The announcement last week by the United
States of the largest military aid
package in its history – to Israel – was
a win for both sides.
Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu could boast
that his lobbying had boosted aid from
$3.1 billion a year to $3.8bn – a 22 per
cent increase – for a decade starting in
2019.
Mr Netanyahu has presented this as a
rebuff to those who accuse him of
jeopardising Israeli security interests
with his government’s repeated affronts
to the White House.
In the past weeks alone, defence
minister Avigdor Lieberman has compared
last year’s nuclear deal between
Washington and Iran with the 1938 Munich
pact, which bolstered Hitler; and Mr
Netanyahu has implied that US opposition
to settlement expansion is the same as
support for the “ethnic cleansing” of
Jews.
American president Barack Obama,
meanwhile, hopes to stifle his own
critics who insinuate that he is
anti-Israel. The deal should serve as a
fillip too for Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic party’s candidate to succeed
Mr Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama
administration has quietly punished Mr
Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli
expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal
were whittled down after Mr Netanyahu
stalled negotiations last year as he
sought to recruit Congress to his battle
against the Iran deal.
In fact, Israel already receives
roughly $3.8bn – if Congress’s
assistance on developing missile defence
programmes is factored in. Notably,
Israel has been forced to promise not to
approach Congress for extra funds.
The deal takes into account neither
inflation nor the dollar’s depreciation
against the shekel.
A bigger blow still is the White
House’s demand to phase out a special
exemption that allowed Israel to spend
nearly 40 per cent of aid locally on
weapon and fuel purchases. Israel will
soon have to buy all its armaments from
the US, ending what amounted to a
subsidy to its own arms industry.
Nonetheless, Washington’s renewed
military largesse – in the face of
almost continual insults – inevitably
fuels claims that the Israeli tail is
wagging the US dog. Even The New York
Times has described the aid package as
“too big”.
Since the 1973 war, Israel has
received at least $100bn in military
aid, with more assistance hidden from
view. Back in the 1970s, Washington paid
half of Israel’s military budget. Today
it still foots a fifth of the bill,
despite Israel’s economic success.
But the US expects a return on its
massive investment. As the late Israeli
politician-general Ariel Sharon once
observed, Israel has been a US
“aircraft carrier” in the Middle East,
acting as the regional bully and
carrying out operations that benefit
Washington.
Almost no one blames the US for
Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq’s
and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A
nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria would have
deterred later US-backed moves at regime
overthrow, as well as countering the
strategic advantage Israel derives from
its own nuclear arsenal.
In addition, Israel’s US-sponsored
military prowess is a triple boon to the
US weapons industry, the country’s most
powerful lobby. Public funds are
siphoned off to let Israel buy goodies
from American arms makers. That, in
turn, serves as a shop window for other
customers and spurs an endless and
lucrative game of catch-up in the rest
of the Middle East.
The first F-35 fighter jets to arrive
in Israel in December – their various
components produced in 46 US states –
will increase the clamour for the
cutting-edge warplane.
Israel is also a “front-line
laboratory”, as former Israeli army
negotiator Eival Gilady admitted at the
weekend, that develops and field-tests
new technology Washington can later use
itself.
The US is planning to buy back the
missile interception system Iron Dome –
which neutralises battlefield threats of
retaliation – it largely paid for.
Israel works closely too with the US in
developing cyberwarfare, such as the
Stuxnet worm that damaged Iran’s
civilian nuclear programme.
But the clearest message from
Israel’s new aid package is one
delivered to the Palestinians:
Washington sees no pressing strategic
interest in ending the occupation. It
stood up to Mr Netanyahu over the Iran
deal but will not risk a damaging clash
over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Mr Obama signed the
aid package to win the credibility
necessary to overcome his domestic
Israel lobby and pull a rabbit from the
hat: an initiative, unveiled shortly
before he leaves office, that corners Mr
Netanyahu into making peace.
Hopes have been raised by an expected
meeting at the United Nations in New
York on Wednesday. But their first talks
in 10 months are planned only to
demonstrate unity to confound critics of
the aid deal.
