Author Topic: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
GrandAdmiralPelleaon  11457 posts
Registered: Oct '00
Date Posted: 11/11/03 11:36am Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
I saw the interviews on BBC World in a documentary about Guantanamo Bay. I don't doubt that they were in Guantanamo and since they were released they probably weren't Al Quada militants (that's what they say themselves too BTW) but in the meanwhile their lives are destroyed.

 

-----signature-----
Vita vinum est.
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
Wer A sagt, der muß nicht B sagen. Er kann auch erkennen, daß A falsch war.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DarthKarde  7349 posts
Registered: Jun '02
7823_Darth Sidious
Date Posted: 11/11/03 12:54pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
Secondly, DK, I'm interested in hearing your reasons why citizenship matters?

I don't think that citizenship matters. It just added the comment as a statement of fact but since you bring it up I am outraged that my governmet refuse to condemn the holding of British citizens in a legal blackhole and where they may be held indefinately or subjected to trial in a kangaroo court.

But do you think that it is acceptable for people to be arrested in Pakistan and handed over to the US army in violation of Pakistani law (as I said before writs of habeas corpus have been ignored) and to be held without rights.

 

-----signature-----
The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org
The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net
Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk
Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ender_Sai  28400 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Feb '01
44324_Kyle Katarn
Date Posted: 11/11/03 1:48pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
Firstly, for DarthKarde and Mr44, regarding citizenship; the US' claim to jurisdiction is known as protective security jurisdiction, and it ranks 3rd on the "authority ladder" for jurisdiction of international law. Thus, there are two other types - territoriality and nationality, respectively - of jurisdiction for crimes that could apply. Britain has a right of primacy to try British subjects over the US military...

Now, back to our posts, Mr44;

My point would be that the Declaration is more of a promotion of an ideal, rather than an independent force of law..

Undoubtedly, yes, it's a UN Declaration so it's only as effective as the ratification and implementation of the ideals of said Declaration. Whilst it's not illegal under the Third Geneva Convention, it's certainly a widespread human rights violation. Which may not be illegal, but it's certainly of dubious morality.

However, the practice isn't that different than what is internationally recognized already...

Except for the contradiction with a key Article pertaining to human rights. Whilst the US could be aquitted legally the result puts the US at a massive disadvantage when questioning the human rights record of most other nations, like the PRC. There is no high horse anymore, and it becomes a pot : kettle : black situation.

E_S

 

-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Branthoris  661 posts
Registered: Nov '02
6473_Clone Emperor
Date Posted: 11/11/03 2:13pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
The situation at Guantanamo Bay is appalling, and the silence of the United States' allies even more so. Would the US tolerate Britain holding American citizens in a legal limbo on the Channel Islands? I don't think so. Yet the Blair government, while producing some concessions as far as the military tribunals are concerned, has essentially ignored the British citizens detained at Guantanamo for nearly two years. We have no idea what the Britons held in Cuba are accused of, they are detained indefinitely with practically no communication with the outside world, and we're supposed to be grateful that they aren't going to be killed just yet. How useful Britain's "special relationship" with the United States is.

I'll begin with the methods used to bring detainees to Guantanamo in the first place. A BBC Panorama investigation in October revealed the United States' flagrant disregard for the rule of law in detaining "suspected terrorists".

Moazzam Begg, for instance, was living in Islamabad when arrested. His house was raided by the Pakistani security services, and he was taken into American custody in Afghanistan. On application for habeas corpus, the Pakistani authorities denied all knowledge of him, and he ended up in Guantanamo Bay. He has been kidnapped by a foreign government with no legal process whatsoever, and his country (Britain) doesn't care.

Jamil Al-Banna and Jamil Al-Banna and Bisher Al-Rawi, long-term UK residents, travelled (along with Jamil Al-Banna's brother and a friend) to the Gambia last year to establish a peanut processing business. They were arrested at the airport in the capital of Banjul and taken to a succession of secret locations, where they were questioned without access to a laywer. Two of them were released; the remaining two were flown out of the country to Bagram air base, and then on to Guantanamo.

