More Wednesday Male Beauty

Are International Legal Cases Against Torture Participants Coming?

As noted in one of the last posts uploaded yesterday, under the UN Convention on Torture, if the United States fails to prosecute American torture participants, then other countries can launch prosecutions and the United States will have to either allow the defendants to be extradited or find itself further outside the bounds of international law.  Think Progress has a piece that looks at the question of whether international prosecutions are in the offing.  It's probably safe to say that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney won't be traveling outside the USA any time soon.  Here are article highlights:

New evidence might bring new legal cases against American officials involved in the Central Intelligence Agency’s “enhanced interrogation” program after the release of previously classified information on Tuesday. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s 525-page report report which details the “brutal” interrogations of 39 detainees has spurred calls for prosecution from the U.N., as well as human rights’ and civil liberties organizations. 

“We made mistakes,” C.I.A. director John Brennan said in a statement, but he maintained that his agency’s policies were legal. 

But Ben Emmerson, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on counter terrorism and human rights doesn’t think official authorization from agencies within the U.S. frees those who carried out torture from facing justice. 

“The fact that the policies revealed in this report were authorized at a high level within the U.S. government provides no excuse whatsoever,” Emmerson said in a statement. “Indeed, it reinforces the need for criminal accountability.” 

He added that as a signatory to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, the U.S. is legally obligated to prosecute acts of torture and enforced disappearance if there is sufficient evidence to to bring about a case.

International law does not permit individuals who carried out torture to dismiss liability because they were acting on orders. And, Emmerson said, “States are not free to maintain or permit impunity for these grave crimes.”

“Other countries have all the information they need should they wish to exercise universal jurisdiction and prosecute these officials should they appear in their borders,” Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch said.

Universal jurisdiction is a legal doctrine that allows the courts of any country to try certain crimes against humanity including torture regardless of where those crimes took place or who is alleged to have committed them. It stems from a 1998 case brought by a Spanish court against the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for the murder and torture of opposition figures. 

Some organizations that have already invoked this principle and are planning to use this new release of information to build their case against American officials.

In a fact sheet, the ACLU notes that there are a number of U.S. laws that could be invoked to hold those accused of torture responsible including the federal torture statute that criminalizes the infliction of severe physical or mental suffering with intent outside of the U.S. 

The group points out that while some of the alleged crimes occurred more than a decade ago, “There is no statute of limitations under the torture statute when the abuse risked or resulted in serious physical injury or death.”

Same-Sex Couples Divorcing Much Less Than Straight Couples

Remember how the Christofascist claimed that gays will "destroy marriage"?  Yet another study reveals that the real threat to marriage comes from straight couples.  Just as evangelical Christians in the Bible Belt have the highest divorce rate (Massachusetts, the first state to have same-sex marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the country), straight couples are divorcing at a higher rate than same sex-couples.  The Williams Institute at University of California (Los Angeles) School of Law studied the rate of marriage and divorce of same-sex couples in the year since the Supreme Court struck down part of Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 and found that the divorce rate for gays was half that of their straight counterparts.  Here are highlights from The New Civil Rights Movement:

A major finding reveals that currently, same-sex couples are about half as likely to divorce as different-sex couples. And same-sex couples married at a rate about double in 2013 versus in 2102.
Married same-sex couples are divorcing at a 1.1 percent rate, compared to a 2 percent rate of different-sex couples, the Williams Institute notes.

"In early 2014, the Williams Institute collected administrative data on marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships of same-sex couples in the 23 states that offered these statuses at the time data collection began," the study finds. "Two states provided data on divorces: New Hampshire and Vermont. Six states provided data on civil union and domestic partnership terminations: California, D.C, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin."

The Williams Institute also found differences in female same-sex couples versus male same-sex couples.

"The first analysis shows that female couples are more likely to formalize their relationships than male couples. Female couples account for just over half (51%) of all same-sex couples in the U.S. However, data from the state agencies show that 64% of same-sex couples who entered into legal statuses were female couples."

The study also finds that the SCOTUS decision last summer greatly impacted the decision to marry, even in couples who lived in marriage equality states.  Calling it "the Windsor effect," they note that the "data show that the number of same-sex couples who married nearly doubled in marriage equality states from 2012 to 2013."

