0
   

What's Going On At Gitmo?

 
 
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 01:53 pm
What's Going On At Gitmo?
By DANIEL EISENBERG, TIMOTHY J. BURGER

Even as allegations of Koran abuse at the U.S.'s naval base in Cuba were still making headlines, the Pentagon was bracing for a new storm as reporters last week sorted through several thousand pages of transcripts from tribunals in which detainees challenged their designation as enemy combatants. Earlier, as the government prepared to release the transcripts, as required by a Freedom of Information Act filing, military officials reviewed them, looking for "potentially controversial and embarrassing items" about which their superiors should be notified in advance, according to a Pentagon memo that TIME has seen. To make sense of the latest Gitmo controversies, here is a look at Guantánamo during the war on terrorism. -By Daniel Eisenberg and Timothy J. Burger

WHO IS HELD THERE? Since the first 20 prisoners were taken there from Afghanistan in January 2002, the U.S. has used its naval base in Cuba as its main holding area for suspected members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Some 750 detainees have passed through its gates at one time or another. Today it houses about 520, with the majority hailing from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Yemen. The most recent batch of new prisoners arrived last September.

WHAT IS THEIR STATUS? The U.S. considers none of the detainees prisoners of war, which means they do not enjoy rights under the Geneva Convention, which protects POWs from indefinite imprisonment and aggressive interrogation. Because the detainees allegedly targeted civilians and did not belong to a conventional army-or, in the case of the Taliban, did not serve under a legitimate government, in the U.S.'s view-Washington classifies them as unlawful or enemy combatants, a decision that numerous critics vehemently disagree with.

CAN THEY APPEAL? Because Guantánamo is on foreign soil-leased from Cuba since 1903-the U.S. has argued that the detainees are beyond the reach of U.S. law. Last June, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners have the right to challenge their captivity in federal court. Since then, some 150 detainees have filed petitions doing just that. The government has argued that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals-panels of three military officers that have been in place since last July-have given detainees all the due process to which they are entitled. Earlier this year a federal judge strongly disagreed, citing the fact that detainees were not allowed to have lawyers present at the review tribunals and were not privy to much of the evidence used against them. Another federal judge came down on the government's side. A case before a court of appeals in Washington is expected to decide the issue. Meanwhile, a recently declassified letter to military authorities obtained by TIME raises a new question about the tribunals. In the April 30 letter, lawyer Marc Falkoff, who represents Yemeni inmate Abdulmalik Abdulwahab Al-Rahabi, says statements made by an important witness against his client "appear to have been obtained by use of torture." Falkoff's letter says the witness is the same detainee whom FBI agents at Gitmo, in internal e-mails disclosed earlier this year, called #63 and who they said was intimidated with a dog and showed signs of "extreme psychological trauma" after being subjected to "intense isolation for over three months."

WHO HAS BEEN RELEASED? Over the past three years, 234 detainees have been permitted to leave Gitmo, but 67 were released on the condition that they be held by their home governments, including Pakistan, Britain, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. At least 12 of those set free are believed to have resumed terrorist activities, according to the Defense Department. The vast majority of those released were deemed to be no longer a threat or of any intelligence value. Since the U.S. started the review tribunals last fall, about 40 detainees have been or will be freed because they were found not to be enemy combatants after all.

HAVE DETAINEES BEEN ABUSED? In its recently issued annual report on human rights, Amnesty International said Guantánamo had become the "gulag of our times." While disputing many of the detainees' allegations of beatings, sexual taunts and other mistreatment, the U.S. is nonetheless investigating them. One of those inquiries, the findings of which are expected to be issued soon by Air Force Lieut. General Randall Schmidt, was spurred by eyewitness accounts from FBI agents at Gitmo from mid-2002 to mid-2004. According to just-released memos, agents reported seeing captives shackled in a fetal position for 24 hours without food or water and left in their own excrement, another gagged with duct tape that covered much of his head and another who had torn out his hair after being chained all night in a hot room. Former Army Sergeant Erik Saar, who served at Gitmo and wrote Inside the Wire with TIME correspondent Viveca Novak, has described an instance in which a female interrogator smeared fake menstrual blood on a captive's face. It may have been a measure of how detainees are treated that when Army Specialist Sean Baker played the role of an inmate in a 2003 training exercise, he says he was beaten so badly by MPs, who did not know he was one of them, he now has seizures. The Army is investigating the incident, and Baker has filed suit against the government, seeking damages for his injuries.

