DOCSLIB.ORG

The Annihilation of Memory and Silent Suffering: Inhibiting Outrage at the Injustice of Torture in the War on Terror in Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 1954-2016 University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2016 The annihilation of memory and silent suffering: inhibiting outrage at the injustice of torture in the War on Terror in Australia Aloysia Brooks University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses University of Wollongong Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the author. Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wollongong. Recommended Citation Brooks, Aloysia, The annihilation of memory and silent suffering: inhibiting outrage at the injustice of torture in the War on Terror in Australia, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, School of Humanities and Social Enquiry, University of Wollongong, 2016. https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4865 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] The Annihilation of Memory and Silent Suffering: Inhibiting Outrage at the Injustice of Torture in the War on Terror in Australia © Jeremy Saunders, 2014. Dr. Aloysia Brooks, D.S.W., M.H.R., B.S.W. This thesis is presented as required for the conferral of the degree: Doctor of Philosophy The University of Wollongong School of Humanities and Social Enquiry September 2016 2 Thesis Certification I, Aloysia Brooks, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the conferral of the degree Doctor of Philosophy, from the University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. This document has not been submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution. Aloysia Brooks 3 Abstract The War on Terror, initiated by the US Government under George W. Bush, reintroduced torture as an overt tool of the state. The Australian Government was heavily implicated in colluding and covering up the US torture program. Drawing on a model of outrage management, newspaper articles from 2002-2012 reveal extensive evidence that government officials, their agents, and the media, utilised methods that served to reduce outrage over the use of torture in the War on Terror. These tactics not only inhibited outrage, but promoted acceptance of torture as a legitimate security tool in the post 9/11 era. There is significant evidence that government officials, and a mostly compliant media, engaged in cover-up, either by omitting information, destroying evidence of torture, or failing to call into question statements made by US or Australian officials. There is extensive evidence of dehumanising or devaluing the survivors/victims and their experience including denigrating them as liars, casting them as unreliable sources, or, alternatively, attacking their personal character. Evidence extends to the reinterpretation of events and the way in which language was used to shift focus off torture to concerns about innocence or guilt. Rather than naming torture for what it is, terminology such as ‘abuse’ or ‘mistreatment’ was commonly used throughout the decade of analysis. The use of official channels to minimise outrage was apparent through the use of official spokespeople, or investigations that only gave the appearance of justice. There was also extensive evidence of the use of intimidation towards whistleblowers and torture survivors in order to prevent them from telling their stories. Those involved in torture were rewarded, commonly through promotion. These tactics were enabled by networks of individuals, organisations and institutions that carry out ideological, economic, practical or political functions to support the facilitation and cover-up of state-inflicted torture. These networks include shallow governments that deploy misleading political rhetoric related to torture and terrorism, the increased role of militarism and covert operations, and the expansion of the surveillance state. Therefore, challenging torture in the War on Terror requires 4 broader structural and societal change to eliminate the pillars of support for torture. Removing the structural support for torture may require the dismantling of the entire network through a process of nonviolent resistance. 5 Table of Contents List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 11 Foreword .............................................................................................................................................. 14 List of Acronyms.................................................................................................................................. 18 List of Australian and US Administrations .......................................................................................... 20 Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework & Definitions ................................................................................ 21 Research Question ................................................................................................................................ 26 Key Definitions & Terminology .......................................................................................................... 27 Victims and Survivors ................................................................................................................. 27 War on Terror .............................................................................................................................. 27 Defining Torture .......................................................................................................................... 28 Defining Terrorism ...................................................................................................................... 42 Theoretical Frameworks ....................................................................................................................... 45 Human Rights .............................................................................................................................. 45 Othering ....................................................................................................................................... 49 The Backfire Model ..................................................................................................................... 51 Social Constructions and the Media ............................................................................................ 56 The Propaganda Model ................................................................................................................ 59 Thesis Structure .................................................................................................................................... 60 Chapter 2: Background to the War on Terror ....................................................................................... 64 The Birth of the ‘War on Terror’.......................................................................................................... 64 The Military Response ................................................................................................................ 67 The Torture Memos and Treatment of ‘Detainees’ ..................................................................... 70 Guantanamo Bay .................................................................................................................................. 77 Interrogation ................................................................................................................................ 79 Torture Techniques ...................................................................................................................... 87 Military Commissions ................................................................................................................. 91 Private Military and Security Companies: Immunity and Contracted Torture ................................... 102 Joint Special Operations Command .......................................................................................... 109 The President’s Drone and Assassination Program ............................................................................ 113 Chapter 3: Australia’s role
Recommended publications
  • 2017 EABC Business Delegation to Canberra Mission Report

