Between Welfare And Warfare: The Two-Faced Character Of Hamas

WRITTEN BY: CAMILLA GIOVANNINI

The article aims to point out the double nature, as welfare agency and, at the same time, as armed group, of Hamas, leaving apart the theoretical issue concerning the definition of terrorism and focusing on the implications that this ambivalence implies from an international perspective, specially connected to the blacklisting.

 

Hamas, the acronym of Harakat al Muqāwama al Islāmiyya (Islamic Resistance Movement), was established in Gaza in 1987 as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood[1]. This latter was founded by the schoolteacher Hasan al Banna in Egypt in 1928. At the beginning it was a trade union for Arab and Egyptian workers employed in constructing the Suez Channel. It aimed to promote a culture of solidarity from an Islamic perspective. Ten years after its foundation the organization could count 500.000 members, belonging primarily to the poorest levels of the society. Recalling the traditional Islamic values the league promoted a political view of Islam, also through the opening of  “islamized places”, where relations were involved just among Muslims, without any western contamination. In order to achieve its goals it rooted in the mosques through the means of preaching, da’wa, and was very active in the social services and welfare system. Its presence in the educational and social agencies has been a feature still today, verifiable within the Brotherhood and its affiliate organizations, among them, precisely, Hamas.

As its parental organization, Hamas’ attention and commitment towards the people is a distinctive character which connotes its action and, at this regard, article 21 of the Covenant of Hamas states: “Mutual social responsibility means extending assistance, financial or moral, to all those who are in need and joining in the execution of some of the work. Members of the Islamic Resistance Movement should consider the interests of the masses as their own personal interests”.

The Covenant helps also to figure out the movement’s goals and ideology. Article 1 concerns Islam, perceived as origin and source of interpretation: “The Movement’s programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgment in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps”. From the religion springs the awareness about the conditions of the Palestinian people and the decision to fight: “The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Moslems who have given their allegiance to Allah whom they truly worship, – “I have created the jinn and humans only for the purpose of worshipping” – who know their duty towards themselves, their families and country. In all that, they fear Allah and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness and evils[2].

With regard to Israel and its existence, the statute is clear: “Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realization of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” [3]. The goal of Hamas is to eliminate the State of Israel and to replace it with an Islamist State in all of what was once the land covered by the British mandate, since Palestine is a waqf, an holy endowment, which has to be Islamic[4]. Accordingly, in 2006, when the organization won the political election in Gaza, it imposed in the Strip a strict observation of sharī‘a.

The slogan of Hamas, at article 8, is an effective summary of the organization’s belief: “Allāh is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur’an its constitution: jihād is its path and death for the sake of Allāh is the loftiest of its wishes”.

In order to achieve its aims, Hamas is committed in social welfare activities: the organization’s annual budget is estimated in 70 million dollars[5] and the substantial part of it, the 75-80%[6], is devoted to the social services network, which has ensured that support to the organization, which led this latter to the electoral victory. Moreover, it is engaged in political activity and in guerilla and terrorist attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. The political wing has always had the control on the entire organization, hence also on the military component: the ‘Izz al Dīn al Qassām Brigades, for which it buys weapons and raises funds. The military wing, in turn, takes part to the decision making process even with regard to the political issues[7].

Starting from 1988, Hamas has begun to act, for first just in the Gaza Strip, then also in Judea and Samaria, targeting villages and towns and taking hostages. There has never been any distinction between soldiers and civilians because: “Every Jew or settler is a target and must be killed. Their blood and their property are forfeit[8]. In Mehola (Israel), April 16, 1993, Hamas opened the season of the suicide terrorism with a car bomb, bringing in the Israeli cities the same dynamics that, ten years before, Hizballāh used in Lebanon. This deadly campaign, which increased in the ‘90s and during the so-called “second intifada”, was responsible for the 40% of all the attacks and caused the 44% of the victims of terrorism in Israel[9].

