Iraq Runs Secret Prison in Baghdad

[DeBunkem]

Democracy Now:

Report: Iraq Runs Secret Prison in Baghdad.

Human Rights Watch has revealed elite Iraqi counterterrorism forces are operating a secret prison in Baghdad and torturing detainees at another. According to the organization, the Iraqi government has transferred more than 280 prisoners to a secret site in Camp Justice , an Iraqi-American military base in northwest Baghdad. The transfer took place just days before an international inspection team was to examine conditions at the prisoners’ previous location at Camp Honor in the Green Zone, where reports of torture have surfaced. Approximately 80 of the 280 prisoners held at the secret location have no access to attorneys or their families. Prison inspectors are not permitted to conduct visits to the facility. Human Rights Watch has urged the government to close the facilities or move them under the control of the justice system and open the locations for visits and inspections. Matthew Alexander, a former U.S. interrogator in Iraq, said torture is not the most effective method for retrieving information from prisoners.

Matthew Alexander: “Where I was, in Iraq, specifically, I heard foreign fighters who had come there to fight say time and time again that the reason they had come there to fight was because of pictures of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. So we know that torture inflames people, and to the point of violence, and it also is indicative of a state that’s abusive of its control over a population.�

The same NGO that revealed atrocities against the Palestinian people by forces of repression has now revealed the same tactics in another occupied country, Iraq. Is HRW too BIASED to be believed? How could the US be doing such things in camps named "Honor" and "Justice"? Should Apartheid Israel rename Gaza "Utopia" and the W. Bank "Paradise Freedom," for example? See what you think at their site. They report atrocity and human rights violation all over the world.

http://www.hrw.org/

[cnorman18]

There is a thread already in progress on this subject.

Human Rights Watch: Bias and Agenda

Here is the OP of that thread:

Human Rights Watch has now been cited several times on this forum as a “unbiased� source for facts and analysis on the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. I say that it is not. So does its founder. So do many other critics.

Perhaps this will shed some light on the current agenda and methodology of this organization. Here is a letter from Robert L. Bernstein, the FOUNDER of Human Rights Watch, published in The New York Times on October 19, 2009:

Human Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast

AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.

But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.�

Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.

Here is a response to Bernstein’s letter from two pro-Israel Jewish activists:

To the Editor:

We wholeheartedly share the concerns expressed by Robert L. Bernstein, a founder of Human Rights Watch, about the direction that the organization — which should be one of the world’s leading human rights groups — has taken.

Human Rights Watch was founded more than 30 years ago with the admirable aim of protecting dissidents from oppressive regimes, but today its leaders have lost sight of its original ethos. Nowhere is this more so than in regard to the Middle East.

In a region dominated by regimes that violate human rights in horrendous ways, Human Rights Watch has instead chosen to single out Israel for condemnation, often using highly unreliable witnesses to do so.

Not only has it failed to allocate proper resources to monitoring the dictatorships that are rife throughout the region, but senior Human Rights Watch officials even recently went to Riyadh to raise funds from people associated with the Saudi regime, emphasizing the group’s work demonizing Israel while doing so.

In order that Human Rights Watch can once again fulfill the role for which it was created, we call upon its board members to institute a full independent review of the organization for which they are responsible.

Elie Wiesel
Alan Dershowitz
New York, Oct. 20, 2009

And here, published on the same day as the letters from Wiesel and Dershowitz, is HRW’s response:

To the Editor:

Re “Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast� (Op-Ed, Oct. 20):
As present chairwoman and past chairman of the board of Human Rights Watch, we were saddened to see Robert L. Bernstein argue that Israel should be judged by a different human rights standard than the rest of the world.

Mr. Bernstein, as a founder of Human Rights Watch, has had ample access over the years to make his argument that we should not be reporting on Israeli conduct because Israel is a democracy. As recently as April, the full board of directors heard — and rejected — Mr. Bernstein’s proposal that Human Rights Watch should focus our research and reporting resources on closed societies.

