Why is the U.S. holding terror suspects secretly?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Red Cross fears U.S. hiding detainees (7-13-04)

GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- The international Red Cross said Tuesday that it fears U.S. officials are holding terror suspects secretly in locations across the world.

The Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare require the United States to give the Red Cross access to prisoners of war and other detainees.

``We have access to people detained by the United States in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq, but in our understanding there are people that are detained outside these places for which we haven't received notification or access,'' said Antonella Notari, a spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The United States says it is cooperating with the organization and has allowed Red Cross delegates access to thousands of prisoners, including former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

But Notari told The Associated Press that some suspects reported as arrested by the FBI on its Web site, or identified in media reports, are unaccounted for.

``Some of these people who have been reported to be arrested never showed up in any of the places of detention run by the U.S. where we visit,'' Notari said.

The U.S. government has not officially responded to a Red Cross demand for notification of all detainees, including those held in undisclosed locations, she said.

That request was made by ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger in January during a visit to Washington that featured meetings with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

``So far we haven't had a satisfactory reply,'' Notari said.

An Army report on the abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison found that military police there ``routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention.''

On at least one occasion they moved these ``ghost detainees'' around the prison to hide them from a visiting Red Cross delegation, the report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said. He described the actions as ``deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law.''

For balance of article go to:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/13/redcross.terror.ap/index.html

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,099 • Replies: 19

No top replies

Oh, we hold them secretly because we don't want to admit the truth about how we treat our prisoners:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040719/usnews/19prison.htm

From the article (Emphasis is mine):

Quote:

Over the past two months, many of the classified documents supporting Taguba's findings have emerged in various news accounts, including in U.S. News. But the magazine now has obtained all 106 classified annexes to the report, and the several thousand pages of material provide the most comprehensive view yet of what went wrong at Abu Ghraib and in the Army's management of the teeming prison system in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's government was toppled. Taguba focused mostly on the MP s assigned to guard the inmates at Abu Ghraib, but the classified files in the annex to his report show that military intelligence officers--dispatched to Abu Ghraib by the top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez--were intimately involved in some of the interrogation techniques widely viewed as abusive.

The abuses took place, the files show, in a chaotic and dangerous environment made even more so by the constant pressure from Washington to squeeze intelligence from detainees. Riots, prisoner escapes, shootings, corrupt Iraqi guards, unsanitary conditions, rampant sexual misbehavior, bug-infested food, prisoner beatings and humiliations, and almost-daily mortar shellings from Iraqi insurgents--according to the annex to General Taguba's report, that pretty much sums up life at Abu Ghraib.

The truth has a way of getting out. I just wish it was better news than this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Why is the U.S. holding terror suspects secretly?

Because we can, silly!

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Why is the U.S. holding terror suspects secretly?

Because we can, silly!

Damn it you stole my line!

A prime example of how American ignore the slow erosion of their civil rights. Either by fear or the perverbial "It only happens to them" theory they sit silent.

Everytime I see these stories it reminds me of the saying surrounding Nazi Germany " I seen them come..........but" BTW anyone have a link to that quote?

0 Replies

It's not much of a secret if people know about it.

0 Replies

The slow erosion of civil rights seems to be the product of the current administration and they get away with it because they are one cocky bunch. Most of us a too busy on a daily basis to keep digging for detail in relation to what our elected officials are actually doing on their jobs when they are working.

Even I'm not sure I want all the details of what Chaney and Rumsfeld are doing...what I have heard over the past few months is enough for me.

JustanObserver is correct in answering the question with "because they can".

McGentrix:
The "ghost detainees'' were a secret to most of us for quite some time which caused the Red Cross additional frustration and anguish trying to do their job. We are paying for their labors and beyond that it paves the way for our soldiers and civilians to be tortured beyond the laws of the Geneva Convention.

In relation to eroding rights, I guess we will have to wait longer for enough people to be motivated to actually vote. The majority of U.S. citizens including the press are not concerned enough to insist our leaders be accountable for their actions.

