The Other Gitmo: Where's the Outrage?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Other Gitmo: Where's the Outrage?
By Mary Anastasia O'Grady | The Wall Street Journal
October 7, 2005; Page A17 | Conditions at the prison at Guantánamo are inhumane. Inmates are deprived their right to religious worship, receive scant nutrition and suffer constant verbal and physical abuse from guards. It's a humanitarian outrage.

I refer, of course, to Castro's Guantánamo Provincial Prison in Cuba proper, the prison across the fence from the U.S. naval base compound holding the terrorists. Fidel's lock-up makes the U.S. prison look like a five-star tropical resort.

Torture, deprivation and isolation of political prisoners at the "other" Guantánamo -- or at any of Fidel's gulags across the island -- are no secret. They've been loudly denounced by prisoners' families and reported by Cuba's independent journalists. But foreign journalists have paid little attention. It seems they're too busy shredding their hankies over whether enemy combatants at the naval base have enough honey glaze on their chicken.

International apathy toward the plight of the political prisoners is just what Fidel Castro counts on. As the dissident movement has expanded in the past decade, El Maximo Lider has found it necessary to strike at it with excessive force from time to time. But when his repression becomes too public, he has to back off. [Castro's Guant[aacute]namo]

A hunger strike at the Guantánamo prison, which ended earlier this week, makes the point. Political prisoners Victor Arroyo and Felix Navarro stopped eating on Sept. 10 and 13 respectively, to protest the extreme cruelty administered by Guantánamo prison director Lt. Col. Jorge Chediak Pérez and "rehabilitation" expert Juan Armesto.

As the strike headed toward a fourth week, dozens of Cuban human rights advocates from all over the island were on their way to the prison in a show of solidarity. On Sept. 29, the EU called on the government to "improve the conditions of detention of these individuals and other political prisoners who are being held in circumstances that fall below the U.N. Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners."

On Monday, as the strikers showed no sign of relenting, Fidel blinked. The two men were removed from Guantánamo. Mr. Arroyo was taken away in an ambulance because he was so feeble, while Mr. Navarro traveled by car. Sources on the island say that Mr. Arroyo is now at the prison hospital in Holguin and Mr. Navarro is at the prison hospital in Bayamo.

In an honest world, the cases of Mr. Arroyo and Mr. Navarro would have raised an international outcry a long time ago. The men were arrested along with more than 70 others in the regime's March 2003 crackdown on journalists, opposition leaders, librarians and writers. All were taken into custody, given summary trials and handed extreme sentences.

A review of the 53-year-old Mr. Arroyo's arrest record shows the regime's pathetic paranoia. One example: In 2000 he was jailed for possessing some toys that he planned to distribute to poor children. The charge? "Hoarding public goods." His real crimes are for things like being director of the Union of Independent Cuban Journalists and Writers and managing one of the most important independent libraries in the country. In March 2003, Mr. Arroyo was working as a journalist in Pinar del Río, when he was detained. On April 7, 2003, he was sentenced to 26 years in prison for "acts against state security."

Mr. Navarro, who is 52-years-old, has an equally "dangerous" profile. An educator for some 20 years, in 1999 he founded the Pedro Luis Boitel Democracy Movement, which led to numerous arrests. His April 2003 conviction for "acts against state security" won him a 25 year sentence.

Mr. Navarro's identification with the heroic Boitel explains a lot about the prisoners and about Fidel's decision to yield to their strike. Boitel was a close prison friend of Armando Valladares, who spent 22 years in Cuban gulags. In his memoir, "Against All Hope," Mr. Valladares wrote of Boitel that he was "the most rebellious of Cuban political prisoners." In 1972, he had gone on a hunger strike to protest prison conditions. After 47 days of no food Boitel was gravely ill. But it was Castro's decision to deny him water that sealed his fate. He died on day 53.

Later, according to Mr. Valladares, the prisoners learned that Castro had given the order to "get rid of Boitel so he wouldn't make anymore [expletive] trouble." In a telephone conversation from Miami this week, Mr. Valladares reminded me that through it all "the international community kept silent."

Like Mr. Valladares and Boitel before them, Messrs. Arroyo and Navarro protested Guantánamo's filth, beatings, bad food, lack of water and use of common criminals to terrorize political prisoners. And like their predecessors, their complaints were met with violence.

In December 2003, Mr. Arroyo's opinions earned him a savage beating by three jailers, who also slammed a door on his leg to cripple him. In September 2004, when he was told his cell would be searched, he asked to be present to ensure that nothing would be planted. For that request, the food that had been brought by his family was confiscated and his few belongings trashed. He was then placed in a "punishment cell," which is a solitary confinement cell too small to lie down in, with no windows and a steel door. He was kept there for 15 days. Mr. Navarro was also thrown in the punishment cells for objecting to inhumane conditions.

The men wrote letters to the government to draw attention to ruthlessness of Armesto and jailer Chediak Perez, but to no avail. That's when they took up the mantle of Boitel.

Castro didn't respond until it looked like the strikers might embarrass him by dying. On Tuesday, Mr. Arroyo's sister reported that Cuban officials in Holguin promised him "a just treatment." But the fact that it had to go so far before the Castro would agree to basic humanitarian principles reveals much about the dictator that so many Americans admire


Yet all we constantly here is how great Cuba is and how terrible the US is. Talk about hypocrisy.

[Xiahou]

But Gawain, they have free healthcare! ~:joker:

[Watchman]

It's a (purportedly) communist (definitely) dictatorship. Nobody expects too much of it.

The US, last I checked, wasn't. See the difference ?

[Kanamori]

The reputation of a State does not change the morality or immorality of its actions. The difference of reputation is moot to that point. That Cuba has done worse than gitmo for decades seems to increase the hypocrisy of those who ignore them and critisize the US. The point is that people should be putting more pressure on them for their worse and continued harms, but they do not.

[Devastatin Dave]

Since the Media tend to tilt to the left and many leftists have a boner for the ever-so-lovable Castro, you won't hear much about it. But of course, they also have free healthcare as its been pointed out earlier in this thread!!!:bow:

[Papewaio]

So the defense is that Cuba has done the equivalent?

Are you saying that the USA has social/moral/political parity with Cuba?

That USA's best defence is to compare itself to a nation itself considers a social pariah?

Wow :ahh: :ballchain: :stupido2:

[Adrian II]

Talk about hypocrisy.The situation in Iran is far worse, therefore I regularly post messages about abuse, violation of human rights, lack of fair trial and basic democratic principles in Iran. And how about China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan? I never hear you complain about their Gitmo's. We can't cover them all, can we?

The fact of the matter is that Castro is not nearly as powerful or influential as the President of the U.S. and that he does not invade nations in an attempt to set standards for mankind and create chaos and instability in the course of it. So sorry, Cuba will have to wait.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

For the last time, THE CONDITIONS OF GITMO ARE FIVE THOUSAND TIMES BETTER THAN WHAT THE INMATES DESERVE.

There.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The fact of the matter is that Castro is not nearly as powerful or influential as the President of the U.S. and that he does not invade nations in an attempt to set standards for mankind and create chaos and instability in the course of it. So sorry, Cuba will have to wait.



Yes we must conquer and civilize the US first. LOL.

[Adrian II]

Yes we must conquer and civilize the US first. LOL.Americans will see to that, give or take a few years. They always have.

[TheSilverKnight]

For the last time, THE CONDITIONS OF GITMO ARE FIVE THOUSAND TIMES BETTER THAN WHAT THE INMATES DESERVE.

There.

