Now we know for sure: Polish authorities knew of and approved of

the use of facilities on Polish territory by the CIA – aka/‘black sites.’

Former President Kwaśniewski Admits He Approved CIA Prisons (Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland)

“It was not we who detained the terrorists; not we who conducted the interrogations. We assumed that our allies were respecting the law. If something outside the law had been taking place, the Americans are responsible and it is they who should be held accountable. … If a CIA agent brutally mistreated a prisoner at the Marriott hotel in Warsaw, would you accuse the hotel management as being responsible for the actions of the agent?”

-- Former Poland President Aleksander Kwaśniewski

By Ewa Siedlecka

Translated By Halszka Czarnocka

May 1, 2012

Poland - Gazeta Wyborcza - Original Article (Polish)

Aleksander Kwaśniewski admits that CIA prisons were established in Poland with the knowledge and consent of Polish authorities, including himself - as president - and Leszek Miller - as prime minister. It is an important and honest declaration.

One can only regret that it has come so late and is being forced out by the actions of the Prosecutor General’s Office, independent of the executive power. To be precise, it has been precipitated by the indictment of former Agencja Wywiadu chief Zbigniew Siemiątkowski. But better late than never.

President Kwaśniewski justifies his actions on the state of higher necessity which, in his opinion, occurred after the September 11 attacks. A “state of higher necessity” is a so-called counter-type - a situation in which something the law deems a crime doesn’t constitute a crime. In such a case, it is to sacrifice a lesser good to protect a higher one. To me this is an unconvincing argument, because I don’t see an imminent threat that would justify allowing such disrespect for basic human rights on Polish territory. I don’t rule out the possibility that I know too little to judge. The trial should elucidate this issue.

However, President Kwaśniewski disputes his own responsibility. He adds: “It was not we who detained the terrorists; not we who conducted the interrogations. We assumed that our allies were respecting the law. If something outside the law had been taking place, the Americans are responsible for it and it is they who should be held accountable.” Then he proposes an analogy: “If a CIA agent brutally mistreated a prisoner at the Marriott hotel in Warsaw, would you accuse the hotel management as being responsible for the actions of the agent?”

A hotel director is not a president of the state, but even he is obliged to take at least minimal precautions to guarantee the safety of his guest s. And he certainly should not rent a room if he has grounds to suspect it might be used for illegal activity. Nevertheless, if the room is rented, he should keep an eye on such a guest.

The Constitution is clear about the duty of public authorities in this regard: they are responsible for establishing such laws and institutions that would protect life, liberty and other constitutional rights for anyone within Polish territory. Do if the authorities concluded an agreement with the Americans that relieved them of their duty to control the legality of CIA operations in a rented facility, then they failed to exercise their fundamental constitutional obligations. No considerations about reasons of state, obligations toward our allies or a higher necessity will change this fact.

Posted by Worldmeets.US

Asked by reporters whether the prosecutor should drop the case, Aleksander Kwaśniewski replied, “Of course”- by invoking the state of higher necessity.

SEE ALSO ON THIS:
Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland: Poland Itself Must Investigate Secret CIA Prisons
Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland: Poland Beware: American Colossus Changes Course
Le Monde, France: Report Confirms CIA Ran Secret Prisons in Poland, Romania
Le Monde, France: Governments Across Europe Investigate CIA 'Renditions'
La Jornada, Mexico: Loughner - Carriles: Two Terrorists, One U.S. Double Standard
La Stampa, Italy: Now, Italy Must Gird for the Repercussions Over CIA Convictions 

The postulate of higher necessity would have been acceptable if the case in question were about sacrificing a valuable carpet to quench a fire. But what we are dealing with here is the admission by government authorities that they enabled a situation in which a law, which is binding without exception or justification, i.e.: the prohibition of torture, was transgressed with impunity. And almost as important, as there are exceptions - it allowed the transgression of another law: the prohibition against arbitrary detention. The situation is so extraordinary, unprecedented and touches on subjects of such fundamental importance that the judgment should be left to the courts, not the prosecution. A trial of maximum transparency should be held, and public opinion - Polish as well as international -should be presented with all legal and moral arguments.

This is of the utmost importance for the debate over the limits of what is allowed in the “war against terrorism.” Some argue that it should be waged beyond the rules the humanity as hitherto established, both for armed conflict and battling crime. Are we really faced with a phenomenon in which current limits should not apply? Should the “war against terror” allow for torture? The open-ended imprisonment of people not formally indicted? The killing of people designated as dangerous by the secret services? Perhps only one rule should apply: efficiency? Many people think so. Therefore, it is worthwhile asking what a world organized along such lines would look like. The paradigm for this is the shadow economy, where tacit agreements and looking the other way not only fail to resolve anything; they lead to a breakdown of social stability.