The third case is perhaps the most disgusting. In January 2002, in Sarajevo, six men accused of plotting to blow up the American and British embassies were to be released for lack of evidence. A rumour surfaced that they would instead be handed over to the United States and taken out of the country. The Bosnian Human Rights Chamber issued an order forbidding that, but it was ignored. The men were handed over into American custody and flown to Guantanamo Bay.

If anyone here thinks that this is an acceptable state of affairs, I hope they wouldn't mind if American citizens could be removed from their country at will by a foreign government, the evidence against them having been found lacking by a domestic court. That is obviously the "freedom" in whose name the "war on terror" is being fought. Worldwide kidnapping seems terrifying enough to my way of thinking.

So, then, what about the treatment of the detainees? We actually have very little information. In the old American tradition of distrusting the government, we're entitled in such circumstances to assume the worst. Journalists are not allowed access to the prisoners; their only contact with their families is through heavily censored letters, carried by the International Committee of the Red Cross. I for one will not simply take the Bush administration's word for it that the Guantanamo prisoners are being well-treated.

Especially since what little evidence we do have yields some extremely disturbing conclusions. One such piece of evidence is the January 02 photographs of detainees in the Guantanamo holding area. It's plainly obvious to anyone who observes those pictures that the prisoners have been entirely, or almost entirely, deprived of sensory input. They are pictured wearing blacked-out goggles, earmuffs, surgical masks (ostensibly to stop the spread of TB, although note that none of the American soldiers are wearing them), thick mittens, and thick hoods.

Now, the flight from Afghanistan to Cuba takes between 20 and 24 hours. Bearing that in mind, there is a strong case for concluding that the detainess pictured have been subjected to sensory deprivation torture. It is generally accepted that this was first used by the British army in the 1970s against suspected IRA members. There was an outcry after that was exposed in The Guinea Pigs, published in 1974, and the use of sensory deprivation by British forces (as far as we know) stopped. Chapter 2 can be read here and provides extensive scientific evidence of the terrible effect that sensory deprivation can have.

This post has gone on long enough, so I'll deal with the issue of military tribunals later.

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Red-Seven  7824 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Oct '99
Date Posted: 11/11/03 2:25pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
"Especially since what little evidence we do have yields some extremely disturbing conclusions. One such piece of evidence is the January 02 photographs of detainees in the Guantanamo holding area..."


Oh lord, not that bit of british yellow journalism again.

 

-----signature-----
SERENITY NOW!!
"All Shall Love Me And Despair!!"
- North Korea tells you: "Dood u r teh suq. I will r0xxorz u"
"Error of opinion maybe tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Thomas Jefferson
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Jet-Eye-Blah  906 posts
Registered: Oct '02
6510_Naga Sadow
Date Posted: 11/11/03 2:35pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
Seven, you got to admit that British journalism is far more juicier than American journalism.

wink

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Imperial_Birrer  4642 posts
Title: Former Chapter Rep Southern CO FF
Registered: Jan '03
Date Posted: 11/11/03 3:24pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
I think britsh journalism is just more nosey,The tabloids are treated like the wall street journal.

 

-----signature-----
There are two kinds of pedestrians - the quick and the dead.
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand.
Diplomacy is only saying "nice dog" until you pick up a rock.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44  15161 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 11/11/03 3:36pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees - Date Edited: 11/11/03 3:50pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
Ender,

Britain has a right of primacy to try British subjects over the US military...

Not in every case though...

right of primacy would only apply in situations that approximate the expectations of the originating government..

This is the legal standard that most military SOFA's(Status of Forces Agreement) are based upon..

For example, a military member who commits a rape would be turned over to his own government, so he could be tried according to the standrds used in his own country..

This would prevent an incident of a person having his hand chopped off as punishment, if the penalty he would face in his own country would be a couple of months in jail, for instance..

That's the whole point of having SOFA's..

However, all the above is assuming a normal civil proceeding..

During armed conflict, prisoners of war are not entitled to legal remedy..

They can be held as long as the hostilities exist, and the only protections they are afforded are the 4 guarantees of the Convention..

There is no right of primacy under international law for prisoners taken during hostilities..

That is why the status of the detainees becomes so important.. At this point, they can go either way...

However, it doesn't become an issue until the US starts initiating legal proceedings on the detainees

Next, it's certainly a widespread human rights violation.