No offence Capo, but do you really think that little outburst is going to change anyone's minds? :hide: You'd do better to state your opinion clearly and not angrily ~;) Anger isn't good, it gives you high blood pressure

[Kaiser of Arabia]

No offence Capo, but do you really think that little outburst is going to change anyone's minds? :hide: You'd do better to state your opinion clearly and not angrily ~;) Anger isn't good, it gives you high blood pressure
My goal isn't to change peoples minds, but to annoy them to the point that they give up. If I wanted to change they're mind that post would be maybe 5 paragraphs long.

[TheSilverKnight]

My goal isn't to change peoples minds, but to annoy them to the point that they give up. If I wanted to change they're mind that post would be maybe 5 paragraphs long.

Hmm...well that certainly was annoying, I'll give you that. But I'm going to have to go with the conditions at Gitmo are just slightly worse than what they could be...I'm not gonna give up, but your statement did annoy me ~;) good job ~D

[bmolsson]

Yet all we constantly here is how great Cuba is and how terrible the US is. Talk about hypocrisy.

Who says that Cuba is great ?? I missed that one out.... ~:confused:

[mystic brew]

No no.
I'm impressed by Kaiser's moral clarity. The abiltiy to decide what all these prisoners deserve without having met them, tried them or put them through tribunals is a great ability. I think we should utilise it more. Kaiser for Attorney General, perhaps?

Pashtun poets, for example, are a great threat to the American way of life.
http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=8413

But yes, the other guantanamo is regularly condemned by Amnesty International among others. However, Cuba isn't the land of the free. It's the land of the dictator.

I would harbour suspicion that the outrage towards guantanamo that many American's feel is due to their own government acting in a way that many believe is contrary to international law... This government that many will have voted for.

You work to change those things you see most clearly, perhaps.

[Proletariat]

Who says that Cuba is great ?? I missed that one out.... ~:confused:

JAG or Soulforged are more than willing to extol Cuba's greatness, I'm sure.

[LeftEyeNine]

Basic Achilles Heel of Communism, it has to strive to survive - that is generally by means of despotism and dictatorship.

People should try to understand that Communism is nothing but a dream..

Just Like what Putin once said :

"Accept it, Communism was a good song at least.."

Yes it sounds good but you need constant oppression to make it survive..

Old mighty USSR, Cuba, China, Northern Korea ? Why do these countries have such similar characteristics ?

Hell yeah, Communism sounded good - no more than that.. Capitalism, unfortunately, knocks out another opponent. I'm excited to see what will the next alternative be (or ever will any be ?)

[Lemur]

Let's start printing the t-shirts now: "We're better than Cuba. Yay."

[Soulforged]

JAG or Soulforged are more than willing to extol Cuba's greatness, I'm sure.
Oh no please don't talk me about Cuba...ahhhhhh!!~:eek: No really I cannot defend Castros regime, but we'll see what happens when he's out, I expect that capitalism is not implemented, there are better ways to end with society.
Besides I've never defended Catro nor Stalin, it will be blind to do that...

[solypsist]

what vociferous discussion

https://img484.imageshack.us/img484/156/rcrowegladiator47tl.jpg

[ichi]

wow, so we're not quite as bad as a brutal communist dictator.

Thanks for pointing that out.

There's lots of places in the world, some supported by the US, where conditions are extremely inhumane. I'm outraged by them. I'm also outraged that my government not only condoned torture, but relied on it.

I think the US is better than that, its what sets us apart and above the animals out there.

ichi:bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think the US is better than that, its what sets us apart and above the animals out there.


Well it seems many dissagree with you. They like you think for some rason the US should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. However they dont see the US as better than most but worse somehow.

[Watchman]

Well, when a democratically run country likes to make claims about "defending freedom and human rights" and so on, as the USA is wont to, there's the thing that people tend to expect it to make an effort to adhere to those lofty claims and not throw them out of the window the second it suits them. And they also tend to get quite sarcastic, at the very minimum, when overmuch liberties are taken in upholding those principles in its own actions...

"Your walk walks and your talk talks, but your walk talks more than your talk walks," right ?

Besides, where is it even theoretically possible to effect a change by affecting the public opinion - the USA or Cuba ? Quite so. Yelling at Cuba would quite simply be a waste of time and breath; yelling at the US at least might have some effect.

[bmolsson]

Well it seems many dissagree with you. They like you think for some rason the US should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. However they dont see the US as better than most but worse somehow.

You need to get the picture straight here on expectations.

If Cuban police beats somebody, I couldn't care less.
If Indonesian police beats somebody, I would be upset.
If US police beats somebody, I would make a nifty post in the backroom.
If Swedish Police beats somebody, I would go to Stockholm and throw rocks at the National Police head quarter.

So, I don't put my expectations on US so very high, but still above Cuba...... ~:cool:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

'lo and behold. Another "They do it, so we can too!" argument

No we dont do it and thats the difference.

[Ronin]

the situation in cuba has been going on for years, and people all over the world have been protesting it for years.....but like any cause if loses intensity over time.

when a country that claims to be a shining light for democracy and freedom starts behaving badly and using excuses like "but that brutal dictatorship does it too....why can´t us?".....well that tends to generate a bit more noise......~:rolleyes:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Splitting hairs. We do it to a lesser degree, but we still do it.

Exactly what do we do? Is anyone or any country totally inocent in this matter? Nobody and no country is perfect. But we are certainly far better than most.


Stealing a nice ferrari and stealing a beat-up Honda Accord from the '80s are of different magnitudes, but still stealing.

Its more like stealing a ferrari vs stealing a bowl of rice. If you think there just as bad thats your problem.


Torturing people in vast quantities publicly, and torturing people in unknown quantities and concealing it from your people in the form of spin and tight-lipped officials are of different calibres, but still torturing people.

And exactly what proof do you of us doing this ? Also it depends on what you call torture. Besides that the people at Gitmo are certainly far more deserving of incarceration than those in Castros gulags.

[Ronin]

Also it depends on what you call torture.

i can´t wait for us to start discussing what we call "oral sex" again.....

i thought that the high moral level of this administration would put a stop to such excuses.~:joker:

[Adrian II]

i can´t wait for us to start discussing what we call "oral sex" again.....

i thought that the high moral level of this administration would put a stop to such excuses.~:joker:~D Good point.

[Lazul]

Yet all we constantly here is how great Cuba is and how terrible the US is. Talk about hypocrisy.

I'd say your both terrible :boxing:

[Watchman]

A valid point.

Now look, Gawain. Stop the "misunderstood-martyr-whom-everyone-picks-on" act. It is a fact of the world that open democratic societies are expected to conform to certain minimum standards of behaviour, and if they look like going the wrong way about that it is only to be expected their peers will give them a lot of flak for it. Dictatorships, totalitarian regimes etc. are in practice judged by wholly different (and by necessity rather lower) standards, and as far as those go Castro is actually from the more palatable end.

These two sets of standards aren't really compatible, beyond the general consensus that those of the latter group tend to be pretty disagreeable by those of the first.

The point here is that the USA has been slipping to the lower set of standards with worrisome regularity as of late. Well, it's not exactly a new phenomenom, but then it did get chewed on in the earlier cases too. And it's receiving its due amount of crap from the other open societies as a result.

If you don't like it, tough cookies. The world doesn't turn to your convenience. But at least can these embarassingly whiny attempts at red herring evasions.

[Kralizec]

My god, and to think that until a few moments ago I thought that Cuba was a happy place, with flowery meadows, and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles!

Surely, the whole world should turn both eyes and fix them on Cuba, and let the Bush administration do whatever they want without holding up them to certain ethical standards, like y'know, the ones they justified their invasion of Iraq with.

[ichi]

No we dont do it and thats the difference.

and I thought Cleopatra was the Queen of De Nile

You make a good point that the world needs to be more attentive to human rights abuses in places like Cuba, and you're right about the fact that everyone seems to hold the US to higher standards.