Hamas’ social services, made of mosques, hospitals, orphanages, schools, religious societies, associations and sport teams, attract funding from abroad, through charitable societies and benefactor States, among them, for instance, Iran, as it was proven once again[10] during the last war in Gaza in the end of 2012, and Syria which also hosted the organization’s foreign contingent, also known as the external leadership, until November 2012. This latter has been in charge of keeping relations with the third Countries: Yemen as well as Iran. Syrian support was granted to Hamas by Hāfiz Assad and then by his son Bashār. The Country is a communication route with Iran, crossed by persons, goods and weapons, and a hosting territory for training camps[11].

Through the Islamic duty of zakāt, charities controlled by Hamas, for instance the Union of Good[12], collect a huge flow of money, especially from Saudi Arabia[13]. However, the Kingdom has been undertaking some agreements with Israel, since the support to the Palestinian cause should be seen from a wider perspective, inserted in the Middle-east chessboard, which implies the struggle for the control on the Region. Thus, from 2001, the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to Hamas has been progressively reduced in a way inversely proportional to the increasing Iranian funds[14].

In 2003 the European Union listed Hamas in its terror blacklist, replacing the ‘Izz al Dīn al Qassām Brigades (in the list since 2001), opting for an unified consideration of the organization. The European awareness to be dealing with an unique, even articulated, movement has been the result of a different approach, antithetic to the previous one, which was used to split the military from the political wing. National authorities do not always confirm the Community decision: the United Kingdom has blacklisted just the Brigades, due to the consideration towards the organization’s social activities; furthermore, France keeps open channels and relations with it[15]. Outside the Union, Australia and New Zealand have taken the same decision of the Great Britain, on the contrary, United States and Canada have blacklisted the entire organization. In 2006 the Russian newspaper Rossiiskaya gazeta published the list of the terrorist groups drawn up by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. According to the words of the general Yuri Sapunov, at that time head of the antiterrorism at the Federal Security Service, the absence, in the list, of Hamas and of the Brigades was justified by the unclearness, on the international scene, about the nature of the organization. Moreover Hamas, and the Brigades as well, did not represent a threat to the Russian security, since they were not linked to the groups operating in Caucasus[16].

With regard to Hamas, as we have seen, the European Union reached the unanimity required by the Council Regulation 2580/2001 in order to list Hamas and to impose on it the provided restrictive measures. On the contrary, this consensus has always been missing when Hizballāh is at stake. Although also recently, after the suicide bombing of a bus full of Israeli tourists in the Bulgarian city of Burgas, Germany[17], United Kingdom and Netherland[18] have called for banning the Lebanese group, the European Governments are not able to find a common position about. Within the Union, just Netherland and Germany have banned Hizballāh, while Great Britain blacklisted only its military wing.

This disagreement is caused by organization’s relevance as social agency in Lebanon. As well as Hamas, the movement since its origin has been committed in providing assistance and services to the Lebanese Shi’ite community, hospitals, schools, summer camps, and creating job positions for the people from the southern quarters of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley.  However these agencies are also finalized to the recruitment of new members for joining the group. Hizballāh uses its summer camps to indoctrinate youngsters with its ideology, celebrating the terrorist culture, teaching to hate Israel, feeding the cult for Hassan Nasrallah’s personality and glorifying the organization’s martyrs[19].

Hamas services too are basins of votes and laborers: the funds are used for financing the social agencies, helping the poorest but also for buying weapons and for sustaining the families of those who were killed or imprisoned during the operations against Israel. Schools and summer camps for children and kids, which host 100.000 minors every year, are places aimed also to indoctrinate the young generations, training them to the hate for Israel, to the military techniques and to the charm of the martyrdom. The following example is a grammar exercise taken from a schoolbook provided by Hamas: “Believers who sit at home, other than those who are disabled, are not equal with those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives[20].

The European Union, with regard to Hamas, has been able, so far, to perceive that the organization is one, now it is at a crossroads: it is called to decide if it wants to apply the same interpretation to the national blacklisting processes and to Hizballāh or if it wants to make a step back and to remove from the list Hamas’ political wing, keeping it as speaker and including its leadership in the peace deals.