HAVE ANY DIED THERE? Although the U.S. military has recently acknowledged that more than 30 detainees died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan from August 2002 to November 2004, there have been no reports or allegations of detainee deaths at Guantánamo. According to the Pentagon, prisoners there have attempted suicide 34 times and have committed several hundred acts classified by the military as "self-injurious manipulative behavior," but none have died as a result. A Saudi man who tried to hang himself in 2003 ended up in a coma for several months but ultimately regained consciousness and learned to walk again.

HAS THE KORAN BEEN DESECRATED? The U.S. has been investigating allegations of mishandling of the Koran, including the charge by at least one detainee that U.S. personnel threw the holy book in a toilet. As of last week, the inquiry, led by Brigadier General Jay W. Hood, had found five instances in which a guard or interrogator mishandled the Koran-although Hood would not explain exactly how-all but one before January 2003, when explicit rules about the Koran were established. But Hood's team found no credible evidence that one was ever tossed in a toilet. Three incidents were probably deliberate and two inadvertent, Hood said late last week. He added that his team had reinterviewed a detainee who had previously told FBI agents he had witnessed a Koran toilet episode but now has denied firsthand knowledge of any Koran desecration.

WHAT ARE LIVING CONDITIONS THERE LIKE? The best-behaved detainees are held in Camp 4, a medium-security, communal-living environment with as many as 10 beds in a room; prisoners can play soccer or volleyball outside up to nine hours a day, eat meals together and read Agatha Christie mysteries in Arabic. Less cooperative detainees typically live and eat in small, individual cells and get to exercise and shower only twice a week. A new, $16 million maximum-security facility can hold up to 100 of the most dangerous detainees.

WHAT KIND OF INTELLIGENCE HAVE DETAINEES PROVIDED? The military's official position is that some inmates continue to provide valuable information, ranging from how al-Qaeda raises funds and recruits members to how it plans attacks and builds explosives. Detainees, officials say, have helped identify new prisoners, from Osama bin Laden's bodyguards to rank-and-file militia fighters; late last year, according to officials, a few detainees helped uncover a previously unknown al-Qaeda cell in another country. Still, earlier this year the civilian head of intelligence at Guantánamo admitted in newspaper interviews that the majority of detainees were no longer of much intelligence value and were not even being regularly interrogated.

source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 666 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 02:24 am
If one traveled abroad in the nineteen sixties and seventies, the one word which immediately identified an American was Coca-Cola. It didn't matter if you were in the depths of an slum in India or a temple in Bali, if you spoke the word, everyone without the slightest knowledge of the English language would know and show appreciation of the fact that they knew the speaker was American.

"Coca-Cola."
"Ah, American."
"Yes, Yes, jai, jai, American jai."

Even if that was the only connection possible, all the rest having to be made with hand signals and scratchs in the dirt, Coca-Cola was the step-off word. An opening word, a gatekey word, that set in motion many other openings.

That word has now been replaced. Now if you are in the lowest levels of the lowest slums of Bangalore, an outer village in Kalimatan or a busy street in the Pakistani capitol and say the word Coca-Cola, you are likely to receive a new counter sign word, Guantanamo.

They know what it means, or at least they know what it means to them. It means that America is not so different after all than where they are now. America used to mean freedom, respect for all kinds of people, even them, and no repression from a faceless government. America shone brightly. Now say 'Guantanamo' and the people know it means a place where a person can disappear unlike the ones they are used to, this one is American-made like Coca-Cola but without the smile.

