This past Sunday, U.S. President George Bush saidthat the United States is committed to eliminatingtorture worldwide. He has been making similarstatements for a number of years now. Whether thisstatement is true or not depends on several things.

One is how exactly does the President define torture?Another is what does he mean by the United States?If by the U.S. he means its people, then no doubt thereare many who are dedicated to working for a betterworld, one where torture has been abolished. On theother hand, if he means his administration he is aboutas credible as Clifford Olsen would be saying that hewas committed to ending serial killings, or Joe Stalinclaiming that he was opposed to purges.

Last year the Bush administration produced a memoadvising that torture was legally defensible. The AbuGhraib scandal has highlighted the use of torture byU.S. troops, and persistent reports from a number ofareas including from within the U.S. military indicatethat Abu Ghraib was not an exception.

There is alsomuch speculation that the responsibility for torturingprisoners climbs much higher up the chain ofcommand than the administration would have theworld believe. According to Amnesty International, theU.S. Army has used training manuals on torture at itsSchool of the Americas where military personnel fromall over the hemisphere are trained, and U.S.companies supply torture equipment to repressiveregimes world wide.

More recently, much fuss hasbeen made over the U.S. practice of sending detaineesto foreign countries where they can be tortured withimpunity. The case of Canadian Maher Arar whowas reportedly tortured in Syria is but one examplewhere the U.S. government has taken someone andsent them to a foreign prison. And currently, theItalian courts have issued a warrant for the arrest of13 CIA officers for the kidnapping of a person in Italywho was transported to Egypt and reportedly tortured .

Contrary to Bush’s rhetoric, the U.S. has also been amajor stumbling block in the world’s attempt to buildeffective institutions to deal with the problem of tortureand war crime. In 2002, it opposed the strengtheningof the UN Convention Against Torture, joining suchstalwarts of freedom and humanity as Libya, Syriaand Saudi Arabia. Currently, it has not only failed tosign on to the International Criminal Court and joinother more civilized nations, but threatens to withholdaid from any country that does not agree that U.S.personnel are exempt from prosecution by the court.

Far from being committed to ending torture, thepresent U.S. administration under Bush has not onlyfailed to act against torture, except when to do soaids the pursuit of some other self-serving purpose, ithas actually endorsed torture in some instances,trained people to carry it out, and suppliedimplements of torture to repressive regimes. All thewhile, it has fought international actions to controltorture and hold torturers responsible, and refuses tocooperate with most of the rest of the world toestablish and international system of justice for all.

The Bush regime’s hypocrisy on torture is also carriedover in its position on terrorism. While mounting amajor “war on terror” the U.S. has blocked prosecutionof accused terrorists in other countries. In Miami, theU.S. government tolerates, if not supports, a nest ofCuban terrorists including those like Orlando Boschand Louis Posada Carilles. Both Bosch and Posadaare implicated in the 1973 bombing of a civilianairliner over the Caribbean which killed 73 people.Posada has arrest warrants outstanding in Venezuelaand a request has been made to the U.S. governmentto extradite him to face charges. So far the Bushadministration prefers to protect this accused terroristrather than turn him over for prosecution.

Meanwhile the Spanish have in custody two menaccused of being involved in the September 11 plotagainst the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.The key witness in the case is being held somewhereby the CIA and the U.S. is refusing to give Spanishauthorities access to interview him for their case. In asimilar case earlier in Germany, U.S. refusal to allowaccess to a witness resulted in the conviction of aterrorist being overturned. One has to wonder if Mr.Bush really is committed to ending terror, why he willnot allow witnesses to provide information in theprosecution of terrorists.

The answer is that the so called war on terror ismerely a device meant to manipulate the population.In reality, the U.S. war on terror is actually a warbetween terrorists, and political and economicadvantage, not justice, is the driving motivation. Ascan be plainly seen from U.S. actions in Iraq andaround the globe, terror and torture are tools of thetrade, despite the official rhetoric and flag waving toamuse the gullible. The U.S. which likes to fancy itselfthe world’s leading democracy may also be leading inhypocrisy.