Amrit Singh, the hardworking New York ACLU lawyer who is also the daughter of the current Indian Prime Minister (written about many times here on SM), has teamed up with fellow ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer to author a book which outlines the broad scope of the detention and torture policies practiced by the Bush Administration in its “War on Terror.” [via Ultrabrown]
Administration of Torture is the most detailed account thus far of what took place in America’s overseas detention centers, including a narrative essay in which Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh draw the connection between the policies adopted by senior civilian and military officials and the torture and abuse that took place on the ground. The book also reproduces hundreds of government documents; including interrogation directives, FBI e-mails, autopsy reports, and investigative files; that constitute both an important historical record and a profound indictment of the Bush administration’s policies with respect to the detention and treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. [Link]
“Awesome” is the first thing that comes to mind. Even though we can’t undo a lot of what has been done to take America way off course in the last several years, it feels somewhat better to know that someone is taking the time to bear witness to and document it all thoroughly. This way, as Bush likes to proclaim, history can best judge his presidency. To get a feel for the book you can download part of a chapter here
. You can also listen to a Podcast here where the authors discuss their book, and a recent NPR interview with Singh here.
‘It is imperative that senior officials who authorised, endorsed, or tolerated the abuse and torture of prisoners be held accountable, not only as a matter of elemental justice, but to ensure that the same crimes are not perpetrated again,’ Amrit Singh and Jaffer write…Commenting on the book, former US Navy Counsel Alberto J Mora says Amrit Singh and Jaffer remind the administrators that when years ahead continue to test the security, ‘we will again be tempted to violate our values in the mistaken belief that we will be made more secure by doing so.’
The authors ‘remind us that when test comes, we must find the courage to defend our principles more firmly,’ he added.
Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson describes the book as a ‘powerful account of devastating effects of deviating from longstanding legal prohibitions on the mistreatment of prisoners…’ [Link]
what are you guys so afraid of? jeez..
would Singh & Jaffer write a follow-up book on political prisoners in Cuba in facilities not run by Americans?
Good point. Shit, I should call up all my employment discrimination clients and tell them to get another lawyer because I am such a hypocrite as I havnt represented anyone facing religious discrimination in Saudi Arabia or racial discrimination in Japan.
“Next comment about Manmohan gets deleted and I will then ban the user. Is that more clear?”
Nobody is afraid of any issue. Bringing up Manmohan Singh on a discussion about GITMO is an annoying obfuscation.
what are you guys so afraid of? jeez.
Not sure – democracies engaging in torture is shameful, but not uncommon. I guess Clinton had the good sense to outsource it to Egyptians and Filipinos when he needed such dirty work done. Great Britain, India, and Israel have often fallen short of their democractic ideals in this area – but evidently Dubya is so uniquely awful, the the discussion must be kept within very tight parameters.
Good point. Shit, I should call up all my employment discrimination clients and tell them to get another lawyer because I am such a hypocrite as I havnt represented anyone facing religious discrimination in Saudi Arabia or racial discrimination in Japan.
I don’t see where I called them hypocrites, but is it that big of a surprise that one can sell more books lambasting the U.S. than one can in going after a 50 year dictatorship? Go where there is money to made adn NPR interviewers await, I say.
Bringing up Manmohan Singh on a discussion about GITMO is an annoying obfuscation.
Which can only be remedied by banning.
I guess Clinton had the good sense to outsource it to Egyptians and Filipinos when he needed such dirty work done.
Clinton was wrong to do it as well, if he did in fact do it. That is what concerns me about Hillary. She is triangulating on torture which is not cool. McCain is actually better on torture than Hillary.
Great Britain, India, and Israel have often fallen short of their democractic ideals in this area
Could you cite some evidence of Great Britain outsourcing torture. I am not being incredulous, just unaware.
I don’t see where I called them hypocrites, but is it that big of a surprise that one can sell more books lambasting the U.S. than one can in going after a 50 year dictatorship?
If Cuba had a free press, I am sure a lot of Cubans will be buying books on a lack of habeas corpus in Cuba. NPR is National Public Radio and most if not all its audience is American or people living in the US. Its no surprise that most of the audience is more interested about what happens in the US than in some Banana Republic halfway across the World.
Could you cite some evidence of Great Britain outsourcing torture. I am not being incredulous, just unaware.
Sorry if I was unclear – but during the worst of the Irish troubles, the Brits did torture some Irish suspected of having IRA ties. They did not outsource.
In the case of Clinton, after a massacre of several dozen Western tourists near Luxor, the suspects were rumored to be in Albania. Egypt did not have the men or resources to seize them, but the U.S. did. Knowing that Mubarak has ben a good friend to the U.S for years, Clinton had them captured and sent to Egypt – where most were quickly tried and executed.
In the case of the Philippines torturing suspects under American supervision, there was the case of Hakim Murad.
She is triangulating on torture which is not cool. McCain is actually better on torture than Hillary.. True – but McCain’s “bomb bomb bomb Iran” rhetoric does not make him much better in terms of regional stability.
