Our world is in desperate need of heroism today – and no kind of heroic action is in greater demand today, in my opinion, than speaking out against the numerous abuses and crimes of the presidential administration of George W. Bush, which poses the
greatest threat to world peace and world civilization of our current era.
Of the numerous crimes against the American people, the American Constitution, and international law committed by the Bush administration, the one that scares me the most, with the possible exception of his illegal preemptive invasion of Iraq, is its
treatment of its prisoners. I’ve discussed
my opinions on
this issue numerous times, but that is not the purpose of this post. Suffice it to say here that I consider the Bush administration’s treatment of its prisoners to represent one of the darkest chapters, if not
the darkest chapter in the history of our nation. Indeed, I consider it to be a manifestation of evil. And that is why I feel the need to pay tribute to a man whose heroic efforts perhaps did as much or more to expose these abominable medieval horrors than any other.
Craig Murray was the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from the summer of 2002 until October 15, 2004, when he was suspended from his post for his heroism – that is, for speaking out and fighting against the horrors that he witnessed in his capacity as ambassador, as well as for exposing the role of the United States in perpetrating those horrors.
Stephen Grey, of Amnesty International, who himself was instrumental in exposing the
CIA’s rendition program, describes how Craig Murray did something very similar, in his book, “
Ghost Plane – The True Story of the CIA Torture Program”. I’ll begin my description of Murray’s heroism by providing some background on the country that he was assigned to.
21st Century UzbekistanIslam Karimov had been the dictator of Uzbekistan since prior to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Grey describes the repressiveness of his rule:
Karimov… still boiled some of his prisoners alive… He was also proudly repressive. Back in 1999, he said: “I am prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and to have calm in the republic.” He boasted of executing about a hundred people a year. More than six thousand political opponents were locked in his jails. Threatened by the revival of Islam, he ordered a huge crackdown on religion… Tortures were said to include ripping out fingernails, pulling teeth, electric shocks, suffocation, and rape.
U.S. CollaborationBecause of the severe religious repression many Muslims
fled Uzbekistan and ended up in Afghanistan, where they resided by 9-11-01. That set the stage for collaboration between Uzbekistan and the United States in pursuit of its “War on Terror”: The U.S. paid tens of millions of dollars to Uzbekistan in aid. American forces in Afghanistan would capture the displaced Muslims, who may or may not have been fighting for the Taliban, or they would simply take Muslims into custody after being handed them by
bounty hunters; the U.S. would then “render” their prisoners back to Uzbekistan or send them to Guantanamo Bay; Uzbekistan would either force their prisoners to confess to various al Qaeda plots or torture them; and they would turn over the “intelligence” thus received to the CIA.
What did Uzbekistan and the U.S. have to gain from this relationship? Who can say exactly what motives lurk in the minds of torturers like Karimov, Bush and Cheney. I can only speculate: Karimov received lots of money and the legitimacy of U.S. support and was aided in his goal of having more prisoners to torture – I suppose as an example to his population to help maintain his stranglehold over them. And we got more “intelligence” for our “War on Terror”, as well as use of Uzbekistan for military strategic purposes.
Craig Murray blows the whistleIn his role as ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray saw continual evidence of the horrors that were perpetrated there. At first it was in the form of accusations of those who had been tortured – and one had to consider the possibility that the accusers were not being truthful. But then Murray began to see more tangible evidence, such as photos. On September 16, 2002,
Murray sent a telegram to his superiors:
U.S. plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: Increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.
Grey further elaborates on Murray’s message:
Murray wrote of seven thousand to ten thousand political and religious prisoners, the boiling alive of dissidents… the dispatch of two leading dissidents… to a lunatic asylum, and the fact that all political opposition groups remained banned. “Terrible torture is commonplace,” he said.
And Grey describes a major
public speech of Murray’s:
“Uzbekistan is not a functioning democracy.” The audience looked shocked. He spoke of the cases of Avazov and another dissident called Alimov, both “apparently tortured to death by boiling water,” but stressed that “all of us know” it had not been an isolated incident. “Brutality is inherent in a system where convictions habitually rely on signed confessions rather than on forensic or material evidence.”
