Tape Inquiry: Ex-Spymaster in the Middle

WASHINGTON — It would become known inside the Central Intelligence Agency as “the Italian job,” a snide movie reference to the bungling performance of an agency team that snatched a radical Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003 and flew him to Egypt — a case that led to criminal charges in Italy against 26 Americans.

Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director in 2005 when embarrassing news reports about the operation broke, asked the agency’s independent inspector general to start a review of amateurish tradecraft in the case, like operatives staying in five-star hotels and using traceable credit cards and cellphones.

But Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., now the central figure in a controversy over destroyed C.I.A. interrogation tapes, fought back. A blunt-spoken Puerto Rico native and former head of the agency’s Latin America division, he had been selected by Mr. Goss months earlier to head the agency’s troubled clandestine branch. Mr. Rodriguez told his boss that no inspector general review would be necessary — his service would investigate itself.

It was a protective instinct that ran deep inside the C.I.A.’s fabled Directorate of Operations, the agency’s most powerful branch. The same instinct would resurface months later, when Mr. Rodriguez dispatched a cable to the agency’s Bangkok station ordering the destruction of videotapes that showed C.I.A. officers carrying out harsh interrogations of operatives of Al Qaeda.

“He would always say, ‘I’m not going to let my people get nailed for something they were ordered to do,’ ” said Robert Richer, Mr. Rodriguez’s deputy in the clandestine branch until late 2005, who recalls many conversations with his boss about the tapes.
No Record of Punishment

With the tapes’ destruction now the subject of overlapping Congressional and criminal inquiries, investigators are trying to determine whether Mr. Rodriguez, 59, acted on his own or with at least tacit approval from superiors at the C.I.A. or the White House. Officials now say a recent review by the C.I.A. of Mr. Rodriguez’s personnel file found no record of any reprimand or punishment for his action.

The destruction of the tapes is hardly the first time that the C.I.A.’s mission to take risks and to counter threats abroad has come into conflict with American notions of justice, legality and human rights. From assassination plots in the 1960s to the Iran-contra scandal of the 1980s, American spymasters have found themselves in legal jeopardy for acts they said were lawful and necessary.

The tapes episode and Mr. Rodriguez’s role reflect the intensity of the particular tensions that have played out since the Sept. 11 attacks, a period in which the C.I.A. has been asked to play a new role in capturing, questioning and imprisoning terror suspects, and is now facing questions about whether its conduct crossed the line into illegality.

The events surrounding the tapes unfolded during one of the most tumultuous periods in the C.I.A.’s 60-year history, when the insular and proud clandestine service clashed with the strong-willed team that Mr. Goss, a former Florida congressman, brought with him to the agency. Mr. Rodriguez was “the man in the middle,” Mr. Richer said.

Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Goss declined to be interviewed for this article.
Mr. Goss was not the first C.I.A. director to discover that operatives who were trained to destabilize foreign governments could sometimes put those same skills to work inside the agency.

In a striking metaphor for Mr. Goss’s powerlessness, as officers of the Directorate of Operations, or D.O., ignored his instructions and shunned his staff, he later told a colleague that “when he pulled a lever to make something happen in the D.O., it wasn’t just that nothing happened,” the colleague recalled. “It was that the lever came off in his hands.”

Mr. Rodriguez joined the C.I.A. in 1976, at a time when the agency was still reeling from Congressional investigations into assassination plots, coup attempts and domestic wiretapping.
With his thick accent and undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Florida, he stood out in the clandestine service, which even in the 1970s was a preserve of the Anglo-Saxon, Ivy League establishment.

But over the next two decades in a series of overseas postings, Mr. Rodriguez ascended the ranks of the directorate’s Latin America division, serving from Peru to Belize and heading the C.I.A. stations in Panama, the Dominican Republic and Mexico.

He ran the kind of espionage missions and covert operations that defined the agency, overshadowing its other task of analyzing intelligence from all sources. Clandestine officers fashioned themselves as the “fighter jocks” of the C.I.A., the swashbuckling spies who risked their lives for their country.