[1] Article 2, The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 1988

[2] Ivi, article 3

[3] Ivi, article 7

[4] Ivi, article 11

[5] Jonathan Masters, Hamas, Council on Foreign Relations, last update 27 November 2012, available at the website http://www.cfr.org/israel/hamas/p8968 (last visit 21 February 2013)

[6] David H. Gray, John B. Larson, Grass roots terrorism: how Hamas’s structure defines a policy of counterterrorism, Research Journal of International Studies – Issue 8 (November, 2008), p. 126

[7] Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Hamas and the terrorist threat from the Gaza Strip, March 2010

[8] Hamas leaflet 65/1990. Source: Boaz Ganor, Hamas – the Islamic resistance movement in the Territories, International Institute for Counter Terrorism

[9] Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Profile of the Hamas movement, February 2006

[10] Saeed K. Dehghan, “Iran supplied Hamas with Fajr-5 missile technology”, The Guardian, 21 November 2012, available at the website http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/21/iran-supplied-hamas-missile-technology (last visit 6 March 2013). Iranian support to Hamas has been ensured also through Hizballāh, which has provided its infrastructures to Iranian instructors training Hamas’ members

[11] See supra, note 9

[12] Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2011, U.S. Department of State, available at the website http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195553.htm#hamas (last visit 8 March 2013)

[13] David H. Gray, John B. Larson, see supra note 6, p. 129

[14] See the U.S. Patterns of Global Terrorism, from 2001 on.

[15] Steven Erlanger, “France admits contacts with Hamas”, in The New York Times, 20 May 2008, available at the website http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/world/europe/20france.html (last visit 8 March 2013)

[16]  Robert Parsons, “Russia: Supreme Court approves List of 17 terrorist groups”, in Radio free Europe. Radio liberty, 28 July 2006, available at the web site http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1070179.html (last visit 8 March 2013)

[17] Benjamin Weinthal, “Top German politician calls for EU to ban Hezbollah”, The Jerusalem Post, 23 August 2012, available at the website http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=282357 (last visit 8 March 2013)

[18] News agencies, “UK seeks to add Hezbollah to EU’s terror watch list”, Ynetnews, 7 September 2012, available at the website http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4278524,00.html (last visit 8 March 2013)

[19] Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center,

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/data/pdf/PDF_08_220_2.pdf (last visit 8 March 2013)

[20] Itamar Marcus, “From nationalist battle to religious conflict: New 12th grade Palestinian schoolbooks present a world without Israel”, Palestinian Media Watch, February 2007, available at the website http://www.palwatch.org/STORAGE/special%20reports/SchoolBooks_English_Final_for_web.pdf (last visit 8 March 2013)

Advertisements

Accountability for Torture by United States Since 9/11

WRITTEN BY: JAMES ROTH

James Roth is a retired lawyer, now a writer. He was one of the founders and long-time board member of Advocates For Human Rights and The Center For Victims of Torture.  He is currently completing his first novel entitled “Beyond Torture.” He is also active with many groups working on foreign policy and international human rights issues.

Summary:

Before 9/11 it was widely accepted that torture was illegal under international and United States domestic law. The United States had signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture and had enacted the anti-torture statute of 1994, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2340-2340A , which criminalized acts of torture by United State nationals or non-nationals committed outside the United States, as well as the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991.

Shortly after 9/11 Bush administration officials sought and received authorization through various legal memos and reports by the Department of Justice and Department of Defense to create detention facilities outside the United States and to use harsher interrogation techniques than those previously approved. The result was the use of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” as well as increased renditions of detainees to other countries for interrogation.

Many abuses which have now been well-documented followed including long-term detentions without access to legal counsel or legal oversight, widespread use of interrogation techniques broadly acknowledged as being torture and cruel and unusual punishment, including deaths of over 100 detainees under questionable circumstances.

