Katherine Newell Bierman

 “Somehow I think there’s this construct in people’s minds  that we want to restore the rack and start getting people screaming.”
                                                     --White House Spokesman Tony Snow—

Human Rights Watch Council Katherine Newell Bierman measures her words carefully but speaks with strong conviction: “After my experiences in the U.S. Air Force and as a lawyer, I came to Human Rights Watch in order to do research on abuses that were occurring because of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. My first project has been to investigate the legality of actions by U.S. authorities in picking up terrorist suspects and to determine if their treatment meets human rights standards.”

During a recent trip to Buenos Aires Katherine discussed her activities with HRW and told “The Buenos Aires Voz” that “as a human rights defender, I had only heard "submarino" in reference to an interrogation technique -- not hot milk with chocolate! but I had a lot of those while I was there. Also, I was in the Colon theatre for the last opera performance before closing for renovation and I was greatly struck by a demonstration during the second intermission, during which people in the tops balconies threw out flyers about the effects of imperialism on indigenous peoples. It felt good to see that.”

“Could you tell us something about your activities?”

“I’m a counter-terrorism council for the U.S. program, so I spend a lot of time working on issues pertaining to the U.S. counter-terrorism policies. It is important to point out that when the U.S. talks about war against terrorism, it does so in a legal sense. During wartime, governments are allowed to do things they can’t normally do, for example, locking people up without the usual protection of their rights. The U.S. government has taken this idea that there’s an actual war going on with Al Queda and associated groups. That means that people can be picked up and treated as if they were combatants in a war, without being charged, without any legal process and that constitutes extremely broad power.”

“What about the latest legislation on treating prisoners?”

“The intention from the start was to set up military commissions and try some of the detainees. There were a few trials but only 10 people were charged. The government only planned to charge 70 of the several hundred held at the Guantanamo prison. Others are not being held for crimes but because the U.S. government says it can hold them prisoner. The military commissions were subsequently struck down by a Supreme Court decision, in a case that I think actually says something good about the U.S. system. I’m quoting the attorney who won the case of a man from Yemen who had a fourth grade education and who was being held by the U.S. government as a suspected terrorist. He was able to go to the Supreme Court, challenge the president, and win. I think that’s a very positive thing. Well, the Supreme Court said the military commissions were unlawful because they were not authorized by Congress, and their rules were wrong. The president had acted on his own his own decision.

“Was that what led to the new legislation?”

“As a result of the Supreme Court decision that the military commissions were unlawful and that Congress did not authorize them, Congress subsequently passed legislation authorizing military commissions to try these detained people for crimes. In some ways it is an improvement because under the president’s military commissions somebody could be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of secret evidence, but under the Congressional military commissions that’s not the case because they must see the same evidence the jury sees.

“What about the stipulations of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners?”

““Actions taken by the U.S. are still bound by the full range of humane treatment obligations stipulated under Geneva Conventions.”

“Are there limitations concerning interrogation techniques?”

“The legislation establishes that CIA interrogators who use abusive practices such as “waterboarding,” hypothermia and extended sleep deprivation could face prosecution as war criminals. It specifies nine offences that it defines as “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 that can be prosecuted as war crimes. This list includes what is referred to as torture and “cruel and inhuman treatment,” which is defined as conduct that causes serious or physical mental pain or suffering.”

“Has there not been a sort of redefinition of the concept of torture?”

“Well, this definition of “cruel and inhuman treatment” responds to the administration’s claim that some of the “enhanced” interrogation techniques allegedly approved in the past – techniques like extended sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme cold, and waterboarding, which is like an unfinished drowning, were not cruel and inhuman because they did not cause “prolonged” suffering. While the Administration may argue that such techniques are still allowed, Senators John McCain and John Warner, two of the MCA’s primary authors, have stated that the legislation is specifically designed to criminalize these and other abusive interrogation practices allegedly used by the United States. Such methods violate the international law prohibitions against cruel and inhuman treatment, and may amount to torture.”

“What implications does this legislation have for civil liberties inside the U.S. as well as around the world?”

“It does two main things that have implications for civil liberties both domestically and internationally. First, the legislation denied the fundamental right of habeas corpus to detainees held abroad, so detainees lose protection against mistreatment and unlawful detention. Habeas corpus is about simply making the executive explain why someone is locked up. They are unable to challenge the conditions of their detention in court. By taking away habeas corpus, the legislation undermines the rule of law. It changes an age old legal tradition. It also affects America’s ability to protect its own citizens from unjust treatment at the hands of other governments , as it sets a poor example of how to treat foreign detainees.”

“Secondly, the bill expands the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” – a phrase used by the administration to justify holding people outside of the usual protections given to combatants by the Geneva Conventions and human rights law. It now explicitly deems persons who have “purposefully and materially supported” hostilities against the United States to be combatants, an unprecedented redefinition of “combatant” that could potentially cover a range of innocent people. Financing and support for terrorist activities are already criminal offences in the civilian justice system. This definition would pervert any reasonable concept of what a combatant is.”

“Does not the alleged abuse of prisoners taken to detention centers in countries with clearly negative records of respect for human rights constitute an additional and flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention? How does the government defend such acts?