    2017 EABC Business Delegation to Canberra Mission Report

    2017 EABC Business Delegation to Canberra Parliament House, Canberra 24-25 October 2017 Mission Report Overview On Tuesday 24 and Wednesday 25 October 2017, a delegation of EABC Members visited Parliament House in Canberra to meet with members of the Federal Government and Opposition. The delegation provided opportunities for members to engage in direct dialogue on the broad economic and business agenda, as well as the preparations underway for launching negotiations for an Australia-EU FTA. Programme The delegation programme on Tuesday 24 October included roundtable discussions with the Hon Michael McCormack MP, Minister for Small Business and the Hon Darren Chester MP, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport; followed by a Cocktail Reception with Guests of Honour the Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia; the Hon Keith Pitt MP, Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment; the Hon Chris Bowen MP, Shadow Treasurer; and Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann, Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. The programme continued with a working dinner with ministerial guests including the Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services; the Hon Craig Laundy MP, Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science; and Justin Brown, Deputy Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The programme on Wednesday 25 October included roundtable discussions with Tom Skladzien, Chief of Staff
  • Government Turns the Other Way As Judges Make Findings About Torture and Other Abuse

    Government Turns the Other Way As Judges Make Findings About Torture and Other Abuse

    USA SEE NO EVIL GOVERNMENT TURNS THE OTHER WAY AS JUDGES MAKE FINDINGS ABOUT TORTURE AND OTHER ABUSE Amnesty International Publications First published in February 2011 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2011 Index: AMR 51/005/2011 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 2.2 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Judges point to human rights violations, executive turns away ........................................... 4 Absence
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Chapter 4 Building International Will and Capacity to Counter Terrorism The Department of State engages diplomatically with for- eign governments and in international and regional fora to accomplish the US Government’s first priority — protect- ing Americans at home and abroad. The Department of State’s diplomatic efforts help build the political will and operational skills of foreign governments to combat terror. Many countries are committed allies in the global war on terrorism. Some, however, need train- ing and resources to develop stronger institutions and capabilities. The Department of State’s counterterrorism efforts are an essential component in the success of US military, law enforcement, intelligence, and financial ac- tivities in the global fight against terrorism. Multilateral and regional organizations are also a key plat- form for developing broad international support for the adoption and implementation of policies, strategies, and “best practices” in combating terrorism and financing of terrorist activities. The Department of State works actively with foreign governments to urge adoption of all 12 inter- national counterterrorism conventions, as well as adherence to and implementation of UNSCR 1373, which imposes binding obligations on all states to suppress and prevent terrorist financing, improve their border controls, enhance information sharing and law enforcement coop- eration, suppress terrorist recruitment, and deny terrorists safe haven. Antiterrorism Assistance Program Ambassador J. Cofer Black, former US State Department Coordinator Congress authorized the Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) Pro- for Counterterrorism, during a news conference at the IV Regular gram in 1983 as part of a major initiative against international Session of the Organization of American States Inter-American terrorism.
  • Interrogation, Detention, and Torture DEBORAH N

