Part I: Legitimacy of torture and privation of freedom

Declaring the state of emergency provides the best opportunity for any government to attack opposing individuals or political organizations.
This article examines the logic of the ‘War on Terror’ imposed by the United States of America and the question of whether – and despite the announced closure of Guantanamo – it remains valid and de facto accepted within the diplomatic circle of the most powerful states.

Why do we need to ask this question? Investigative journalists and whistleblowers are known to be a thorn in the eye of the Powerful, this is nothing new. But the way of how the journalists, whistleblowers and media organizations are now served to the public as terrorists is certainly the result of the recently developed international “anti-terror system”. This includes “political correctness”, adjusted laws, invisible for the public diplomatic consensus and the unprecedented degree of international governmental cooperation, which legitimacy must now be called into question after what Wikileak’s publication of the Cablegate-archives brought into the light of public knowledge (see the article Stockholm cables: the end of neutrality “ on the informal Swedish and US-American cooperation).

Secret prisons such as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base:

Inmates: 240 – 800, Charged in court: 10, total sentenced: 5 [1,2], published documents on the parlous state of health [4], torture and murder of prisoners [5]

are the reality [3], and not just in the U.S.: 27.000 individuals are reported [8] to be illegally detained in the year 2008. The problem with the closure of Guantanamo with its remaining 240 inmates shows clearly that President Obama’s promise on the 22nd January 2009 to close all secret U.S. prisons doesn’t cope with the political reality on the US-american soil.

Part II: Terrorism and its real danger

The actual danger should be reflected in the number of known/expected victims. It must be considered in proportion to the number of perpetrators and to the brutality of their acts of violence. How are the 27,000 in 2008 alone illegally detained to explain, given that 35,023 people are recorded to have been killed as terrorist victims worldwide during the period from 1968 to 2002 (34 years)? The total number of U.S. citizens during these 34 years is 3,227. 2,902 of them died on the tragic day of 11/09/2001.

How many people have been killed by Al-Qaeda (the main topic of the cable 06BRUSSELS524)?
Worldwide, in the 9 years from 1998 to 2007, there were a total of 4.832 people [14]. In Germany in 2010 alone 4,477 persons died in car accidents; in the U.S. there are in average 43,000 per year.

As less dangerous one might statistically classify the lethal risk of being a journalist: Since 1992, 847 journalists were killed worldwide, 39% of which were political reporters. This, statistically speaking, promotes politics to the most dangerous column of the world.

The potential dangers and casualties of government-led wars are well documented in the history of mankind. In the name of fighting the Al Qaeda, which so far has killed 4,832 people the USA killed and continues to kill en masse: Since 2001, several thousand civilians have died each year of the Afghanistan war: 2,118 in 2008; 1,523 in 2007 … [11]. The number of civilians killed in the Iraq war between 2003-2011 varies depending on the source. Victims are stated as being between 99,393 – 108,514 and some estimates have already resulted in over half a million. [12]

Part III: The cable 06BRUSSELS524, UN-manipulation and the best known secret prison in the world

On 15th February 2006, the UN Human Rights Commission demands for the first time since the establishment of the prison in Guantanamo [in 2002] its closing [1]. But this action of UN was again[15] hindered by the pre-emptive diplomatic movements of the U.S. The evidence of it is revealed in the cable 06BRUSSELS524.

This cable describes the discussions between John B. Bellinger III, a consultant of the U.S. Department of State, and senior EU officials on 7-8th February 2006, one week prior to the condemnation of the U.S.’s anti-terrorism methods by the UN. Bellinger said that “European officials must publicly underline the US-EU solidarity in the fight against terror …. He urged the EU not to support a Cuban resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission on Guantanamo” and reports in the cable that “The EU response to the visit was for the most part extremely positive.”

In fact the EU goes to the bottom of diplomatic silence even as the Supreme Court of the United States on 29th of June 2006 attests that the military commissions in Guantanamo violate not only the Geneva Convention, the U.S. military law but also the American Constitution. It is not until 9th January 2007 that Europe officially and deedless demands an immediate closure of the U.S. secret camp.

The logic of the U.S. government presented in the Cable is full of holes:
1) the UNSC Resolution 1373 [13], adopted on 9/28/2001 confirmed as a direct response to 9/11 “the need to enhance the coordination of national, subregional, regional and international efforts to strengthen a global response to that threat to international security”. This resolution recognizes terrorism as an international problem, but contains not a word about the involvement of the military into the fight against terror. Which does not interfere the U.S. to distort this fact and to suggest straight at the beginning of the Cable that:

• “Military response against the Taliban and Al Qaeda “
• “An action covered by UNSC Resolution 1373″
• “Is properly categorized as to international armed conflict”.

2) This prevarication is followed by a logical contradiction:
First, the conflict with Al Qaeda is leveled to an act of state warfare, although the last is not a state. The self-proclaimation of war with U.S. by Al Qaeda also doesn’t make it a state. But the U.S. does not bother with it and simply brings the conflict to the level of an inter-state conflict:

“U.S. has been and continues to be in a legal state of armed conflict with Al Qaeda specifically.”

and uses this shaky statement to constitute a need to close a legal gap:

“Legal frameworks that are readily available, the Geneva Conventions or domestic criminal law, do not fit this unprecedented situation”.