0 Replies

When Sgt. Hicks of the third battalion , 4th Marines gets captured, it is known who he works for, what his mission is, where his commander is, who his commander is, where his batallion is, etc...

When Abdul Azziz gets captured planting a bomb, no one knows who he is, who he answers to, where they are located, who trained him, how many others are with him, where they are located etc...

That's the difference between a soldier and an unlawful combatant or terrorist.

0 Replies

Quote:

When Sgt. Hicks of the third battalion , 4th Marines gets captured, it is known who he works for, what his mission is, where his commander is, who his commander is, where his batallion is, etc...

What happened to name, rank, serial number?

I mean, surely the enemy doesn't know any more about our operative's missions than we do theirs?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Why is the U.S. holding terror suspects secretly?

Silly . . . so they won't know they're being held . . . so keep it under yer hat, 'k?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

That's the difference between a soldier and an unlawful combatant or terrorist.

Soldiers are no different than combatants. We are foreigners in Iraq and some of our opponents are foreigners and not Iraqi citizens. The terrorists (from various places including Iraq) are in a league of their own as far as fighting tactics but combatants never the less. We as a country have signed the Geneva Convention Agreement and once we capture any combatants (regardless what you label them and what style of fighting they use) we are required to adhere to the agreement if possible. Only in an extreme emergency should we deviate. To move detainees around so we are free to abuse them beyond the law is not acceptable.

If you know of any article in the Geneva Convention Agreement that states we are allowed to abuse detainees, please refer me to the article in the agreement and I review it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Why is the U.S. holding terror suspects secretly?

Silly . . . so they won't know they're being held . . . so keep it under yer hat, 'k?

Setana:
Possibly when you have more than two seconds, you can give us a clue to what you mean by your statement above.

0 Replies

I might, if you spell my name correctly . . . but i doubt it, even in that event . . . jokes don't work if you have to explain them, you know . . .

0 Replies

setanta:

Don't let my misspelling of your name deter you from an eloquent explanation.

0 Replies

Don't let your sarcasm convince you that you can manipulate me . . .

0 Replies

I'm not sure about the joke either, Setanta.

0 Replies

You'll have that, LW . . .

0 Replies

couzz wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

That's the difference between a soldier and an unlawful combatant or terrorist.

Soldiers are no different than combatants. We are foreigners in Iraq and some of our opponents are foreigners and not Iraqi citizens. The terrorists (from various places including Iraq) are in a league of their own as far as fighting tactics but combatants never the less. We as a country have signed the Geneva Convention Agreement and once we capture any combatants (regardless what you label them and what style of fighting they use) we are required to adhere to the agreement if possible. Only in an extreme emergency should we deviate. To move detainees around so we are free to abuse them beyond the law is not acceptable.

If you know of any article in the Geneva Convention Agreement that states we are allowed to abuse detainees, please refer me to the article in the agreement and I review it.

The Geneva conventions are quite clear in regards of treatment of prisoners of war. Illegal combatnats do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions and therefore, the capturing forces are under no legal responsibility to see to it that illegal combatants are treated accordingly.

Let them wear uniforms, have a chain of command, carry their weapons openly. THEN they will be afforded the luxury of protection under the Geneva Conventions.

If you ask me, we are treating them FAR better than they deserve.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Geneva conventions are quite clear in regards of treatment of prisoners of war. Illegal combatnats do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions and therefore, the capturing forces are under no legal responsibility to see to it that illegal combatants are treated accordingly.

Let them wear uniforms, have a chain of command, carry their weapons openly. THEN they will be afforded the luxury of protection under the Geneva Conventions.

