephone, including overseas service with English-speaking operators, and directory enquiry announcements in both Arabic and English.
What does all this tell us about Fallujah and the Americans? If we’re listening, it tells us volumes. It tells us that different people living in different cultures have very different ways of approaching and solving problems. It tells us that being seen to be humiliated is more an affront to some people than to others. It tells us that people have very different senses of time and pride and priorities.
It would be simplistic in the extreme to think that, given American missteps over the past year, any number of cups of coffee at the telephone exchange would now make us welcome in Fallujah. The US finds itself in ‘major combat’ yet again. Not even Nostradamus could predict whether that might have been avoidable. But it now seems clear that the US has managed to squander whatever goodwill it may have had just after President George W. Bush declared the end of ‘major combat.’ It also seems clear that America’s failures can be attributed in large part to the absence of any credible strategy for winning the peace and to its inability to anticipate the kinds of problems it was surprised to find itself facing. And at the tactical level, the US Coalition Provisional Authority and the American military have seemed totally clueless about how to get things done in Iraq, especially in the ‘Sunni triangle.’ It is unclear whether the CPA and the military acted out of built-in biases, or!
lacked the crucial fingertip knowledge of the society, or simply failed to call on or listen to, those who had it.
For the US, Fallujah is already lost, regardless of the military outcome. But if the band of Saddamist generals can miraculously cobble together a force that is successful in returning a semblance of stability to that beleaguered city, we Americans can learn a critically important lesson from our failures. But only if we’re listening.
TOWARD A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
By William Fisher
I wish John Kerry would write to the American people as follows:
My fellow countrymen:
When George W. Bush ran for the presidency, he promised to unite America. Almost four years later, we find ourselves divided on just about every major political, social and economic issue. George W. Bush has become the most polarizing divider in our history.
Therefore, I have decided that, when I am elected president, one of my top priorities will be to bring us together. As a first step, I will form a Government of National Unity. We are a nation that cherishes diversity, and my government will be as diverse as our nation itself. Even among those who disagree with me on particular issues, we still have far more in common than the ideas that divide us. Until we can all learn to work together, our country cannot realize its full potential at home, much less try to set an example for the rest of the world.
So I am pleased to announce that the following leaders have agreed to serve in my administration.
As Vice President, Senator John McCain, member of the Armed Services Committee.
As Secretary of State, Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
As Secretary of Defense, John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan and a member of the 9/11 Commission.
As Secretary of Treasury, Lawrence H. Summers, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration and currently president of Harvard.
As secretary of Homeland Security, Richard Clarke, advisor to four presidents and head of counter-terrorism in the Clinton and Bush administrations.
As my National Security Advisor, Richard Holbrook, US Ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton Administration.
As Attorney General, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives from Washington, DC.
As Director of Central Intelligence, Rep. Porter J. Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Other similarly diverse cabinet appointments will be announced as I continue to explore this new concept with leaders of all political persuasions and from all walks of American life.
Welding this diverse group into a cohesive and effective team will be challenging. These are strong leaders with strong convictions. But I have known all these people for many years. They are all good listeners and, like me, they are concerned about the future of our country. I am convinced that this new approach is critical if we are to restore American credibility, keep our people safe and at work, and promote peace and security around the world,
Thanks for your support.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
Dream on? Well, maybe. But there have been other times in American history when obvious opponents came together for the sake of national unity. I am reminded of the unlikely alliance between President Truman and Midwest conservative Senator Arthur M. Vandenberg. That brought our country to one of its finest hours – the Marshall Plan. Think about it.
I wish John Kerry would write to the American people as follows:
My fellow countrymen:
When George W. Bush ran for the presidency, he promised to unite America. Almost four years later, we find ourselves divided on just about every major political, social and economic issue. George W. Bush has become the most polarizing divider in our history.
Therefore, I have decided that, when I am elected president, one of my top priorities will be to bring us together. As a first step, I will form a Government of National Unity. We are a nation that cherishes diversity, and my government will be as diverse as our nation itself. Even among those who disagree with me on particular issues, we still have far more in common than the ideas that divide us. Until we can all learn to work together, our country cannot realize its full potential at home, much less try to set an example for the rest of the world.