Again, maybe not...You are assuming the US is classifying them as illegals for the purpose of trying them under a military court...

Until that route is taken, the detainees can be held according to the Geneva protocols..

Branthoris, since you are simply recycling an outside opinion, I don't know how accurate your information is..

revealed the United States' flagrant disregard for the rule of law in detaining "suspected terrorists".

Which law?

Next-Would the US tolerate Britain holding American citizens in a legal limbo on the Channel Islands?

It depends on what the individual did.. If that person openly took up arms against the British Government, then he would be held as an enemy combatant..

The rest of your post is simply a rant, which you are certainly entitled to, but doesn't neccessarily represent the facts of the situation..

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DarthKarde  7349 posts
Registered: Jun '02
7823_Darth Sidious
Date Posted: 11/11/03 3:58pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees - Date Edited: 11/11/03 4:09pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DarthKarde
Which law?

The laws of the country where they are detained for a start.

I'm glad that Branthoris raised the case of Moazzam Begg, while his situation is far from unique his case is a classic examples of the evils of Guantanamo Bay. I have some interest in his case since he was born and spent most of his life living less than 5 miles from where I do and I have seen his father on TV many times demanding action from our spineless pitiful excuse of a government.

If someone can tell me one good reason why I should not be disturbed by my government not giving a **** about our citizens being arrested and detained without rights by a country that purports to be our closest ally then I would very much like to hear it.

 

-----signature-----
The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org
The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net
Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk
Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ender_Sai  28400 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Feb '01
44324_Kyle Katarn
Date Posted: 11/11/03 6:21pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
right of primacy would only apply in situations that approximate the expectations of the originating government..

However, it'd be hard to have prepared for this agreement. Most likely, any legislation dealing with the remains of the Afghan Arabs and mujahideen would have been drafted after 1993, when Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the WTC. However, this was the Clinton Era, and during this time the US believed it was unlikely to court that kind of animosity. (It's easy, in hindsight to say that Clinton should have done more against terrorism, by the way, but when you think about it, if that's true then not one single American should have been shocked at 9/11.)

Since there was no such legislation, to argue an existing treaty covered that is at best contentious. The two other forms of jurisdiction which "outrank" protective security are territorial - where the crime was committed, and nationality, where the criminal's nationality allows for his or her State to try them locally.

Since the Gitmo guys haven't committed any crime - at least, none that they could be charged for beyond reasonable doubt territoriality can't be claimed, even as an extension of 9/11. And whilst some nations handed people over to the US under nationality principles and extradition treaties, it's not fair to assume they see this as a declared war between two states and so would it not be a stretch to argue Quirin applies if the detainees don't match the international legal definition for POW's?

That is why the status of the detainees becomes so important.. At this point, they can go either way...

Exactly, which is why we're unable to find a concise, and non-contradictory resolution, i.e. "Does this statute or that convention
apply?"

However, it doesn't become an issue until the US starts initiating legal proceedings on the detainees


I'd say that the recent petition from leading US jurists would indicate it is an issue.

As I see it, the Gitmo bay thing can be linked to a situation where a person is angry. Once you calm down, what you either did or wanted to do seems less and less like a good idea as you become more rational. More and more people are calming down from 9/11 and asking the question; Is this really just?

E_S

 

-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44  15161 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 11/11/03 6:50pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees - Date Edited: 11/11/03 6:51pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
that's just it...

You're assuming one category, I'm assuming the other...

Since the Gitmo guys haven't committed any crime

Precisely, nor are EPW's considered to be criminals..The Convention is very clear on this matter.. That's why they are categorized as prisoners of war There is no legal presumption that must be maintained..

International law specifically states that captured enemny combantants are not held to any kind of legal standard..

What will change their status is if/when the US resumes criminal procedings against the detainees, and holds them to any punitive sanctions..

That's when your jurisdictional issues would come into play..

so would it not be a stretch to argue Quirin applies if the detainees don't match the international legal definition for POW's?

Yes, but we aren't there yet..

Currently, simply holding them until hostilities are concluded is well within the US's right according to treaty..

As I see it, the Gitmo bay thing can be linked to a situation where a person is angry.

and I don't think this is exactly accurate..