Upon taking office in January 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13491—Ensuring Lawful Interrogations. Yet, despite well-documented violations of international and domestic laws no clear standards have emerged and there has been no accountability except for a handful of lower level military personnel.

This article outlines a number of areas, both legislative and domestic, that it urges our Congressional Representatives and Senators to pursue.

Specifically, this article urges action to confront the United States Congress to:

  1. Release to the public the December 2012 Senate Intelligence Committee Report with as few redactions as possible so that the public can understand what brought about the shift in U.S. policy toward torture and cruel treatment and diminished America’s longstanding consensus against torture and cruel treatment.
  2. Request that President Obama release in some form the report(s) by the Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies established under Executive Order 13491.
  3. Issue an apology to Canadian citizen Mahar Arar, who was mistakenly retained and rendered to Syria where he was tortured, and to Khalid El-Masri, a Lebanese-Canadian who was kidnapped by the CIA in Macedonia where he was tortured and then flown to Afghanistan and tortured some more until the CIA discovered that it had the wrong person and dumped him on an isolated street in Albania.
  4. Ask the Office of the Inspector General for the CIA to supplement the 2004 Report in light of recently obtained information contained in a Human Rights Watch Report of alleged waterboarding and other abuses of detainees in Libya.
  5. Ask Attorney General Holder to investigate the alleged abuses in Libya.
  6. Take appropriate action to encourage local communities to accept detainees from Guantanamo who have been exonerated.
  7. Assure that appropriate oversight is established and maintained so that torture and cruel treatment does not occur in the future.

Background

On September 14, 2001 President Bush issued the “Declaration of National Emergency by reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks.”[1] On September 17, 2001 President Bush issued a 12-page directive (known as a “memorandum of notifications) to the Director of the CIA and members of the National Security Council authorizing the CIA to capture suspected terrorists and members of Al-Qaeda and to create detention facilities outside the United States to hold and interrogate them.[2]  The International Committee of the Red Cross was refused access to detainees held in the new CIA program until September 2006.[3] On November 13, 2001 President Bush authorized the detention of alleged terrorists and subsequent trial by military commission, which he ordered would not be subject to the principles of law and rules of evidence applicable to U.S. federal courts.[4]

On July 11, 2002, the first detainees arrived in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On January 18, 2002 President Bush declared that the Third Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda or the Taliban and that they would not receive the protections afforded to prisoners of war.[5] On February 7, 2002 President Bush issued a memorandum to that effect.[6] In so doing, the President rejected the requests by Secretary of State Colin Powell to reconsider and reverse his decisions,[7] as well as the advice of William H. Taft, IV, Legal Adviser to the State Department, that these decisions were inconsistent with the plain language of the Geneva Conventions and contravened the unvaried interpretation and practice in the fifty years since the United States became a party of the Conventions.[8]

In March 2002, the first “high value detainee”, Abu Zubaydah, was detained and interrogated by the CIA.[9]  The CIA interrogation program sanctioned by President Bush included interrogation techniques adapted from the Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (“SERE”) training program in which U.S. military members were exposed to and taught to resist interrogation techniques used by countries that did not adhere to the Geneva Conventions.[10] As reported in the later CIA Inspector General Report, the U.S. now employed these techniques itself, including waterboarding, confining detainees in a dark box with insects, up to 11 days of sleep deprivation, facial holds and slaps, “walling” (pushing a detainee against a wall) and use of stress positions.[11]

On November 27, 2002 William J. Haynes, General Counsel for the Department of Defense, provided to Donald Rumsfeld an “Action Memo regarding Counter-Resistance Techniques seeking approval of three categories of counter-resistance techniques to aid in the interrogation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.” Rumsfeld initialed his approval on December 2, 2002 to the first two categories and one of the techniques from the third category (“mild non-injurious physical contact”). This signaled approval of the SERE enhanced interrogation techniques by the military in addition to the CIA. This is one example of the migration of lists and interrogation techniques beyond those approved by the Army Field Manual. U.S. Army General Geoffrey D. Miller was given command of Joint Task Force Guantánamo in November 2002. He implemented the new harsh techniques there. In August 2003 Miller was sent to Iraq by the Department of Defense to help get more information out of Iraqi prisoners. In September Miller submitted a report recommending “GTMO-ising” interrogation techniques–combining the detention and interrogation units at Abu Ghraib into the Theater Joint Interrogation and Detention Center. Miller recommended that prison guards be used to “soften up” prisoners for interrogations.