But this administration has made torture an integral part of its intelligence operations; not condoned torture, not had a few isolated incidents of rogue personnel, not slipped on a we spot or accidnetly hit their head on a door; to deny it damages credibility.

ichi:bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But this administration has made torture an integral part of its intelligence operations; not condoned torture, not had a few isolated incidents of rogue personnel, not slipped on a we spot or accidnetly hit their head on a door; to deny it damages credibility.


As I asked another poster, and your proof of all this?


The point here is that the USA has been slipping to the lower set of standards with worrisome regularity as of late. Well, it's not exactly a new phenomenom, but then it did get chewed on in the earlier cases too. And it's receiving its due amount of crap from the other open societies as a result.


This is total bullox. If you think we used to treat prisoners better you have another thing coming.

[Watchman]

As I asked another poster, and your proof of all this?I'd consider the way they're doing their damnedest to try and sink those ban-the-torture bills to be already fairly strong evidence of something smelling rotten, actually...


If you think we used to treat prisoners better you have another thing coming.Hey, if you want to start smearing the US image with lines like this I'm all for it, but AFAIK aside from assorted CIA niceties and so on you guys at least made an effort to abide by the rules and behave.

And had the decency to be ashamed of it when excesses came out, instead of trying to make it acceptable.

[mystic brew]

so i'm confused here.

Is the defence that the US isn't torturing prisoners? or that they are, but it's legal torture, so that's ok? or that they used to toture prisoners, so it's ok now? or that the Cubans torture prisoners, so we can too?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

lmao, are you truly trying to say our torturing people can be equated to a hungry man stealing a bowl of rice?


OK once more what type of torture does the US sanction?

[Watchman]

"When everything else fails, deny everything" is it ? Bah.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

"When everything else fails, deny everything" is it ? Bah.

Why dont you just take your ball and go home since youve had nothing to say in at least three threads in reply to me other than Im acting like a kindergarden kid or other such insults. It seems you simly cant answer me with anything other than rubbish.

[Watchman]

If you'd actually present arguments I'd happily argue them. However, sudden blanket denials and guilt-displacing I see no reason to address in depth.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you'd actually present arguments I'd happily argue them. However, sudden blanket denials and guilt-displacing I see no reason to address in depth.

I ask simple questions that you simply cant answer. Dont take your frustration out on me.:duel:

[Tribesman]

This is total bullox. If you think we used to treat prisoners better you have another thing coming.
So not only do you have the same standards as a typical latin American dictatorship , you have always had the same standards as a dictatorship .
Nice one Gawain , and the point you were trying to make is ????
Is it ....spending too much time reading right wing-blogs while high can affect your mind .~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So not only do you have the same standards as a typical latin American dictatorship , you have always had the same standards as a dictatorship .
Nice one Gawain , and the point you were trying to make is ????
Is it ....spending too much time reading right wing-blogs while high can affect your mind .

Keep spouting your BS its really far more amusing than bmolsons one liners~D

[Slyspy]

It's a (purportedly) communist (definitely) dictatorship. Nobody expects too much of it.

The US, last I checked, wasn't. See the difference ?

Bingo, we have a winner and so early in the thread!

BTW with the US (in fact any Western democracy) the very possibility of such things is as bad as the fact. Lets face it there has never been any convincing legal let alone moral explantation for the necessity of Gitmo.

[Slyspy]

JAG or Soulforged are more than willing to extol Cuba's greatness, I'm sure.

Wrong on one count so far. Care to try again lol?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wrong on one count so far. Care to try again lol?


Would you care to go through the archives and see just how many here have praised Cuba. I friggin doubt it.~D

[Watchman]

Red herring. Please throw it away before it begins to smell.

[Meneldil]

Well, that's how I see it :

The US keep claiming they are the 'good ones', that they want to spread democracy accross the middle-east, that they protect human rights and all that.
Yet, in reality, you see that they lie to the rest of the world to invade a foreign country, they erase cities from the face of earth with white phosphorus, put people who have not been proved guilty in jail for years and years, torture their prisonners or send them in dictatorship so they can be tortured by the local people, support some of the cruelest dictators on earth, and so on.

Now, you might try to deny it, but facts are here. A country that claims to be the White Knight of the modern world will obviously be judged on higher standards than the dictator of a poor, powerless country.

[Slyspy]

Would you care to go through the archives and see just how many here have praised Cuba. I friggin doubt it.~D

I've got to admit that a forum search for "Cuba is great" may not be comprehensive (especially as the Backroom is not searchable AFAIK) but nevertheless I got zero results.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Now, you might try to deny it, but facts are here

Well youve posted your opinion but you have stated no facts.


I've got to admit that a forum search for "Cuba is great" may not be comprehensive (especially as the Backroom is not searchable AFAIK) but nevertheless I got zero results.

Well that settles it then Just like WMDS since we cant find then they were never there even though Saddam used them on his own people. Maybe check all posts made by Jag . That is if you have time to go over 11000 posts.~D

[Meneldil]

Well youve posted your opinion but you have stated no facts.

You want me to post facts on how the US support the nice dictators of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and so on ? How your country supported Irak during the Iran/Irak conflict ?
You want me to post pics of what happened in Abu Graib (sp?)
You want me to post a link to the 'US admited to use white phosphorus in Falluja' topic ?
If these are in your opinion mere opinions, then I guess you should look for 'opinion' in a dictionnary ~:rolleyes:
Care to explain me where Saddam suddenly hide his WMD ?


Just like WMDS since we cant find then they were never there even though Saddam used them on his own people.

Oh, cause he used WMD of his own people ? That means, something among the lines of White Phosphorus ? :D

[Slyspy]

Nope, even a search for "Cuba" by poster "JAG" yields nothing. Guess we'll have to assume that the original statement was unfounded vitriol!

Any way. Good guys = no torture because it is bad, bad guys = loads of torture because it is fun. Unless we've been misled and we are also bad guys? Oh the trials and tribulations......]

As noted before expectations are different. I would not expect my vicar to beat people up any more than I would expect a football thug to hug the opposing fans.

[Watchman]

So would you like to try and logically explain the "don't ban torture" agenda of Cheney et co, Gaw ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nope, even a search for "Cuba" by poster "JAG" yields nothing. Guess we'll have to assume that the original statement was unfounded vitriol!


Yes just like saying Saddam had WMDs when we all know he did. Maybe your memory is failing but most of us know Jags position on Cuba.


So would you like to try and logically explain the "don't ban torture" agenda of Cheney et co, Gaw ?

And exactly what torture is he in favor of? You never answer what torture exactly is it that the US supports?

[Watchman]

Are you asking me to tell you what your own governement is squabbling about ? ~:confused:

[Slyspy]

Yes just like saying Saddam had WMDs when we all know he did. Maybe your memory is failing but most of us know Jags position on Cuba.

Thats me convinced. Oh yeah thats the killer argument. Buried under a mountain of proof of one (absent?) member's love of Castro's regime. You got me aargh......

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So none of you have any proof that the US is tourturing people? But dont let that stop you. Once more exactly what torture is the US sanctiong here?

[Watchman]

Conditions at the prison at Guantánamo are inhumane. Inmates are deprived their right to religious worship, receive scant nutrition and suffer constant verbal and physical abuse from guards. It's a humanitarian outrage.Well, this for starters. It's from the article you graciously linked yourself at the start...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote:
Conditions at the prison at Guantánamo are inhumane. Inmates are deprived their right to religious worship, receive scant nutrition and suffer constant verbal and physical abuse from guards. It's a humanitarian outrage.

Well, this for starters. It's from the article you graciously linked yourself at the start...


