Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
The ‘good news’ from Iraq – which George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld accuse the Western media of not reporting – is usually about schools opened, hospitals and clinics running, oil flowing, and suchlike. But there is little discussion of what is arguably a far more significant development: the emergence of a censor-free, vigorous and lively press.
Before the US-led invasion, Iraq had four daily newspapers, and a few state-run TV and radio outlets, all owned or tightly controlled by Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday. Today there are about 100 often highly politicized newspapers and magazines, and a number of independent radio and international satellite TV stations. Print media ranges from slick-looking and professionally produced to amateurish and rudimentary. And political views cover every conceivable position from full support for the US invasion and occupation to calls for jihad against the Americans.
The widely respected Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has collected recent editorials from the Iraqi press. These illustrate the diverse points of view of the new media. For example:
Al-'Adala (published by the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq) asks, "When will the Iraqis get the chance to realize their security?" The paper maintains that the American Civil Administration "is dealing with the situation in Iraq as if it is dealing with a 'Banana Republic.' It postpones what does not serve its interests and promotes what does." The paper says one of Paul Bremer's highest priorities since his arrival in Baghdad has been "to sign contracts with American companies that contribute to President Bush's re-election fund…”
An editorial in the weekly Al-Muwatin Al-Hur ("The Free Citizen,"), official organ of the Free Iraqi Society, urges Iraqis to serve their country and contribute to its reconstruction, stating that Iraqis should… participate actively and voluntarily in the country's re-construction… and not become a spectator expecting foreigners or even friends to support our country financially and morally…"
According to the independent Al-Yawm Al-Aakher there has been a proliferation of Western and Asian prostitution rings in Iraq, especially women who are infected with AIDS. The paper reports, "This is exactly what young Israeli women have done in the past in Sharm Al-Sheikh, Egypt. Young men of Iraq, beware."
Commenting on the security situation, the independent weekly Nidaa Al-Umma asks, "Where do we start? It is a question that we have to face ourselves if we want to come up with solutions…" One of the main causes of instability is the problem of unemployment and declining standards of living. If these problems are not resolved, the security problem will persist…"
The Iraqi daily Al-Shira', an independent daily, says that "the main covert battle in Iraq now, in which domestic and regional elements are taking part, aims at undermining the unofficial vital alliance that exists between the Americans and the Shi'ite leadership, and to turn the overt and covert cooperation between them into an armed confrontation which will lead to the eruption of widespread Shi'ite resistance in Iraq…"
On the significance of the new transitional Iraqi government, the daily Al-Manar (independent) says "the new government represents all political and religious affiliations and will operate until the anticipated general elections, when our nation will express its will…although the government is new… it has the capacity and competence to realize the aspirations of the Iraqi masses in this new era of democracy, freedom, justice, and equality in all walks of life…"
Addustour, an independent daily, writes: “The announcement issued by the office of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani warning about the resolution to be issued by the Security Council is an intelligent step, for he paid heed to a mean attempt to pass an unfair plan which aims…to partition Iraq…The Security Council is determining our destiny according to their own way.”
Al-Taakhi, a daily published by the Kurdistan Democratic Party, writes, “The people of Iraq need to understand the Kurdish call for getting a constitutional guarantee, and one which is necessary for the Arabs as well…Successive Iraqi governments did not keep their promises to the Kurds, in addition to the explicit call made by Shia religious circles rejecting any guarantee for the Kurds…If there were the least amount of trust and reliability in Iraqi society, the Kurds would not have needed an international guarantee.”
Al-Mashriq, a daily published by the Al-Mashriq Institution for Media and Cultural Investments, writes, “We now have two dissolved bodies: the Ba’ath party and the Governing Council. And it seems both will be equal regarding what is going on in Iraq. The proof lies in the Governing Councilors, who were excluded from the new government and who attacked it with accusations of illegitimacy due to being appointed by the Americans…What is the difference then between the GC and the government? In their view the two are the same. The GC and the government both are foreign-made.”
