James Fallows of The Atlantic was in Beijing today, observing the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square confrontation between human rights protesters and the Chinese government. Security was airtight, but that doesn't mean reporters were completely incapacitated:

As reported yesterday, CNN is still blacked out whenever words like "In China today...." or "Twenty years ago in Bei...." come across the airwaves. Whereas BBC TV is airing uncensored footage of tanks in the square twenty years ago and repeatedly using the phrase "Tiananmen massacre." And just as I type, the admirable Quentin Somerville of the BBC is talking, live from Beijing, about the "ruthlessness at the heart of the Communist government." (And just this second, in a Borges-worthy moment, Somerville said that international coverage was being blacked out across China -- so I got to see him saying that I was not able to see him. Still, the general point is true.)"

Yesterday, David Rothkopf described his own experience as an observer of June 4, 1989.

Posted this one during the Olympics last year but am re-posting in honor of tomorrow's anniversary:

Freedom House's Ellen Bork along with the Weekly Standard's design director Philip Chalk and Tiananmen survivor Tian Jian have created this map for Beijing tourists interested in visiting the sites of the June 4, 1989 massacre of the Tiananmen Square protestors. Each number shows the place where where one of the 176 victims were killed or the hospitals to which their bodies were taken.

You can find information on the victims here and read Bork's explanation of the map at the New York Sun's site.

Back in April, U.S. President Barack Obama said his administration would release photographs of the abuse of detainees in prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq. Here's from the UPI wire story:

The Obama administration, in an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Thursday it will release photos of alleged abusive interrogations.

At least 44 photographs will be released May 28, the Los Angeles Times reported. While details of the photos have not been reported, some are said to show U.S. military personnel pointing weapons at suspected terrorists during questioning.

"This will constitute visual proof that, unlike the Bush administration's claim, the abuse was not confined to Abu Ghraib and was not aberrational," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU lawyer.

The decision was widely applauded at the time; the Obama administration, it seemed, was taking a stand against abusive interrogations and shining a powerful light into some dark corners. 

Obama said, "I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib." He also later said the small number of perpetrators were charged and tried in 2004.

The administration then abruptly changed course, saying it would not release the photographs. The White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, explained, "The president believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court." The ACLU accused the White House of betrayal and stonewalling.

Today -- the day the Obama administration would have been required to release the photos, incidentally --  we may have found out why.

Ret. Major General Antonio Taguba, the author of the Abu Ghraib report, described their content to the Daily Telegraph: 

These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency. I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan. The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.

To be honest, I'm not sure I have much to say about this, beyond that it's deeply unsettling, and raises more questions than it answers.

For one, I can't verify that Taguba is speaking about the same set of photos as Obama and the ACLU; I don't think Obama would have agreed to release the photos if the content were so graphic and dangerous, to the coalition forces and to the victims. 

Second, I don't know why Taguba, who has been retired for two years, who no longer speaks for the military, gave this interview. The Pentagon has already discredited the paper and said that the description of the photos is inaccurate. 

Third, we know of incidences of sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib. If these photos concern new incidences, I hope that all the perpetrators have been court-martialled and tried, already. The "few bad apples" line is only valid if we have confidence in the oversight and governance of U.S. prisons abroad. (Not really a comparison here, but an n.b., that sexual abuse and prison rape is a systemic problem in the U.S.) 

And finally, nothing yet from the ACLU on their site. I'll be interested to see what they have to say about this.

The U.N.'s controversial Human Rights Council met today to consider a proposal to investigate claims of human rights abuses by both sides in Sri Lanka's recently concluded civil war. The stakes were high for the council said Mark Leon Goldberg this morning:

Now that the fighting has stopped, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tamils are trapped in concentration camps run by the Sri Lankan military.  These camps are off limits to the media and most international humanitarian organizations, like the International Committee for the Red Cross.  In a recent trip to the region, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the IDP camps, "by far the most appalling scenes I have seen" -- this, from a man that has visited Darfur, Gaza, and Eastern Congo, mind you.

