Oh! Oh! Rice admits POW Abuse Plans

Rice Confirms WH, Senior US Leadership Linked With Alleged Illegal 2003 POW Abuse Plans

By testing - September 25, 2008, 2:30PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings on the POW interrogation planning. Secretary of State Rice in written responses to the Senate Armed Services Committee disclosed 2003-era meetings discussing POW treatment.

Levin: "These were the most senior officials in the United States government, advisors to the President, meeting in the White House."

Senator Levin lists others connected with this alleged POW abuse planning: Rumsfeld, Chertoff, John Yoo, Tenet, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and other White House and NSC legal advisers. (The referenced ten (10) tabs in Levin's opening statement are not the same as in the SASC25 tabs, from the first round of hearings on POW interrogation planning.)

Geneva prohibits all POW abuse, and this legal requirement applies to the United States as a detaining power, regardless the status of the POWs.

Senator Levin: In a written response to questions I sent her in July 2008, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, who was then the National Security Advisor
to the President, responded on September 12th that, in 2002 and 2003 there were meetings at the White House where specific CIA interrogation techniques were discussed. [TAB 3]

Congress needs to explain why it took five (5) years to gather this evidence of the planned abuse of POWs in violation of the laws of war.

The Department of Defense provided interrogation training with the premise the prisoners were unlawful combatants. This is irrelevant. Geneva imposes on the United States, as a detaining power, the legal obligation to treat all prisoners humanely.

The testimony shows the military personnel discussed their legal concerns with legal counsel:

Colonel Moulton (retired): [In late July or early August 2003] I asked Lt Col Kleinman what the legal status of the detainees was and what techniques the [Task Force] wanted to see demonstrated. I was told that the detainees were designated unlawful combatants and that the techniques being requested were ones used by [Joint Personnel Recovery Agency] personnel during Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training.

Recently the Psychological Association supported a petition imposing restrictions on members interacting with similar interrogations. The wording merely affirms an existing legal standard under the laws of war: Complicity with POW abuse is not lawul or permitted:

APA: "[P]sychologists may not work in settings where “persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights”.

Nuremberg clearly established the legal duty of all civilians, not just doctors to not engage in war crimes. Once civilians participate in war crimes they loose their protected status under the Geneva Conventions and become legitimate military targets during armed conflict.

Despite this risk of lawful attack, American civilians are alleged to have have ignored the threat of death during combat, and knowingly supported and engaged in alleged illegal war crimes planning.

The gaps in medical ethics should not have existed. APA must explain why its existing ethics standards did not adequately meet the legal requirements under Nuremberg; and why this revision was required.

The APA restriction relates to psychologists allegedly assisting with interrogation planning:

TPMM: Two SERE-affiliated psychologists, Bruce Jessen and James Elmer Mitchell, assisted the CIA in "reverse-engineering" the SERE training received by U.S. forces in order to determine what coercive techniques would successfully break an al-Qaeda detainee.

Rice's Attorney disclosed a planning meeting at the Presidential level in the White House or Old Executive Office bulding:

Senator Levin: Her legal advisor at the time, John Bellinger, said in his September
12th written answers to my questions that he was present in meetings at
the White House or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building “at which
SERE training was discussed.” [TAB 4]

The war crimes conference discussed which sanctions should be imposed on legal counsel for their failure to fully enforce the laws of war; and not remove themselves from this alleged illegal war crimes planning. Among the recommended actions include disbarment and prosecution of legal counsel for violations of the Geneva Conventions.

These legal consequences can be broadly applied to any and all civilians who have, in effect, breached their legal obligations under Geneva. It is an open question whether foreign powers do or do not enforce Geneva against American civilians who have engaged in war crimes.

Russian combat forces could be directed against American civilians and other personnel in Poland and Eastern Europe for their alleged complicity with the alleged war crimes.

Geneva Violations Strains NATO, US Military

Russia sits on the Polish border. The United States is more than 5,000 miles away. Russia in Georgia demonstrated it has superior military weapons, and can easily defeat the outdated NATO defense systems.

