BBC Podcast: Hunting Syria's War Criminals

by Nomad

Imagine walking down a street in a European capital and meeting your torturer. For many Syrian refugees fleeing war and human rights abuses, Europe was meant to be a sanctuary. 

So it was a shock when people began bumping into their torturers out shopping or in a cafe. 

In fact, many of those involved in the Syrian government’s notorious interrogation facilities are hiding in plain sight in European cities, having used the refugee wave as a “ratline” out of the country. 

More and more are now being investigated, arrested and put on trial in European courts. But with President Assad firmly in control in Syria, the long arm of the state is reaching those willing to testify..

  

Take a moment to listen to this chilling podcast from the BBC program "The Documentary."

Belgian Court Approves Killer's Request for Euthanasia over Life without Parole

by Nomad

After 30 years in prison in Belgium, Frank Van Den Bleeken will take his own life with the blessing of the court. The unusual use of the euthanasia laws has opened up a lot of important questions, such as the purpose of incarceration without parole.

The case of Frank Van Den Bleeken has not attracted too much attention in the American press. The serial killer and rapist has spent that last 30 years of his life behind bars in Belgium. In September, Bleeken applied for and won permission by the state to be euthanized

This unusual application of the 2002 euthanasia laws was based on the convict's claim that his incarceration constituted “unbearable” psychological suffering. 

Three decades ago, Van Den Bleeken was convicted of a series of rapes and the rape and murder of a teenage girl including the assault on an 11 year old girl. In a documentary, he told Belgian TV

"I am danger to society. What am I supposed to do? What’s the point in sitting here until the end of time and rotting away? I’d rather be euthanized."

  He went on to say:

“If people commit a sexual crime, help them deal with it. Just locking them up helps no one: not the person, not society and not the victims. I am a human being, and regardless of what I’ve done, I remain a human being. So yes, give me euthanasia.”

End of the Fight

The court decision to grant Van Den Bleeken's wish marks the end a long battle which began in 2011 when the prisoner made his first request. He alleged that he had been denied psychiatric help and was suffering unbearably.
At that time, his plea was rejected by the Federal Euthanasia Commission on the grounds that every possible treatment had to be considered first. 

Torture vs Medical Ethics: Should Doctors that Assisted in CIA interrogations be Held Accountable?

by Nomad

Dick Cheney recently claimed that controversial procedures applied to detainees were a medically necessity. Experts dispute this and call for a full investigation of possible ethics violation and crimes committed by contracted physicians. 

Cheney's Attempt at Damage Control

Recently, ex-vice president Dick Cheney appeared on MSNBC's "Meet the Press." Following the release of the Senate report on CIA detention and interrogation program. Cheney was in full damage control mode.
In spite of his attempt, it was pretty clear that the master manipulator's tricks had worn tissue thin. 

During the interview, Cheney repeatedly tried in vain to use 911 as an excuse for what went on behind prison walls. Nobody has ever argued that the detainees were nice people but without a trial, they were still innocent. Nobody has ever argued that the things done on September 11 2001 should be forgotten or that we must do everything- within the law- to stop attacks.
Nevertheless, Cheney's argument was that the ends justified the means, even when those means included torture (as defined by various international treaties that the US is a party to.)

All in all, even Cheney's supporters were embarrassed by what amounted to what can charitably called "misrepresentations." When asked about one of the more inexcusable techniques used by the CIA, namely "rectal feeding  and "rectal hydration"

Cheney claimed these procedures were done only as a medical necessity.  Michael Hayden, former CIA director recently used the same rebuttal to torture allegations.

The Experts Respond

Of course, the defense was ridiculous but it also opened the door for yet another problem for the CIA and its contracted physicians. 

Obama vs. The Cheneys: A Question of American Values

by Nomad

When President Obama admitted that the CIA had, in the years after 9/11, committed torture, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice-president blasted the president, calling him an "utter disgrace." The interrogators, she said, were "patriots" and "heroes."

She failed to understand that the torture debate wasn't a matter of patriotism. It was a question of American values and what America stands for.

The Unseen Trap

In itself it was a fairly obvious thing to say. Last Friday, President Obama admitted that the CIA had committed torture. But what was surprising was his use of the pronoun "we." 

After handing over a report to Congress about an investigation into “enhanced interrogation techniques," President Obama said the CIA had “tortured some folks” after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.”

What gives? I wondered. Presumably he was referring to the CIA during the Bush administration. If he were attempting to show solidarity with the CIA then it seemed a politically dangerous and needless thing to say. Indeed, many headlines from the so-called liberally-biased media simply read "We tortured folks, says Obama."

Now it is clear what he was doing: It was a bait for conservatives.

In short order, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former Vice President Dick Cheney, erupted with indignation about Obama's remarks. The venue was, predictably enough, Sean Hannity's show on Fox News.  

Hyperbole, like you never saw.

"..This president is an utter disgrace. He’s got a situation where... you’ve got crises erupting around the world."

A classic non-sequitur and a distraction. Obama wasn't there to talk about the problems of the world and she knew it.  Cheney, (Liz , that is) went on to say:

“And he is expending more time, more energy, more passion, more aggressive activity in targeting and going after patriots, heroes. CIA officers and others who kept is safe after 9/11."

Of course, Cheney's explosive rhetoric is aimed at dividing Americans, a lame attempt to stoke fears one more time. The Cheney apples do not fall far from the tree.

Additionally, there is a very real question about the accuracy of her allegation. Did torture actually keep anybody safe, either in the short or long term?

That's a statement that requires Cheney to prove and she is clearly not willing to attempt it. However, the unreleased U.S. Senate report, according to one source, is purported to conclude that the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation techniques following 9/11 attacks was ineffective and yielded no critical intelligence. 

That's bad news for the Cheney family.

Actually, President Obama never said that enhanced interrogation didn't save lives. He said only that these techniques were contrary to our values. Perhaps the moral question -which is what the president was referring to- is simply not something a daughter of Mr. Dick Cheney could possibly grasp.

Not in a million years.

And that is the trap that Obama set and the one into which Liz Cheney - clearly speaking in defense of her father's policies- unwittingly tumbled. It is a question of values, a question whether the ends justify the means. 

Just because we can find a rationale for doing it and a legal means to escape second-guessing, does it make it right? 

Law Professor's Advice: Guilty or Innocent, Never Speak to Police.. Ever

by Nomad

If there's one thing that most defense lawyers will tell you, it is this: Whether you are guilty or innocent, never dare to speak to the police.
Once upon a time, the Supreme Court gave its full support to every citizen's constitutional right to remain silent. 

Here's an interesting - but rather long- lecture by Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, telling his students why a defense attorney should always advise his client never, under any circumstances, talk to the police. His reasoning is sound but it's the kind of advice that most police investigators would prefer you didn't know.. and certainly not apply.