    Interrogation, Detention, and Torture DEBORAH N

    Finding Effective Constraints on Executive Power: Interrogation, Detention, and Torture DEBORAH N. PEARLSTEIN* INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1255 I. EXECUTIVE POLICY AND PRACTICE: COERCIVE INTERROGATION AND T O RTU RE ....................................................................................................1257 A. Vague or Unlawful Guidance................................................................ 1259 B. Inaction .................................................................................................1268 C. Resources, Training, and a Plan........................................................... 1271 II. ExECuTrVE LIMITs: FINDING CONSTRAINTS THAT WORK ...........................1273 A. The ProfessionalM ilitary...................................................................... 1274 B. The Public Oversight Organizationsof Civil Society ............................1279 C. Activist Federal Courts .........................................................................1288 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................1295 INTRODUCTION While the courts continue to debate the limits of inherent executive power under the Federal Constitution, the past several years have taught us important lessons about how and to what extent constitutional and sub-constitutional constraints may effectively check the broadest assertions of executive power. Following the publication
  • Of 4 27/02/2009

    Of 4 27/02/2009

    Page 1 of 4 All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition House of Commons Press release: Immediate, 26 February 2009 Andrew Tyrie calls on the Government to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into its involvement in the US rendition programme, following the MOD’s admission that people captured by UK Forces were rendered to Afghanistan for interrogation by the US. “Since the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition was created, I have made a number of specific allegations: that the UK has facilitated rendition; that Diego Garcia was used for this purpose; that our Armed Forces were dragged into rendition.” “Each of these was categorically denied. A recent MOD review of detention practices condemned as ‘baseless’ speculation that the MOD was complicit in rendition. Yet all of them have turned out to be true, confirmed in three Ministerial Statements over the past year, and a High Court judgment.” “US assurances that it does not use torture are unreliable, as the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded in its Human Rights Annual Report published last year.” “Given that all previous assurances have been baseless, we can have no confidence in the ones we are being given now. The Government must now carry out a comprehensive inquiry in order to bring closure to this sorry business.” Ends. Notes to editors The APPG has been investigating this issue since 2007. The Statement today sets out that two people, captured by UK Forces, were rendered to Afghanistan by the US: “Two individuals were captured by UK forces in Iraq. They were transferred to US detention, in accordance with normal practice, and then moved subsequently to a US detention facility in Afghanistan.
  • Indien – China – USA: Das Neue Mächtedreieck Asiens

    Indien – China – USA: Das Neue Mächtedreieck Asiens

    Indien – China – USA: Das neue Mächtedreieck Asiens Heinrich Kreft1 1 Die Entstehung eines neuen Mächtedreiecks in Asien seit Ende des Kalten Krieges Das Ende des Kalten Krieges führte nicht nur in Europa zu erheblichen politischen Veränderungen und Machtverschiebungen, sondern auch in Asien. Hinzu kam, dass zeitgleich mehrere Länder und Regionen Asiens einen beispiellosen wirtschaftlichen Boom erlebten. 1.1 Der Untergang der Sowjetunion Der wichtigste Einzelfaktor für die Veränderung der politischen Landschaft in Asien war der Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion und das sich daran anschließende Schwin- den des russischen Einflusses in Südasien. Die UdSSR war lange Zeit der wichtigste Verbündete Indiens gewesen, festgeschrieben im indisch-sowjetischen Vertrag von 1971, in dem Moskau Indiens Schutz garantierte. Allerdings wurde dieses Abkom- men bereits Ende der 1980er-Jahre durch die Bemühungen Gorbatschows unter- höhlt, die sowjetischen Beziehungen zu China zu verbessern. Die Russische Förde- ration als Rechtsnachfolger der Sowjetunion war Anfang der 1990er-Jahre kaum noch in der Lage, den sowjetischen Einfluss in Südasien aufrecht zu erhalten. Der ökonomische Niedergang Moskaus ging auch nach dem Zusammenbruch der UdSSR weiter, die russische Marine war nie in der Lage, die Rolle ihrer sowjeti- schen Vorgängerin im Indischen Ozean zu übernehmen. Die indisch-russischen Beziehungen laborieren auch heute noch an den Folgen der Auflösung der Sowjetunion, mit der Indien seinen bis dahin wichtigsten politi- schen und auch ökonomischen Partner verloren
  • Mitchell James 01.16.17.Ptx