3) The prevarication and the logical contradiction are then undermined by an incapable of proof claim that the national civil justice systems are unable to deal with terrorists cases:

“Practically, these cases would be virtually impossible for domestic courts to handle, since there are rarely witnesses, statements, or forensic or documentary evidence that would meet domestic standards.”

This argument of the weak evidence seems to be a problem of the U.S.-specific investigative methods and could as well be applied to any type of organized crime, human trafficking, rape and other crimes, which are for good reasons not to be sentenced by military courts.

4) The other justifications of the human rights abuses by the U.S. are:

• Highly controversial non-applicability of the Geneva Convention to the “unlawful combatants”. Since 2001, this alleged gap in the international law is filled with the Patriot Act in conjunction with the Habeas Corpus Act. In addition to the U.S. also Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Israel and England follow this legal interpretation now.
• Jurisdiction by military tribunals, even though it is already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Judges
• Authorization of the white torture best known recently by the incommunicado detention in the case of Bradley Manning,
  detained without trial since May 2010.

Part IV: Human rights as a victim of anti-terrorism war: is this the right way?

While U.S. diplomats are imposing a necessity of breach of human rights concerning alleged terrorists in order to fill some suggested gap within the international law, the recent clarifications of facts show that it is rather a gap in the prosecution of the involved governmental officials and organizations involved into the anti-terror actions:

1) Secret Service agents are unreachable for any law enforcement:

• The private action of german Khaled El-Masri, imprisoned in Guantanamo for 5 months because of the “similarity of the spelling of El-Masri’s name with the spelling of suspected terrorist Al-Masri”, against the CIA for damages failed, because the CIA feared having to disclose secret information in the process.
• The extradition request for the 13 CIA agents involved was under pressure from the Federal Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) never delivered to the U.S. government.
• The pressure also came from the U.S. government directly and is impressively documented within the cable 07BERLIN242 classified as “secret” (see also pressure on German government: CIA wanted to Prevent arrest of own agents )

2) USA is not a signatory to the European Court of Human Rights. U.S. refuses the extradition of U.S. citizens to the International Criminal Court and reserves the right to exempt the U.S. citizens from the abroad custodies by military means.

3) The jurisdiction over the NATO troops has not the country they are stationed in (such as Germany), but the country to which they belong. Abduction, torture and other breaches of a national criminal code or international laws like the Geneva Convention and international human rights convention, are referred to in Article 8 of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement as punishable. But: if the country to which the troops belong, doesn’t take steps to prosecute, then any breach of the national and international laws mentioned above can be perpetrated without punishment.

4) The U.S. military has investigated a handful of torture and murder cases. The sentences range from a reprimand up to 10 years in prison. These actions can not be viewed as full and just clarification.

Part V: Conclusion: the usefullness of recycling
The logic is created. Guantanamo will be closed at some point perhaps, the logic of persecution and torturing lives on (documented in 06BRUSSELS524). You now need only to exchange the word “Al Qaeda” by, for example, “Wikileaks”. Furthermore, accordingly to 06BRUSSELS524 you only need to insure, that:

• It is an internationally operating organization
• which can not be described as an army
• and does not behave according to rules of war (it is not an army, how could it?).

Wow… The logic suites not only to WikiLeaks but also to: Wikipedia, United Nations, WWF, UNICEF …

To prevent the self-protection instinct from sprouting, the generous and mild-hearted promise of a politician (Secretary Rice) to treat the “Un-humans” as humans should be enough. This promise has to be firmly believed, for the political promises are indeed kept forever, no doubt.

[1] Wikipedia, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
[2] 02/01/2010 FAZ.NET released prisoners: the recidivist of Guantánamo, truth-out.org “ Guantánamo Recidivism: Mainstream Media Parrot Pentagon Propaganda (Again)
[3] Wikpedia, secret prison , Black Sites

[4] 03/16/2007 The Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff, “> Detainee Related Documents “examines homepage daily” Guantánamo’s Hidden History: Shocking Statistics of Starvation
[5] American Civil Liberties Union “ The Bush Admin’s Secret OLC memos , homepage daily” Black Sites: justification of the USA

[6] Wikipedia, Black Sites: Rechtfertigung der USA
[7] Wikipedia, Black Sites: law enforcement
[8] 04/04/2008 IPS / human rights organization Reprieve “ Questions in Portugal About CIA Flights to Guantánamo
[9] nationmaster.com “ Terrorist Acts> 1968-2006, Incidences by country ”
[10] CPJ Committee to Protect Jouralists, “ Killed since 1992
[11] Wikipedia, “The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that 2.118 Afghan civilians were killed by armed conflict in 2008, the highest number since the end of the initial 2,001th This represented invasion of increase of about 40% over UNAMA’s figure of 1.523 Afghan civilians killed in 2007
[12] Iraq Body Count , Open Democracy, “ , 09.28.2001
[13] UN, UNSC Resolution 1373, 28.09.2001
[14] IntelCenter , Jihadi Attack Kill Statistics
[15] Politicalaffairs, “>
[15] UN Commission on Human Rights Fails to Address Torture Directly
BBC News, “Israeli settlements: US vetoes UNSC resolution”, 19.02.2011