2
   

Guantanamo suicides confirmed

 
 
revel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 10:30 am
@genoves,
Quote:
l. US Federal Prisons----Too dangerous for them and much much more rigorous than Gitmo


Oh yea, right; Gitmo is just a walk in the park for the detainees. Rolling Eyes

Exams prove torture in Iraq, Gitmo
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:44 pm
@revel,

Working at Gitmo
Hugh Hewitt interviews a soldier who served at Gitmo. How bad is it there? A regular house of horrors, right? Here is an excerpt:

Hugh: When did you serve in Gitmo?

Pete: I was there about two months ago, for a year.
***
Hugh: Did you see brutality at Gitmo?

Pete: I didn’t see one bit of it.

Hugh: Are interrogations ongoing at Gitmo?

Pete: Absolutely. The facility is there to gather intelligence.
***
Hugh: Any violence, in terms of physical brutality of the prisoners you observed?

Pete: Absolutely not. In fact, my men and I spent nine hours on a runway waiting to try and get a detainee to go back home who had refused to do so because he wanted to stay at Guantanamo because he was being treated so well.

Hugh: Food okay for the prisoners at Guantanamo, Pete?

Pete: I think it is better than what my guys got for a year, to be honest with you.

Hugh: You an officer, Pete?

Pete: Yes I am. Second Lieutenant.

Hugh: Are you proud of the way your men conducted themselves vis-a-vis these prisoners?

Hugh: Absolutely. I mean, you’ve got guys from New jersey who were just, you know, minutes away from the Towers when they fell, who knew family members who died that day. And the professionalism with which they conducted themselves around men who may have been involved in those attacks was extraordinary.

This doesn’t mean that no improper conduct ever occurred at Gitmo. But, ah, it doesn’t exactly sound like a gulag. Or if it is a gulag, they must have done a pretty good job of hiding the gulag from Lieutenant Pete while he was there for a year. … But I didn’t know that gulags were that easy to hide.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005 at 10:24 pm
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 09:23 am
Well that is one person with an opinion which differs from several other account from people who were there as well.

Quote:
A former guard at the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay has spoken in his first television interview about the brutality he witnessed to inmates.
Chris Arendt told the BBC what he saw amounted to ''torture'' and that some of his fellow guards were so violent as to be ''psychotic.''



video
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 07:32 pm
@revel,
Gee-that must have been horrible--Revel--Do you have any specifics about thebrutality?

You don't mean the time that four of themwere burned alive and hung up on thebridge rafters, do you?
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:11 am
@genoves,
The point is that there have been enough eye witnesses and whistle blowers to confirm that Gitmo and Iraq prisons under Bush warrant the criticism and your earlier post of how good they had it was nothing but bunk.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:50 am
@revel,
The following are various links which further back up my earlier post.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/19/guantanamo.usa
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/news-2008-06-18-1.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/afgh-j18.shtml

Quote:
Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372_pf.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1627229,00.html
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/index.asp
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06217-etn-app-a-hrf-dic.pdf

Quote:
From the Human Rights Watch report: "Residents of Fallujah called them 'the Murderous Maniacs' because of how they treated Iraqis in detention. They were soldiers of the U.S. Army's 82 nd Airborne Division . . . stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury in Iraq. The soldiers considered this [description of them] a badge of honor."
The report discloses that two non-commissioned officers and a captain, Ian Fishback, in multiple interviews with Human Rights Watch investigators, say that "torture of detainees took place almost daily . . . from September 2003 to April 2004. . . . The acts of torture and other cruel or inhuman treatment . . . include severe beatings (in one incident, a soldier reportedly broke a detainee's leg with a baseball bat); the application of chemical substances to exposed skin and eyes; forced stress positions . . . sometimes to the point of unconsciousness; sleep deprivation [for days on end]; the stacking of detainees into human pyramids; and, the withholding of food (beyond crackers) and water."
http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-10-04/news/the-broken-constitution/

genoves
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 12:04 am
@revel,
Well, Revel, if you follow Amnesty International,you will find that there are more than enough charges to go around......The difference is,of course, that American Soldiers who are found to have violated regulations are tried and if found guilty are punished or jailed. The fanatic murderious Muslims do not have a self policing unit like the US has.