Dominating the Culture

The Directorate of Operations “is a really small part of C.I.A., in terms of budget and people,” said Mark M. Lowenthal, a former assistant agency director. “But in terms of culture, the D.O. dominates the place.” In mid-2005, the directorate was renamed the National Clandestine Service.

A popular boss, Mr. Rodriguez occasionally flashed the maverick spirit prized by clandestine officers. One former colleague recalls that while in Mexico he named his horse Business, instructing subordinates to tell the ambassador or the C.I.A. brass that he was “out on Business.”

By the mid-1990s, Mr. Rodriguez was head of the Latin America division. But his career was nearly cut short when the C.I.A. inspector general reprimanded him in 1997 for a “remarkable lack of judgment” after he intervened to stop jailhouse beatings by guards of a childhood friend arrested on drug charges in the Dominican Republic.

A C.I.A. officer stationed in the Dominican Republic complained to the inspector general that the intervention was improper, according to a former agency official. Mr. Rodriguez was removed as chief of the Latin America division, and later returned to run the station in Mexico.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, he was tapped to become chief operating officer of the agency’s Counterterrorism Center, based at the C.I.A. headquarters, which was ballooning to nearly 1,500 officers from 300. There was grumbling that Mr. Rodriguez, with no experience in the Muslim world, was given the job. But seven months later, he was promoted to head the center, placing him in charge of the hunt for Qaeda operatives and the interrogation of terrorist suspects in a chain of secret C.I.A. prisons.

By the time Mr. Goss was sworn in as director of central intelligence in late September 2004, the agency’s clandestine service was already embittered by finger-pointing over the Iraq war.
The arrival of the new leader and his outspoken aides, dubbed the “Gosslings” by some within the agency, made matters worse.

Many agency veterans suspected that Mr. Goss and his team were on a White House mission to clean house at the C.I.A. The two top officers of the clandestine service, Stephen R. Kappes and Michael J. Sulick, soon quit.

When Mr. Goss looked for replacements, two agency officers turned him down, fearing that accepting the job would be seen as a betrayal of the clandestine branch. In the end, Mr. Goss offered the job to Mr. Rodriguez.

According to Mary Margaret Graham, a career clandestine officer who recently retired as head of intelligence collection for the director of national intelligence, Mr. Rodriguez had similar concerns about “betraying” fellow undercover officers. He assured her that he had accepted the position “on his terms.”

“I think in hindsight they expected a much more pliable person than they got,” she said.
Mr. Rodriguez traveled to overseas stations more than many predecessors, to build morale and get a firsthand account of operations. One result was that the clandestine branch’s daily operations were often left to his chief of staff, who had worked with Mr. Rodriguez in the Counterterrorism Center. Because she is still under cover, The New York Times is not publishing her name.

Several former C.I.A. officials recall repeated clashes between Mr. Rodriguez’s chief of staff and aides to Mr. Goss on matters from the trivial to the serious.

One serious concern, in the view of Mr. Goss’s staff, was the resistance of Mr. Rodriguez and his chief of staff to outside reviews of such missteps by the clandestine service as the Italian operation. In the matter of the tapes, there was also concern that Mr. Rodriguez and others who were involved in creating them were now pushing to destroy them. “It was just that they weren’t very impartial judges,” said a former C.I.A. official.

Mr. Rodriguez, who was nearing retirement, saw the tapes as a sort of time bomb that, if leaked, threatened irreparable damage to the United States’ image in the Muslim world, his friends say, and posed physical and legal risks to C.I.A. officers on them.

People close to Mr. Goss, who knew from his Congressional years how explosive accusations of cover-up could be, insist he told Mr. Rodriguez the tapes should be preserved.

But if Mr. Goss believed Mr. Rodriguez had disobeyed him, why did he not punish the clandestine service chief? One former C.I.A. official said White House officials had complained about the news media firestorm that accompanied the departure of Mr. Kappes and Mr. Sulick a year earlier, and Mr. Goss felt he could not risk another blowup.