HOLY CRAP, this made me see red so badly I came out of lurking. I swear, some of you people just spend your lives looking for ways to be contrary and annoying.
There’s no such thing as #2, fool. Every person is an individual. Only an idiot judges other people by the actions of their family. See: law. See also: common sense.
What the…?! You know, you can totally turn THIS around, too. Here, try this: all the people who OPPOSE Bobby Jindal do so because he turns his back on his parents’ upbringing and community, and Amrit Singh is simply being a good daughter by keeping her mouth shut where her father is concerned. Or here’s another one: people who support Bobby Jindal blindly do so at their own expense, regardless of his own feelings and politics to them as voters. Amrit Singh is very concerned for her father’s political well-being, and is thus a very good person.
Either way, it’s so off-base and off-topic as to be completely irrelevant. And those were some seriously mind-bendingly goofy mental gymnastics you engaged in to get here.
“Morally incumbent” to criticize my father before my neighbor? What? I don’t think there’s a prioritization schedule for morality. It can be FIFO, or it can be multitasking. Take your pick.
Again with the “she does not do the good I want her to do, so she is a hypocrite!” Fah. Disgusting. It’s inevitable: people who try to do good deeds get picked to death by idiots.
Why should Amrit Singh talk about at India at all?
1) She is a subject matter expert on torture in America – not on torture by her father’s party. It is natural for someone to write books only on what they have an expertise on. 2) She wrote the book for the ACLU: The American Civil Liberties Union, focuses on American Civil Liberties. For Amrit to go off-topic to talk about India would be unprofessional, unethical, and a waste of ACLU’s money (unless it is used to emphasize a point in the book). Even if she had talked about India, a good editor would have removed the pages to prevent unnecessary distraction and bloat in the book.
Bush’s daughters have not established themselves as experts in any field in their own right (except maybe for partying). Americans do not know or care, who Manmohan Khan (or is it Gandhi?) is and give two hoots about India. Besides, did you read many articles accusing Jenna of hippocracy regarding Dubya’s policies regarding condoms, when she signed a deal to write a story about a HIV patient?
Loyalty to ones family is considered to be a moral trait in its own right. No one blamed Caroline guliani when she removed her support if Obama from public view.
Finally this is all irrelvant given the context in which Amrit wrote the book.
I don’t like Jameel’s hair.
If you unbunch your panties and pay attention you might figure out what’s going on through the red vision… The point was that nobody viewed Jindal as an individual. Rather all his actions were viewed through the lens of his religion, culture and his family and even meaningless details like his children’s names. But Amrit Singh is to be viewed as an individual.I’m not personally interested in Amrit’s family connections, just the strange varying yardsticks of judgement in these two cases.
BS Vikram. The people who dislike Jindal dislike him explicitly for his policies. He is anti-evolution, anti-abortion, and pro-ten commandments in government buildings. All of those things have a DIRECT effect on his constituents (and the nation through his former participation in Congress). It has nothing to do with his family like you posit. There are plenty of Christians in America who don’t believe it is ok to teach bunk creationism in class. That is why your red herring of an argument has myself and others seeing red. They don’t make any sense.
So blinded by your fury that you targeted the wrong person. I made the comment about (1) and (2).
A minimal understanding of human society will show that position (2) is valid. Position(2) may not be true in your frame of reference but that does not mean that it is wrong. Your ignorance of human society outside of USA is scary.
That would make a large % of the human population idiots.
The people who dislike Jindal dislike him explicitly for his policies. He is anti-evolution, anti-abortion, and pro-ten commandments in government buildings
And all of this inhibits his ability to reform Louisiana – how? While he may personally hold the positions you say, he has not been pushing these positions awfully hard, nor is there any polling data that shows these were what Louisiana voters had in mind when voting for him.
Pose the same questions to Ms. Singh – suppose she were anti-abortion (a position not unheard of among immigrant Indian women), would that make her criticism of Bush’s policies on torture less damning?
How the hell can you expect Louisiana residents to reform Louisiana (particularly the woefully inept education system) if their new governor thinks it is ok that they are taught creationism in school?
Don’t even answer that. All this is serving to do is further confuse this issue and take away from the original post. This post is not about Jindal. It is about criminal torture by the U.S. govt.
Oh ? Perhaps you can tell me what this sampling of comments from the Jindal thread mean:
[deleted by admin]
For the last time. I don’t give a f*ck about other threads or topics. I don’t write every post on this site nor do I moderate or even read them all. I do write my posts however and this one is about Singh, Jaffer, the ACLU and torture. It isn’t a place for you to grind your axe on other issues.
Ok fair enough. I thought the implication in your comment about why people disliked Jindal was that you were familiar with that thread.
WHaaa! have you seen’ Jindal’s hair??
sorry.
dingchak, Jasmine,
You risk getting into Abhi’s hair. Assuming he has any.
I wish this smart lady was helping her dad in many ways. Her talent, analytical skills and ideas can be used in the growing world which needs direction and effective leaders