In September 2003 Lieut. General Ricardo S Sanchez sent a secret cable to US Central Command outlining more aggressive interrogation methods that he planned to authorize immediately, including several that were later revealed when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

All of the above facts illustrate how the US military’s ad hoc decision-making created confusion and allowed the harsh methods to infiltrate from Afghanistan to Guantánamo and Iraq. A clear line exists from the initial decision that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.

As described by the ICRC after they were finally provided with access to detainees, the CIA detention program “included transfers of detainees to multiple locations, maintenance in continuous solitary confinement, incommunicado detention throughout the entire period of their undisclosed detention, and the infliction of further ill-treatment through the use of various methods either individually or in combination, in addition to the deprivation of other basic material requirements.”[12] The ICRC Report further found: “The ability of the detaining authority to transfer persons over apparently significant distances to secret locations in foreign countries actually increased the detainees’ feelings of futility and helplessness, making them more vulnerable to the methods of ill-treatment… these transfers increased the vulnerability… to their interrogation, and was performed in a manner (goggles, earmuffs, use of diapers, strapped to stretchers, sometimes rough handling) that was intrusive and humiliating…”[13]

The United Nations Joint Study on secret detentions found that the CIA had taken detainees who were held in Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, Romania and other locations. [14]The UN Joint Study further found the CIA “had taken 94 detainees into custody and had employed enhanced interrogation techniques to varying degrees in the interrogation of 28 of those detainees.”[15]

It has been documented that over 100 detainees died while in US custody, many under suspicious circumstances. [16]

The interrogation techniques used on detainees were euphemistically described as “enhanced interrogation techniques” by the US government, but the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross found that they rose to the level of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. [17]

Alberto J. Mora served as General Counsel to the U.S. Navy from 2001 to 2006. Upon learning of the authorization of the use of coercive interrogation techniques by the US he stated:

“To my mind, there’s no practical distinction [between cruelty and torture]. If          cruelty is no longer declared unlawful but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America—even those designated as ‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ If you make an exception the whole Constitution crumbles.

Besides, my mother would have killed me if I hadn’t spoken up. No Hungarian after communism, or Cuban after Castro, is not aware that human rights are incompatible with cruelty. The debate here isn’t only how to protect the country. It’s how to protect our values.”

On June 22, 2009 Pres. Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13491–Ensuring Lawful Interrogations. In section 3(b) it provided:

Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States government, or detained within a facility owned, operated or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation that is not authorized by Army Field Manual 2 22.3.

In section 4(a) the order provided “ The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.”

The Order also created a special interagency task force on interrogation and transfer policies. The task force was told to provide a report to the president within 180 days unless an extension was necessary.

The Order required the CIA to use only 19 interrogation methods outlined in the United States Army Field manual on interrogations “unless the Atty. Gen. with appropriate consultation provides further guidance.”

It is unknown whether extraordinary renditions have been carried out since 2009.

Addendum A

Mahar Arar

Mahar Arar is a Canadian citizen who emigrated with his family from Syria at age 17. On September 26, 2002 he was detained by U.S. officials at JFK Airport in New York and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria where he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for over then months. He was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.

His wife, Mosia Mazigh, learned of his imprisonment and campaigned for his release. He was returned to Canada in October 2003. On January 24, 2004 the Canadian government established a Commission of Inquiry to review his treatment by Canadian officials. On September 18, 2006 the Commission of Inquiry cleared Arar of all charges stating “categorically there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.”