Addaaw, a daily issued by the Islamic Dawa Party, chaired by Ibrahim al-Jafari, a member of the former Governing Council, editorializes, “Despite our reservations regarding the way the new government was formed, this does not prevent us from dealing with it…We do not want to pass early judgments on it. Rather, we will keep observing and criticizing its performance. We also have the same demands which were declared by the supreme religious authority in Najaf…”
Al-Bayan, a tri-weekly, is also published by the Islamic Dawa Party. It writes, “The UN Security Council resolution has many positive points such as emphasizing Iraqi sovereignty, control of revenues, and a schedule for the withdrawal of multi-national forces... As to legitimacy, whether political, economic, or otherwise, it is that of the people of Iraq alone. Iraqis' call for help from national organizations and other friends is not a concession of their right to legitimacy…”
The London-based Azzaman, a daily published by Saad al-Bazaz, writes, “The new government deserves people's trust…The behavior of the president and prime minister indicates they have no love of power. The heavy duty they shoulder requires people's support to pass through this sensitive period. We have to distinguish between the Governing Council and the government. Azzaman and others have always called for correcting the mistake on which GC had been built. Azzaman believes the government is not an extension of the GC. Hence, it needs support to exploit the precious chance for Iraq to stand up.”
Al-Mutamar, the daily of the Iraqi National Congress, reports that “former Governing Council member and head of the Iraqi delegation to the Arab Women's Forum, Rajaa al-Kuzai, visited Abu Ghraib prison after the scandal of the abuse of the detainees there. She found only five women who spoke well of the treatment there and who said they had not been abused in contrast with what the former regime practiced against women detained there…”
Al-Sabah al-Jadeed, an independent daily, writes, “Weapons are still being handed over for money in Najaf. Thousands of people are reported to be coming daily to the weapons delivery centers, bringing different types of armaments, and waiting for hours in long queues. Al-Sabah witnessed some people with heavy guns and weapons being carried in their cars. Some smugglers buy the weapons from the people and sell them to the US forces. A police officer said they had delivered tens of mortars and more than 500 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, along with many quantities of ammunition, grenades and Kalashnikov assault rifles.”
Political cartoonists also have enjoyed relatively unfettered freedom of expression. For example, a cartoon in Asharq al-Awsat, shows a man personifying "the Iraqi government" being undercut by two saws: "occupation" and "resistance". The cartoon suggests that while the resistance is trying to destroy the government, the occupation is trying to destroy the resistance, and is thus destroying the government indirectly. After all, the occupation saw is the one cutting the larger circle. In another cartoon, in Al-Mada, a swimmer, identified as Iraq, has broken free of the Ba’ath, but is still held back by terrorism.
Iraqis have also opened many Internet cafes, online chat rooms, and web logs. There is lively dialogue not only within Iraq, but also between Iraqis in Iraq and Arabs elsewhere, and between Iraq and the Iraqi Diaspora in many parts of the world.
As part of its fight to win ‘hearts and minds’, soon after the fall of the Hussein regime, the Coalition set up a media group of its own, the Iraqi Media Network (IMN), including the daily paper Al-Sabah and the radio and TV station Al-Iraqiya. These media outlets are not generally believed by Iraqis to be independent.
The Coalition Provisional Authority has been accused by some of acting with a heavy hand on press freedom. For example, it banned Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera, among the most popular TV stations in Iraq and the region, for allegedly encouraging "political violence." (At the same time, CPA spokesmen regularly appeared as interviewees on these channels in their effort to reach Arab audiences inside and outside Iraq.) US forces closed the newspaper of the Iraqi Turkmen Front for inciting violence against Americans, and the offices of firebrand Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s newspaper, Al-Hawza, for publishing articles containing false information and seeking to “disturb public order and incite violence.” Many Iraqi newspapers criticized the closures. Al-Hawza is reportedly being published and circulated ‘underground’.
The bad news is that many of these newspapers, magazines and other new Iraqi media are in poor financial condition, and their prospects for survival are far from encouraging. As sovereignty returns, there is bound to be a shakeout among the media, if for no reason other than financial.
Nonetheless, the astonishingly rapid proliferation of media outlets reflects Iraqis’ strong convictions about the future of their country and their deep hunger for uncensored information. That should be encouraging to Messrs. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Blair.
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Friday, June 11, 2004
TORTURE UNDER THE RADAR
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
Despite the more than two dozen current investigations into the US torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, an even more chilling practice is being virtually ignored by both Congress and the US mainstream media – even though it was uncovered and made public almost two years ago.