If Mr Obama really wanted to pressure
Mr Netanyahu, he would have used the aid
agreement as leverage. Now Mr Netanyahu
need not fear US financial retaliation,
even as he intensifies effective
annexation of the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu has drawn the right
lesson from the aid deal – he can act
against the Palestinians with continuing
US impunity.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.fL4Eq28N.dpuf
Former CIA Detainees Describe Previously
Unknown Torture Tactic: A Makeshift Electric
Chair
By Alex Emmons
October 04, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "The
Intercept"
-
Two former CIA captives recently
described being threatened with a
makeshift electric chair — a
previously unreported torture method
— while being held in the U.S.
government’s infamous “Salt Pit”
prison in Afghanistan.
In independent
interviews with Human Rights Watch
in August that were made public on
Monday, Ridha al-Najjar, 51, and
Lufti al-Arabi al-Gharisi, 52,
described a metal device that had
wires with clips that would attach
to the fingers, and a helmet
connected to wires.
“I saw an electric box, … the chair.
They said, we will torture you with
electricity here,” al-Gharisi said.
Al-Gharisi said he was forced into
the chair and connected to the
machine, but was never actually
electrocuted.
Both men also described various
forms of water torture, including
having their heads dunked in a
bucket of water until they couldn’t
breathe, waterboarding, and being
strapped to a board while submerged
face down in a bathtub.
This is the first time al-Najjar and
al-Gharisi, both of who are Tunisian
nationals, have spoken out about
their time in CIA custody.
There is no mention of electric
chairs in the
unclassified executive summary
of the Senate Intelligence
Committee’s Torture Report that was
released in December 2014.
“These terrifying accounts of
previously unreported CIA torture
methods show how little the public
still knows about the U.S. torture
program,” said Laura Pitter, senior
national security counsel for Human
Rights Watch. “The release of these
two men without the U.S. providing
any assistance or redress for their
torture and suffering also shows how
much the U.S. still needs to do to
put the CIA torture program behind
it.”
Both men are Tunisian citizens, and
were released and repatriated to
their home country last year.
Neither was ever charged with a
crime, and the U.S. government did
not compensate either for their
torture or 13 years of detention
without charge.
The abuses the two men describe took
place at the Salt Pit — a
converted brick factory north of
Kabul, Afghanistan, referred to in
the Senate’s Torture Report as
“Detention Site COBALT.” Many of the
most sadistic abuses of the CIA
program’s history took place at the
facility, which al-Najjar and
al-Gharisi refer to only as the
“dark prison.”
CIA interrogators quoted in the
declassified
executive summary of the Senate
report describe the prison as “a
dungeon,” where detainees “cowered”
when interrogators entered their
cells, looking “like a dog that had
been kenneled.”
Although the declassified summary
did not mention electric shocks or
an electric chair, it is possible
that the full report — which
contains a detailed account of each
detainee’s interrogation — does. It
remains classified by the Obama
administration.
According to the Senate report’s
summary, al-Najjar was the first
detainee held in Detention Site
Cobalt.
CIA spokesman Ryan Trapani told
Human Rights Watch that the “CIA
reviewed its records and found
nothing to support these new
claims.”
Al-Najjar’s Capture and
Interrogation
U.S. and Pakistani forces captured
al-Najjar near Karachi, Pakistan,
breaking into his
family’s home in May 2002.
According to the Senate torture
report, the CIA initially thought he
was Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard, but
the U.S. government has never
publically presented evidence for
that allegation.
Al-Najjar described the day he was
transferred to the “dark prison” as
the “worst experience of his life”:
On that day an Arab interrogator
entered his cell, demanding
information, and when al-Najjar
could not provide it, the
interrogator said “wait until you
see what happens to you where we
take you next. At the next place we
will hang you from your anus.”
Najjar’s interrogators then doubled
him over and chained his wrists to
his legs. They put a bag over his
head, and inserted something into
his rectum, he recalled.
Documents examined by Senate
investigators noted that
anal exams at the Salt Pit were
often conducted with “excessive
force.”
Two months after al-Najjar was
transferred to the Salt Pit, in
November 2002, Afghan detainee Gul
Rahman was tortured to death there.
He was dragged outside of his cell,
stripped naked, beaten, and
repeatedly immersed in cold water.
After being put in an isolation cell
overnight, he died of hypothermia.
An internal CIA
investigation admits that Rahman
froze to death, but blames it on
Rahman for rejecting his last meal,
saying he denied his body “a source
of fuel to keep him warm.”
In response to Rahman’s death, the
CIA would release its first formal
guidelines for detainee
interrogation. But al-Najjar’s
ordeal had begun months earlier.