Eastern European countries (former Warsaw Pact allies of Russia) after joining NATO have focused their military programs on counter-terrorism, not on developing conventional military forces the US requires to hide war criminals from justice.

NATO does not have the military capability to defend itself against Russia's lawful use of force to punish American civilians in Eastern Europe who have breached the laws of war.

Russia has expanded its patrols along the Alaskan border, and has increased its military cooperation with Venezuela. The increased Russian presence along the United States means the United States cannot fully dedicate all US military forces to the bungled military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Congressional failure to enforce Geneva means the Congress has been complicit with reckless military decisions and strains on military forces.

Congress in failing to enforce the laws of war, sent a green light to the President to expand a reckless camp aign, further straining American military forces, and leaving the United States exposed to military attack.

The domestic enemies are in Congress, in denial about their Geneva obligations. Members of Congress can be prosecuted under the laws of war.

OVP Implicitly Claims Evidence of Illegal Activity Does Not Need To Be Retained

By testing - September 24, 2008, 1:20PM

Vice President Implicitly Admits To Not Fully Retaining All Legally Required Documents under Geneva, FISA

There's been some interesting give and take between the Vice President and Congress overs records retention. CREW attempted to review some documents, and OVP balked.The court essentially confirmed our suspicions: The OVP has parsed the legal language, as was done with Geneva, FISA and the Constitution, to justify hiding evidence of illegal activity. It will be interesting to compare the OVP records retention-compliance with the disclosures in the DoD emails.

Member of Congress Connection

Once Congress quickly moved on the financial issues this last week, Congress has a problem with Geneva:

The war crimes prosecutors could reasonably conclude Congress, in quickly responding to the US financial problems, showed the timeline it could work when faced with a significant legal problem. Members of Congress might be prosecuted for not similarly quickly moving on the Geneva violations.

Likely OVP Failure To Retain Evidence of Geneva Violations

The court noted the OVP view of their legal obligations was narrow, raising the prospect some documents have not been retained, as required:

Court: However, Defendants admit that they have interpreted the PRA in a narrow fashion and have only preserved documentary material in accordance with that narrow interpretation. As such, if Defendants’ interpretation is not correct as a matter of law, there is no question that documents that may be entitled to PRA protection will not receive the statute’s protections.During the negotiations, before the final court order, the OVP and plaintiff CREW attemted to arrive at an agreement. However, Of the court found OVP, in responding to the CREW proposals, parsed language to define their legal obligations and compliance:
Court: [T]he defendants’ declarations offer carefully parsed language establishing only that defendants are preserving two subsets of vice presidential records

These two subsets are:

Declaration: all the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the Vice President fall within either

(a) the category of functions of the Vice President specially assigned to the Vice President by the President in the discharge of executive duties and responsibilities, or

(b) the category of the functions of the Vice President as President of the Senate.

Implicitly, the President would not have expressly "delegated" to the OVP the task of covering up war crimes, illegal FISA violations, POW abuse. The Libby Grand Jury testimony re Plame shows that the agreements were wink-wink, and not (necessarily) expressly assigned.

The problem is the OVP has been linked, in the DoD emails, with activities that fall outside these two subsets. There is no adequate information to know which other OVP activities, other than illegal domestic propoganda and FISA violations during wartime, also fall outside these two subsets. The OVP has essentially claimed that anything that is outside these two subsets is not subject to any legal requirement, oversight, review, or document retention requirement. This is a circular arguing to claim that evidence of illegal activity -- extending outside the law, and unrelated to the two subsets -- cannot be subject to any legal retention requirement. They're saying the National Archives cannot have access to evidence of unlawful OVP activity, which -- by their definition -- would fall outside the two subsets.