This practice is called ‘extreme rendering’. What that means is that the CIA or some other US intelligence service purposefully sends or takes a suspect to country known to inflict torture on detainees. That allows the US intelligence service to skirt any troublesome due process considerations, keeps its hands appearing clean, and provides it with ‘plausible deniability’. It is seen by some as a means of ‘outsourcing’ the interrogation process.
An anonymous US official told the Washington Post in December 2002, “We don’t kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them.” But since the Post reported the story 18 months ago, mainstream media outlets in the US have barely even mentioned it. One exception is Newsweek, which devoted a paragraph to the practice as part of a longer investigation of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. The Newsweek story was based on classified testimony to Congress by CIA Director George Tenet.
Before and after 9/11, seizure and deportation by US agents of terrorist suspects to third countries with track records of torture has become increasingly common. Its basis is a secret presidential "finding" authorizing the CIA to place suspects in foreign hands without due process. According to Human Rights Watch, suspects have been ‘rendered’ to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Morocco. These countries are cited in successive US State Department annual Human Rights Reports as states suspected of torturing prisoners.
Now Sweden, long a champion of human rights, has become complicit in helping the CIA facilitate two such ‘extreme renditions’. That’s how Ahmed Agiza, 39, and Muhammad Al Zery, 33, found themselves back in Egypt, a country with a long history of torture and death in detention, from which they had fled seeking political asylum in Sweden. And, according to Human Rights Watch, US intelligence played a central role.
According to a Swedish TV4 documentary, Agiza and Al Zery were seized by Swedish state security forces in December 2001. The men were then handed over to US agents at Bromma airport near Stockholm. Sweden’s TV4 said the plane was a Gulfstream ‘executive jet’, later identified by its tail number as being under exclusive lease to the US government.
In a room at the airport, a group of men from the newly arrived plane, in plain clothes, were waiting. They wore balaclavas to hide their faces. They cut the clothes from the two detainees with a scissors, without their handcuffs and foot shackles being loosened. The naked and chained prisoners then had a suppository inserted into their anus, and diapers put on them. They were then forcibly dressed in dark overalls, their hands and feet chained to a specially designed harness in the aircraft. On the plane, both men were blindfolded and hooded. The plane took off for Egypt, where they were handed over to Egyptian state security.
Egyptian authorities held the men incommunicado for five weeks. When Swedish diplomats eventually began visiting the men, they were never allowed to meet with them in private — at some visits as many as ten prison officials were present.
Al Zery was released without charge after ten months in prison. Agiza, who had been previously convicted in absentia for terror-related activities, was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment by a military tribunal. Although Agiza testified in his second military court proceeding that he had been tortured in prison, the court permitted him to be examined only by a prison doctor. The doctor’s report confirmed that Agiza had sustained physical injuries while in prison, but the court denied the defense’s request for a forensic examination to establish their cause, and failed to approve an investigation into the torture allegations.
The Swedish government has confirmed the US involvement, but says the ‘rendition’ was made only after Sweden received ‘diplomatic assurances’ from Egypt that the men would not be tortured and would receive a fair trial. The Swedes are conducting an investigation into the affair. Human Rights Watch, which monitored the Agiza trial, has called for a United Nations investigation into the case. Said HRW’s Rachel Denber, “Governments have to find a way to tackle terrorism in a manner that doesn’t …expose people to a risk of torture…The Swedish government never should have returned Agiza to a country where torture is routine and where suspected militants simply don’t get fair trials.”
US officials who defend the rendition practice say prisoners are sent to third countries not because of their coercive questioning techniques, but because of their cultural affinity with the captives. Besides being illegal, they said, torture produces unreliable information from people who are desperate to stop the pain. They look to foreign allies more because their intelligence services can develop a culture of intimacy that Americans cannot. They may use interrogators who speak the captive's Arabic dialect and often use the prospects of shame and the reputation of the captive's family to goad the captive into talking. In view of what we now know about Abu Ghraib and other US detention facilities, most knowledgeable observers are highly skeptical.
How widespread is the practice? According to Newsweek, “By 2004, the United States was running a covert charter airline moving CIA prisoners from one secret facility to another, sources say. The reason? It was judged impolitic (and too traceable) to use the US Air Force.” Human Rights Watch says, “thousands have been arrested and held with US assistance in countries known for brutal treatment of prisoners.” About 625 are at the US military's confinement facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Some officials estimate that approximately 100 US captives have been ‘rendered’ to third countries. Director Tenet told the Washington Post the number was 70.