‘Loyal and Dedicated’

Robert S. Bennett, Mr. Rodriguez’s lawyer, said his client was never instructed to preserve the tapes and recalls no discussion of conflict of interest on his part.
“Guys like Jose are loyal and dedicated and take risks to keep the country safe from terrorism,” Mr. Bennett said. “Now, his own government is investigating him, and I think it’s shameful.”

Not long after the tapes were destroyed, Mr. Goss held a management retreat for top agency officials meant in part to soothe tensions among the agency’s dueling branches. There the deputy director for intelligence — the head of analysis — complained openly about the arrogance of the clandestine branch and said undercover officers thought they could get away with anything.

That was too much for Mr. Rodriguez. He stood up in the room, according to one participant in the meeting, and shouted in coarse language that the analysis chief should “wake up and smell the coffee,” because undercover officers were at the “pointy end of the spear.”
The clandestine branch, Mr. Rodriguez was making it clear, would do what it wanted.

Pentagon to challenge interview of 9/11 suspect

Pentagon prosecutors are challenging a military court’s decision to let Osama bin Laden’s driver send written questions to alleged senior al Qaeda members held incommunicado at Guantánamo.

Defense lawyers for Salim Hamdan, 36, want to ask reputed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, known in CIA circles as ”KSM,” and six other ”high-value detainees” what they know about Hamdan’s role in al Qaeda’s organization.

Based on their answers, they will decide whether to call as defense witnesses any of the seven men, who are fellow detainees now but were held and interrogated for years by the CIA.

Last week, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, Hamdan’s military commission judge, ruled that defense lawyers could submit questions to an independent security officer to give to Mohammed and the others held in a restricted prison camp on the base called Camp 7.

The judge ordered that the questions and answers be strictly limited to the time before Hamdan’s capture in November 2001 in Afghanistan. Censors will black out any responses that don’t cover that time period.

Navy Lt. Catheryne Pully, a military commissions spokeswoman, said on Monday that the prosecution would seek ”reconsideration” of the judge’s decision, which the prosecutors believed raised “a lot of complicated issues.”

Intelligence officials have described as national security secrets the CIA sites where Mohammed and 14 other detainees were held before their September 2006 transfer to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Now they are held in Camp 7, segregated from other detainees at an undisclosed site on the remote U.S. Navy base. The prison camps’ spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Rick Haupt, has not been able to say whether the location of the camp itself is a national security secret.

Allred gave the prosecution until Tuesday to find an independent security officer — who does not work for the prosecution — to handle the defense lawyers’ questions and detainees’ answers, if they choose to reply.

Hamdan attorney Andrea Prasow, a civilian on the Defense Department team, said the Pentagon prosecutors agreed to identify the security officer but notified the team on Saturday that they would ask for reconsideration of the question.

Hamdan’s lawyers wanted to meet the men in person to assess their credibility as potential witnesses at Hamdan’s summertime trial.

The lead defense lawyer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brad Mizer, said the attorneys also sought face-to-face meetings with the detainees because, after years in CIA custody, the captives might suspect written questions as an interrogation trick.

Allred’s remedy to the defense lawyers mirrors a 2003 formula proposed by a federal judge at the civilian trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, who eventually pleaded guilty to providing material support for al Qaeda and is now serving a life sentence.

In that case, the Justice Department refused to let the defense send questions to Mohammed, the reputed 9/11 mastermind. At the time, he was under CIA interrogation, and the government argued his testimony would harm the war effort.

In this instance, the men Hamdan’s lawyers seek to question are now among 15 former CIA detainees in military custody at Guantánamo.

• Mohammed, who according to Pentagon transcripts confessed to plotting the 9/11 attacks along with a long string of other al Qaeda suicide bombings, as well as beheading Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.

• Ramzi bin al Shib, a Yemeni and Mohammed’s alleged go-between with some of the 9/11 attackers.