Hmm lets see here. The prison that refers to is Castros not ours. Can you say pwnd?

[Slyspy]

Bingo, we have a winner and so early in the thread!

BTW with the US (in fact any Western democracy) the very possibility of such things is as bad as the fact. Lets face it there has never been any convincing legal let alone moral explantation for the necessity of Gitmo.

Please read again. This time read the words. Thankyou.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are you speaking to me? All youve done here is state your opinion.

[Slyspy]

Thats because I have no proof that the US is actively torturing people and at no point have I said otherwise. I would like not to have to even consider the possibility. I believe, however, that the very existence of Gitmo and its ilk is a problem that has to be addressed if we are ever to be the good guys (maybe even the just the winners) in the so called war on terror. That has been my opinion from the beginning, which is why I brought my original post to your attention.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Thats because I have no proof that the US is actively torturing people and at no point have I said otherwise.

And at no point have I accused YOU of it. But many here seem to think its a foregone conclusion.


would like not to have to even consider the possibility..

We agree again.


I believe, however, that the very existence of Gitmo and its ilk is a problem that has to be addressed if we are ever to be the good guys (maybe even the just the winners) in the so called war on terror. That has been my opinion from the beginning, which is why I brought my original post to your attention.

I agree in spirit. However I put the saftey of the US above the so called rights of terrorists and unlawful combatants.

[Slyspy]

I don't care much for the rights of terrorists myself. I don't care much for paedophiles either but certainly wouldn't lynch anyone merely suspected of it. The extra-judicial nature of Gitmo pisses all over the sense of justice of which the West should be rightfully proud. How can we know that they are terrorists if there has not been due process? More importantly, will this establishment ever be shut down? The term unlawful combatants is also one with which I am uncomfortable. The war in Afghanstan, for example, is over (apparently). Either send them back or prosecute them as criminals. The same goes for suspected terrorists.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The extra-judicial nature of Gitmo pisses all over the sense of justice of which the West should be rightfully proud

Mere specualtion on your part.


How can we know that they are terrorists if there has not been due process?

There was under the articles of the Geneva convention. Would you give them access to US courts?


The term unlawful combatants is also one with which I am uncomfortable.

Again thats how the Geneva Convention classifies them. Once more these rules are made to discourage people from fighting in such a manner. If we all listen to people like Tribesman they would be treated the same as US soldiers. This is ludicrous and makes the conventions worthless. If your not going to be punished for not following the rules why follow them at all?

[Watchman]

Can you say pwnd?Eh, granted. My bad, should've read it more carefully. Okay, lessee now...


Martin Mubanga, another of the four British detainees transferred to UK custody and released a little over 24 hours later has alleged that in June 2004 he was subjected to the following treatment while shackled and lying on the floor of an interrogation room in Guantánamo:

"I needed the toilet and I asked the interrogator to let me go. But he just said ‘you’ll go when I say so’. I told him he had five minutes to get me to the toilet or I was going to go on the floor. He left the room. Finally, I squirmed across the floor and did it in the corner, trying to minimize the mess. I suppose he was watching through a one-way mirror or the CCTV camera. He comes back with a mop and dips it in the pool of urine. Then he starts covering me with my own waste, like he’s using a big paint-brush, working methodically, beginning with my feet and ankles, and working his way up my legs. All the while, he’s racially abusing me, cussing me: ‘Oh, the poor little negro, the poor little nigger.’ He seemed to think it was funny".(313)

Martin Mubanga, arrested in Zambia, transferred to Guantánamo in May 2002, and affirmed as an "enemy combatant" by the CSRT in October 2004, also described the use of temperature manipulation during interrogations, as well as isolation, withdrawal of "comfort items", beatings and other physical abuse at the detention facility.

Since the Rasul decision in June 2004, some Guantánamo detainees have been visited by lawyers representing them for their habeas corpus appeals in US courts. Some of what the detainees have said has been declassified in recent weeks, providing the first chance for their accounts of what they have been through to be made public. Unclassified details of the alleged treatment of Bahraini detainee Jum’ah Mohammad Abdul Latif Al Dossari and others are given below, as provided to Amnesty International by the lawyers for the detainees:

"Mr Al Dossari was arrested in Pakistan and held by Pakistani authorities for several weeks. Mr Al Dossari was transferred from Pakistan to Kandahar, Afghanistan via airplane by US authorities. On the plane, he was shackled by chains on his thighs, waist and shoulders, with his hands tied behind him. The chains were so tight around his shoulders that he was forced to lean forward at an extreme angle during the entire flight. This caused great pain to Mr Al Dossari’s stomach, where he had had an operation some years before. When Mr Al Dossari complained about the pain, he was hit and kicked in the stomach, causing him to vomit blood.

Upon arriving in Kandahar, Mr Al Dossari and other detainees were put on a row on the ground in a tent. US Marines urinated on the detainees and put cigarettes out on them (Mr Al Dossari has scars that are consistent with those that would be caused by cigarette burns). A US soldier pushed Mr Al Dossari’s head into the ground violently and other soldiers walked on him…"

Mohammad Al Dossari has alleged, among other things, that he was forced to walk barefoot over barbed wire and that his head was pushed to the ground on broken glass. He has alleged that US soldiers subjected him to electric shocks, death threats, assault and humiliation. He has alleged that in Guantánamo Bay, he was subjected to a violent cell extraction, possibly on 27 or 28 April 2002, in which his head was repeatedly struck against the floor by a military guard until he lost consciousness. The government of Bahrain is reported to have requested an investigation into this incident. Mohammaded Al Dossari has alleged that during interrogations he has been wrapped in Israeli and US flags, shackled to the floor ("short-shackled") for some 16 hours, and been threatened that his family in Bahrain would be killed.

Fellow Bahraini detainee Abdullah Al Noaimi has alleged that he was physically assaulted by US soldiers in Kandahar air base in Afghanistan, stripped and sexually humiliated. He says that he witnessed detainees being bitten by dogs in Kandahar. In Guantánamo, he alleged that he has been threatened with rape, injected with an unknown substance during an interrogation, subjected to sexual taunting by female personnel, and hours of being shackled in a room made freezing by air conditioning.

A number of Yemeni detainees have alleged that they and others were subjected to torture and ill-treatment in Afghanistan before their transfer to Guantánamo, where they describe the regime as abusive, punitive, slow or failing to treat medical and dental problems, and prone to violent cell extractions and religious intolerance. The latter has allegedly included repeated disrespect for the Koran, including taking detainees’ copies, insulting them, wrapping them in the Israeli flag, throwing them on the ground, and stamping on them.

Ø Mohammed Mohammed Hassen has alleged that an interrogator made him run 20 laps when he refused to talk, wounding his feet as he was still shackled. After further questioning, he alleges that he was made to run again, and subsequently put in isolation for 40 days.

Ø Several allege that interrogators have used the air conditioning to make detainees freezing cold. Yasin Qasem Muhammad Ismail says that he has been kept under the air conditioner running full blast for 18 hours. He has alleged that when held in Bagram air base in Afghanistan, US soldiers beat him, kicked him, and stood on his back and knees.