Joe(we had the love of the world in our hands and our fear made us drop it)Nation
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 06:14 am
Somehow, I doubt that Joe.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 06:52 am
It's not my contention. Over the past few weeks there have been a couple of article regarding this, I'll go find a link or two. I may have overstated the reported use. I, for example, don't have any data on this from Kalimatan, the articles I read specificaly mentioned Pakistan.

The problem is, of course, that anyone trying to promote the image of America as a bastion of freedom and justice can be silenced by the word -Guantanamo.

Two other things just floated up in my morning coffee and I'd be interested in your thoughts: 1) I don't have an historical counterpart for Guantanamo. Has another nation held enemy combatants in a similar manner? I can't remember any, especially since the Geneva Conventions. The British used prison ships (and we got our National Anthem) to hold prisoners off-shore but I think that was more a security concern then one of sovereignty. (The whole argument that the prisoners are not under the confines of American law because they are being held on leased foreign soil.) And 2) I have come to believe that Guantanamo would be the perfect next target for Al Queda. What do you think?

Joe(odd thoughts a specialty) Nation
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:17 am
I'm not an expert in history, but I wonder if there has been a war like this in the past where enemy combatants were held prisoner instead of just shot. What did Russia do during their invasion of Afghanistan? I believe that would be the only modern example of a super-power being involved in a Muslim Guerilla war.

As far as Gitmo being a target? I doubt it. Cuba is a little out of the way and the Castro government wouldn't enjoy having Muslim extremists running around.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:53 am
I don't the Soviets did anything like Guantanamo. Their prisoners were either held by themselves or whatever puppet government they had installed at the moment and they didn't ship them anywhere to my knowledge. I've never read that mujahadeen had been transported back to the Soviet Union, for example.

Even the argument that the enemy combatants aren't part of an army and target civilians looks a little suspect considering both the Israelis imprisonment of Hamas and PLO terrorists and the British treatment of IRA bombers in Northern Ireland. In both places the accused were subject to the laws of the country and not military justice. The prisoners at Guantanamo are even being afforded military justice.

==
More than 15,000 Cubans found their way over the mountains or by sea to Guantanamo during the first Bush administration. You remember, he and later, Bill Clinton allowed some to immigrate and turned back thousands more.

There are a lot of backways into the east end of the island and lots of places to hide. Remember that's where Fidel and his boys hid out from Batiste oh so long ago now. The Cuban government would oppose aiding Al Queda, but if they have enough deniability, I think they would let a few things and people pass.

Joe(Just staring at the work I'm supposed to be doing)Nation
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 08:02 am
I recall Bush saying something to the effect that the situation with the illegal combatants was something new. No nation before had to deal with that particular situation and therefore new methods had to be created as to where to warehouse prisoners who chose to fight outside the boundaries of the Geneva Conventions.

Let me ask you, do you feel it's right that the enemy gets to not follow the Geneva Conventions and the generally accepted rules of war while fighting and killing American and allied troops, but expect to be treated as POW's when captured?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 08:27 am
Isn't this fun? I'm not a lawyer nor a historian and neither are you if I recall correctly but here we are delving deep into our nation's role in the world.

There have been numerous encounters between an unorganized force and the Armed Services of the United States. The Viet Cong and the Viet Minh come to mind immediately, they certainly targeted civilians and did not wear a recognizable uniform, the black pyjamas not withstanding, they were held as POW's.

And every time, I've lost count, that the US has had to send troops to Haiti or the Dominican Republic or Panama or Grenada, the combatants seized there were held in military confines but had access to the International Red Cross.

As to whether I think my enemy should fight fair, I never allow for that and never expect it either, once he's under my control it's up to me to live up to my ideals, not his. If I become his captive, it's up to me to live up to my ideals, not his. That's the American way, ask John McCain.

Joe(I gotta get going)Nation
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 09:56 am
McGentrix wrote:

I recall Bush saying something to the effect that the situation with the illegal combatants was something new. No nation before had to deal with


New, but not completely unexpected.
I imagine they foresaw some resistance, but not to this degree.
I can't say I blame the Bush admin. too much for underestimating the wills of these people's objection to the occupation.