• Walid bin Attash, another Yemeni who supposedly trained some of the hijackers.

• Mustafa al Hawsawi, who supposedly helped get funds to the Sept. 11 suicide squads.

Those four men were identified as candidates for execution at Guantánamo as part of a complex, six-detainee prosecution the Pentagon unveiled last week. Their charge sheets await approval from a Bush administration appointee. None of them yet have lawyers.

In addition, Hamdan’s lawyers asked to interview Abu Faraj al Libi, Abdul Rahim al Nashiri and Abdul Hadi al Iraqi because of their knowledge of other al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan not tied to the Sept. 11 strikes.

Lindsey Graham Says He Would Have Voted Against Waterboarding Ban…Yeah Right!

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the Air Force JAG Corp., has repeatedly broken with his party’s ranks in the past, condemning waterboarding as “clearly illegal under domestic and international law.”When the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill — which contained a provision banning waterboarding — to the floor this week, Graham was absent from the vote because he was in Iraq. When contacted by ThinkProgress this week, Graham’s office said the senator would have voted against the anti-waterboarding bill.

Asked to explain Graham’s change of heart, the spokesman said, “He disagrees with applying the Army Field Manual to the CIA. The CIA is a completely different operation.”

In the Congressional Record on Feb. 13, Graham explained his opposition to the bill, claiming the Army Field Manual would limit the CIA’s operations:

I believe in flexibility for the CIA program within the boundaries of current law. The CIA must have the ability to gather intelligence for the war on terror. In this new war, knowledge of the enemy and its plan is vitally important and the Army Field Manual provision will weaken our intelligence gathering operations.

In Oct. 2005, however, Graham was singing the Army Field Manual’s praises when he said it is sufficiently flexible for intelligence gathering:

You can change the Army Field Manual to adapt techniques to the war on terror. There is a classified section of the Army Field Manual. There is nothing about its adoption that limits the ability to aggressively interrogate people to get good intelligence.

It appears that the Graham, as well as Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are willing to ditch their consciences in favor of backing President Bush’s misguided national security priorities.

Camp 7 and the Torturer’s Shrink

“I am proud to be a member of the American Psychological Association, proud for what APA has stood for in these troubling times, and deeply grateful to the Association for supporting me and my colleagues in our quest to ensure that all in our custody are treated with human decency and respect.”
— Larry C. James,
Colonel, United States Army, June 23, 2007

“This is my second tour at Gitmo, Cuba. I was also the first psychologist at Abu Ghraib. I’m going to repeat what I said earlier. If we remove psychologists from these facilities, people are going to die. If we remove psychologists from these facilities, people are going to get hurt.”
— Larry C. James,
Colonel, United States Army, June 23, 2007
———————————————————————————

Sounds good Colonel James. Great sound bytes. Good enough to convince thousands of psychologists that you’re the real thing, as American as Stealth bombers and pre-emptive war. Who would possibly think that psychologists in the military would engage in torture after listening to you? Good enough that you became the poster child for the American Psychological Association as they pulled out all stops in their attempts to defeat those few psychologists opposed to torture, inhuman conditions and the disappearance of habeas corpus. They brought you all the way from Guantanamo for their song and dance show. Not even most psychologists, those who are supposed to understand human behavior, saw through your charade, as you convinced them that their professional association really IS on the side of truth and goodness.

The APA used you to introduce a different resolution against torture for the second year in a row, in an attempt to deflect the dissenters and detractors. APA’s use of resolutions as a means to stop torture have proven to be simply a sleight of hand to appease the multitudes and the media, but actually signifies nothing.

Perhaps you’ll repeat history, Colonel James. In 2006, Surgeon General Kevin Kiley was used by APA leaders to offer the 2006 “Resolution on Torture.” Remember him? He lost his job a few months after presenting THAT resolution, another military officer who was willing to overlook the inhumane treatment of people that were considered to have no value.