For example, US operatives led the capture and transfer to Syria of an al Qaeda suspect with dual German-Syrian citizenship. Syria has for years been near the top of US lists of human rights violators and sponsors of terrorism. The German government strongly protested the move. Another suspect was seized by US agents in Jakarta, handed over to Egyptian security forces, and flown to Egypt in chains. His current fate is unknown. And a Canadian citizen was detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist, secretly deported under US guard to Syria, and subjected to ten months of torture in a Syrian prison. US officials said he was deported because he had been put on a terrorist watch list after information from "multiple international intelligence agencies" linked him to terrorist groups. He was released without charge.
Extraordinary rendition was a product of the Clinton administration following the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. But it claims to have pressed foreign intelligence services to respect lawful boundaries in interrogations. The Bush administration maintains a legal distance from any mistreatment that occurs overseas, officials say, by denying that torture is the intended result of its rendition policy. American teams, officials said, do no more than assist in the transfer of suspects who are wanted on criminal charges by friendly countries. But five officials told the Washington Post, as one of them put it, "that sometimes a friendly country can be invited to 'want' someone we grab." Then, other officials said, the foreign government will charge him with a crime of some sort.
At a joint hearing of the House and Senate intelligence committees, Cofer Black, then head of the CIA Counterterrorist Center, spoke cryptically about the agency's new forms of "operational flexibility" in dealing with suspected terrorists. "This is a very highly classified area, but I have to say that all you need to know: There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11," Black said. "After 9/11 the gloves come off."
There is ample evidence that Abu-Ghraib-type prisoner abuses were known or suspected by many in Congress and some in the US media long before the photos made the story real. The same is true of ‘extreme rendition’. The intelligence committees of Congress need to conduct an independent investigation of US prisoner treatment, and it needs to include extreme rendition. Or will Congress really require another set of photos?
By William Fisher
Despite the more than two dozen current investigations into the US torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, an even more chilling practice is being virtually ignored by both Congress and the US mainstream media – even though it was uncovered and made public almost two years ago.
This practice is called ‘extreme rendering’. What that means is that the CIA or some other US intelligence service purposefully sends or takes a suspect to country known to inflict torture on detainees. That allows the US intelligence service to skirt any troublesome due process considerations, keeps its hands appearing clean, and provides it with ‘plausible deniability’. It is seen by some as a means of ‘outsourcing’ the interrogation process.
An anonymous US official told the Washington Post in December 2002, “We don’t kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them.” But since the Post reported the story 18 months ago, mainstream media outlets in the US have barely even mentioned it. One exception is Newsweek, which devoted a paragraph to the practice as part of a longer investigation of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. The Newsweek story was based on classified testimony to Congress by CIA Director George Tenet.
Before and after 9/11, seizure and deportation by US agents of terrorist suspects to third countries with track records of torture has become increasingly common. Its basis is a secret presidential "finding" authorizing the CIA to place suspects in foreign hands without due process. According to Human Rights Watch, suspects have been ‘rendered’ to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Morocco. These countries are cited in successive US State Department annual Human Rights Reports as states suspected of torturing prisoners.
Now Sweden, long a champion of human rights, has become complicit in helping the CIA facilitate two such ‘extreme renditions’. That’s how Ahmed Agiza, 39, and Muhammad Al Zery, 33, found themselves back in Egypt, a country with a long history of torture and death in detention, from which they had fled seeking political asylum in Sweden. And, according to Human Rights Watch, US intelligence played a central role.
According to a Swedish TV4 documentary, Agiza and Al Zery were seized by Swedish state security forces in December 2001. The men were then handed over to US agents at Bromma airport near Stockholm. Sweden’s TV4 said the plane was a Gulfstream ‘executive jet’, later identified by its tail number as being under exclusive lease to the US government.
In a room at the airport, a group of men from the newly arrived plane, in plain clothes, were waiting. They wore balaclavas to hide their faces. They cut the clothes from the two detainees with a scissors, without their handcuffs and foot shackles being loosened. The naked and chained prisoners then had a suppository inserted into their anus, and diapers put on them. They were then forcibly dressed in dark overalls, their hands and feet chained to a specially designed harness in the aircraft. On the plane, both men were blindfolded and hooded. The plane took off for Egypt, where they were handed over to Egyptian state security.