But some of the Human Rights groups are catching up with the murderous fanatical fringeMuslims--

Note:
quote
Amnesty International Criticizes Hamas for Murdering and Maiming Opponents
Middle East | Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:30:01 pm PST

Amnesty International must have felt the heat of public opinion after their ludicrous statement that they ignore Hamas war crimes because they’re so obvious; today they issued a report that, oddly enough, accuses Hamas of eliminating opponents.

Is it a genuine change of direction, or an attempt to preempt criticism? Amnesty International has consistently been one of the most radical anti-Israel NGOs, so it’s a little too early to call out the flying pig. But there does seem to be a trend lately among these groups to notice reality.

GENEVA (AFP) " Amnesty International on Tuesday accused Hamas of waging a campaign to kill or maim scores of Palestinian opponents in the Gaza Strip since the end of December.

The human rights group said in a report that at least two dozen men have been shot dead by gunmen from the Palestinian militia that governs the Gaza Strip since December 27. “Scores of others have been shot in the legs, knee-capped or inflicted with other injuries intended to cause severe disability, subjected to severe beatings ... or otherwise tortured or ill-treated,” it added.

“Hamas forces and militias in the Gaza Strip have engaged in a campaign of abductions, deliberate and unlawful killings, torture and death threats against those they accuse of ‘collaborating’ with Israel, as well as opponents and critics,” the report said.

end of quote-

Now, notice that US military Justice follows up--THE HAMAS MURDERERS ARE NEVER TRIED IN A COURT. The material below tells the story of just ONE of the US military courts convened to try American Soldiers for crimes.
CAN YOU FIND ONE, JUST ONE, JUST ONE story about HAMAS trying anyone for their murderous activities that are clearly against the Geneva Convention?

I am not saying that Hamas is a murdering group of fanatics. I don't need to say it. Amnesty International said it!!!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 06:53 am
Not even a half of the people who tortured have been tried since it started at the top. The whole atmosphere from the time they tried to get around the GC calling it "quaint" encouraged brutal behavior in interrogations and Cheney freely admitted he was responsible for the "harsher techniques." (look it up yourself if interested)

Moreover, we are responsible for the actions we do no matter what other people do.

Quote:
In 1866, Lincoln, dead by then, was sternly rebuked by the Supreme Court (Ex Parte Milligan) for the unconstitutional powers he had taken during the Civil War. Said the Court:

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." (Emphasis added.)


http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-10-04/news/the-broken-constitution/
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 03:48 am
@revel,
Of course, we are responsible for our actions no matter what other people do.

That is why I go around the country and visit Military Posts to tell our soldiers not to shoot at the enemy since they are responsible for their actions no matter what other people do.

As a matter of fact, revel, the US and its military have been a shining example for the rest of the world.

You won't admit that but we have been light years ahead of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mihn, and Mao.

If you think that American Soldiers and their officers are saints, you arewrong. They are people. People err BUT THEY ARE MORE DISCIPLINED AND MORE HUMANE THAN THE FANATIC FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIMS.

You may not be aware of the recent movesby President Obama( who, I am sure you will agree has only the best interests of his country at heart) to keep oneof the most conroversial legal tactics of the Bush anti-terror arsenal--Using the "state secrets" doctrine to block lawsuits by detainees.

Note:

Michael Temchine for The New York Times
Leon F. Panetta opened a loophole in the Obama administration’s interrogation restrictions while testifying before a Senate panel this month.

Published: February 17, 2009
WASHINGTON " Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting the war against Terror.

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Last month, protesters called for the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay.
In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”

These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared " prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law " indefinite detention without a trial " even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Ms. Kagan’s support for an elastic interpretation of the “battlefield” amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position. Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat zones should go to prison only after trials.

Moreover, the nominee for C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, opened a loophole in Mr. Obama’s interrogation restrictions. At his hearing, Mr. Panetta said that if the approved techniques were “not sufficient” to get a detainee to divulge details he was suspected of knowing about an imminent attack, he would ask for “additional authority.”

To be sure, Mr. Panetta emphasized that the president could not bypass antitorture statutes, as Bush lawyers claimed. And he said that waterboarding " a technique that induces the sensation of drowning, and that the Bush administration said was lawful " is torture.

But Mr. Panetta also said the C.I.A. might continue its “extraordinary rendition” program, under which agents seize terrorism suspects and take them to other countries without extradition proceedings, in a more sweeping form than anticipated.