After careful consideration, we and other members of our board stressed that democracies, too, commit serious abuses, with the United States’ “war on terrorism� and Israel’s conduct in Gaza just the latest examples. We reaffirmed our conviction that it is essential to hold Israel to the same international human rights standards as other countries. To do otherwise would be a violation of our core principle that human rights are universal.

As long as open societies commit human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch has a vital role to play in documenting those violations and advocating to bring them to an end.

Jane Olson
Jonathan Fanton
New York, Oct. 20, 2009

And here is Bernstein’s rebuttal to HRW’s response:

In their October 21st letter to the editor, Jane Olson, current chair of Human Rights Watch and Jonathan Fanton, past chair wrote that they “were saddened to see Robert L. Bernstein argue that Israel should be judged by a different human rights standard than the rest of the world.� This is not what I believe or what I wrote in my op-ed piece.

I believe that Israel should be judged by the highest possible standard and I have never argued anything else. What is more important than what I believe, or what Human Rights Watch believes, is that Israelis themselves believe they should be held to the highest standard.

That is why they have 80 Human Rights organizations challenging their government daily. Does any other country in the Middle East have anything remotely near that? That is why they have a vibrant free press. Does any other country in the Middle East have anything remotely near that? That is why they have a democratically elected government. That is why they have a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political societies, etc etc etc.

I have argued that open societies , while far from perfect, have ways to correct themselves and that is particularly true in the case of Israel. Millions of Arabs, on the other hand, live in societies where there is little respect for or protection of human rights.

The current argument is whether Human Rights Watch’s facts and judgments about the Gaza conflict are correct.That is certainly a necessary and legitimate discussion.

I should add that over the years I have had the highest regard for Human Rights Watch’s work around the world and from what I know, with the notable exception of the Middle East, that is still the case.

Robert L. Bernstein

And here is NGO Monitor’s analysis of the dispute:

Analyzing Human Rights Watch’s Defensive Response to Robert Bernstein
NGO Monitor
November 04, 2009
Human Rights Watch founder Robert Bernstein’s highly critical op-ed in the New York Times (Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast October 19, 2009; see also Robert Bernstein’s rebuttal to HRW's response) led to a defensive campaign by Human Rights Watch (HRW) officials and supporters. Many of the press releases, opinion pieces, letters to the editor, and media interviews (14 to date, as listed in Appendix 1) use identical language and format, repeating claims made by executive director Ken Roth in Ha’aretz.

As shown below, the three main themes repeated by HRW’s defenders are: balance, methodology, and “open� and “closed� societies. These responses are misleading and do not address Bernstein’s most serious claims, including HRW’s role in “turn[ing] Israel into a pariah state� and its loss of “critical perspective� on Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

1) “They say we disproportionately focus on Israel, and neglect other countries in the Middle East... Israel is a small fraction of what we do.�

This response from HRW greatly distorts Bernstein’s statement that “in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.� Bernstein specifically discusses Israel within the context of the Middle East, where even HRW’s misleading response admits a disproportionate focus.

HRW claims that “Israel accounts for about 15 percent of our published output on the region.�

Assuming this were correct, it would mean that HRW’s Middle East division, which covers 17 countries, focuses significantly more than the proportionate level of resources (6 percent) on Israel.

But the data show that this claim of 15 percent is highly misleading. In 2009 (through November 2), HRW has published 284 documents on the Middle East and North Africa. 88 (31 percent) of these documents have dealt with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Gaza. In comparison, only 39 documents focus on Iran. Of the 88 documents on Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Gaza, 5 are full-length reports, versus only 3 on Saudi Arabia, 2 on the United Arab Emirates, and 1 each for seven other countries. ( HRW had completed and planned to publish yet another report, on “wanton destruction� by Israel in Gaza, in parallel to the Goldstone report. But the publication was shelved following the growing criticism. This is a tacit admission that the level of resources targeting Israel is excessive and unjustified.)