So I am pleased to announce that the following leaders have agreed to serve in my administration.
As Vice President, Senator John McCain, member of the Armed Services Committee.
As Secretary of State, Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
As Secretary of Defense, John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan and a member of the 9/11 Commission.
As Secretary of Treasury, Lawrence H. Summers, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration and currently president of Harvard.
As secretary of Homeland Security, Richard Clarke, advisor to four presidents and head of counter-terrorism in the Clinton and Bush administrations.
As my National Security Advisor, Richard Holbrook, US Ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton Administration.
As Attorney General, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives from Washington, DC.
As Director of Central Intelligence, Rep. Porter J. Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Other similarly diverse cabinet appointments will be announced as I continue to explore this new concept with leaders of all political persuasions and from all walks of American life.
Welding this diverse group into a cohesive and effective team will be challenging. These are strong leaders with strong convictions. But I have known all these people for many years. They are all good listeners and, like me, they are concerned about the future of our country. I am convinced that this new approach is critical if we are to restore American credibility, keep our people safe and at work, and promote peace and security around the world,
Thanks for your support.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
Dream on? Well, maybe. But there have been other times in American history when obvious opponents came together for the sake of national unity. I am reminded of the unlikely alliance between President Truman and Midwest conservative Senator Arthur M. Vandenberg. That brought our country to one of its finest hours – the Marshall Plan. Think about it.
PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES …
By William Fisher
Of course, Arabs are outraged by the awful photographs of the apparent abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in Iraq. We are all outraged. But one has to question whether there is not more than a little hypocrisy in the reactions of most Arab governments and of the Arab League itself.
A spokesman for the League said in Cairo, "It is beyond the words of despicable acts and disgust that we feel at watching such photographs."
What’s wrong with this picture is that many of the Middle East’s Arab states, as well as Israel, have long, bloody, and current histories of torture and death among prisoners while in detention. Egypt is near the top of the list, and the Cairo-based and gravely dysfunctional Arab League is well aware of it.
Egypt’s record was comprehensively documented in a February 2004 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), along with detailed recommendations to the League and to the Government of Egypt for corrective actions. To date, neither party has done anything to remedy the situation.
The findings? HRW documented dozens of cases of torture and death in detention. Torture in Egypt, the Report says, is “epidemic, a widespread and persistent phenomenon affecting large numbers of ordinary citizens who find themselves in police custody as suspects or in connection with criminal investigations. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation. In most cases, detainees are tortured to obtain information and coerce confessions, sometimes leading to death in custody. “ Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill treatment have shown a disturbing rise in the past two years, HRW says -- at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. In the September-November 2003 period alone, Egyptian human rights organizations reported four cases of deaths in custody.
Methods include beatings with fists, feet, and leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence.
In the past decade, suspected Islamist militants have borne the brunt of these acts. Recently, however, increasing numbers of secular and leftist dissidents have also been tortured by police and security officials. In March and April 2003, for example, demonstrators and alleged organizers of public protests against the US-led war in Iraq were tortured and ill treated in detention. Police and state security agencies continue to use torture in order to suppress political dissent.
Egyptian authorities fail to investigate the great majority of allegations of torture. In the few cases where officers have been prosecuted for torture or ill treatment, charges were often inappropriately lenient and penalties inadequate. This lack of effective public accountability and transparency has led to “a culture of impunity” and contributed to the institutionalization of torture.”
The Prosecutor General’s office opened criminal investigations in some of the cases of death in detention following formal complaints by human rights lawyers and family members. But, says HRW, “none of these investigations have led to criminal prosecution or disciplinary actions against the perpetrators.” Moreover, Egypt’s Penal Code fails to provide for effective punishment of law enforcement officials responsible for torture and ill treatment. It states that any official who subjects persons to “cruelty,” including physical harm or offences to their dignity, “shall be sentenced to an arrest period of no longer than one year, or with a fine not to exceed L.E. 200 [$30].”
