Reprinted from Consortium News
In 1964, the Brazilian military, in a U.S.-designed coup, overthrew a liberal (not more to the left than that) government and proceeded to rule with an iron fist for the next 21 years. In 1979 the military regime passed an amnesty law blocking the prosecution of its members for torture and other crimes. The amnesty still holds.
That's how they handle such matters in what used to be called The Third World. In the First World, however, they have no need for such legal niceties. In the United States, military torturers and their political godfathers are granted amnesty automatically, simply for being American, solely for belonging to the "Good Guys Club."
No one does brainwashing like the good ol' Yankee inventors of advertising and public relations. And there is always a new generation just coming of age with stars (and stripes) in their eyes.
The public also has to be reminded yet again that -- contrary to what most of the media and Barack Obama would have us all believe -- the President has never actually banned torture per se, despite saying recently that he had "unequivocally banned torture" after taking office.
Shortly after Obama's first inauguration, both he and Leon Panetta, the new Director of the CIA, explicitly stated that "rendition" was not being ended. As the Los Angeles Times reported at the time: "Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States."
The English translation of "cooperate" is "torture." Rendition is simply outsourcing torture. There was no other reason to take prisoners to Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Egypt, Jordan, Kenya, Somalia, Kosovo, or the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, amongst other torture centers employed by the United States. Kosovo and Diego Garcia -- both of which house large and very secretive American military bases -- if not some of the other locations, may well still be open for torture business, as is the Guantanamo Base in Cuba.
Moreover, the key Executive Order referred to, number 13491, issued Jan. 22, 2009, "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations," leaves a major loophole. It states repeatedly that humane treatment, including the absence of torture, is applicable only to prisoners detained in an "armed conflict." Thus, torture by Americans outside an environment of "armed conflict" is not explicitly prohibited. But what about torture within an environment of "counter-terrorism"?
The Executive Order required the CIA to use only the interrogation methods outlined in a revised Army Field Manual. However, using the Army Field Manual as a guide to prisoner treatment and interrogation still allows solitary confinement, perceptual or sensory deprivation, sensory overload, sleep deprivation, the induction of fear and hopelessness, mind-altering drugs, environmental manipulation such as temperature and noise, and stress positions, amongst other charming examples of American Exceptionalism.
After Panetta was questioned by a Senate panel, the New York Times wrote that he had "left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited menu that President Obama authorized under new rules ... Mr. Panetta also said the agency would continue the Bush administration practice of 'rendition' ... But he said the agency would refuse to deliver a suspect into the hands of a country known for torture or other actions 'that violate our human values.'"
The last sentence is of course childishly absurd. The countries chosen to receive rendition prisoners were chosen precisely and solely because they were willing and able to torture them. Four months after Obama and Panetta took office, the New York Times could report that renditions had reached new heights.
The present news reports indicate that Washington's obsession with torture stems from 9/11, to prevent a repetition. The President speaks of "the fearful excesses of the post-9/11 era." There's something to that idea, but not a great deal. Torture in America is actually as old as the country.
What government has been intimately involved with that horror more than the United States? Teaching it, supplying the manuals, supplying the equipment, creation of international torture centers, kidnapping people to these places, solitary confinement, forced feeding, Guanta'namo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Chicago ... Lord forgive us!
In 2011, Brazil instituted a National Truth Commission to officially investigate the crimes of the military government, which came to an end in 1985. But Mr. Obama has in fact rejected calls for a truth commission concerning CIA torture.
On June 17 of this year, however, when Vice President Joseph Biden was in Brazil, he gave the Truth Commission 43 State Department cables and reports concerning the Brazilian military regime, including one entitled "Widespread Arrests and Psychophysical Interrogation of Suspected Subversives."
Thus, it is that once again the United States of America will not be subjected to any accountability for having broken U.S. laws, international laws, and the fundamental laws of human decency. Obama can expect the same kindness from his successor as he has extended to George W.
"One of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better." -- Barack Obama, written statement issued moments after the Senate report was made public.