McGentrix wrote:

that particular situation and therefore new methods had to be created as to where to warehouse prisoners who chose to fight outside the boundaries of the Geneva Conventions.


...but I think as the self proclaimed and self appointed beacon of freedom and democracy, the US shouldn't lower themselves to the level of the insurgents and find methods of undermining the principles of the Geneva Conventions in their practices and treatment of suspected war criminals.

McGentrix wrote:

Let me ask you, do you feel it's right that the enemy gets to not follow the Geneva Conventions and the generally accepted rules of war while fighting and killing American and allied troops, but expect to be treated as POW's when captured?


This goes far beyond the realm of the American Iraqi conflict--as mentioned in another thread

Quote:
"When the US government calls upon foreign leaders to bring to justice those who commit or authorize human rights violations in their own countries, why should those foreign leaders listen?

"And if the U.S. government does not abide by the same standards of justice, what shred of moral authority will we retain to pressure other governments to diminish abuses?"

"It's not because the United States is the worst human rights abuser in the world," said Kenneth Roth, the head of Human Rights Watch, in a telephone interview from New York, "but because it's the most influential."


One must adhere to the same high standards as one expects of others.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 09:56 am
Joe Nation, of course, is an idealist. This time, I agree with him. Agree or not, it's always well written.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 11:22 am
Candidone1, we are limiting the scope here to Guantanamo. All the detainees there come from the war in Afghanistan. None of them were insurgents, neither were they soldiers fighting for the Afghani army.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 11:59 am
McGentrix wrote:
Candidone1, we are limiting the scope here to Guantanamo. All the detainees there come from the war in Afghanistan. None of them were insurgents, neither were they soldiers fighting for the Afghani army.


I wasn't aware of that.
What are they doing with all the men captured in Iraq? They aren't taken to Guantanamo?
How come 167 detainees have been freed over the past three years without charge, without trial and without conditions stipulated on their release?
In spite of my misunderstanding, I maintain my position on Gitmo re the Geneva Convention.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:04 pm
The prisoners in Iraq have stayed in Iraq. Either in military prisons as POW's or civilian prisons as criminals.

The fact that detainees are being released from Gitmo demonstrates that they are getting their day in front of a tribunal and their cases are being looked into. Most have proven they were not high enough in the chain of command to be of any more help in the war on terror.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:23 pm
McGentrix wrote:
The prisoners in Iraq have stayed in Iraq. Either in military prisons as POW's or civilian prisons as criminals.

The fact that detainees are being released from Gitmo demonstrates that they are getting their day in front of a tribunal and their cases are being looked into. Most have proven they were not high enough in the chain of command to be of any more help in the war on terror.


I found this old piece of news interesting...especially since there are well aware of the effect of imprisonment on individuals post-incarceration (jail just makes better criminals).

Quote:
"We're basically condemning these guys to long-term imprisonment," said a military official who was a senior interrogator at Guantanamo Bay.

"If they weren't terrorists before, they certainly could be now."


Source

Lock me up without explanation, without justification, hold me for an indefinate period of time, f*ck my life up under the guise of making your country safer, and then send me on my merry little way when it suits your government's needs--you can be assured I will have personally declared war on you and whoever waves your flag.
Couple that with the networking that occurs within the prison and voila...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:34 pm
Again, none of the detainees were just randomly abducted from their homes and flown to Cuba. They all were pre-interviewed in Afghanistan before being flown to Gitmo.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:56 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Again, none of the detainees were just randomly abducted from their homes and flown to Cuba. They all were pre-interviewed in Afghanistan before being flown to Gitmo.


Did you read the article I linked to?

Quote:
None of the 59 met U.S. screening criteria for determining which prisoners should be sent to Guantanamo Bay, military sources said. But all were transferred anyway, sources said, for reasons that continue to baffle and frustrate intelligence officers nearly a year after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What's Going On At Gitmo?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:17:57