Judge Makes Ruling On Rwanda Case: Is It A Precedent Applicable To Rendition Cases?

Judge Rules Out Rwandan Confessions

Many of us have expressed concern over what has occurred in African nations where rebellion, oppression and torture are commonplace. However, what has occurred in Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, the Congo and other places where there seems to be a lack of overt economic or political interest for America has never seemed to raise enough interest for the US to actually intervene in an effective manner. Our efforts in Somalia are a case study in what not to do in a peace restoration mission.

But when Americans on tour in remote parts of the world are killed, there can be times when the US government takes an interest to push a few buttons and cause a ruckus. But, like many things regarding foreign policy, the US government can't seem to get out of its own way.

In this case the Rwandan law enforcement and intelligence folks tortured the suspects and obtained inconsistent confessions. Such is the case with torture. If you torture a person effectively, they will say anything, do anything or make any appeal possible to get the torture to stop. For those of us that have served in the US military and undergone survival training, "SERE" type training and/or interrogation training no that everyone has a breaking point under torture... even the best trained military personnel. So it is no surprise that persons accused of a crime, having no training to resist torturous interrogation, would cave in and admit to anything they were "told" to admit to in the process. With the right amount and type of torture, I could get Santa Claus to admit he is the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the person responsible for the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa.

The US District Court in Washington, DC, however, has ruled that confessions obtained under torture are unreasonable, unreliable and inadmissable when it involves US law enforcement, investigation or courts. While the Court acknowledged that a tragedy had occurred and US citizens lost their lives due to terrorist-like rebel action in Rwanda, the decision handed down made it clear that torture is not an acceptable means of obtaining confessions.

Now that this decision has been handed down, we must question whether or not this precedent applies to the folks being detained at Gitmo, in Afghanistan prisons and camps, in secret facilities where "extraordinary rendition: has occurred--and the UN, EU and Amnesty International have all presented evidence that rendition is indeed occurring. If torture is unacceptable in this case, should it not apply to cases where the US is the perpetrator or sponsor of the torture or mistreatment? Logic would suggest that such a precedent should apply, as well as numerous treaties, international agreements and international law to which the US is a party. We must also remember, by virtue of the "treaties clause," any signed and duly ratified treaty is incorporated directly into the Constitution as part and parcel of the "supreme law of the land." Violating these treaties is a breach of the oath every elected official, appointed official and member of the military asserts upon taking office, position or rank.

Three Rwandan rebels charged with murdering two American tourists in Uganda were tortured and coerced into confessing, a federal judge ruled Thursday, barring U.S. prosecutors from using the confessions in court.

The ruling dealt federal authorities a major setback in a case stemming from the 1999 deaths of eight sightseers, including two Americans, who had traveled to a remote rain forest hoping to see rare mountain gorillas. The victims were hacked and bludgeoned to death.

The three rebels, who could face the death penalty if convicted, said Rwandan officials bound and beat them with rocks and sticks until they confessed to the U.S. investigators. Medical experts said scars supported those claims.

"The court is painfully aware that two innocent American tourists were brutally killed at Bwindi on March 1, 1999. But that sentiment may not, under the law, dictate the result here," U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle wrote.

Rob Haubner and his wife, Susan Miller, of Portland, Ore., were killed along with tourists from Britain and New Zealand. Rebels later said they had targeted English-speaking tourists in a bid to weaken U.S. and British support for the Rwandan government.

A Ugandan judge sentenced one of the rebels, Jean-Paul Bizimana, to 15 years in prison in January for killing the tourists and their guide. Three other rebels - Leonidas Bimenyimana, Francois Karake and Gregoire Nyaminani - are being tried in a Washington federal court for the American deaths.

In her 150-page ruling Wednesday, Huvelle said the men offered the FBI inconsistent confessions only after being subjected to torturous conditions. One of the men said he was subjected to "kwasa kwasa," in which he spent two weeks with one arm over his shoulder, the other behind his back and his wrists bound with rope.

They testified to being beaten with bricks and sticks, having their ears boxed and sitting naked in an empty concrete room flooded with water.

Defense attorneys said the coerced confessions were the government's key evidence. Justice Department spokesman Brian Sierra said the agency was reviewing the decision and had not decided how to proceed.

"We're all sitting around saying, 'If this was our call, it'd be all over here,'" said defense attorney Jeffrey O'Toole, who represents Bimenyimana.

Huvelle said the Rwandan military captain responsible for the abuses believed his job was to elicit confessions to help solve the case for his superiors, who wanted to curry favor with U.S. officials. The abuses did not happen in front of U.S. authorities, and the judge did not say whether they should have known about them.

The defendants are former members of the Liberation Army of Rwanda, or ALIR. It was formed in 1996 in refugee camps in neighboring Zaire (now Congo) by members of the former Rwandan Armed Forces and civilian militia known as Interahamwe, which carried out the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

The case decision is 150 pages long and offers a lot of details.