Ø Abd Al Malik Abd Al Wahab alleges that he has been forced to endure many hours of cold under air conditioners, and subjected to sleep deprivation. He states that he was threatened that unless he confessed he would be taken "underground" and would never see daylight. He has said that he had his thumb broken during beatings by US soldiers in the US air base in Kandahar in Afghanistan.
Turkish national and German resident Murat Kurnaz has alleged that when he was held in the US air base in Kandahar, interrogators repeatedly forced his head into a bucket of cold water for long periods of time, as well as subjecting him to an electric shock on his feet. He has alleged that he was held for days shackled and handcuffed with his arms secured above his head. On one occasion, he claims that a military officer loaded his gun and pointed it at Murat Kurnaz’s head, screaming at him to admit to being an al-Qa’ida associate. Murat Kurnaz also claims to have witnessed other detainee beatings, in one case that he believes may have resulted in the detainee’s death. In Guantánamo, he alleges, he has been subjected to sexual humiliation and taunting by young women who entered the interrogation room where he was shackled to the floor. When of them began to caress him from behind, he jerked his head back, hitting her head. He alleges that a response team of guards in riot gear entered the room beat him and sprayed him with pepper spray, and he was taken to isolation where he was left on the floor with his hands tied behind his back for 20 hours.

The handwritten notes of a US lawyer who met with Kuwaiti detainees in Guantánamo in January 2005 make for similarly disturbing reading:

All indicated that they had been horribly treated, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they were first held for many months after being taken into custody (in Kandahar, Kohat, Bagram). Although the words they used were different, the stories they told were remarkably similar – terrible beatings, hung from wrists and beaten, removal of clothes, hooding, exposure naked to extreme cold, naked in front of female guards, sexual taunting by both male and female guards/interrogators, some sexual abuse (rectal intrusion), terrible uncomfortable positions for hours. All confirmed that all this treatment was by Americans…

Several said pictures were taken of some of this abuse...Some of the pictures still exist and are still used by the interrogators. Many knew that the Americans had killed several people during the interrogations at these places.

Several also mentioned the use of electric shocks – like ping pong paddles put under arms – some had this done; many saw it done.

Several said they just could not believe Americans could act this way.

Tied so tightly that hands and feet swelled to much above normal size. Forced to move and assume uncomfortable positions while tied this way. Beaten with chains when would go to the bathroom. Forced to stay in positions and to urinate and defecate on self.

Were not as specific about the abuses at Guantanamo. Several indicated that the physical abuses continued at GTMO, many confirmed the use of stress positions. But most said the abuse was more subtle (that also included beatings, though, but usually types of tactics ‘that would not leave marks’). All seemed more concerned by religious persecution than physical abuse. From the outset, mocked for their religion......and...

However, it seems that any such representations were unheeded by the USA. Indeed, when the "UK Government officially asked the US authorities in May 2004 if interrogation techniques such as hooding, sleep and food deprivation had been used in Guantánamo Bay and Iraq", the US administration was unapologetic in its response, confirming "that such techniques had been authorised for a limited period – in Guantanamo Bay between November 2002 and January 2003, and in Iraq until May 2004."(326) According to the evidence still being revealed, torture and ill-treatment has been more widespread than that message would suggest.

Concerns about abusive interrogation techniques from within the USA’s own agencies appear to have been ignored. In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, and the emergence of the US administration’s memorandums on how US agents could avoid criminal liability for torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, concerns within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about techniques employed by US interrogators have come to light.(327)

FBI documents are among heavily redacted information reluctantly released by the administration pursuant to a request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others in October 2003 under the Freedom of Information Act, and a follow-up lawsuit filed in June 2004 demanding government compliance with this request. An FBI email dated 13 May 2004, for example, suggested that Major General Geoffrey Miller, who was commander of Guantánamo detentions from November 2002 to March 2004 before being made Deputy Commander for Detainee Operations in Iraq, had in Iraq "continued to support interrogation strategies we not only advised against, but questioned in terms of effectiveness… [T]he battles fought in [Guantánamo] while [General Miller] was there are on the record."(328)

An FBI email dated 22 May 2004 refers to an instruction to FBI personnel in Iraq "not to participate in interrogations by military personnel which might include techniques authorized by Executive Order but beyond the bounds of standard FBI practice". The email said that some of FBI personnel, although not themselves participating in abuse, had been "in the general vicinity of interrogations in which such tactics were being used". The email goes on to seek clarification of an instruction from the Office of General Counsel (OGC) requiring FBI personnel to report any abuse that he or she comes across:

"This instruction begs the question of what constitutes ‘abuse’. We assume this does not include lawful interrogation techniques authorized by Executive Order. We are aware that prior to a revision in policy last week, an Executive Order signed by President Bush authorized the following interrogation techniques among others: sleep ‘management’, use of MWDs (military working dogs), ‘stress positions’ such as half squats, ‘environmental manipulation’ such as use of loud music, sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc. We assume the OGC instruction does not include the reporting of these authorized interrogation techniques, and that the use of these techniques does not constitute ‘abuse’."

An FBI document from December 2004, originally classified as secret for 25 years, included the following prior observations by FBI agents:

Iraq
A detainee hooded and draped in a shower curtain, was cuffed to a waist high rail. An MP [military policeman] was apparently subjecting the detainee to sleep deprivation, as he was observed slapping the detainee lightly, as if to keep him from falling asleep;

Guantanamo Bay
A detainee’s mouth was duct taped for chanting from the Koran…military employee who applied the duct tape found it amusing;
A detainee being isolated for substantial periods of time;
Agents heard of detainees being subjected to considerable pain and very aggressive techniques during interrogations;
Agents aware of detainees being threatened…by dogs;
Agents have seen documentary evidence that a detainee was told that his family had been taken into custody and would be moved to Morocco for interrogation if he did not begin to talk.

Afghanistan
Agents are aware of detainees being subjected to interrogation techniques that would not be permitted in the United States (i.e. stress positions for extended periods of time and sleep deprivation) and to psychological techniques (i.e., loud music).

An FBI memorandum dated 14 July 2004 stated the following about the treatment of a Guantánamo detainee:

"In September or October of 2002 FBI agents observed that a canine was used in an aggressive manner to intimidate detainee #63 and, in November 2002, FBI agents observed Detainee #63 after he had been subject to intense isolation for over three months. During that time period, #63 was totally isolated (with the exception of occasional interrogations) in a cell that was always flooded with light. By late November, the detainee was evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma."(329)

Another undated FBI email described the following which allegedly occurred in February 2004 against a detainee in Guantánamo:

"[H]e was yelled at for 25 minutes. [He] was short-shackled, the room temperature was significantly lowered, strobe lights were used, and possibly loud music. There were two male interrogators, one stood behind him and the other in front. They yelled at him and told him he was never leaving here… After the initial 25 minutes of yelling, [he] was left alone in the room in this condition for approximately 12 hours… During the 12 hours, [he] was not permitted to eat, pray or use the bathroom."

An FBI email from December 2003 referred to "torture techniques" being used by the Department of Defense (DoD) in Guantánamo, and noted the FBI’s Military Liaison and Detainee Unit’s "long standing and documented position against use of some of DoD’s interrogation practices". The email expressed concern that DoD interrogators were impersonating FBI agents, and that "if this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DoD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the ‘FBI’ interrogators". The email noted that "these tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and…have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee".(330)

An FBI memorandum dated 10 May 2004 notes that law enforcement agencies at Guantánamo Bay "were of the opinion [that] results obtained from these interrogations were suspect at best". This memorandum recalls that the FBI had advised its agents who went to Guantánamo to "stay in line with Bureau policy and not deviate from that (as well as made them aware of some of the issues regarding DoD techniques"). The memorandum noted that the FBI and the Guantánamo military authorities had agreed to differ, and that "the Bureau has their way of doing business and DoD has their marching orders from the Sec Def [Secretary of Defense]". (331)...and let me tell you, there's a whole lot more where that came from (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005). And that's just Amnesty International. I haven't even checked out the other human-rights organizations yet.

In any case it ought to be fairly obvious there's a bad smell coming from somewhere. Satisfied ? Consider yourself honored, Gaw; I don't usually get irritated enough to start looking for and quoting online sources.