But you blew it this week, Colonel. One might say you fell out of role, and the truth became evident. Though you are in charge of the team of psychologists that assists interrogators at Guantanamo, when the Associated Press reported last week on the just-revealed Camp 7 at Guantanamo where detainees from CIA secret detention facilities are kept, including the detainees who HAVE been water-boarded, including Abu Zubaydah who endured water-boarding with two psychologists present, you stated you just don’t want to know about it.

“I learned a long, long time ago, if I’m going to be successful in the intel community, I’m meticulously — in a very, very dedicated way — going to stay in my lane,” he said. “So if I don’t have a specific need to know about something, I don’t want to know about it. I don’t ask about it.”

You, the military psychologist, who spoke so piously of how much you cared to protect detainees at Gitmo, who so scrupulously defended your character as patriotically humane – didn’t you just sell out the fate of those detainees for the advancement of your career?

You commanded the Guantanamo Behavioral Science Consultation Teams from January 2003 to mid-May 2003, during a time when the International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo amounted to torture.

Under your command and supervision, psychologists from the military’s Survival, Evasion Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program were instructed to apply their expertise in abusive interrogation techniques to the interrogations of detainees in Guantanamo, according to a report from the Office of the Inspector General.

According to the Standard Operating Procedure manual at the time that you were the Chief Psychologist at Guantanamo, all incoming detainees were to be held in isolation for the first 30 days “to enhance and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee in the interrogation process” and were not entitled to the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions.

So while you and the American Psychological Association continue to assert that military psychologists are necessary at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and other detention sites – to build rapport, to “protect” the detainees, to stop other military personnel from harming and killing the detainees – you’re telling reporters that the secret to your success is to look the other way. What else could it mean when you say, “if I’m going to be successful in the intel community . . . I’m meticulously . . . going to stay in my lane . . . I don’t want to know?”

The fact is, for you and our professional organization, it’s all about keeping your job. You toe the military line for your paycheck. And the APA toes the military line to curry the favor of the Department of Defense and the current administration for contracts. All the rest is window dressing, such as the APA’s gratuitous letter to Attorney General Mukasey this week. The letter is a lobbyist’s masterpiece, suggesting that waterboarding is legal torture in one paragraph and then asking the AG to please hurry up and render a legal ruling in the next.

But as you seem not to be motivated by considerations of ethics, Colonel James, perhaps the potential for life in prison might have more impact. At the Nuremberg Trials, it was held that merely following orders will not absolve you from criminal liability. In that rare moment of truthiness, you told us that your guilty knowledge may pose inconveniences for you: “[I]f I don’t have a specific need to know about something, I don’t want to know about it. I don’t ask about it.”

Former Navy airman describes ‘water torture.’

Today in the Washington Post, Richard E. Mezo, who served in the Navy for six years, describes his experience being waterboarded:

Last week, much to my dismay, government officials testified before Congress that the United States has used the interrogation technique known as waterboarding and would like to hold out the option of using it in the future. As someone who has experienced waterboarding, albeit in a controlled setting, I know that the act is indeed torture. I was waterboarded during my training to become a Navy flight crew member. […]

Waterboarding has, unfortunately, become a household word. Back then, we didn’t call it waterboarding — we called it “water torture.” We recognized it as something the United States would never do, whatever the provocation. … Waterboarding is torture, and torture is clearly a crime against humanity.

Former Justice Department official Daniel Levin, who was voluntarily waterboarded in 2004, came to similar conclusions about the procedure. 

Let Us Talk to Sept 11 Planner, U.S. Lawyers Ask

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) – Military lawyers defending Osama bin Laden’s former driver on terrorism charges in the U.S. war court at Guantanamo Bay have offered a compromise in their quest to interview September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

They promised not to ask Mohammed about his treatment in U.S. custody or about the CIA’s admission that it subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as “waterboarding” during interrogations.

Bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and faces life in prison if convicted in the Guantanamo court of conspiring with al Qaeda and providing material support for terrorism.