Washburn Conference on Global War on Terrorism, November 13-14

Some folks at Washburn University law school asked me to announce this conference, set for November 13-14, and I’m delighted to do it:

***
The Rule of Law and the Global War on Terrorism: Detainees, Interrogations, and Military Commissions
November 13-14, 2008
Sponsored by the Washburn University School of Law Center for Law and
Government and the Washburn Law Journal
http://washburnlaw.edu/ruleoflaw/

The United States Constitution was founded on the Rule of Law. The Global War on Terrorism has tested the limits of our constitutional values and has posed unprecedented challenges for the U.S. legal system. Throughout these difficult times, the federal courts have been instrumental in upholding the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law and the Global War on Terrorism Symposium will examine legal implications of governmental actions taken in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Our speakers and participants will reevaluate and reassess these complex issues to explore possible ways forward as our nation prepares for a new administration.

Speakers and presenters include: William C. Banks; Christopher W. Behan; George P. Fletcher; David J. R. Frakt; David E. Graham; Amos Guiora; Samuel V. Jones; Joseph Margulies; The Honorable Alberto J. Mora; Mary Ellen O'Connell; Michael P. O'Connor; Ambassador Pierre-
Richard Prosper; Celia Rumann; Thomas J. Romig; Philippe Sands; Charlie Savage; Robert F. Turner; Sean Watts; and Noah S. Weisbord. Papers by some of these speakers will be published in upcoming issues of the Washburn Law Journal.

Themes for the symposium are:

- Setting the Conditions for the War on Terrorism
- The U.S. Administration Responds: Detain and Interrogate
- The U.S. Congress and Courts Respond: Detainee Treatment Act, Military Commissions, and Habeas Corpus
- A New Administration: The Way Forward

Registration for the symposium is complimentary. Seating is limited. To ensure sufficient accommodations you must pre-register online at the above website.

What would happen re detainees after US election: Jordan J. Paust

US Duties to Detainees During a Withdrawal from Iraq

JURIST Contributing Editor Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center says that so long as the United States is an occupying power or exercises effective control in any part of Iraq it must ensure that it is meeting its obligations to detainees under international law and the laws of war.

---

Both presumptive presidential nominees are likely to attempt to downsize US military forces operating within Iraq if elected to the presidency. Obama would do so in a responsible manner, perhaps over a period of months, whereas McCain would leave US troops in-country for decades and downsize over a period of years. In either case, it is worth contemplating what might happen to persons who are detained by US military or other personnel in Iraq, or who are otherwise within effective US control. Is there a need for agreement concerning the detainees?

As a former and apparently present occupying power over any portion of Iraqi territory under its effective control, the US has responsibilities under the laws of war with respect to detained persons, and will have until any form of effective occupation ends. Such responsibilities continue to involve the absolute prohibitions of torture and cruel, inhuman, degrading, or humiliating treatment at US hands or in complicity with others. These prohibitions are also part of customary international law reflected in common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and are applicable to detained persons of any status. Also of interest is the absolute obligation under Articles 49 and 147 of the 1949 Geneva Civilian Convention to not transfer non-prisoners of war out of occupied territory or out of the theater of war within a country of detention such as Iraq. Under Article 4 of the Convention, it is clear that the protections under Articles 49 and 147 even reach nationals of a neutral state or a co-belligerent state while they are outside the actual territory of the detaining state (e.g., while outside U.S. territory). Persons who are security threats can continue to be detained under Articles 5 and 78 of the Geneva Civilian Convention if such is necessary for reasons of security and if there is periodic review of their status and release when detention is no longer necessary, but non-prisoners of war cannot be transferred out of Iraq. It is possible, therefore, that the US will attempt to continue to detain certain individuals within Iraq even after a significant withdrawal of US military forces, but US competence to do so would hinge on continuation of the applicability of Geneva law to an area, however small, where the US continues to exercise effective control.

Treaty-based and customary human rights law along with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), contrary to the Bush Administration, clearly apply wherever the US exercises effective control or jurisdiction over detainees, and such laws require that the US not transfer persons under its control to any country, including Iraq, if there is a “real risk” that the persons transferred will suffer human rights violations. Article 3 of the CAT also mandates that no party to the treaty “shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” More generally, complicit behavior by a state or its officials and its other nationals can create “state responsibility” under international law (which can lead to political, diplomatic, economic, and juridic sanctions against the state) and individual criminal and civil liability.