[Slyspy]

So innocent until proven guilty according to the law is something that should be discarded when it is deemed expedient to do so? Free, open and public trials, the use of juries and access to legal representation are mere frippery? Oh dear.

It was my belief that not all of the inmates at Gitmo are in fact "unlawful combatants" picked up in various warzones. I thought some were handed over by other countries and have as such been denied their full rights under US law while also not being covered by the Geneva Convention. I may be wrong of course.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So innocent until proven guilty according to the law is something that should be discarded when it is deemed expedient to do so? Free, open and public trials, the use of juries and access to legal representation are mere frippery? Oh dear.


For US citizens no. For enemy combatants yes.

Watchman mostly all youve listed is allegations and most of them by the detainees themselves. The next part of your post indicates that the US indeed is looking into these allegations. There is no doubt that some prisoners have been abused. But when proof of this is shown those responsible are punished. Try that In Cuba. There they probably get rewarded for coming up with better means of torture.

[Slyspy]

[QUOTE=Gawain of Orkeny]For US citizens no. For enemy combatants yes./QUOTE]

Silly me.

[Watchman]

Watchman mostly all youve listed is allegations and most of them by the detainees themselves. The next part of your post indicates that the US indeed is looking into these allegations. There is no doubt that some prisoners have been abused. But when proof of this is shown those responsible are punished. Try that In Cuba. There they probably get rewarded for coming up with better means of torture.Yeah, except for example those by the detainees' lawyers, or those by the FBI...
I'd suggest you take a look at the admittedly imposingly large document quoted. It has easily enough on the legal and political side of things too to make one seriously doubt the Adminstration's sincerity in the issue...

Anyway, I take it you're satisfied on the "exactly what torture is he in favor of" side of things ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah, except for example those by the detainees' lawyers

Oh the lawyes of the accused. Surely they have no axe to grind. As to the FBI that just proves we dont just accept such things. Again most of the stuff listed there was less torture than I recieved in bootcamp.

[Watchman]

Blanket denials again. As for the FBI, just look up the two last paragraphs from the second quote... you could say that they have an axe to grind too. The CIA, incidentally, denied everything as is customary, if I recall parts of the document correctly. And the Dept. of Defense is the one that gave the instructions to utilize dubious means to begin with...

As said, go look the thing up yourself. It was way too large, heavy and detailed to be copy-paste-quoted in anything but the most cursory manner, and I was mostly concentrating on the "what kind of torture" side of things.


Again most of the stuff listed there was less torture than I recieved in bootcamp.Like Hell you did. Doesn't mean anything, anyway - there's no "torture lite", the same way as there's no "rape lite". Both are offenses heinous enough that to question the degree of it is quite absurd.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Like Hell you did.

Is that so. Let me tell you a few things that happened to me in bootcamp and others. How about once a DI though I was talikng to another recuit. He jumped up on a table and told me to stand at attention in front of him. He them proceeded to take his M-14 and give a horizontal butt stroke. It threw me clear across the room and into a wall. A typical punishment for us all was to go outside in 90 degree weather with two mop buckets. We would fill these with sand and then be forced to hold them out at arms length for long periods of time. How about doing 1000 jumping jacks at a time is that torture? Another time they took the whole platoon into the showers. Aroom about 20 by 20 with 80 men in it. They closed all the windows , turned on the hot watr on all the shower heads and proceeded to make us all do squat thrusts. People were getting kicked in the face and bleeding. Meanwhile the DIs were throwing buckets of ammonia into the shower. Or how about the guy who forgot to put a stop on his bolt when we were all in a circle sighting in our weapons. They took this poor slob and had him stick his index fingers in the breaches of two M-14s and then made him do jumping jacks untill they fell of his fingers . As to not being allowed to go to the bathroom .It took me two weeks and a visit to the hospital before I took my first dump in bootcamp. I wasnt the only one. You never had the time. I remenr one guy asking during indoor PT for permission to go to the head. It was denied and the guy had to puke. He did so and the DIs were all over him. They said what the hell do you think youve got a T shirt for. Next time puke down your shirt and dont mess up the squad bay .In fact everyday there was torture for me. I cold go on but I hevent got the time or inclination to continue. So was I tortured or not?

[LeftEyeNine]

...Turkish national and German resident Murat Kurnaz has alleged that when he was held in the US air base in Kandahar, interrogators repeatedly forced his head into a bucket of cold water for long periods of time, as well as subjecting him to an electric shock on his feet. He has alleged that he was held for days shackled and handcuffed with his arms secured above his head. On one occasion, he claims that a military officer loaded his gun and pointed it at Murat Kurnaz’s head, screaming at him to admit to being an al-Qa’ida associate. Murat Kurnaz also claims to have witnessed other detainee beatings, in one case that he believes may have resulted in the detainee’s death. In Guantánamo, he alleges, he has been subjected to sexual humiliation and taunting by young women who entered the interrogation room where he was shackled to the floor. When of them began to caress him from behind, he jerked his head back, hitting her head. He alleges that a response team of guards in riot gear entered the room beat him and sprayed him with pepper spray, and he was taken to isolation where he was left on the floor with his hands tied behind his back for 20 hours...

We have to agree that torture is not unique to a religion, system, nation or whatever.. Look at that, I'm disgusted...

P.S. Guantanamo Nights Express would sound good for a movie title..

[Watchman]

Well, that certainly amounts to gross bullying at the very least. Nice army you have there. Out of curiosity, did you go in there by your own decision ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Again allegation only without proof. Nevermind that the AQ handbook tells them all to say they were tortured Now you would give them more ammunition to use against us.

[Watchman]

Yeah, so ? They're not the ones responsible for creating an atmosphere where there is very real reason to take such allegation seriously - that's all Made In USA, thank you very much.

[Geoffrey S]

Comparing the US favourably to Cuba? "D'oh!" springs to mind; stating that the US is less repressive than Cuba is almost totally irrelevant, since higher humanitarian standards are (and should be) expected from the upholder of democracy.

Nope, even a search for "Cuba" by poster "JAG" yields nothing. Guess we'll have to assume that the original statement was unfounded vitriol!
Isn't there a lack of a search function for backroom topics, where such a statement may have been posted?

[ichi]

There is no doubt that some prisoners have been abused. But when proof of this is shown those responsible are punished.

More accurately, scapegoats are made of those lowest level soldiers responsible for getting caught, while those who developed the system are promoted and rewarded. The highest up in this administration are experts at avoiding accountability.

ichi:bow:

[Slyspy]

Comparing the US favourably to Cuba? "D'oh!" springs to mind; stating that the US is less repressive than Cuba is almost totally irrelevant, since higher humanitarian standards are (and should be) expected from the upholder of democracy.

Isn't there a lack of a search function for backroom topics, where such a statement may have been posted?

Yes there is. I did mention it. JAG has been absent recently I believe. Probably busy smoking huge cigars while driving a classic cadillac through the streets of Havana.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

It's a (purportedly) communist (definitely) dictatorship. Nobody expects too much of it.

The US, last I checked, wasn't. See the difference ?

About what I was thinking...

[Goofball]

The reputation of a State does not change the morality or immorality of its actions. The difference of reputation is moot to that point. That Cuba has done worse than gitmo for decades seems to increase the hypocrisy of those who ignore them and critisize the US. The point is that people should be putting more pressure on them for their worse and continued harms, but they do not.

China has been a far worse human rights offender than Cuba for years, but that hasn't stopped the U.S. from falling all over itself trying to do business with China's huge potential market. I'm not saying my own country is not guilty of the same thing, but at least we aren't trying to tell people not to do business with Cuba on humanitarian grounds, then ignoring the same principle elsewhere just because there is a bigger profit in it.