One of the reasons for Egypt’s failure to investigate and punish acts of torture by law enforcement is that it has appointed the fox to guard the henhouse. Says HRW: “There is an apparent conflict of interest in placing the responsibility to monitor places of detention, order forensic exams, and investigate and prosecute abuses by officials within the same office that is responsible for ordering arrests, obtaining confessions, and successfully prosecuting criminal suspects.”
Egypt, a close American ally and one of the largest recipients of US aid, is party to all the international human rights treaties prohibiting torture and mandating investigations, and torture is forbidden by Egypt’s Constitution. Moreover, the country now has an official human rights commission, headed by former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Gali.
Let us hope the US military will mete out swift and appropriate punishment to the American soldiers who disgraced their country. And let us hope that Egypt and other Arab governments are watching – and learning.
Of course, Arabs are outraged by the awful photographs of the apparent abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in Iraq. We are all outraged. But one has to question whether there is not more than a little hypocrisy in the reactions of most Arab governments and of the Arab League itself.
A spokesman for the League said in Cairo, "It is beyond the words of despicable acts and disgust that we feel at watching such photographs."
What’s wrong with this picture is that many of the Middle East’s Arab states, as well as Israel, have long, bloody, and current histories of torture and death among prisoners while in detention. Egypt is near the top of the list, and the Cairo-based and gravely dysfunctional Arab League is well aware of it.
Egypt’s record was comprehensively documented in a February 2004 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), along with detailed recommendations to the League and to the Government of Egypt for corrective actions. To date, neither party has done anything to remedy the situation.
The findings? HRW documented dozens of cases of torture and death in detention. Torture in Egypt, the Report says, is “epidemic, a widespread and persistent phenomenon affecting large numbers of ordinary citizens who find themselves in police custody as suspects or in connection with criminal investigations. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation. In most cases, detainees are tortured to obtain information and coerce confessions, sometimes leading to death in custody. “ Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill treatment have shown a disturbing rise in the past two years, HRW says -- at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. In the September-November 2003 period alone, Egyptian human rights organizations reported four cases of deaths in custody.
Methods include beatings with fists, feet, and leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence.
In the past decade, suspected Islamist militants have borne the brunt of these acts. Recently, however, increasing numbers of secular and leftist dissidents have also been tortured by police and security officials. In March and April 2003, for example, demonstrators and alleged organizers of public protests against the US-led war in Iraq were tortured and ill treated in detention. Police and state security agencies continue to use torture in order to suppress political dissent.
Egyptian authorities fail to investigate the great majority of allegations of torture. In the few cases where officers have been prosecuted for torture or ill treatment, charges were often inappropriately lenient and penalties inadequate. This lack of effective public accountability and transparency has led to “a culture of impunity” and contributed to the institutionalization of torture.”
The Prosecutor General’s office opened criminal investigations in some of the cases of death in detention following formal complaints by human rights lawyers and family members. But, says HRW, “none of these investigations have led to criminal prosecution or disciplinary actions against the perpetrators.” Moreover, Egypt’s Penal Code fails to provide for effective punishment of law enforcement officials responsible for torture and ill treatment. It states that any official who subjects persons to “cruelty,” including physical harm or offences to their dignity, “shall be sentenced to an arrest period of no longer than one year, or with a fine not to exceed L.E. 200 [$30].”
One of the reasons for Egypt’s failure to investigate and punish acts of torture by law enforcement is that it has appointed the fox to guard the henhouse. Says HRW: “There is an apparent conflict of interest in placing the responsibility to monitor places of detention, order forensic exams, and investigate and prosecute abuses by officials within the same office that is responsible for ordering arrests, obtaining confessions, and successfully prosecuting criminal suspects.”
Egypt, a close American ally and one of the largest recipients of US aid, is party to all the international human rights treaties prohibiting torture and mandating investigations, and torture is forbidden by Egypt’s Constitution. Moreover, the country now has an official human rights commission, headed by former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Gali.
Let us hope the US military will mete out swift and appropriate punishment to the American soldiers who disgraced their country. And let us hope that Egypt and other Arab governments are watching – and learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