The government of Canada settled the case out of court and paid Arar $10.5 million (Canadian) and Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally apologized to Arar.

In contrast, in 2004 Arar brought a lawsuit in the U.S. in federal court in New York against John Ashcroft and others. The U.S. invoked the “state secrets privilege” and moved to dismiss the lawsuit. It was dismissed and upheld on appeal. Upon rehearing the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, “If a civil remedy in damages is to be created for the harms suffered in the context of extraordinary renditions, it must be created by Congress…”

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept review of the case.  The U.S. government has taken no steps to make amends to Mr. Arar and his family.

Khalid El-Masri

In a recent landmark decision, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled in favor of Mr. El-Masri on December 12, 2012, corroborating details of his abduction and torture by the CIA and holding that the CIA’s treatment of Mr. El-Masri was torture.

Mr. El-Masri is a Lebanese-Canadian who was kidnapped by the CIA is Macedonia. With the assistance of the Macedonian government he was held incommunicado, severely beaten, sodomized, shackled and hooded, submitted to total sensory deprivation and harshly interrogated for over three weeks. He was then flown to Afghanistan where he was incarcerated in a small, dirty dark brick factory and beaten, kicked, threatened and interrogated for more than four months. When the CIA ultimately learned that he was the wrong person he was dumped on an isolated street in Albania.

In contrast, when Mr. El-Masri brought a case in the U.S. it was dismissed and upheld on national security grounds, as in Mr. Arar’s case, and again the U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept review of his case.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism Ben Emmerson described the European Court of Human Rights ruling as “a key milestone in the long struggle to secure public accountability of public officials implicated in human rights violations committed by the Bush administration CIA in its policy of secret detention, rendition and torture.” He said that the U.S. government must issue an apology for its “central role in the web of systematic crimes and human rights violations by the Bush-era CIA, and to pay voluntary compensation to Mr. El-Masri.”

To date the U.S. government has not responded.


[2] The directive has not yet been publicly released. But see George Tenet, at the Center of the Storm: the CIA During America’s Time of Crisis 208  (Harper 2007).

[3]  ICRC, Report to John Rizzo, Acting General Counsel, CIA. ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen “High Value Detainees” in CIA Custody, 14 February 2007, available at http://www.nybooks.com/doc/2010/04/22/icrc-report.pdf

[4] Military Order of November 13, 2001:Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, Federal Register, Vol. 66, No.2, 16 November 2001, pp. 57831-36

[5] John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, Memorandum for William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, January 9, 2002.

[6] George Bush, The White House, Memorandum for the Vice President, et al, Harsh Treatment of Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees (7 February 2002).

[7] Alberto R. Gonzalez, Memorandum for the President, Decision re Application of the Geneva Conventions to Prisoners of War to the Conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban (25 January 2002).

[8] William H. Taft, IV, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Memorandum to Counsel to the President, Alberto Gonzalez, Comments on Your Paper on the Geneva Conventions (2 February 2002).

[9] CIA Inspector General’s Special Review: Counterterrorism, Detention, and Interrogation Activities, September 2001-October 2003, dated 7 may 2004 and publicly released on 24 August 2009, at 12 “CIA IG Report”).

[10] CIA IG Report at 21-22, fn. 26 and 37.

[11] A list of techniques is found in the CIA IG Report at 15.

[12] ICRC CIA Detainee Report at 4.

[13] ICRC CIA Detainee Report at 7. It is notable that the ICRC Report details the same interrogation techniques outlined in the CIA IG Report, which was not publicly available at the time.

[14] 14.       United Nations Human Rights Council, Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering Terrorism of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the working group on arbitrary detention, and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, A/HRC/13/42, 19 February 2010, at 45-50 (“UN Joint Study”).

[15] UN Joint Study at para. 103.

[16] Testimony of Lawrence Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Colin Powell U.S. Secretary of State, 2001-2005, before U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights, June 18, 2008

[17] ICRC CIA Detainee Report, at 5, UN Joint Study at 45-50.