In view of the probable continuation of U.S. control of certain persons within Iraq (persons who, under Geneva law, cannot lawfully be transferred out of Iraq) and in view of continued US responsibilities under treaty-based and customary international law, it would seem to be in the interest of the US to offer the following clause with respect to any future agreement with the government of Iraq concerning US downsizing of troops and future relations and responsibilities between the US and Iraqi governments and their military forces:

“All persons in the hands of the US or in any other manner under effective US control who are protected in any manner under the 1949 Geneva Conventions shall remain under the complete jurisdiction and control of the US and shall not be transferred to any state where there is a real risk of deprivation of their human rights.”

Jordan J. Paust is the Mike & Teresa Baker Law Center Professor at the University of Houston, a former U.S. Army JAG officer, and member of the Faculty of the Judge Advocate General’s School. Discussion of some of the abovementioned and other duties of the U.S. appears in an earlier article: “The United States as Occupying Power Over Portions of Iraq and Special Responsibilities Under the Laws of War, 27 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 1 (2003).

Khadr secret document released by accident

Five-page memo reveals that Toronto-born man not the only one alive in compound when U.S. soldier killed
Feb 04, 2008 06:00 PM
Michelle Shephard
National Security Reporter

GUANTANAMO BAY — A classified document mistakenly released to reporters today revealed that Omar Khadr wasn't the only one alive in an Afghan compound when an American soldier was fatally wounded.

Toronto-born Khadr was captured in Afghanistan at the age of 15 following a lengthy firefight with U.S. forces. The Pentagon has charged Khadr with five war crimes, including the murder of Christopher Speer, a Delta Force soldier and medic who died 10 days after the firefight from grenade wounds.

The five-page secret document is based on an interview with the man who shot Khadr twice in the back. Identified only as OC-1, the witness described to an interviewer what he saw after the grenade was thrown in the July 27, 2002 attack.

"He heard moaning coming from the back of the compound. The dust rose up from the ground and began to clear, he then saw a man facing him lying on his right side," the report states.

"The man had an AK-47 on the ground beside him and the man was moving. OC-1 fired one round striking the man in the head and the movement ceased. Dust was again stirred by this rifle shot. When the dust rose, he saw a second man sitting up facing away from him leaning against the brush. This man, later identified as Khadr, was moving . . . OC-1 fired two rounds both of which struck Khadr in the back."

A Pentagon spokesperson would not confirm whether OC-1 was part of Speer's Delta Force team, the other military units involved in the attack, or from another U.S. agency such as the CIA.

The report also states that OC-1 deduced that it was Khadr who threw the grenade due to his position, and because the other man was firing a rifle at the same time.

"Based on his extensive combat experience, OC-1 believed that Khadr and the man at the back of the alley with the AK rifle were the only two alive at the time of the assault. He felt that due to the grenade being thrown simultaneously to the directed rifle fire that the grenade was thrown by someone other than the man who was firing the rifle."

Controversy erupted outside the military courthouse when it was revealed the document was inadvertently given to reporters attending the trial. At first, a court security official said the document must be returned and that reporters might not be allowed to attend future hearings if they didn't comply. After reporters refused, and following 90 minutes of negotiation, it was agreed that only the names of the soldiers and their units, Khadr's prison number and specific dates and locations in the report couldn't be revealed. With the exception of three names in the document, all those facts have already appeared in media reports.

The document had accidentally been attached to pretrial motions that were given to reporters by a spokesperson for the Office of Military Commissions and Guantanamo's Chief of Defence. If the document had not been released by mistake it would noy have been made public, leaving some to question the Pentagon's assertion that the Guantanamo trials will be transparent.

"There's no openness about this process," said Khadr's military lawyer Navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler after the hearing. "It's not that the government shouldn't be able to protect information when there is a legitimate need to protect it, it's the government's overuse of classification . . . that basically keep one hundred percent of the evidence in the case outside of the public's view except if the government decides to sort of dribble it out to you."