What is different about this, as opposed to other conflicts is the political nature..

The combatants detaineed represent the non-linear nature of this conflict, to be sure, but the end result is no different than any standard of any previous conflict..

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Branthoris  661 posts
Registered: Nov '02
6473_Clone Emperor
Date Posted: 11/12/03 10:30am Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees - Date Edited: 11/12/03 10:42am (2 edits total) Edited By: Branthoris
It is good that Mr44 has made some attempt to debate the issue in question, as opposed to Red-Seven's providing only rhetoric.

First of all, you accuse me of "simply recycling an outside opinion". I don't know where you think I cut-and-pasted my post from. If I can't refer to outside journalism to support points made, how on earth am I supposed to back anything up?

You ask "[w]hich law" the United States has broken. The answer is the domestic law of the countries in which it has kidnapped people (note the Sarajevo case when six men were flown to Guantanamo due to lack of evidence in domestic legal proceedings). To indulge in a bit of rhetoric myself, you seem to consider only American law to have any meaning.

You state that Britain would be justified in indefinitely detaining American citizens on the Channel Islands if "that person openly took up arms against the British Government". This is not only wrong--it is not illegal under international law to fight on the losing side in a war, nor should it be--but begs the question of how this open taking up of arms is to be determined. The detainees at Guantanamo have not been brought before a competent court to determine any such question; they are are held simply because the Bush administration thinks they are "bad people" (to quote the President directly).

As for your assertion that the "rest of" my post "is simply a rant", I'll simply remind you of the Senate rule against condescending posts. Your arrogance is not helpful.

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Red-Seven  7824 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Oct '99
Date Posted: 11/12/03 11:03am Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
I'll let 44 deal with specific issues and legalities and prisoner classifications. As for the 'X-Ray Photos' scandal of early 2002, that was a long time ago. The thead where I posted in (similar subject to this thread) has since been pruned. But if you insist...

"Atrocities in Guantanamo and other Fruit Loops tales" (Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail, 2002/01/22)
"I had a nightmare that I was flying on an airplane with both a terrorist and Liberal MP John Godfrey. The terrorist tried to ignite the fuse in his shoe bomb and blow the plane to smithereens. As the other passengers jumped all over him and strapped him down with belts and ties, Mr. Godfrey leaped to his feet and started shouting, "Remember the Geneva Convention!" ... There are a lot of people who are out to catch the Americans committing war crimes. They keep at it in the teeth of all the evidence. "Torture!" screamed the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, over a picture of some Taliban fighters in shackles. ... So far, there's not a shred of evidence that the Americans have mistreated anyone, unless you call forced shaving mistreatment."


"The West's security rests safely in American hands" (Bruce Anderson, Independent, 2002/01/21)
"Yet some British newspapers, which normally know better, have been using the word "torture'' to describe the Americans' treatment of these Afghan irreconcilables. In order to remind themselves as to the meaning of the word torture, the editorial staffs ought to examine the pictures taken in the dungeons where the Taliban used to deal with its prisoners. Whips, bludgeons, flesh-tearing pincers; that was torture, and it was not administered during the brisk exigencies of a disciplined air flight. It was administered over months, and it caused hideous suffering. ... The treatment of the prisoners on Guantanamo is of a piece with the rest of the Bush administration's behaviour since 11 September. It is based on tough-minded, unillusioned realism."



"Captive Britons have 'no complaints'" (BBC News, 2002/01/21)
One would think that the Guantanamo Bay prisoners themselves would complain if they were "brutalised, tortured and humiliated" as The Mirror formulated it yesterday: "The three British al-Qaeda suspects being held at Camp X-Ray in Cuba have "no complaints" about their treatment, according to British officials who have seen them. The three are in "good physical health" and are being treated well, they reported. ... The three British nationals in the camp were "able to speak freely and without inhibition," he added. 'There is no sign of any mistreatment.'"