I believe the point of declaring them "enemy" combatant was to avoid abiding by the Geneva Convention. However it's a fine line that we walk when we attempt to go around International laws and treaties. First you work under the assumption that these men are guilty and we all ready know some have been release which shows they weren't all guilty. So where's the proof to show the ones still there are guilty? Since we haven't kept Enemy combatants before should we be allowed to keep them indefinetly without any proof of guilt? If you think this should be done what does that say about our Democracy? Doesn't this also open the door to other countries picking up Americans and detaining them indefinetly

I know that some like to grab their balls and spit trying to show what a true American cowboy they are but there are consequences and repercussions to any action. Before you grab that first amount of circular flesh and turn your head to spit, you should look where your spitting first.

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

Quote:
The Geneva conventions are quite clear in regards of treatment of prisoners of war. Illegal combatnats do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions and therefore, the capturing forces are under no legal responsibility to see to it that illegal combatants are treated accordingly.

Let them wear uniforms, have a chain of command, carry their weapons openly. THEN they will be afforded the luxury of protection under the Geneva Conventions.

I believe the point of declaring them "enemy" combatant was to avoid abiding by the Geneva Convention. However it's a fine line that we walk when we attempt to go around International laws and treaties. First you work under the assumption that these men are guilty and we all ready know some have been release which shows they weren't all guilty. So where's the proof to show the ones still there are guilty? Since we haven't kept Enemy combatants before should we be allowed to keep them indefinetly without any proof of guilt? If you think this should be done what does that say about our Democracy? Doesn't this also open the door to other countries picking up Americans and detaining them indefinetly

It's not "enemy" combatants, it's "illegal" combatants. The Geneva Conventions and rules of war are very clearly stated for a reason. to protect LAWFUL combatants. The definitions of what makes a combatant lawful and unlawful is very clearly stated so as NOT to be misconstrued. US soldiers wear uniforms for a reason. US soldiers have a chain of command for a reason. US soldiers carry their weapons openly for a reason.

As for the guilt and innocence, we question them to find out what they know. Obviously if we catch them in a car full of explosives they are guilty, or if they have been identified by others, they are suspects. We question them and if we find cause to keep them we do, otherwise we let them go. I have no idea what you think is actually happening over there, but I fear that you believe that some barbaric torture is taking place and millions of innocent women and children are having their fingernails pulled off. That's just not happening.

Redheat wrote:

I know that some like to grab their balls and spit trying to show what a true American cowboy they are but there are consequences and repercussions to any action. Before you grab that first amount of circular flesh and turn your head to spit, you should look where your spitting first.

whatever.

0 Replies

McGentrix:

I don't know your background and obviously you have been in combat or are close to someone who has since the Geneva Agreement has been in force. I really would appreciate knowing the section of the agreement that outlines the prisoner guidelines because the document is so vast.

Basically what we are having is a semantic disagreement at this point...the difference between legal and non legal combatants.

I brought up this subject because of the "ghost detainees'' we were moving around in Iraq and not allowing the Red Cross access to them. I have seen no where in the press that these detainees are all or in part nonlegal combatants. I think it would be of great service to this topic if you can give us some of the information you may have regarding this. (You may have access to something I have not read.)

The New York Times had the "ghost detainees" story on their front page and it was a feature article on CNN. Just before that, the AP put out a story of U.S. citizen and former Green Beret, Keith Idema, being arrested by the Karzai government for holding Afghan prisoners in a private prison in Kabul. These prisors had been beaten and were found hanging upside down by their heels.

Now add the American troops abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. There is definitely a pattern here and it makes our discussion a serious one.

I understand war as I am sure you do...during times of conflict in primitive suroundings, things can happen and people don't follow the rules at times. I know we are playing "hardball" because our troops are being attacked in nontraditional ways.

All this being said, we have a reputation as a nation and these flagrant abuses are lowering our image at a time we need support from the world community. Due to all these abuse disclosures starting earlier this year with Abu Ghraib Prison scandal, these illegal tactics were sanctioned by our military.

George W. claims he did not know illegal torturing was going on...OK, give him the benefit of the doubt but that puts him in a very bad light. The Commander and Chief of the USA was unaware what Rumsfeld and the military were doing in Iraq. As Donald Trump would say,"your fired".

0 Replies

Why is the U.S. holding terror suspects secretly?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know