Khadr appeared at the hearing this morning wearing a white prison uniform, indicating he is one of Guantanamo's "highly compliant" detainees. His hair was cut short and his beard was full. Unlike his November appearance where he seemed relaxed and confident, Khadr spent most of the morning session writing notes to his Canadian lawyer Dennis Edney and drawing with a pen the guards gave him.

In addition to the charge of "murder in violation of the laws of war," Khadr is charged with attempted murder, spying, conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism.

His lawyers argued today that his upcoming May trial should be dismissed, challenging among other things the legitimacy of the process and whether crimes such as conspiracy and spying constituted war crimes.

Kuebler also argued that when Congress endorsed the Military Commission Act, under which Khadr is charged, it didn't envision the prosecution of detainees under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged offence. Prosecutors countered that Congress was aware of Khadr's case when approving the 2006 law and did not specify an age requirement for trials.

Col. Peter Brownback, the military judge presiding over Khadr's case, did not render any decisions on the motions before recessing for the day.

US unveils new 'court" as Guantanmo trials resume

Do you ever have those days when your heart is BREAKING?

Today is such a day for me.

It was heart breaking to go and read just what got released on HiLIARy's incessant demand$ for more and more ca$h -- not quite enough about released for these tired old bones, heartbreakingly little for my taste.

I went and did a check of the blogs to see how ole HiLIARy was faring and, nope, not enough but some interesting stuff .. some give until 11 February to quit the race. No tears will be streaming from these eyes then! None, at all. The Queen will have to give up her naked ambition, and all those DELUXO women clowns who support her will just have to find their Fairytale Princess in someone else. As far as I am concerned, THAT woman should be knitting silk stockings in a Chinese factory for the rest of her life with music piped in from a band that supports Obama.

But this below - this item on Omar Khadr is the most heartbreaking of all, and that's not easy to say after reading about and watching the video on the woman who was stripped searched by police after calling them for help. I'll get around to posting about that tomorrow, after my PTSD attack wears off.

Connection between the two items in case that is going over your head /// how can a society's morals slip this low - that a thief and a liar gets major headlines day after day after killing god nows how many people during her "career" and a minor, a child soldier must endure such humiliation and mistreatment day after day after day when they should enjoy the support of a legal system that is supposedly designed to protect their interests?

HiLIARy is a disgrace to the legal profession, and yet, and yet those lawyers who support Omar Khadrs cause are not granted hero's status nor given the opportunity to give legal remedy to their client? There are many tormentors in this young, very young man's story .. not least among them Canada's press and OpED writers - save the exception of Michele Shepherd at the Toronto Star ...

I wonder if Omar will be wearing a stun belt. I hope not, but I am certainly afraid he will be.

And let me take this opportunity to say SHAME ON CANADA, this man should not be going to court at all! You, Stephen Harper, toady of George W. Bush and his band of international criminals are truly not in the spirit of Canada. You are an abuser and a total disgrace to my new nation!! SHAME!! Stephen Harper! SHAME!!

Thank you Michele,
Virginia

The reader here will find many comments on Hamden v. Rumsfield in the swicki to your left.


http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN03517884


Visit freedetainees.org to take action on behalf of Omar Khadr

and Mohamed Jawad, also a minor when captured.

U.S. unveils new court as Guantanamo trials resume

Sun Feb 3, 2008 5:14pm EST

(Corrects salary to monthly from weekly in paragraph 13)

By Jane Sutton

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba, Feb 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. military unveiled its new war crimes courtroom at Guantanamo Bay on Sunday as it prepared to resume pretrial hearings this week for Osama bin Laden's Yemeni driver and a young Canadian seeking protection as a child soldier.

The new court building looks like a khaki-colored metal warehouse on the outside and a traditional courtroom inside. It has enough room to simultaneously try up to six prisoners, lined up on faux-leather chairs at cherry-veneer tables.

It is part of a $12 million mobile court complex that includes prefabricated holding cells shipped by barge and cargo plane to the remote U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba, where the military holds about 275 captives in the Bush administration's campaign against terrorism.