So, in all, this meeting is an important test of the Human Rights Council. A few weeks ago it proved able to authorize an investigation of alleged human rights abuses in Gaza committed by Israel and Hamas during Operation Caste Lead.   Should the council vote against action on Sri Lanka it opens itself to familiar accusations that there are double standards when it comes to Israel--which is a  charge that may become more resonant should member states maintain that the situation in Sri Lanka is a wholly internal matter undeserving of the attention of the Human Rights Council.

Well, we appear to have an answer:

China, Cuba, Egypt and 26 others on the 47-member council voted in favor of a resolution that described the conflict as a "domestic" matter that did not warrant outside interference. The council also supported the Sri Lankan government's decision to provide aid groups only with "access as may be appropriate" to refugee camps.

Twelve mostly European countries opposed the resolution after failing to get support for a resolution that criticized both sides. 

All in all, the implications of this vote for the image of the human rights council itself, as described by Mark, were probably larger than those for Sri Lanka. The HRC regularly condemns Israel's actions, (thanks largely to the fact that the Palestinians, unlike the Tamils, enjoy a good deal of international support) but the possibility of condemnation doesn't seem to be much of a factor in Israeli government decision making. I can't imagine it would be that much different for Sri Lanka. 

Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan government appears to still be fighting with remnants of the Tigers.

This afternoon, the Senate Democrats blocked the $80 million the Obama administration requested to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and relocate the people imprisoned there. The New York Times explains: 

Mr. Obama, who on Thursday is scheduled to outline his plans for the 240 detainees still held in the prison, has faced growing pressure from lawmakers, particularly Republicans, to find a solution that does not involve moving the prisoners to the United States.

While Democrats generally have been supportive of Mr. Obama's plan to close the detention center by Jan. 22, 2010, lawmakers have not stepped forward to offer to accept detainees in their home states or districts. When the tiny town of Hardin, Mont., offered to put the terrorism suspects in the town's empty jail, both Montana senators and its Congressional representative quickly voiced strong opposition.

This might be a good thing.

Why? Senators have a clear reason to withhold the funding. As members of Congress, they answer to their home districts -- and the detainees pose the ultimate case of NIMBY. Some are arguing that the detainees are highly dangerous and the Obama administration hasn't proven it can keep Americans safe. (I'm not so sure. If there's one thing the U.S. does well, it's incarceration.) The NYT again:

Senate Democratic leaders insisted that they still supported the decision to close the prison, were simply waiting for Mr. Obama to provide a more detailed plan, and had acted to avert a partisan feud that would only serve as a distraction and delay a military spending measure, which is needed to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and some other national security programs through Sept. 30. Mr. Obama had requested the $80 million be included in that bill.

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, indicated that the administration expected that Congress would eventually release the money to close the camp and he suggested that the concerns of lawmakers would be addressed on Thursday, when Mr. Obama presents a "hefty part" of his plan to deal with the detainees.

And I think, perhaps, the Senate might not be acting as a block to the Obama administration as much as an aide to its ambitions. It hasn't yet figured out where to send the Gitmo prisoners, or how to try them, or whether to repatriate them. That's going to take time. (The Thursday announcement will be particularly interesting now.) 

If the Senate Democrats withhold this funding, the Obama administration gets to scapegoat Congress for any future delays, while also getting to figure out the best way to proceed -- the best way to ensure U.S. safety, use U.S. resources, and deal with this enormously complex problem. 

I breathed a great sigh of relief with the Iranian government's announcement of the release of journalist Roxana Saberi, who Tehran convicted of spying for the United States.

Saberi was initially arrested in January for buying a bottle of wine. When in custody, officials realized she had no press credentials (which had been revoked in 2006). Her trial lasted only an hour, and she was sent to the infamous Evin prison with an eight-year sentence. 