The Yemeni man said he never joined al Qaeda, had no advance knowledge of its attacks and became bin Laden’s driver in Afghanistan because he needed the salary of $200 per month.

Hamdan’s lawyers said Mohammed — the highest-ranking al Qaeda leader held at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — can help their defense by telling them what role, if any, Hamdan had in the organization.

They likened it to somebody “on trial for organized crime and you’ve got the opportunity to bring in the godfather.”

The request was still pending when a pretrial hearing ended on Thursday but the military judge suggested he might at least let the lawyers question Mohammed via written notes.

The judge is expected to rule in the next couple of weeks and Hamdan is scheduled to go to trial in May. So far, only one captive — an Australian man — has been convicted by the widely criticized court and that was in a plea bargain.

TOO DANGEROUS

Prosecutors said Mohammed, accused of masterminding the attacks on the United States by al Qaeda militants on September 11, 2001, was too dangerous an enemy in an ongoing war to allow defense lawyers to go on “a fishing expedition.”

“The defense is asking for access to some of the most notorious terrorists the world has ever seen,” said one of the prosecutors, Air Force Lt. Col. William Britt.

There was a risk of endangering U.S. agents if Mohammed revealed to the defense lawyers the sources and methods the government used to get information from him, prosecutors said.

The CIA has acknowledged using waterboarding, which critics say is a form of illegal torture, on Mohammed and two other senior al Qaeda leaders who were later sent to Guantanamo.

The defense lawyers, one of whom has top clearance to view government secrets, said they disapproved of waterboarding but would not ask Mohammed about it or about anything that occurred after the September 11 attacks.

Mohammed is one of 15 “high-value” al Qaeda prisoners held separately from the other 260 non-U.S. captives at Guantanamo in a facility whose location is kept secret even from the officers who run the other detention camps.

Prosecutors also objected to defense requests to question six other high-value prisoners.

“Equally wrapped up in secret tape, eh?” asked the judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred.

He said the defense had shown adequate need to question Mohammed and suggested they conduct the interview via written questions and answers, which the prosecutors also opposed.

The United States set up the Guantanamo tribunals to try suspected terrorists after the September 11 attacks but so far, none of the handful of prisoners facing charges has been accused of direct involvement in the attacks.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that military prosecutors are in the final phases of preparing the first sweeping case against suspected conspirators in the September 11 attacks, citing people who have been briefed on the case.

The charges, to be filed at Guantanamo, would involve up to six detainees there including Mohammed.

No defense lawyer has been allowed access the high-value group of suspected terrorists facing charges, who were brought to Guantanamo in 2006 after about three years in secret CIA custody.

One of Hamdan’s lawyers, retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, said that raised a crucial question about U.S. plans to try those important figures.

“Who is going to represent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and when will his trial be?” Swift said.

WTF?…O’Reilly On Waterboarding: ‘The Far Left Is Putting Us All In Danger’

Earlier this week, the Bush administration admitted that it has waterboarded at least three al Qaeda detainees since 9/11. Yesterday, CIA Director Michael Hayden added that the tactic may currently be illegal.

On Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor yesterday, Bill O’Reilly gave a full-throated defense of the torture tactic, claiming that the “far left went wild” after the revelations. The left “literally went crazy,” he said. O’Reilly continued his pro-torture rant:

Why are they so insane about this? It’s not fatal. It doesn’t leave a lasting phyiscal injury? Why are they so crazy? … I think the President has to have the authority…in extraordinary circumstances, as these three were. And the far left is putting us all in danger.

By O’Reilly’s logic, military officers and staunch conservatives are also “crazy.” Just yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Maples said the practice is unnecessary. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and members of the Pentagon’s JAG corps also agree. Intelligence experts say it is “ineffective” because the technique “often produces false information.”

Waterboarding, not progressives, puts America in danger. As Colin Powell noted in 2005 when President Bush wanted to loosely define torture, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

US pledges ‘no death penalty’ for British terror suspect

The United States government has promised in writing that a British terror suspect will not face the death penalty if he is extradited to face trial in America, a court was told today.