Al-Najjar told Human Rights Watch
that when he first arrived at the
facility, he was stripped naked,
thrown on a concrete floor, and
doused with cold water. The
same Arab interrogator that had
threatened to hang him “from his
anus” cocked a gun and held it to
the back of his head, saying that if
al-Najjar did not talk, he would
kill him.
His interrogators would hang him
from the ceiling for 24-hour
periods, his wrists strapped to a
metal bar over his head and his toes
barely able to touch the ground.
Often, according to al-Najjar, while
he was in this position, guards
would beat his legs and back with a
baton, or punch him in the kidneys.
While in CIA custody, al-Najjar was
kept in a dark room, and could only
see when his interrogators shined a
light in his face. He was fed every
third day and forced to wear a
diaper that was only changed every
four days.
According to the Senate report, CIA
officials initially recommended that
interrogators utilize “Najjar’s fear
for the well-being of his family to
our benefit,” and said that
interrogators should use “vague
threats” to produce a “mind virus”
that would cause al-Najjar to
believe abuses would worsen until he
cooperated. In August 2002, the CIA
authorized an interrogation plan for
al-Najjar that consisted of loud
music, purposefully bad food, sleep
deprivation, and hooding. But his
mistreatment seems to have gone far
beyond that.
On Sept. 21, 2002, less than a month
into his time at the Salt Pit, CIA
cables described al-Najjar as
“clearly a broken man” and “on the
verge of complete breakdown.” But
his torture continued, and he was
not transferred out of CIA custody
until 2004.
Al-Gharisi’s Interrogation
U.S. and Pakistani forces captured
al-Gharisi near Peshawar in Northern
Pakistan in May 2002. His
interrogators repeatedly accused him
of having ties to al Qaeda — ties
which he says he repeatedly denied
to his interrogators. He would
eventually be rendered to the Salt
Pit and tortured for hundreds of
days.
The declassified summary of the
Senate’s report only says al-Gharisi
was tortured without authorization
from CIA headquarters and underwent
at least two 48-hour stretches of
sleep deprivation.
But al-Gharisi told Human Right
Watch he suffered many of the same
abuses as al-Najjar, including sleep
deprivation, water torture, being
threatened with an electric chair,
and being hung from a rod
while beaten with batons. During his
interview, al-Gharisi pointed
to spots where his teeth had been
knocked out.
Al-Gharisi was transferred into
military custody sometime in late
2003.
During the more than 10 years that
the two men were in military
custody, the
International Justice Network
filed a petition of habeas corpus in
a U.S. court, requesting information
on why they had been detained. The
Justice Department argued that the
U.S. military prison in Bagram was
beyond the court’s jurisdiction, and
the petition was ultimately denied.
Aftermath of Torture, Detention
During his time in CIA custody,
al-Najjar claims to have suffered
broken bones, broken hips, a broken
ankle, damaged knees and a damaged
jaw. He received treatment after
being transferred into U.S. military
custody, but declined to have
arthroscopic surgery on his knee,
worried that it would make it
worse. A medical adviser for
Physicians for Human Rights examined
x-rays of al-Najjar’s leg, taken
after he was released last year and
confirmed that his ankle had been
broken and that he had experience
knee trauma.
Today, al-Najjar and al-Gharisi are
dependent on their families, unable
to find work due to lingering
physical and psychological trauma,
Human Right Watch said. Al-Najjar
says he lives with chronic pain in
his ankle, hips, and backbone, and
that he has kidney pain, a hernia,
and blood in his stool. Al-Gharisi
says he has chronic pain, and
blurred vision. He says he does not
see a doctor, because he cannot
afford one.
The U.S. has
not compensated any of the 119
detainees held in CIA custody for
mistreatment.
The full Senate torture report —
reading in at over 6,000 pages —
remains the most authoritative
history of the CIA torture program
to date. The executive summary was
declassified over a year ago, but
the CIA is still fighting to bury
the full report. Apparently averse
to learning lessons from the past,
the Obama administration
refuses to open any of the
copies in its possession.
Last year, Congress passed a
law requiring CIA interrogations
to comply with the Army Field
Manual, effectively prohibiting
torture in the future.
But
anti-torture laws did not stop
the Bush administration. And
following the Obama administration’s
failure to prosecute any officials
responsible for their crimes,
torture remains an applause line
for one of the U.S.’s major
political parties.
Illustration based on statements by
the two former detainees.
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)