And, joining Spencer Ackerman here, I hope that Saberi's release will draw attention to the plight of two other imprisoned journalists: Euna Lee and Laura Ling of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's Current TV.

North Korea has held the pair incommunicado since the end of March. The Wall Street Journal reports:

U.S. officials have said less about Ms. Lee and Ms. Ling than they have about an American reporter, Roxana Saberi, who was recently convicted of espionage in Iran. The strategy is partly a gamble that not provoking the North Koreans may lead to a speedy resolution, analysts say, but it's also a sign of the increased uncertainty in dealing with Pyongyang.

U.S. officials have said little about the journalists' situation, but have indicated they aren't making progress with Pyongyang. A person not in government who is familiar with the situation said that North Korea isn't talking to the U.S. at all.

Here's from a McClatchy story (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

North Korea appears to be holding the women in a protocol house in Pyongyang.

"The rumor was that they are being housed at one of the guest villas," said Han S. Park, a University of Georgia expert who was visiting North Korea as part of a private U.S. delegation after the women were captured. Park told CNN International that the North Koreans scoffed at any suggestion that the Americans were receiving harsh treatment.

"They laughed. 'We are not Guantanamo.' That's what they said," Park said.

Still, it's a worrisome situation. Washington has far more dialogue and slowly warming relations with Tehran. More importantly, both governments had something at stake in ensuring the Saberi incident didn't become the Saberi fiasco.

Not so with Lee and Ling, and the U.S. and North Korean governments. Even if the Swedish diplomat who conducts relations for the U.S. managed to negotiate for their release, he'd have few obvious carrots or sticks to reach for, and the DPRK would have little reason to be magnanimous. 

I also hope the U.S. considers releasing or charging the foreign journalist it has in custody in Iraq. The U.S. says that Reuters photographer Ibrahim Jassam, arrested in a raid on his home in September, poses a threat to security and continues to hold him -- despite an Iraqi court ruling this winter that he should be freed. 

For lists of and information on currently imprisoned reporters, see here and here. (The worse offender in the detention of journalists? China.)

STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

Belarussian President Aleksandr Lukashenko's PR machine kicked into overdrive yesterday during a meeting with Pope Benedict. RFE/RL's Luke Allnut notes that the Belarussian strongman's adorable son Nikola stole the show at the event: "Resplendent in a white cardigan among the papal grays and purples... playing with a football and presenting the pope with his ABC's book." It certainly sounds like Lukashenko is getting his money's worth from his top-shelf British spin-doctors.

Belarussian opposition leader Anatoly Lebedko put the meeting in context for the AP:

"Lukashenko's main goal is to improve his image and to receive absolution from the pope ahead of the EU summit in Prague, where many European politicians will not extend a hand to the Belarusian dictator," he said.

On this site last week, David Kramer and Irina Krasovskaya (whose husband was "disappeared" by the Lukashenko regime) argued that the E.U.'s efforts to reach out to Belarus were ill-advised and would only lead Lukashenko to crack down more on political dissent. 

Most E.U. leaders, at least, seem fairly embarassed by the prospect of standing next to Lukashenko. Some even say they won't shake his hand. Even Silvio Berlusconi, who became the first Western European leader in 14 years to meet with him yesterday, didn't hold a press conference and made it clear that he would press Lukashenko on human rights. On the other hand, the Vatican said only that some "internal problems" were discussed at the Pope's meeting but in a "positive climate"

What is Benedict thinking? There are certainly times when talking with human rights abusers can be productive. But the Pope isn't a realist, nor should he be. Unlike national leaders he's in a position to act as a voice of conscience without worrying about political expediency. 

Considering the bad press he's gotten over the last few months, it couldn't have hurt the pope to say a few words in public about Lukashenko's stiffling of free speech and dissent in Belarus. Instead, he gave the dictator a photo-op to die for without a critical word. 

Given the role his predecessor played in dispatching authoritarian governments from the rest of Eastern Europe, Benedict's conduct was especially shameful. 