"X-Ray, From Close Up - The only thing tortured is the anti-American arguments" (Toby Harnden, The Wall Street Journal, 2002/01/30)
"The sad thing is that the British media don't care what's really happening. On the left, the story is a way to attack Donald Rumsfeld, who is the new European bogeyman now that it is no longer tenable to portray President Bush as an amiable doofus. ... The central rationale for Camp X-Ray is that proper interrogations need to be carried out and future al Qaeda attacks prevented. Guarding the inmates is dangerous but vital work. My own carping countrymen, who may well be saved from an atrocity in Britain as a result, stand to be among the principal beneficiaries of the exercise. But my advice to Americans would be to expect precious little thanks for it."


"Aftermath of war" (Alistair Cooke, BBC News, 2002/02/04)
"And as for the gusher of pious rage that sprang up from the dumb release of that wretched photograph of detainees shackled for a hazardous moment or two, I can only offer the first-hand testimony of a serious and respected British correspondent who's just been done there. He says, frankly, that what he saw for years in the prisons of Northern Ireland made Guantanamo look like a Holiday Inn. He found the men well-fed, with hot Muslim meals apart from various snacks and candy bars. They enjoy hot showers, they write home, they have room to jump around in. Perhaps the Pentagon would make up for its dumb blunder by releasing a new, true photograph of the whole 158 detainees standing alongside the 161 surgeons, doctors, paramedics and nurses assigned to them - 161 for 158 patients, a ration of personal medical care unknown I should think to prisoners anywhere or even I daresay to the English newspaper editors who are so outraged by the barbarity of American treatment."



Hat tip to Blogger site 'Winds of Change' for having a lot of these stories archived.

 

-----signature-----
SERENITY NOW!!
"All Shall Love Me And Despair!!"
- North Korea tells you: "Dood u r teh suq. I will r0xxorz u"
"Error of opinion maybe tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Thomas Jefferson
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DarthKarde  7349 posts
Registered: Jun '02
7823_Darth Sidious
Date Posted: 11/12/03 11:57am Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
The issue of torture is a foolish one to bring up, there are no facts to back it up and as such it undermines the genuine arguements against locking people up without rights.

 

-----signature-----
The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org
The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net
Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk
Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Branthoris  661 posts
Registered: Nov '02
6473_Clone Emperor
Date Posted: 11/12/03 12:50pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
Well, if anyone in this thread is "recycling an outside opinion", it's Red-Seven. But I'll answer each of his quotes in turn (that is, as they appear in his post, as I don't have time to search out each original article). For brevity's sake, I will respond only to arguments and not to rhetoric.

"Atrocities in Guantanamo and other Fruit Loops tales" (Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail, 2002/01/22)

"I had a nightmare that I was flying on an airplane with both a terrorist and Liberal MP John Godfrey. The terrorist tried to ignite the fuse in his shoe bomb and blow the plane to smithereens. As the other passengers jumped all over him and strapped him down with belts and ties, Mr. Godfrey leaped to his feet and started shouting, "Remember the Geneva Convention!" ... There are a lot of people who are out to catch the Americans committing war crimes. They keep at it in the teeth of all the evidence. "Torture!" screamed the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, over a picture of some Taliban fighters in shackles. ... So far, there's not a shred of evidence that the Americans have mistreated anyone, unless you call forced shaving mistreatment."
The evidence is in the photographs of January 02. The points I have made about sensory deprivation have not been refuted. I suppose the pro-Guantanamo brigade think that if they keep repeating "there is no evidence of mistreatment" enough times, enough people will believe it. They may well be right. The tactic of repeating lies to make them believable was used by Hitler to great effect.

The rest of this is quotation useless rhetoric; the 'terrorist on the plane' scenario is utterly irrelevant to the treatment of detainees.

"The West's security rests safely in American hands" (Bruce Anderson, Independent, 2002/01/21)

"Yet some British newspapers, which normally know better, have been using the word "torture'' to describe the Americans' treatment of these Afghan irreconcilables. In order to remind themselves as to the meaning of the word torture, the editorial staffs ought to examine the pictures taken in the dungeons where the Taliban used to deal with its prisoners. Whips, bludgeons, flesh-tearing pincers; that was torture, and it was not administered during the brisk exigencies of a disciplined air flight. It was administered over months, and it caused hideous suffering. ... The treatment of the prisoners on Guantanamo is of a piece with the rest of the Bush administration's behaviour since 11 September. It is based on tough-minded, unillusioned realism."
The fact that torture varies in gravity does not change its meaning. Sensory deprivation for extended periods of time does amount to torture, regardless of the fact that the Taliban found even worse ways of mistreating people.