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

Kansas Republican Promises To Pass Anti-Gay "Religious Freedom" Bill

In a move that will likely be repeated around the country by anti-gay Republicans - I suspect here in Virginia The Family Foundation will find willing GOP political whores to introduce such a bill - Michigan has passed a bill that would allow "godly Christians" to discriminate against gays based on "religious belief."  Now, a Christofascist Republican in Kansas is promising to introduce a similar bill.  Just like Bush and Cheney who authorized torture and war crimes, the "godly folk" believe that they are above the laws that bind the rest of us.  The New Civil Rights Movement looks at this effort.  Here are excerpts:

The "Protecting religious freedom regarding marriage" bill, also known as the "religious freedom bill," passed in the Kansas House in February by a strong margin, 72-49. It died in the Senate. But now, Rep. Steve Brunk is promising to bring it back and pass it.  "This is an ongoing conversation," Brunk told KWCH. "We're working on the best way to protect Kansan's first amendment rights."

Brunk may change some of the bill's text, but the title alone should make every LGBT person in Kansas, their supporters, and supporters of true religious freedom, concerned.

As it stands now, here's how the bill could impact a same-sex couple:

Say John and Steve are legally married in New York, and John gets a great job at a company in Kansas. The couple decide to move – perhaps John was raised in Kansas – and so they pack their things and head to the Sunflower State. The couple want to rent a hotel, but the manager of the hotel they drive to refuses them a room, claiming his company has sincerely held religious beliefs against same-sex marriage. After searching for another hotel, the couple check in. They go to a restaurant, but are refused service because the waitress sees them holding hands and claims she has sincerely held religious beliefs against same-sex marriage.

The couple need to rent a home, but the real estate broker when the two pull up for an appointment claims he has sincerely held religious beliefs, so the couple are forced to find another agent. Once they do, the company that owns the apartment building says they won't rent to a same-sex couple, because of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Let's not forget that John and Steve have already quit their jobs and packed their belongings. Kansas is starting to look pretty unfriendly.

As it passed the House, the "Protecting religious freedom regarding marriage" bill allows any "individual or religious entity" to deny services to anyone "if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender."

The definition of a "religious entity" in the bill is broad, so, not just churches or synagogues or mosques, etc., but any "privately-held business operating consistently with its sincerely held religious beliefs."

Think of it as a Hobby Lobby-type bill against same-sex marriage.

Specifically, it states, no governmental entity, or law, could require them to "[p]rovide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Here Come the War Crime Apologists

It's no surprise that many on the far right are falling all over themselves to defend the criminal use of torture revealed by the Senate torture report released yesterday.  I'm sure many of them, had they been in Nazi Germany in the period 1938 - 1945 would have found justification for the countless horrors the Nazi regime inflicted on millions.  The numbers of victims involved in the Bush/Cheney torture program may be smaller by far than what Hitler oversaw, but torturing smaller numbers doesn't somehow make it acceptable or any less criminal under international law.  As noted previously, it is no wonder Republicans did not want this report to see the light of day because through Bush and Cheney they own it.  A column in the New York Times looks at the efforts of the war crimes apologists.  Here are excerpts:

The publication today [yesterday] of a censored summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the use of torture at C.I.A. prisons has brought war-crime apologists out from under their rocks.

Chief among them is former Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the all-time great prisoner abuse enthusiasts. Even before the report was issued, Mr. Cheney was telling The New York Times on Monday that torturing prisoners was absolutely the right thing to do and that everything the C.I.A. did was authorized.

“What I keep hearing out there is they portray this as a rogue operation, and the agency was way out of bounds and then they lied about it,” Mr. Cheney said in a telephone interview. “I think that’s all a bunch of hooey. The program was authorized. The agency did not want to proceed without authorization, and it was also reviewed legally by the Justice Department before they undertook the program.”

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, said releasing the report was a “terrible idea,” because it would put Americans in danger. “Our own intelligence community has assessed that this will cause violence and deaths,” he said, conveniently ignoring that it’s in the intelligence community’s interest to make such a prediction.

Mr. Rogers is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which has done absolutely nothing to shed light on this dismal chapter in American history. It’s specious to argue that transparency about torture, rather than torture itself, is to blame for any future retaliation.

Let’s be clear, the acts committed against the C.I.A.’s prisoners — no matter how murderous and awful some of those prisoners were — were disgusting and inexcusable. They violated all kinds of American and international laws against torture.

“The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow,” he [John McCain] said. “The American people are entitled to it nonetheless. They must be able to make judgments about whether these policies and personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values.”

Quote of the Day: Will America Comply With the UN Convention on Torture?