In addition, the more accurate weighted statistical methods used in NGO Monitor’s analysis demonstrates that in the past years (see 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) HRW has issued many more reports and high-impact publications on Israel, accompanied by intensive media campaigns and calls for investigations and sanctions. The evidence of HRW’s disproportionate focus on Israel is clear.
James Ron (a member of HRW’s Canada Council) and Howard Ramos acknowledge and attempt to justify HRW’s disproportionate focus: “authoritarian countries are too small, poor, or un-newsworthy to inspire much Western media interest. As a result, Human Rights Watch...faces few incentives to engage.� In other words, media interest is more important to HRW than universal moral principles.

Ken Roth has also admitted that HRW’s limited resources are directed toward attacking Israel: “It’s not that we’re exclusively focusing on Israel. But if the question is, ‘Why are we more concerned about the [Gaza] war rather than on other rights abuses [in Israel]?’ Well, we’ve got to pick and choose—we’ve got finite resources.�

2) “They claim our research methodology is flawed - relying on witnesses with an agenda.� “As in other conflicts, we carefully corroborate the testimony of eye-witnesses and victims.�

HRW’s allegation that “[o]ur critics...rarely find errors� is false. NGO Monitor and others have highlighted systematic factual and legal errors in HRW’s reports on the Gaza Beach Incident (2006), the Second Lebanon War (2006), “Drone attacks� (2009), and white phosphorous (2009). See NGO Monitor’s Experts or Ideologues: Systematic Analysis of Human Rights Watch for more details.

HRW’s entirely non-transparent “investigations� appear to consist of recording Palestinian statements in an interview process that is readily subject to manipulation, and publishing this “testimony� which is impossible to verify or evaluate. Often, as was the case in the Gaza War, HRW does not have access to battle-sites and witnesses until long after the conflict. Yet, HRW misleadingly refers to “on-the-ground investigations� that cannot be conclusive.

Many of HRW’s reports alleging “war crimes� by Israel were authored by “senior military analyst� Marc Garlasco (currently suspended), whose claims to expertise lack credibility.

“Our findings on Israeli abuses in Gaza have been widely upheld, including by Judge Richard Goldstone's UN fact-finding mission.�

Goldstone was a member of HRW’s board and has a close relationship with Roth, which is reflected in Goldstone’s extensive reliance on HRW material in his U.N. report (at least 36 references). This self-referential process is hardly an endorsement of HRW’s methodology.

HRW has led the campaign to promote the Goldstone process and report, including over 30 statements between April 14 and November 3, 2009.
Echoing HRW, Goldstone has made the false claim that “there has been no attempt by any of its critics to come to grips with the [Report of the Fact Finding Mission’s] substance.�

“We also visited attack sites, analyzed ballistics evidence, and examined autopsy and other medical reports.�

Many HRW reports are filled with details– including descriptions of “attack sites,� “ballistic evidence,� technological and military information, statements by forensic pathologists, and “medical records� – that create the illusion of credible research.

However, this information is generally irrelevant to the allegations of “war crimes� and “human rights violations.� (See Pathological politics: HRW’s “white flags� report, NGO Monitor, August 18, 2009.)

3) “They argue that we should focus on ‘closed’ countries such as China rather than ‘open’ societies like Israel.� “Human Rights Watch does not believe that the human rights records of ‘closed’ societies are the only ones deserving investigation.�

Instead of engaging in a serious debate on the allocation of resources in setting HRW’s agenda, Roth and other defenders have distorted Bernstein’s argument. While emphasizing the critical distinction between “closed� and “open� societies in assessing overall human rights records, Bernstein never calls for exempting the latter from scrutiny.

None of HRW’s defenders has rejected Bernstein’s distinction between Israel, which has “at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties,� and the other countries in the region.

And in attacking Bernstein, HRW has also ignored his central allegation of failing to provide resources to help citizens from “brutal, closed and autocratic� regimes in Arab states and Iran, who “would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide.�

Notes, references and more links to relevant documents can be found at the NGO site linked above.

Question for debate:

Is Human Rights Watch an unbiased and impartial source for information about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

Since there was no attempt to debate or discuss these quotes on the earlier thread, perhaps there will be some response to them on this one.