    Mitchell James 01.16.17.Ptx

    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 176-1 Filed 05/22/17 Exhibit 1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 176-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE - - - SULEIMAN ABDULLAH : SALIM, MOHOMED AHMED : DOCKET NO. BEN SOUD, OBAID ULLAH : (as personal : 2:15-CV-286-JLQ representative of GUL : RAHMAN), : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : JAMES ELMER MITCHELL : and JOHN "BRUCE" : JESSEN, : : Defendants. : - - - Monday, January 16, 2017 - - - Videotaped deposition of JAMES E. MITCHELL taken pursuant to notice, was held at the law offices of Blank Rome, 130 N. 18th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, beginning at 10:13 AM, on the above date, before Constance S. Kent, a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. * * * MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES (866) 624-6221 www.MagnaLS.com Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 176-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 6 Page 8 1 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are 2 Exhibit 20 Fax, Generic Description 321 of the Process, Bates 2 now on the record. 3 DOJ OLC 1126 through 3 This begins DVD No. 1 in the 1144 4 4 deposition of James Elmer Mitchell Exhibit 21 CIA Comments on the 323 5 in the matter of Salim versus 5 Senate Select Committee James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce -- on Intelligence Report 6 6 on the Rendition, 7 John Bruce Jessen in the United Detention and 8 States District Court for the 7 Interrogation Program 8 Exhibit 22 Document, Bates USA 1629 335 9 Eastern District of Washington.
  • True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal

    True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal

    Chapter 7 True and False Confessions The Efficacy of Torture and Brutal Interrogations Central to the debate on the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques is the question of whether those techniques are effective in gaining intelligence. If the techniques are the only way to get actionable intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, their use presents a moral dilemma for some. On the other hand, if brutality does not produce useful intelligence — that is, it is not better at getting information than other methods — the debate is moot. This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique program. There are far fewer people who defend brutal interrogations by the military. Most of the military’s mistreatment of captives was not authorized in detail at high levels, and some was entirely unauthorized. Many military captives were either foot soldiers or were entirely innocent, and had no valuable intelligence to reveal. Many of the perpetrators of abuse in the military were young interrogators with limited training and experience, or were not interrogators at all. The officials who authorized the CIA’s interrogation program have consistently maintained that it produced useful intelligence, led to the capture of terrorist suspects, disrupted terrorist attacks, and saved American lives. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a 2009 speech, stated that the enhanced interrogation of captives “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” President George W. Bush similarly stated in his memoirs that “[t]he CIA interrogation program saved lives,” and “helped break up plots to attack military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.” John Brennan, President Obama’s recent nominee for CIA director, said, of the CIA’s program in a televised interview in 2007, “[t]here [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures.
  • [2006] EWHC 972 (Admin) Case No: CO/10470/2005 in the SUPREME

    [2006] EWHC 972 (Admin) Case No: CO/10470/2005 in the SUPREME

    Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 972 (Admin) Case No: CO/10470/2005 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 04/05/2006 Before : LORD JUSTICE LATHAM and MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : R ON THE APPN OF BISHER AL RAWI & OTHERS Claimants - and - (1) SS FOR FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS Defendants (2) THE SS FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Timothy Otty & Raza Husain (instructed by Birnberg Peirce) for the Claimants Christopher Greenwood QC, Phillip Sales & Ben Hooper (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants Hearing dates : 22nd & 23rd March 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Lord Justice Latham : This is the judgment of the Court Introduction 1. This claim arises out of the continued detention in Guantanamo Bay of the first three named claimants by the United States authorities. None of them are British nationals, but each has been a long term resident of the United Kingdom in circumstances set out in more detail below. They claim that their connection with this country is such that they have a legitimate expectation that the British government will make a formal and unequivocal request for their return to this country, in the same way as it did in relation to British nationals, who were returned after such requests in March 2004, and January 2005. The first defendant, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has consistently declined to make such a request, making it clear that he considers himself under no obligation to do so because these claimants are not British nationals.
  • Extraordinary Rendition Britain's Central Role