Cheney - the real architect of the torture regime?

Perhaps I have beat to death the issue of American sponsored torture, but to me it gets to the heart of the problem with today's far right American conservatives and the Christofascists: they have no compassion for those who are different, especially in matters of race and religion, and they believe that they are wholly above the law.  Today's release of the Senate torture report now places America at the cross roads of either complying with the law - actually a treaty that it signed - or becoming in essence a rogue nation.  Andrew Sullivan quoting Ronald Reagan sums it up well:

“The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of [this] Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution,” – Ronald Reagan’s signing statement on the ratification of the UN Convention on Torture.

Allow me to repeat:

“Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”

I guess all of a sudden the Christofascists and GOP crowd will claim amnesia on this part of Reagan legacy.

UN Human Rights Chief Calls for Prosecution of Torture Architects

German defendants at Nuremberg trials

The full executive summary of the Senate torture report can be found here (NOTE: many names and details are redacted).  Not surprisingly, some at the United Nations want the architects of the torture program prosecuted.  The Guardian has details:

The UN special rapporteur on counter terrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson, has released a statement saying “It is now time to take action” and “The individuals responsible for the criminal conspiracy revealed in today’s report must be brought to justice.” The statement reads in part:

The summary of the report which was released this afternoon confirms what the international community has long believed - that there was a clear policy orchestrated at a high level within the Bush administration to commit systematic crimes and gross violations of international human rights law. The identities of the perpetrators, and many other details, have been redacted in the published summary report but are known to the Select Committee and to those who provided the Committee with information on the programme. It is now time to take action. 

The individuals responsible for the criminal conspiracy revealed in today’s report must be brought to justice, and must face criminal penalties commensurate with the gravity of their crimes. The fact that the policies revealed in this report were authorised at a high level within the US Government provides no excuse whatsoever. Indeed, it reinforces the need for criminal accountability. 

International law prohibits the granting of immunities to public officials who have engaged in acts of torture. This applies not only to the actual perpetrators but also to those senior officials within the US Government who devised, planned and authorised these crimes. As a matter of international law, the US is legally obliged to bring those responsible to justice.

Note: under international law and treaties to which the United States is a signatory, Barack Obama has NO legal authority to either (i) refuse to prosecute the offenders or (ii) grant pardons to such criminals. 

If one looks at the Nuremberg trials, here is what happened to Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the highest ranking SS leader to be tried at Nuremberg.  -  Hanged 16 October 1946.

The Senate Torture Report - Obama Should Prosecute Bush and Cheny for War Crimes?

The release of the Senate "torture report" today confirmed the worse fears of many - the United States with authorization engaged in torture and committed acts which read like something right out of the narratives about Nazi torture techniques and atrocities.  Since all of this occurred under the foul Bush/Cheney regime, it is no surprise that Congressional Republicans - many of whom rubber stamped everything Bush/Cheney did  - did not want to have this report see the light of day.  The bottom line: any moral standing that America may have had in the world is now gone and murderous foreign despots can throw back in our diplomats' faces the activities on American authorities should criticisms be made of foreign atrocities.  The only way to avoid this is for America - and by this I mean Barack Obama and the Justice Department - to live up to its obligations under the UN Convention on Torture.  These would mean that either America prosecutes George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and a number of their minions, or they extradited and turned over to other nations for prosecution.  Mother Jones provides a taste of the horrors done in the name of the American people:

On Tuesday morning, the Senate intelligence committee released an executive summary of its years-long investigation into the CIA's detention and interrogation program. President George W. Bush authorized the so-called "enhanced interrogation" program after the 9/11 attacks. The United States government this week has warned personnel in facilities abroad, including US embassies, to be ready in case protests erupt in response.

The full report includes over 6,000 pages and 35,000 footnotes. You can read the executive summary here. Here are some of the lowlights:

1. The CIA used previously unreported tactics, including "rectal feeding" of detainees (p. 100, footnote 584):

click image to enlarge

2. CIA officers threatened the children of detainees (p. 4):

click image to enlarge

3. Over 20 percent of CIA detainees were "wrongfully held." One was an "intellectually challenged" man who was held so the CIA could get leverage over his family (p. 12)

4. One detainee, Abu Hudhaifa, was subjected to "ice water baths" and "66 hours of standing sleep deprivation" before being released because the CIA realized it probably had the wrong man.

5. The CIA, contrary to what it told Congress, began torturing detainees before even determining whether they would cooperate.

