Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

How many French have already joined here?

No clue. I guess, Frolic is either French or Belgian.

Belgian, if you believe him (what I do).

to prevent sleepless nights:

Ich bin ein Belgier.


my hometown

Steissd

You set a very good example----my hat is off to you.

Even good friends argue. In a marriage without arguing there is something wrong.

It is interesting to see how the media plays this story. The original article listed is teh BBC story:

"Prisoners 'killed' at US base

The US is accused of mistreating detainees
Two Afghan prisoners were killed while in US custody at their base at Bagram, a military coroner has concluded.

The report said "blunt force trauma" had contributed to the deaths. "

(Note the use fo quotes around the word "killed" in teh title..)

Then the infamous Guardian gives the story their twist:

"Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base 'Blunt force injuries' cited in murder ruling

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Friday March 7, 2003
The Guardian

Two prisoners who died while being held for interrogation at the US military base in Afghanistan had apparently been beaten, according to a military pathologist's report. A criminal investigation is now under way into the deaths which have both been classified as homicides.

The deaths have led to calls for an inquiry into what interrogation techniques are being used at the base where it is believed the al-Qaida leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is now also being held. Former prisoners at the base claim that detainees are chained to the ceiling, shackled so tightly that the blood flow stops, kept naked and hooded and kicked to keep them awake for days on end."

Later on in their story they mention "The death certificates for the men have four boxes on them giving choices of "natural, accident, suicide, homicide". The Pentagon said yesterday that the choice of "homicide" did not necessarily mean that the dead person had been unlawfully killed. There was no box which would indicate that a pathologist was uncertain how a person had died." but I guess the fact that this statement directly contradicts their headline wasn't a concern to their editors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4620046,00.html

Then of course you have the "IndyMedia" sites which can't seem to make up tehir mind where the events even occured:

"Kidnapped Afghans Killed at US base in Cuba
by Howard Goldman • Thursday March 06, 2003 at 01:16 PM

The US is accused of mistreating detainees Two Afghan prisoners were killed while in US custody at their base at Bagram, a military coroner has concluded.

Neither of the Afghan men were accused, tried or convicted of any crime. The men were kidnapped from their native Afghanistan and taken to a U.S. Base in Cuba, which the Cuban government has determined is illegal.

The report said "blunt force trauma" had contributed to the deaths."

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/109373.php


"The US is accused"???? Ummm.. Didn't the US generate the report?

Then "Ananova" (UK) pipes in with their spin on it:

"Prisoners murdered at US base in Afghanistan, says coroner

The deaths of two prisoners at a US base in Afghanistan have been ruled as murder by military coroners.

A US Army investigation of the deaths is continuing, says Colonel Roger King, a spokesman for US forces at the base in Bagram.

The two prisoners died on December 3 and December 10 at the makeshift prison in the US compound at the Afghan base north of Kabul.

The post mortems that labelled the deaths as "homicides" found the men had been beaten, and one had a blood clot in his lung, Colonel King says."

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_757544.html?menu=

By the way, even if these men were beaten, where are the proofs that they were beaten by the U.S. personnel? They might have been beaten to death by the other detainees for different reasons (for example, they cooperated with inquirers, or just stole something from the other inmates)...

Too murky for me to form an opinion, but troubling, nonetheless.

Thank you for adding yet one more note of reason to the discussion.

Don't Torture Yourself. Or Others.
Can't we all just be like Mister Rogers
and say that our guests "went to heaven"?

Or, another uninformed opinion:
Torturing innocent people is a very bad thing, for both parties involved.
Before torture might ever be applied, a court really ought to separate the innocent from the guilty.
Be sure to separate the false confessions from the true evidence as well.

And beyond that, consider that some things are worse than death.
If you don't believe in capital punishment (killing for gratification and revenge),
then you shouldn't believe in something worse than death either.

Oops, sorry, ... I made some unpopular thoughts.

What is the relevance of the comments about there being no box for cause of death unknown? Surely blunt force trauma is not something that occurs in the absence of intent - whether it be suicide or homicide?

Except, of course, in the case of the usual explanations given of injuries in such places as police custody - "fell over", "fell down stairs".

Homicide does not, of course, say WHO did it - whether US personnel, fellow prisoners, or whoever captured the prisoners - however to cavil at the mention of homicide seems to me to be unnecessary quibbling.

The question is now who did it?

I have no idea what happened to whom, but just to offer a point of fact; blunt force trauma can result from objects falling and striking a person and other instances where no other person caused said trauma. So yes, blunt force trauma can and does result in the absence of intent.

Amnesty International? What's not to believe?

I tend to believe the story -- there have been any number of others like it. The fact that we would have extraterritorial places to hold prisoners where we aren't accountable tells me we're certainly not making an effort to follow international law. I suspect this argument will continue between those who like to believe the US just doesn't do this sort of thing, and those of us who know we do, whether from personal experience or from reading history.

Prisoners are being held in some extraterritorial site since they possess some important information that must not be publicized. Leakages may impair search after the top Al-Qaeda leaders.

under what law do they fall when they are kept abroad? US law?

No law. That's why they're there. Guantanamo is Cuban territory legally. Unless the Cubans step in, those prisoners are "fair game." Ditto prisoners held in Afghanistan and "as yet undisclosed sites."

At least Jose Padilla, as of yesterday, will be allowed to see his lawyer. But it was a legal fight. And only because he's still on US soil.

I hope, this lawyer will not be able to help him to escape the due punishment.