Lawyers for Babar Ahmad, a 30-year old accused by America of raising money to support terrorism in Chechnya and Afghanistan via the internet and e-mails, question the validity of the guarantee .

The Imperial College computer worker, from Tooting, London, is alleged to have run websites inciting murder and urging Muslims to fight in a holy war.

The diplomatic note from the American Embassy in London to the Foreign Secretary, said Mr Ahmad would only be tried by a federal court with “the full panoply of rights and protections”.

The note was presented at his resumed extradition hearing at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court in central London today.

An expert defence witness told an earlier hearing that Mr Ahmad could face the death penalty if extradited to America and that there was a real risk he could be transferred to military custody and detained indefinitely.

However, John Hardy, representing the Unites States government, today presented a series of written assurances about how Mr Ahmad would be treated if his extradition were approved.

He then read an extract from the diplomatic note to the Foreign Secretary. “The government of the US hereby assures the government of the UK that the US would neither seek the death penalty against, nor would the death penalty be carried out against Babar Ahmad, upon his extradition to the US.

“The government of the US further assures the government of the UK that upon extradition to the US, Babar Ahmad would be prosecuted before a federal court in accordance with the full panoply of rights and protections that would otherwise be provided to a defendant facing similar charges.

“Pursuant to his extradition Babar Ahmad would not be prosecuted before a military commission as specified in the President’s Military Order of November 13, 2001, nor would he be criminally prosecuted in any tribunal or courts other than a US federal court and nor would he be treated or designated as an enemy combatant.”

Mr Hardy described the note as “both irrevocable and unequivocal” and said “you cannot have a more authoritative declaration from a government of a sovereign ally”.

Edward Fitzgerald QC, appearing for Mr Ahmad, urged the court to query the note’s validity and claimed it was not binding on the US president. “We do not accept my learned friend’s proposition that this is unequivocal,” he said.

Mr Fitzgerald said that if Ahmad were extradited, there would be nothing to stop the US president potentially acting on advice from the CIA and designating him as an enemy combatant.

Judge Timothy Workman ruled this afternoon that Mr Ahmad’s lawyers could call a witness to support their argument that the US guarantees are inadequate and adjourned the case until Wednesday.

Outside the court, more than 200 of Ahmad’s supporters conducted a noisy protest.

They chanted “free Babar Ahmad” and waved placards criticising both the American and British governments.

Ahmad’s father Ashfaq, and his wife Maryam, were among the crowd. She said: “He [Babar] is doing OK. Obviously he wants to be able to return home to his family and rebuild his life.”

UK and US accused of hypocrisy over despots

The US, UK and other western nations are ignoring flawed or rigged elections in some countries for the sake of political convenience, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said today in its annual round-up of rights abuses around the world.While publicly espousing the cause of democracy, Washington, London and others were happy to deal closely with “despots masquerading as a democracy”, such as Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, the group said.

HRW singled out the UK government as a concern for its policy of deporting terrorism suspects to countries with repressive regimes if assurances are given the detainees will not be tortured or otherwise mistreated. This “handy device” had now been borrowed by the US to justify renditions, while Russia and other nations were also happily trying it out, the group said.

The report detailed abuses in more than 75 countries and territories, covering perennial rights pariahs such as North Korea, Burma and China as well as the US and EU. It criticised Israel for blockading Gaza in response to rocket attacks, describing this as “collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population in violation of international humanitarian law”.

But HRW’s primary target this year was what it views as the hypocrisy of western nations condemning democratic violations only when expedient.

“Rarely has democracy been so acclaimed yet so breached, so promoted yet so disrespected, so important yet so disappointing,” HRW’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, said in an introduction to the 569-page document. This “pseudo democracy” had seen leaders in countries such as Egypt, Nigeria and Ethiopia recognised abroad for their popular mandates despite elections plagued by fraud, intimidation or other flaws.