“Human Rights Watch constantly calls for the end of such transfers, referred to as "extraordinary renditions," which typically involve no courts or judicial process. The obligation not to transfer a person to a place where he or she is at risk of torture is known as the principle of ‘nonrefoulement’ and is enshrined in numerous international treaties, in particular the Convention against Torture. The Bush Administration has acknowledged this obligation but says it does not render suspects if it believes it is more likely than not that they will be tortured. However, the administration has relied on diplomatic assurances from other governments that torture will not be used, which is not enough protection under international law.”

“That is, a subterfuge…”

“Human Rights Watch has suggested that the U.S. government should publicly report on its findings and hold accountable those responsible for unlawful actions. There are cases that show that diplomatic assurances about the treatment of detainees are often hollow and are not being effectively monitored. The Bush Administration has an obligation under its own policy to investigate these allegations and take appropriate action.”

“Fear has become a powerful aspect of politics in the U.S. in the wake of the September 11th attack. To what extent has this fear factor contributed to eroding respect for human rights?”

“The terrible attacks of 9/11 were a huge shock for the US and like most societies would the US reacted with fear. However, many people believe that human rights must be respected and are necessary to counter ideologies that rely upon extremist violence.”

“Do you see any similarities between today’s situation and that in Latin America as a result of Washington’s support for counter-insurgency policies?”

“There is a clear parallel between the Cold War, as it played in Latin America, and the War on Terror. First: definition of the enemy. According to the National Security Doctrine, which guided military thinking at the time, the enemy was invisible. Urban guerrillas were ordinary civilians, who were secretly engaged in subversion. To win the war the military had to use unconventional methods of warfare, i.e. the methods of the "terrorists:" plain clothes, unmarked cars, kidnappings, clandestine prisons. The US is now using unconventional methods too: secret flights, unacknowledged detention, special methods of interrogation not permitted under "normal circumstances," reinventing international law that was previously set in stone, etc.

“So you do see similarities?”

“Yes.There are several similarities in the methods used then and used today. The secret flights and secret detention and interrogation by the CIA in third countries strongly recall Operation Condor. This was a plan by the countries you mention, plus Paraguay, in the 1970s to secretly import and export dissidents to and from participating countries for interrogation, torture and ultimately, in many cases, execution. Declassified US government documents show that the US was fully aware of the plan at the time.There are even some similarities in torture techniques. The torture technique known as the "submarino" (used in a number of Latin American countries) is similar to "waterboarding." The victim is held under water until they think they are going to drown. The other clear parallel is in the attitude of those who defend these practices. They are seen as a necessary price to be paid for "winning the war" (against terrorism, or Marxism, it makes no difference). Other methods simply don't get results. In Latin America, these arguments are much less common than they were even 10 years ago.”

“How do you see the situation in Argentina and Latin America concerning respect or violation of human rights? Have you found more interest and concern for the problem in government circles, in popular movements or in the view of men and women in general?”

“In Argentina, there's a government with a very unusual commitment to holding accountable those responsible for the dirty war abuses. There is also a public that's still incensed by the horrors of the military dictatorship. It's still common for thousands to demonstrate in Buenos Aires on human rights issues. Chile's quite different. Until recently a good 40 percent of people were sympathetic to the military government and admired its legacy. A lot still admire what Pinochet did on the economic front, but the Riggs Bank scandal has made a huge dent in his public image. Most of the politicians who participated in the military government now don't like to be reminded of the fact. That's a good measuring stick for how public opinion in Chile has turned away from Pinochet. Even the army has finally distanced itself from his legacy. It has to be said, though, that it wasn't his human rights record that turned the tide against him, but the fact that he was corrupt.”

“ Why do you think an important sector of U.S. public opinion accepts Washington's argument that hard-handed treatment of prisoners has saved U.S. lives?”

“ Many Americans—government officials, U.S. military members, and average citizens—question the governments use of interrogation techniques and that is why this issue has come up time and time again. Though we cannot speak for American public opinion, HRW hopes that this issue will continued to be raised by the public and that the government continues to be hold accountable. We are working hard to make sure that human rights are part of the national security conversation.”

When asked about the activities of HRW, Katherine pointed out that: “Human Rights Watch researchers conduct fact-finding investigations into abuses in all regions of the world and then findings are published in dozens of books and reports every year, generating extensive coverage in local and international media. This publicity helps to embarrass abusive governments in the eyes of their citizens and the world. Human Rights Watch then meets with government officials to urge changes in policy and practice—at the United Nations, the European Union, in Washington and in capitals around the world.”

Human Rights Watch is the largest human rights organization based in the United States. HRW researchers conduct fact-finding investigations into human rights abuses in all regions of the world. Human Rights Watch then publishes those findings in dozens of books and reports every year, generating extensive coverage in local and international media. This publicity helps to embarrass abusive governments in the eyes of their citizens and the world. Human Rights Watch then meets with government officials to urge changes in policy and practice -- at the United Nations, the European Union, in Washington and in capitals around the world.

Contacts:
Katherine Newell Bierman
Counterterrorism Counsel, U.S. Program
Human Rights Watch
1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Ste. 500
Washington, D.C. 20009
Tel:[phone] (main)
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] / [e-mail] /
Web: http://www.hrw.org/about/whoweare.html