Egyptian authorities held the men incommunicado for five weeks. When Swedish diplomats eventually began visiting the men, they were never allowed to meet with them in private — at some visits as many as ten prison officials were present.
Al Zery was released without charge after ten months in prison. Agiza, who had been previously convicted in absentia for terror-related activities, was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment by a military tribunal. Although Agiza testified in his second military court proceeding that he had been tortured in prison, the court permitted him to be examined only by a prison doctor. The doctor’s report confirmed that Agiza had sustained physical injuries while in prison, but the court denied the defense’s request for a forensic examination to establish their cause, and failed to approve an investigation into the torture allegations.
The Swedish government has confirmed the US involvement, but says the ‘rendition’ was made only after Sweden received ‘diplomatic assurances’ from Egypt that the men would not be tortured and would receive a fair trial. The Swedes are conducting an investigation into the affair. Human Rights Watch, which monitored the Agiza trial, has called for a United Nations investigation into the case. Said HRW’s Rachel Denber, “Governments have to find a way to tackle terrorism in a manner that doesn’t …expose people to a risk of torture…The Swedish government never should have returned Agiza to a country where torture is routine and where suspected militants simply don’t get fair trials.”
US officials who defend the rendition practice say prisoners are sent to third countries not because of their coercive questioning techniques, but because of their cultural affinity with the captives. Besides being illegal, they said, torture produces unreliable information from people who are desperate to stop the pain. They look to foreign allies more because their intelligence services can develop a culture of intimacy that Americans cannot. They may use interrogators who speak the captive's Arabic dialect and often use the prospects of shame and the reputation of the captive's family to goad the captive into talking. In view of what we now know about Abu Ghraib and other US detention facilities, most knowledgeable observers are highly skeptical.
How widespread is the practice? According to Newsweek, “By 2004, the United States was running a covert charter airline moving CIA prisoners from one secret facility to another, sources say. The reason? It was judged impolitic (and too traceable) to use the US Air Force.” Human Rights Watch says, “thousands have been arrested and held with US assistance in countries known for brutal treatment of prisoners.” About 625 are at the US military's confinement facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Some officials estimate that approximately 100 US captives have been ‘rendered’ to third countries. Director Tenet told the Washington Post the number was 70.
For example, US operatives led the capture and transfer to Syria of an al Qaeda suspect with dual German-Syrian citizenship. Syria has for years been near the top of US lists of human rights violators and sponsors of terrorism. The German government strongly protested the move. Another suspect was seized by US agents in Jakarta, handed over to Egyptian security forces, and flown to Egypt in chains. His current fate is unknown. And a Canadian citizen was detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist, secretly deported under US guard to Syria, and subjected to ten months of torture in a Syrian prison. US officials said he was deported because he had been put on a terrorist watch list after information from "multiple international intelligence agencies" linked him to terrorist groups. He was released without charge.
Extraordinary rendition was a product of the Clinton administration following the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. But it claims to have pressed foreign intelligence services to respect lawful boundaries in interrogations. The Bush administration maintains a legal distance from any mistreatment that occurs overseas, officials say, by denying that torture is the intended result of its rendition policy. American teams, officials said, do no more than assist in the transfer of suspects who are wanted on criminal charges by friendly countries. But five officials told the Washington Post, as one of them put it, "that sometimes a friendly country can be invited to 'want' someone we grab." Then, other officials said, the foreign government will charge him with a crime of some sort.
At a joint hearing of the House and Senate intelligence committees, Cofer Black, then head of the CIA Counterterrorist Center, spoke cryptically about the agency's new forms of "operational flexibility" in dealing with suspected terrorists. "This is a very highly classified area, but I have to say that all you need to know: There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11," Black said. "After 9/11 the gloves come off."
There is ample evidence that Abu-Ghraib-type prisoner abuses were known or suspected by many in Congress and some in the US media long before the photos made the story real. The same is true of ‘extreme rendition’. The intelligence committees of Congress need to conduct an independent investigation of US prisoner treatment, and it needs to include extreme rendition. Or will Congress really require another set of photos?
Monday, May 31, 2004
EGYPT: SQUANDERING HUMAN CAPITAL
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