What the hell is the point of this thread?

Yes Gawain, Cuba is a worse human rights violator than the U.S.

Happy?

[Tribesman]

Again allegation only without proof. Nevermind that the AQ handbook tells them all to say they were tortured
~D ~D ~D Still the same old rubbish Gawain after all this time , now could you please tell us , was this the Al-Qaida handbook that is written by an Ex-US special forces NCO or the Al-Qaida handbook that was bought from a Californian Survivalist/militia bookstore ?

[Papewaio]

Oh the lawyes of the accused. Surely they have no axe to grind. As to the FBI that just proves we dont just accept such things. Again most of the stuff listed there was less torture than I recieved in bootcamp.

So by that statement the US marines have an axe to grind with the USA government with regards to the trials then?

[Goofball]

Again allegation only without proof. Nevermind that the AQ handbook tells them all to say they were tortured Now you would give them more ammunition to use against us.

Erm...

Aren't most of the Gitmo detainees being held on "allegation only without proof?"

You don't seem to be such a stickler about proof when it comes to them, now, do you?

[Papewaio]

So innocent until proven guilty according to the law is something that should be discarded when it is deemed expedient to do so? Free, open and public trials, the use of juries and access to legal representation are mere frippery? Oh dear.


For US citizens no. For enemy combatants yes.


Interesting concept of Justice. Reverse the situation... would you like it if US citizens got treated like the people in Gitmo.

Do you think it would be okay if a relative had no access to public trial, juries. That they were considered guilty first and had to prove their innocence?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Interesting concept of Justice. Reverse the situation... would you like it if US citizens got treated like the people in Gitmo.

Do you think it would be okay if a relative had no access to public trial, juries. That they were considered guilty first and had to prove their innocence?


Again their being held according to the rules of the Geneva convention. Why dont you all join the international red cross and push for equal rights for everyone then no matter how horrible they are? Again these rules are made to discourage people from fighting in such a manner. Your position makes the Geneva Convention a mockery. If they know we have certain rules they can use against us rest assured they will. You all act like we just went around picking up people at random and sending them off to Gitmo. This is not the case. These are the worst of the worst. Many after being released have been found fighting us in other places and aprehended again. What good will all your sanctomnious posturing get you when the blow you up?


Out of curiosity, did you go in there by your own decision ?

Let me put it this way. The Marines were and usually are an all volunteer service. It was so when I joined in 68. Of course it was a nice safe time to join however.

[Papewaio]

You do realise that marine lawyers are not happy with the way things are being handled in Gitmo either...

[Spetulhu]

[QUOTE=Gawain of Orkeny]For US citizens no. For enemy combatants yes./QUOTE]

Silly me.

Equality and freedom for all of us, and to hell with the rest?

[Aurelian]

My God, we've got so much evidence by now that the US has been torturing people that the mind reels. Gawain's right about one thing though: that the US military was teaching and using torture for many years before Gitmo. They were even teaching torture techniques to South American military officers at the "School of the Americas" during the 1980s and early 1990s. The DoD admitted it in 1996 LINK (http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/manuals.htm).

Gawain, you seem to indicate that testimony of torture from prisoners and their lawyers can't be considered evidence because they have some sort of self-interest... but how can you take official denials any more seriously? Certainly, the military and the government have as much self-interest in denying abuse as any prisoner would have in laying the charges. Besides, we're constantly catching the military in that kind of lie. They do it as a matter of course. Just think of the white phosphorus denials that the government had to retract a few days ago.

Anyway, here's a link (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/15/1632233#transcript) to an interview with a US Army interrogator in Iraq who talks about some of the abuses that he witnessed and participated in during his time in Iraq. He mentions inducing hypothermia, using dogs, etc... and how frequently they were pulling innocent people off the street to make it look like they were capturing lots of terrorists. He points out what every professional interrogator knows: that you don't get good intel through torture... you get it by establishing a connection with the captive and making nice.

Just this morning there was an FBI counter-terrorism interrogator on the Today Show talking about this issue saying that you don't want to torture people because they'll give you false information to make you stop. You want to turn them by getting to know them... befriending them... so that you can go back and use them as a continuing source of information.

For US citizens no. For enemy combatants yes.

How about Jose Padilla (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5043) and Yaser Hamdi (http://www.slate.com/id/2107114/)? They were American citizens, yet into the gulag they went. They released Hamdi last year so that they wouldn't have to test the issue in court, and Padilla is still languishing in some secret prison somewhere. Essentially, they want to be able to call US citizens "enemy combatants" and hold them forever, too.

However I put the saftey of the US above the so called rights of terrorists and unlawful combatants.

You're making the argument that all tyrannies make: that national security trumps the rule of law. That's extremely un-American.

Without the rule of law, you have to trust the executive whenever they accuse somebody. That's a rejection of the entire intellectual framework behind our system. We don't just trust King Bush, or whomever, to make the call as to who should be locked up without trial or representation for the rest of their lives. Our system assumes that power is corrupting and needs to be checked and balanced.

If the Bushies can't make a reasonable case to hold somebody through our legal system I see no reason to assume that the person should be held. We know that a huge number of detainees are locked up on flimsy evidence, or no evidence. That story the other day about the two Afghan poets who were sold to the Americans and interrogated for years because they wrote an anti-Clinton satire indicates that somebody needs to be overseeing these cases.

[Aurelian]

Hmmm. New thought. Gawain, I think you are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome). It's clear from your description of the tortures you suffered in Marine bootcamp that the Marines abused you physically and emotionally in order to break down your psyche and instill a sense of loyalty and identification with your captors. From Wikipedia:


In order to form military units which will remain loyal to each other even in life-threatening situations, the basic training ("training is a mildly traumatic experience intended to produce a bond") used by military trainers can be said to produce a mild form of the same symptom.

Similarily, the effects of the "hazing" system of induction into groups such as fraternities and sororities have been compared to the syndrome. In cultural anthropology a similar symptom is common to bride capture situations.

Loyalty to a more powerful abuser - in spite of the danger that this loyalty puts the victim in - is common among victims of domestic abuse (battered wives) and child abuse (dependent children). In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses. This syndrome was described by psychoanalysts of the object relations theory school (see Fairbairn) as the phenomenon of psychological identification with the more powerful abuser.

Clearly, you are a victim of the fiendish psychological conditioning that you suffered at the hands of the US military, and that is why you identify with the national security state apparatus instead of with the victims of Abu Ghraib, etc.

Dude, you're like a right-wing version of Patty Hearst.

~D
~;)

[Watchman]

I understand a lot of the more "totally hardcore" type forces - the USMC and the French Foreign Legion spring to mind as examples - take that approach. Almost certainly with official sanction and intentionally. Apparently the idea is to strip the recruits of all human diginity, so that nothing is left for them to hang onto save total submission to the unit and espirit de corps.

Heck, cultural background differences aside, the old Imperial Japanese military had the same approach...

It seems to work, too. Well, expect when recruits suffer a total mental breakdown under the strain, run amok, go Full Metal Jacket or something of the sort (the memoirs of Foreign Legion vets are full of anecdotes), but apparently that's viewed as an agreeable price to pay.

[Watchman]

Oh yeah, and Gawain ? You were saying about the Geneva Conventions ?

Indeed, "following the events of September 11, 2001, a new category of detainee, enemy combatant (EC), was created for personnel who are not granted or entitled to the privileges of the Geneva Convention [sic]".(108) In its broadly-defined global "war", the administration has defined "enemy combatant" broadly:

"Any person that US or allied forces could properly detain under the laws and customs of war. For purposes of the war on terror an enemy combatant includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a member or agent of Al Qaeda, Taliban, or another international terrorist organization against which the United States is engaged in an armed conflict."(109)
Not only are these so-called "enemy combatants" denied the protections of the Geneva Conventions, they are also denied the protections of international human rights law because the US administration considers that they are held exclusively under "the laws and customs of war", regardless of where in the world they were taken into custody.