The court complex is rising even as most of the candidates vying to succeed U.S. President George W. Bush in January 2008 have pledged to shut down the widely criticized Guantanamo prison camp. The court complex is designed to be moved elsewhere if it is no longer needed at Guantanamo.

"Whatever we're told to do, we can pick it up and move it to another location," said Army Col. Wendy Kelly, operations director for the Pentagon office overseeing the war court.

It will be ready for use in March and is part of the military's plan to try as many as 80 Guantanamo prisoners on war crimes charges. So far only one captive has been convicted at Guantanamo, an Australian who pleaded guilty to training with al Qaeda. After being held at Guantanamo for more than five years, he finished his nine-month sentence in his homeland in December.

HEARINGS THIS WEEK

Pretrial hearings resume in another courtroom this week for two other prisoners captured in Afghanistan after the United States invaded following the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

Lawyers for Omar Khadr, a Canadian accused of throwing a grenade that killed one U.S. soldier and wounded others during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002, will argue the charges should be dismissed because Khadr was 15 when captured and prosecuting him would violate international law protecting child soldiers.

Khadr, now 21, is the Toronto-born son of an alleged al Qaeda financier who often took his family to stay at bin Laden's compound in Afghanistan.

His lawyers also plan to argue Khadr cannot be tried under the 2006 law creating the Guantanamo court because the acts he is accused of were not classified as war crimes when they occurred.

Khadr, who was gravely wounded by U.S. soldiers during the firefight at a suspected al Qaeda compound, faces life in prison if convicted on charges that include murder and attempted murder of American soldiers. His lawyers said in trial documents that killing enemy soldiers had never before been recognized as a war crime and that "doing so is, almost by definition, a fundamental element of armed conflict."

Prosecutors will argue that Khadr was a terrorist and not a lawful combatant because he was not part of any regular national army that followed traditional laws of war. They said Khadr told interrogators he wanted "to kill lots of Americans" because he would collect a $1,500 reward for each one killed.

Bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen, will also face hearings at Guantanamo this week on charges of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. He has said he never joined al Qaeda but acted as bin Laden's chauffeur because he needed the $200 monthly salary.

His lawyers will argue that prolonged solitary confinement at Guantanamo has impaired him mentally and compromised his ability to aid in his defense. A psychiatrist who works for the U.S. Veterans Administration has examined and diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression and said he has nightmares, panic attacks and paranoia.

Prosecutors say Hamdan, who is in his late 30s and faces life in prison if convicted, was a trusted al Qaeda member who transported weapons and helped bin Laden elude U.S. forces in Afghanistan. (Editing by Chris Wilson)

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

The truth about John McCain!! from Vietnam veterans

BREAKING NEWS
SEE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
READ THE FACTS - CLICK BELOW
click here more

FRONT click here

BACK click here

ACTIVISM - NO MORE TORTURE! End the war crimes.

On a cold stormy January 31st fifty brave people skipped school and work, standing in solidarity with other across the country thwy demonstrated against tortue and the Bush Regime. Marching through downtown they rallied at the federal Building the ABC studios and the offices of FEMA, ICE and Homeland Security. Although the snow was cold, their hearts were warm- they aren't waiting! They are driving out the Bush regime!

Don't forget!

SIGN these petitions!

Hand them around and educate

all the others that you can

Global people for the impeachment of Richard Cheney

thepetitionsite/petition/537250778

impeach.to.end.war.crimes@gmail.com

freedetainees.org

What makes me so angry

is that a man of LAW will not condemn torture

when the statutes are clear

and that the US CONgress and the Canadian Parliament

keep funding this evil

after seeing the photographs.

FOR SHAME

(and torture is stoopid, too!)

What is below is NOT easy viewing but realistic.

Clinton Fein's latest exhibition, Torture, scheduled to open at Toomey Tourell Gallery in San Francisco in January 2007 is a shocking and defiant exploration of America's approach to torture under the Bush administration.

A series of staged and digitally manipulated photographic images recreate the infamous torture scenes from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, transforming the diffuse, muted and low-resolution images into large-scale, vivid, powerful and frightening reproductions. (see http://www.clintonfein.com/torture )