6. CIA officers began torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "a few minutes" after beginning to question him (p. 108):

click image to enlarge

9. In 2003, Bush gave a speech at a UN event condemning torture and calling on other nations to investigate and prosecute torture allegations. The statement was so at odds with US practices that the CIA contacted the White House to make sure enhanced interrogation techniques were still okay (pp. 209-210).

14. Bush Justice Department official Jay Bybee, who is now a federal judge, told Congress the torture of Al Qaeda detainees led to the US capture of Jose Padilla. That wasn't true.

16. Even President George W. Bush wasn't informed where the facilities were—because he feared he'd "accidentally disclose" the information.

The Daily Beast has additional details.  Here are excerpts:

Interrogations that lasted for days on end. Detainees forced to stand on broken legs, or go 180 hours in a row without sleep. A prison so cold, one suspect essentially froze to death. The Senate Intelligence Committee is finally releasing its review of the CIA’s detention and interrogation programs. And it is brutal.

Here are some of the most gruesome moments of detainee abuse from a summary of the report, obtained by The Daily Beast:

‘Well Worn’ Waterboards.  The CIA has previously said that only three detainees were ever waterboarded: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd Al Rahim al-Nashiri. But records uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee suggest there may have been more than three subjects. The Senate report describes a photograph of a “well worn” waterboard, surrounded by buckets of water, at a detention site where the CIA has claimed it never subjected a detainee to this procedure. In a meeting with the CIA in 2013, the agency was not able to explain the presence of this waterboard.

Near Drowning.  Contrary to CIA’s description to the Department of Justice, the Senate report says that the waterboarding was physically harmful, leading to convulsions and vomiting. During one session, detainee Abu Zubaydah became “completely unresponsive with bubbles rising through his open full mouth.” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded at least 183 times, which the Senate report describes as escalating into a “series of near drownings.”

Standing on Broken Legs.  In November 2002, a detainee who had been held partially nude and chained to the floor died, apparently from hypothermia. This case appears similar to the that of Gul Rahman, who died of similarly explained causes at an Afghan site known as the “Salt Pit,” also in November 2002. The site was also called “The Dark Prison” by former captives.

Forced Rectal Feeding and Worse.  At least five detainees were subjected to “rectal feeding” or “rectal hydration,” without any documented medical need. “While IV infusion is safe and effective,” one officer wrote, rectal hydration could be used as a form of behavior control.

Others were deprived of sleep, which could involve staying awake for as long as 180 hours—sometimes standing, sometimes with their hands shackled above their heads.

Some detainees were forced to walk around naked, or shackled with their hands above their heads. In other instances, naked detainees were hooded and dragged up and down corridors while subject to physical abuse.

Sexual Assault by Interrogators.  Officers in the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program included individuals who the committee said, “among other things, had engaged in inappropriate detainee interrogations, had workplace anger management issues, and had reportedly admitted to sexual assault.”

  

Meet the Russian Gay Couple Who Got Married in Spite of Vladimir Putin

Last month I wrote a post about a Russian gay couple who got married in St. Petersburg, Russia, despite Russia's anti-gay jihad.  I first heard of the marriage via a young Russian LGBT activist friend who attended the wedding.  Now, Gay Star News has more details on how the couple - one is transgender - to circumvent Russia's anti-gay laws.  Here are highlights followed by a video clip (my friend can be seen briefly in the film):

A Russian gay couple who married in the fiercest way possible has reflected on their wedding and the consequences it could have the country.

Alyona Furvosa and Irina Shumilova married, both in stunning white gowns, in front of family and friends at a St Petersburg registry office last month.

The trans woman and her cisgender bride were allowed to marry through a loophole, with the city technically viewing the union as a heterosexual marriage.

'To be honest, it's scary and uncomfortable, because we don't know what to expect in the future,' Fursova told CNN this week.

'We can get married now because I have female documents and and Irina has male ones. But already we've heard that government officials are preparing a law to forbid this.'

St. Petersburg MP Vitaly Milonov, a vocal opponent of gay rights, has called the union an 'ugly insult to millions of Russian families' and vowed to pursue an investigation into its legality.  Milonov was the author of the city's 'gay propaganda' ban, the law that inspired the nationwide legislation.

But as Russia seems to have stalted, the married couple hope they will serve as an inspiration to the LGBTI community in their country and across the world.

'I really hope it helps people to understand that if they fight for their rights, they can get them,' Furvosa added.