CHRIS HELGREN/AFP/Getty Images

With the glut of new information about "enhanced interrogations" and the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody -- the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee reports especially -- it's been very hard to keep track of who knew what and when.

To help sort it all out, I created a timeline showing new information in italics. 

Look for more today...

I asked Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch and a former Clinton administration official, to work through some of the foreign policy implications of the newly released torture memos with me.

We discussed whether the Bush administration memos encouraged other countries to torture, or led to any global uptick in "enhanced interrogation" practices. "I've always tried to be careful not to suggest that countries like Egypt or China or Uzbekistan would be torturing more because the United States was setting a bad example. Obviously, dictatorships torture for their own reasons, and they didn't need [former U.S. President] George W. Bush to show them how," he says.

But, the Bush administration torture of detainees and disavowal of the Geneva Conventions did preclude diplomacy on many occasions, Malinowski says. He testified before the Helsinki Commission in 2007 to make the point:

A couple of years ago, Human Rights Watch was meeting with the Prime Minister of Egypt, and we raised a case in which hundreds of prisoners rounded up after a terrorist bombing were tortured by Egyptian security forces.   The Prime Minister didn't deny the charge.  He answered, "We're just doing what the United States does."  We've had Guantanamo and the administration's interrogation policies thrown back in our face in meetings with officials from many other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and Lebanon.  U.S. diplomats have told us they face the same problem.  A U.S. ambassador to a leading Middle Eastern country, for example, has told us that he can no longer raise the issue of torture in that country as a result. 

Malinowski says the detainee abuse made it difficult for the White House to negotiate any human rights provisions or issues, broadly. "Issues beyond torture were effected, because it enabled authoritarian governments to say, ‘You have no right to lecture us,'" he says. "They were delighted to tweak the United States on it."

The biggest offender? Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who Malinowski described as a "world champion" of chiding the United States via its own policies.

Nevertheless, Malinowski thinks that, despite the horrible details revealed by the Bush administration and International Committee of the Red Cross memos, ultimately their release is a very good thing for the Obama administration.

[Obama] can go to a country like Turkey or Indonesia or Egypt and say, "Look, I know what it's like to face real security threats, and we as Americans understand the temptation to give up some of our liberties and principles to defend ourselves against those threats. But what we've learned the hard way in the last eight years is that those liberties and principles actually make us stronger. You could learn from our example."

That's a much more effective way of arguing the point than going to those same countries and saying, look at our perfect system and our glorious morality, and maybe someday you can be as good as we are. So I think if he uses the experience as a cautionary tale, it will actually make our country a more effective and compelling champion of human rights around the world, ironically.

Here's to hoping so.

Photo: Entrance to Bagram Air Base by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

All of Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee's just-declassified memo on the interrogation of Al Qaeda commander Abu Zubayda makes for pretty chilling reading. But for me, the extensive discussion over the circumstances under which it would be permissible to lock him in a box with an insect (he apparently was known to have a fear of them) really stands out as evidence of officials having completely lost touch with reality:

In addition to using the confinement boxes alone, you also would like to introduce an insect into one of the boxes with Zubaydah. As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure that you are outside the predicate act requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, then, in order to not commit a predicate act, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death. [Redacted section] so long as you take either of the approaches we have described, the insect's placement in the box would not constitue a threat of severe physical pain or suffering to a reasonable person in his position. 

The rest of the memos are here.

The New York Times reports that China is facing a gender imbalance of 32 million among under-20s, because Chinese women often abort female fetuses due to the country's strict one-child policy.

The researchers, who analyzed data from a 2005 census, said the disparity was widest among children ages 1 to 4, a sign that the greatest imbalances among the adult population lie ahead. They also found more distortion in provinces that allow rural couples a second child if the first is a girl, or in cases of hardship.