Grey sums up Murray’s mode of operating:
Murray showed no concern for the polite conventions of diplomacy: He was a passionate individual prepared to abandon form and euphemisms, and ready to speak forcefully and publicly about what he believed. From almost the day he touched down in the capital of Uzbekistan, Murray had been battling from the inside to expose what he saw as a scandal – the West’s support of a ruthless regime… Murray would throw a spotlight on a thorny dilemma like no one else: how, in fighting for the goal of spreading global freedom, the West had ended up extending support for some of the world’s least free regimes… Murray, by speaking of the CIA’s secret intelligence reports, had broken a cardinal rule… In doing so he had assaulted that relationship (between Britain and the U.S.), but had also opened up its results to public scrutiny. The CIA’s traffic, he said, contained information obtained using torture…
Murray’s ordealFrom the beginning Murray’s superiors were not happy about the way that he handled his job in Uzbekistan. They tried to teach him to be more “diplomatic”, but Murray didn’t care for their advice. Then, staring in the spring of 2003 two apparently unrelated events converged to bring Murray down.
While Murray was a guest at the house of a leading Uzbekistan dissident, Professor Jamal Mirsaidov,
the dead body of Mirsaidov’s grandson was dumped on the doorstep of his house bearing a great deal of evidence of hideous torture – perhaps as a warning to both Murray and the professor. While on the one hand Murray’s determination was hardened by this, on the other hand he had to face the realization that his actions may be putting other lives at stake.
Several weeks later Murray’s superiors brought several
charges against him, including utilizing his position to elicit sexual favors, showing up at his office drunk, and other assorted charges. He was ordered not to discuss the charges with anyone – orders which he disobeyed in order to garner support from his colleagues, which he did. Eventually all the charges were dropped for lack of evidence, except for Murray’s disobeying the order not to discuss the charges with anyone.
Murray’s physical health began to deteriorate. He collapsed and was diagnosed with acute anxiety. He collapsed again and was diagnosed with a pulmonary embolus that nearly killed him. Weakened by his physical illness and months of severe mental strains, Murray no longer had the energy to continue his battle.
Murray’s last standBut events in 2004 served to reinvigorate Murray. The torture at Abu Ghraib made headlines in the spring of 2004 – just the doings of a few “bad apples”, it was said. Murray read about Stephen Grey’s revelations of the CIA’s rendition system. He had the opportunity to talk to a Danish journalist,
Michael Andersen, who informed him of the increasing exposure of the “War on Terror” and torture link between Uzbekistan and the U.S.
On July 22, 2004, Murray
wrote the telegram that would finally end his career for good:
Subject: Receipt of intelligence obtained under torture
We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the U.S. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the U.S. and U.K. to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror…
On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture, to which we are a party, could not be plainer: “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Nonetheless, I repeat that this information is useless – we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear.
Craig Murray’s legacyStephen Grey sums up Murray’s legacy:
Craig Murray had chosen to force not only his government but the hand of the United States… He opened a window on another frontier of the rendition system, and showed how a dictator would share evidence obtained under torture with Western intelligence agencies for his own political purposes to secure international support or acquiescence for his own ruthless clampdown on the dissidents who oppose him. He had exposed to the world a very uncomfortable alliance: between a superpower that proclaimed the importance of human rights and an unreformed Communist who boiled his prisoners alive. Steve Crawshaw, UK Director of Human Rights, remarked, “Craig Murray may not have been a good ambassador; that’s not for me to judge. But the abuses he pointed to were real, horrific.” If this was the war on terror, many would ask, was it really worth fighting.
Grey noted that Murray “found little interest among others in raising these subjects, particularly his fellow ambassadors.” Some would take that information to mean that Murray’s colleagues were cowards. I don’t look at it like that. Why? Because it’s so difficult for me to know how it feels to walk in their shoes – and because I’ve never done anything in my life nearly as heroic as what Craig Murray did. Rather, the way I look at it is that Murray was a hero and his colleagues who kept silent about this weren’t. That is just the way that most people are. I don’t have any problem in referring to George Bush and his accomplices as
cowards. But I don’t consider that lacking the courage to act heroically means that you’re a coward.
In many ways I consider every current Congressperson in the United States to be in a situation similar to Murray’s situation, as described here. They all must know what’s going on; they all must know that most Americans are ignorant of the full extent of the Bush administration crimes against the American people, their Constitution, and international law; they all must know that there is a screaming need in our country for these things to be talked about – every day; and they all must know that to talk about these things would necessarily lead them to take the steps that are necessary to rectify the situation. Yet the good majority of them remain silent – or at least more silent than they should.
I have mixed feelings about this. I don’t want our best Congresspersons to go the way of Craig Murray, and lose their jobs. That would be awful, not so much for them as for our country. Yet, I honestly believe that speaking out about these things would help their careers rather than jeopardize them. And more important, it would greatly facilitate the bringing of democracy and decency back to our nation.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