As for "tough-minded, unillusioned realism", one could equally well say that it motivated the September 11th hijackers. The phrase is meaningless excrement.

"Captive Britons have 'no complaints'" (BBC News, 2002/01/21)

One would think that the Guantanamo Bay prisoners themselves would complain if they were "brutalised, tortured and humiliated" as The Mirror formulated it yesterday: "The three British al-Qaeda suspects being held at Camp X-Ray in Cuba have "no complaints" about their treatment, according to British officials who have seen them. The three are in "good physical health" and are being treated well, they reported. ... The three British nationals in the camp were "able to speak freely and without inhibition," he added. 'There is no sign of any mistreatment.'"
Journalists are not allowed access to the detainees; their words cannot be directly reported. Hearsay, delivered by agents of American allies, does not outweigh clear photographic proof.

Note that the BBC Panorama programme which I referred to previously contains plenty of complaints from persons who have been in American custody. Try this, from the transcript, on for size:

WHITE: But Alif Khan was transported from Afghanistan to Guantanamo. This is his testimony.

KHAN: They put cuffs and tape on my hands, taped my eyes and taped my ears. They gagged me. They
put chains on my legs and chains around my belly. They injected me. I was unconscious. I don’t know
how they transported me. When I arrived in Cuba and they took me off the plane they gave another
injection and I came back to consciousness. I did not know how long the plane was flying for. It might
have been one day or two days. They put me onto a bed on wheels. I could sense what was going on. They
tied me up. They took me off the plane into a vehicle. We go to a big prison and there were cages there.
They built it like a zoo.
Moving on...

"X-Ray, From Close Up - The only thing tortured is the anti-American arguments" (Toby Harnden, The Wall Street Journal, 2002/01/30)

"The sad thing is that the British media don't care what's really happening. On the left, the story is a way to attack Donald Rumsfeld, who is the new European bogeyman now that it is no longer tenable to portray President Bush as an amiable doofus. ... The central rationale for Camp X-Ray is that proper interrogations need to be carried out and future al Qaeda attacks prevented. Guarding the inmates is dangerous but vital work. My own carping countrymen, who may well be saved from an atrocity in Britain as a result, stand to be among the principal beneficiaries of the exercise. But my advice to Americans would be to expect precious little thanks for it."
18 months is plenty of time for "proper interrogations" to be carried out. Non-tyrannical countries generally limit interrogations to around 96 hours prior to criminal charges (and do not allow torture purely for the purposes of information gathering, something that would make them no better than Saddam Hussein).

"Aftermath of war" (Alistair Cooke, BBC News, 2002/02/04)

"And as for the gusher of pious rage that sprang up from the dumb release of that wretched photograph of detainees shackled for a hazardous moment or two, I can only offer the first-hand testimony of a serious and respected British correspondent who's just been done there. He says, frankly, that what he saw for years in the prisons of Northern Ireland made Guantanamo look like a Holiday Inn. He found the men well-fed, with hot Muslim meals apart from various snacks and candy bars. They enjoy hot showers, they write home, they have room to jump around in. Perhaps the Pentagon would make up for its dumb blunder by releasing a new, true photograph of the whole 158 detainees standing alongside the 161 surgeons, doctors, paramedics and nurses assigned to them - 161 for 158 patients, a ration of personal medical care unknown I should think to prisoners anywhere or even I daresay to the English newspaper editors who are so outraged by the barbarity of American treatment."
First of all, "a hazardous moment or two" is not what we are talking about. We are concerned with a 20-24 hour flight from Afghanistan.

So then, the men "enjoy hot showers". It's good to know that they are washed from time to time and are not left to wallow in their own excrement. It's also good to know that they are not forced to shower in freezing water.

I am well aware that the men "write home". However, since some have been separated from their families from over 18 months, this is hardly a great privilege. Especially considering that the letters are heavily censored (which, of course, makes it impossible to ascertain how they are really being treated).

Finally, it's good that the men have "room to jump around in" and are not shackled day and night. But these three, extremely basic provisions do not detract in the slightest from the evidence of mistreatment.

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History