“It seems Washington and European governments will accept even the most dubious election so long as the ‘victor’ is a strategic or commercial ally,” Roth said, calling the promotion of democracy “a softer and fuzzier alternative to defending human rights”.

President Bush had even praised Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, for placing Pakistan “on the road to democracy”, Roth noted.

Roth said the current violence in Kenya, prompted by the seemingly rigged election on December 27 which returned President Mwai Kibaki to power, could be traced back to overseas reluctance to challenge a similarly flawed poll in Nigeria 10 months earlier. “Nigeria’s leader came to power in a violent and fraudulent vote, yet he’s been accepted on the international stage,” he said. He said it led Kenya to believe fraud would be tolerated in the presidential election.

The report castigated the UK for its policy of allowing terrorism suspects to be transferred to the care of brutal regimes on receipt of what the group termed “empty promises of humane treatment”.

At a glance

Among the countries highlighted by Human Rights Watch for particularly poor human rights records were:

· North Korea Human rights were summed up simply as “abysmal”

· Burma A “deplorable” record with a “denial of basic freedoms”

· Zimbabwe “Torture in police custody is common”

· China The government “continues to deny or restrict its citizens’ fundamental rights”

· Afghanistan More than six years after the US invasion, life for the average inhabitant “remains short, miserable, and brutal”

Mukasey hints at Bush’s permission for torture

Under questioning from a Democratic senator, US attorney general Michael Mukasey today suggested that George Bush might have personally authorised the waterboarding of suspected terrorists.Mukasey immediately corrected himself to say that he was not permitted to discuss past events. But in describing the process by which the CIA could seek legal clearance to resume waterboarding, he appeared to tie the president to the controversial technique.

When Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein asked if the current path to authorising waterboarding – a request from the CIA director, followed by approval from the attorney general, followed by consultation with the president – had applied in the past, Mukasey said yes.

I should take a step back,” he then added. “I’m not authorised to say what happened in the past, but I was told this wasn’t news.”

Feinstein pointed to the Bush administration’s reported admission that the CIA waterboarded at least three senior members of al-Qaida. Given that the outlined process for authorising the tactic would have involved Bush, she repeated, “Did the president approve that?”

Mukasey declined to answer the question. His refusal to state directly whether waterboarding, which is not currently in use by the CIA, is a form of torture nearly prevented Mukasey from taking over the justice department last fall.

During Mukasey’s appearance today before the senate judiciary committee, several Democrats sought to pin him down on his views of the interrogation method. Considered illegal by human rights groups and some in the US military, waterboarding involves simulating the sensation of drowning by dousing a prisoner in water.

Mukasey said he would consider waterboarding to be torture if he were personally subjected to it. But he contended that its application by the US involved a separate balancing test, weighing the cost of the brutal action against the value of the information it could yield.

“I don’t think I’m saying it is simply a relative issue,” Mukasey told Democratic senator Joseph Biden. “There is a statute under which it is a relative issue.”

Mukasey invoked the so-called “shocks the conscience” standard, causing Biden to marvel at the implication that the potential profit from waterboarding could have any role in determining its moral value.

“I find [Mukasey's interpretation] to be fairly unique,” Biden said. “Matter of fact, it shocks my conscience a little bit.”

In addition to its souring of Democratic relations with Mukasey, the debate over waterboarding has fuelled a criminal investigation at the justice department into videotapes trashed by the CIA in 2005.

The tapes, destroyed as Congress moved to pass a ban on inhumane interrogations, show two al-Qaida members being questioned and potentially waterboarded by the CIA on foreign soil.

The justice department has appointed a Connecticut prosecutor to probe whether US intelligence officials broke the law or violated court orders by destroying the tapes.

Mukasey also was asked whether private contractors in the CIA’s employ used harsh interrogation tactics, but said he did not know. The Washington Post reported last year that such contractors comprise about one-third of the spy agency’s workforce.