Those couples were determined to ensure they had at least one son, the researchers noted. Among children born second, there were 143 boys for 100 girls, the data showed.

Terrifying. 

Is this a joke? After denying the Dalai Lama a visa to attend an international peace summit in South Africa, the country today announced that it would award Fidel Castro its top honor, the Order of Companions of O. R. Tambo In Gold. Previous awardees include Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Okay, okay, I know that the Cuba's revolutionaries were tight with South Africa's anti-apartheid left back in the day. (both countries championed the non-aligned movement). But in 2009, isn't that day over yet?

Sigh. It's a moments like this when even the news wires get a little fiesty. 

South Africa, which prides itself as a model of democracy and human rights, drew fire from opposition parties this week when it denied a visa to Tibet's spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, who was due to attend a peace conference."

A well respected South African journalist put it more bluntly: 

Human Rights and democracy are no longer the cornerstones of our foreign policy. We prefer countries with entrenched, unelected, self-perpetuating leadership. Ignore the dull thud of rifle butts."

(Hat tip: Passport reader Eric Jon Magnuson)

ODD ANDERSEN/AFP/Getty Images

In a press release, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice announce the withdrawal of the "enemy combatant" definition of Gitmo detainees. The memo says that, under President Obama's orders, the department is reviewing detention policy:

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."

The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government’s position as it develops a comprehensive policy.

The memo states that the government will no longer detain combatants who provided "insignificant or insubstantial" support to al Qaeda or the Taliban. (The Bush administration came under fierce criticism for holding persons with little or no connection to the terrorist organizations.) More than 200 remain incarcerated at Camp Delta; it's unclear if any -- or how many -- will be released under the new legal standards. 

Photo: Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images

In a report made public today in The Guardian, a U.N. watchdog castigates Britain for its role in facilitating the United States' torture of detainees in secret prisons: 

The Special Rapporteur remains deeply troubled that the United States has created a comprehensive system of extraordinary renditions, prolonged and secret detention, and practices that violate the prohibition against torture and other forms of ill-treatment. This system required an international web of exchange of information and has created a corrupted body of information which was shared systematically with partners in the war on terror through intelligence cooperation, thereby corrupting the institutional culture of the legal and institutional systems of recipient States.

While this system was devised and put in place by the United States, it was only possible through collaboration from many other States. There exist consistent, credible reports suggesting that at least until May 2007 a number of States facilitated extraordinary renditions in various ways. States such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Indonesia, Kenya, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have provided intelligence or have conducted the initial seizure of an individual before he was transferred to (mostly unacknowledged) detention centres in Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Thailand, Uzbekistan, or to one of the CIA covert detention centres, often referred to as “black sites”. In many cases, the receiving States reportedly engaged in torture and other forms of ill-treatment of these detainees.

The special rapporteur, Martin Scheinen, states that British intelligence officers interviewed detainees in "so-called safe houses where they were being tortured" and that they "conducted or witnessed just over 2,000 interviews in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq." He calls for whistle-blower protections and the revision of numerous policies to safe-guard human rights. The revelations aren't that revelatory, given past reports on the participation of European countries in rendition and "enhanced interrogation." But the tone's especially fire-and-brimstone in this iteration.

And, the report comes as concern over the Britain'ss collusion in the mistreatment of detainees comes to a fever pitch. Last month, Binyam Mohammed, a British national arrested in Pakistan, returned to the U.K. after seven years of detention. He told papers, "Mentally right now, the result of my experience is that I feel emotionally dead....When I realised that the British were co-operating with the people torturing me, I felt completely naked. They sold me out."

Additionally, members of parliament are calling for the government to release classified documents which detail its cooperation and participation with U.S. interrogators. And the country is considering accepting more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, to hasten its closure.

All in all, it's an issue that's received an extraordinary amount of attention and garnered extraordinary public debate in Great Britain -- even more so than in the United States. And it isn't good news for poor Prime Minister Gordon Brown, just coming off the worst week ever.

Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images