    Extraordinary Rendition Britain's Central Role

    Griffin 10/9/04 2:49 AM Page 34 34 Obama’s Afghan Dilemma Extraordinary Our government would have us believe that our involvement in the process known as Rendition Extraordinary Rendition is limited to two occasions on which planes carrying detainees Britain’s landed to refuel on the British Indian Ocean Territory, Diego Garcia. David Miliband has Central Role stated that the British Government expects the Government of the United States to ‘seek permission to render detainees via UK territory Ben Griffin and airspace, including Overseas Territories; that we will grant that permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations; and how we understand our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture’. (Taken from a statement given to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday 21 February 2008.) The use of British Territory and airspace pales into insignificance in light of the fact that it has been British soldiers detaining the victims of Extraordinary Rendition in the first place. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001, United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF) has operated within a joint US/UK Task Force. This Task Force has been responsible for the detention of hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Individuals detained by British soldiers within this Task Force have ended up in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Theatre Internment Facility, Balad Special Forces Base, Camp Nama BIAP and Abu Ghraib Prison. Whilst the government has stated its desire that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp be closed, it has remained silent over these other secretive prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Terrorism, Counter- Terrorism and Torture

    Terrorism, Counter- Terrorism and Torture

    TERRORISM, COUNTER- TERRORISM AND TORTURE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM JULY 2004 REALISED WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN INITIATIVE FOR DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS The Redress Trust 87 Vauxhall Walk, 3rd Floor London, SE11 5HJ Tel: +44 (0)207 793 1777 Fax: +44(0)207 793 1719 Website: www.redress.org ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was written by Gabriela Echeverria, Legal Advisor (International), and edited by Carla Ferstman, Legal Director. REDRESS would like to express it sincere appreciation to Evelyn Sook May Yuen for her assistance in the research and preparation of this report and to Kevin Laue and Clementine Olivier for their many helpful comments on the draft of this report. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1 PART 1. THE DISCOURSE................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 1.1. DEFINITION/NON-DEFINITION OF TERRORISM..................................................................................3 1.1.1. Defining the ‘Crime’ of Terrorism in Domestic Law .......................................................................................................4 1.1.2. Vague and Overbroad Definitions of Terrorism.............................................................................................................5 1.1.3. Defining the Crime of Terrorism: Some Principles and Guidelines of International Law ..............................................7
  • Izazov Molo Hu

    Izazov Molo Hu

    izazov molo hu UDK: 316.4:323.2 Izvorni znanstveni rad Primljeno 25. 09. 88. RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP, ANTI-MILITARISM AND DISOBEDIENCE TO THE STATE THOM HOLTERMAN Dordrecht If we consider civil disobedience to be established on moral grounds, it implies that before adopting it as a form of protest all the available means of the current political system (which is being disputed) must have already been used, that it must involve open and non-violent action and the acceptance of punishment. The term »disobedience to the state« is preferred because it implies universality as its essential dimension. The criterion of immorality, against which the protest is directed, are crimes against humanity and nature. The right to resist to actions performed by the state (the basis of disobedience to the state) ensues from the existence of parliamentary democracy, as well as does the duty of obedience towards democratically enacted laws. By disobedience one can dispute those laws and acts which although laid down in a correct formal procedure, function contrary to the supposed social contract. In order to pre­ vent actions of disobedience from becoming confined to the promotion of individual advantage or particular inter­ est, the additional responsibility to be fitted into an overall plan of creating a new order (based on the abolition of the current hierarchical society) must be accepted. Therefore, the act of disobedience, apart from anticipating the elem­ ents of a new society must ensure that the alternative plan also be desired by other citiyens. Responsible citizenship opposes the dominant cultural model (of ensuring social peace by preventive intimidation) on the grounds of a competing model (based on a community independent of those in power and on unathoritarian human dignity).