The leading authority on provisions of international humanitarian law, or the law of war, is the ICRC which has stated:

"Irrespective of the motives of their perpetrators, terrorist acts committed outside of armed conflict should be addressed by means of domestic or international law enforcement, but not by application of the laws of war… ‘Terrorism’ is a phenomenon. Both practically and legally, war cannot be waged against a phenomenon, but only against an identifiable party to an armed conflict. For these reasons, it would be more appropriate to speak of a multifaceted ‘fight against terrorism’ rather than a ‘war on terrorism’…What is important to know is that no person captured in the fight against terrorism can be considered outside the law. There is no such thing as a ‘black hole’ in terms of legal protection."(110)

Yet, in seeking to have the post-Rasul habeas corpus petitions of Guantánamo detainees dismissed, the executive has rejected the notion that the detainees have any rights under human rights treaty law or customary international law:

"Customary law is constantly evolving, thus implying that states can modify their practices to adapt to new or unanticipated circumstances or challenges… Even if customary international law proscribed ‘prolonged arbitrary detention’, it is not at all clear that petitioners’ detention fall within this rubric. The detention here is not arbitrary, but based on the Military’s determination that petitioners are enemy combatants. The treaties cited by petitioners as evidence of customary international law do not appear to deal with wartime detentions of this type, but rather with criminal-like matters, and petitioners cite no clear evidence of a consistent and widespread norm, followed as a matter of legal obligation, that detention of enemy combatants in a worldwide war against a terrorist organization is improper."(111)

Such an argument, if accepted, would give a government – any government – a blank cheque to ignore its obligations under international law for any situation that it defined as a "war", "new" or "unanticipated" or for any person that it defined as the "enemy". In this case, it follows President Bush’s assertion that the "war against terrorism ushers in a new paradigm [which] requires new thinking in the law of war".(112) As revealed by a series of previously secret government documents, the thinking that has been done has been of a sort that looks to manipulate and bypass the USA’s fundamental international legal obligations. Thus, whatever "new thinking" has been done, the result has been old abuses, abuses which when committed by other countries warrant an entry in the US State Department annual human rights report. From the same old Amnesty document (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005), bold text added for emphasis. Geneva my arse.

[Aurelian]

Regarding evidence on the US use of torture, here's a bit from Andrew Sullivan's website on waterboarding. Sullivan is often a tool, but he gets the concept of what constitutes torture.


WATERBOARDING: An emailer thinks I am under-estimating the horrors of the technique backed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Wall Street Journal:

If anything, the now standard description of water-boarding understates the cruelty of the method. Those who were subjected to this method by South American security forces report that "they had been held under water until they had in fact begun to drown and lost consciousness, only to be revived by their torturers and submerged again. It is one of their worst memories" (Jennifer Harbury, 'Truth, Torture, and the American Way," pp. 15-16). As you note, the French used it in Algeria (there is a vivid depiction in the movie "The Battle of Algiers"). The United States used it heavily in the Philippines a hundred years ago; they called it "the water cure." The person who probably knows the most about this is Darius Rejali, a professor at Reed College and author of a new history of torture, soon to be published by Princeton University Press.

Marty Lederman discusses the depraved, Orwellian editorial at the Wall Street Journal here. We do, in fact, have a documented case of the tactic. I discussed it earlier this year in reviewing the Schmidt Report. That Pentagon report confirmed that at Gitmo, one detainee was subjected to the following:

He was kept awake for 18 - 20 hours a day for 48 of 54 consecutive days, he was forced to wear bras and thongs on his head, he was prevented from praying, he was forced to crawl around on a dog leash to perform dog tricks, he was told his mother and sister were whores, he was subjected to extensive "cavity searches" (after 160 days in solitary confinement) and then "on seventeen ocasions, between 13 Dec 02 and 14 Jan 03, interrogators, during interrogations, poured water over the subject."

The latter is a polite word for "water-boarding." Later in the report, we are informed that this technique was deployed "regularly" as a "control measure." All this was "legally permissible under the existing guidance." Medical doctors were on hand to ensure that the victim didn't die. Water-boarding, in other words, is a specific technique directly authorized by Rumsfeld, described in the Schmidt Report, under the John Yoo rules, as legally permissible even for POWs under the Geneva Conventions. The Schmidt Report described this treatment as "humane." It is very important to focus on the specifics of what this president has authorized. When he says "We do not torture," he means that this technique is not "torture". A technique used by South American dictators is fine by Bush. This from a president who had the chutzpah to respond to Abu Ghraib by saying that the abuses did not reflect America's values. He was right. They reflect his administration's.LINK (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_11_06_dish_archive.html)

Exactly. Anybody who thinks that waterboarding is not torture should be waterboarded until he confesses that waterboarding is torture. I don't think it would take very long. Probably even Cheney would agree that he was being tortured after the first couple of times he was drowned and revived.

Why is this hard to get? Why would anybody approve of it? Why do the 'values voters' have no values?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Indeed, "following the events of September 11, 2001, a new category of detainee, enemy combatant (EC), was created for personnel who are not granted or entitled to the privileges of the Geneva Convention [sic]".(108) In its broadly-defined global "war", the administration has defined "enemy combatant" broadly:


Thats them. Hardly an impartial organization. Again their illegal combatants.

If there is any doubt about whether an alleged combatant is a "lawful combatant" then they must be held as a Prisoner of War until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". If that tribunal rules that the combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then their status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under Fourth Geneva Convention.



They all were given tribunals


Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.



Part I. General Provisions
...
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.



It is likely that if they have been found to be "unlawful combatant" by "a competent tribunal" under GCIII Article 5 and they are a protected person under GCIV, that the Party to the conflict will invoke GCIV Article 5. In which case the "unlawful combatant" does not have the "rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State". They do however retain the right "to be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."

If after "fair and regular trial" they are found guilty of a crime then the "unlawful combatant" can be punished by whatever lawful methods are available to the Party to the conflict.

If the Party does not use Article 5 the Party may invoke Article 42 of GCIV and use "internment" to detain the "unlawful combatant".




I understand a lot of the more "totally hardcore" type forces - the USMC and the French Foreign Legion spring to mind as examples - take that approach. Almost certainly with official sanction and intentionally. Apparently the idea is to strip the recruits of all human diginity, so that nothing is left for them to hang onto save total submission to the unit and espirit de corps.

Heck, cultural background differences aside, the old Imperial Japanese military had the same approach...

It seems to work, too. Well, expect when recruits suffer a total mental breakdown under the strain, run amok, go Full Metal Jacket or something of the sort (the memoirs of Foreign Legion vets are full of anecdotes), but apparently that's viewed as an agreeable price to pay.

Exactly . So we torture our own young men in the interest of national defense but if we do the same to the enemy were criminals.

[Ironside]

Exactly . So we torture our own young men in the interest of national defense but if we do the same to the enemy were criminals.

There's a slight difference. Do you consider cutting of the balls of people torture? If, yes did the now balless bloke that had balls but no brain comit torture and should be inprisoned for it (and that got nothing to with his mental heath, but only this crime)? If no, then why?


And don't even try to be smart and try to say that those shouldn't either have been too closely connected by terrorists (or been in the same area, or having bad luck) or that they can get away by emitting information.

That's unless you're willing to sell out friends and betray what you fight for. Or are accepting that captured US troops are gettting tortured. Because whatever warped views those prisioner is having, thier feelings on that matter will match yours.