Before the Bush administration, the program primarily involved taking indicted suspects to their native countries for legal proceedings. While some detainees in the 1990s were allegedly abused after transfer, under Mr. Bush the program expanded and included transfers to third countries " some of which allegedly used torture " for interrogation, not trials.

Mr. Panetta said the agency is likely to continue to transfer detainees to third countries and would rely on diplomatic assurances of good treatment " the same safeguard the Bush administration used, and that critics say is ineffective.



revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 08:09 am
@genoves,
You can always find a lower number on the scale of countries and leaders but that does not mean because you are not as bad as Hitler by putting people in ovens you do not break from your own standards. I am sure there are good people in service to the military (I have family members and friends who have served; I am not anti-military, not even those who only served their country over in Iraq) and even some of them who might of participated in the harsher interrogations may have been only following orders from the top. Others may be guilty on their own. Even though most of those harsher techniques have since been rescinded, it was wrong of us to do it and IMO we need to flush out the guilty parties and shine a spot light on it and make some new legislation to prevent this happening again.

As far as Obama decision, yes I have heard about that, I have said I don't approve.

0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 01:26 am
@genoves,
I don't think you read the whole post, revel!
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 08:45 am
@genoves,
No I didn't, now I am even more disapproving of the Obama administration regarding the whole issues of torture, abuse of detainees and the courts. I wish he would be straight forward and say giving detainees over to other countries even in extreme circumstances is against what this country believes in since we don't believe in torture (that is like saying I don't believe in killing someone so I am going to let someone else do it) and I wish he would order all cases to be transparent and allow the cases to go forward. He is disappointing me is this area and seems to be going against the spirit of his words.

Actually I didn't know there was diplomatic assurances before sending detainees to other countries under the Bush administration. I just thought they just sent them there to be tortured.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2009 10:09 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
b) there was and is consensus that a declaration of war can only be against a country.


I don't share that consensus.

I think wars are declared against enemies. And if an enemy doesn't happen to be a country, we shouldn't pretend that there isn't a war.


Hold up - you mean an enemy like "global terrorism"?


Ouch! Summer of 2006......

Many apologies (and much embarrassment) for missing your question when you posted it. I must have been offline for a while when you posted, and the thread buried by the time I returned to the net.

Anyway, I'm thinking more concrete enemies, like al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and maybe warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

At the most abstract, how about: "any group linked to the 9/11 attacks, or who knowingly aided such a group after the attacks".
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 10:18 am
@oralloy,

"any group linked to the 9/11 attacks, or who knowingly aided such a group after the attacks"

So, you mean the Saudis and George Bush
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 10:20 am
@genoves,

Quote:


Hugh: Did you see brutality at Gitmo?

Pete: I didn’t see one bit of it.

Hugh: Are interrogations ongoing at Gitmo?

Pete: Absolutely. The facility is there to gather intelligence.

Hugh: Any violence, in terms of physical brutality of the prisoners you observed?

Pete: Absolutely not. In fact, my men and I spent nine hours on a runway waiting to try and get a detainee to go back home who had refused to do so because he wanted to stay at Guantanamo because he was being treated so well.





Hilarious.

Nicked it from Monty Python of course, but still, got a laugh out of me
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 10:25 am
Hey genoves - here's something honest for you to read. Take your time - you might learn something.

Testimony of Spc. Brandon Neely

http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testimonials-project/testimonies/testimonies-of-military-guards/testimony-of-brandon-neely



Just because you can't or won't admit the truth - don't patronise others who can and will.

Suggested reading

http://www.truthout.org/article/the-truth-is-out-cia-and-torture

http://www.commondreams.org/category/broad-topics/torture

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/casework_mohammedelgharani.htm

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/casework_binyammohammed.htm

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/



******************************************************************


Published on Monday, February 23, 2009

Worse Than My Darkest Nightmare


As I gain my freedom, I am determined that neither those who remain in detention, nor their abusers, are forgotten
by Binyam Mohamed

I hope you will understand that after everything I have been through, I am neither physically nor mentally capable of facing the media on the moment of my arrival back to Britain. Please forgive me if I make a simple statement through my lawyer. I hope to be able to do better in days to come, when I am on the road to recovery.

I have been through an experience that I never thought to encounter in my darkest nightmares. Before this ordeal, "torture" was an abstract word to me. I could never have imagined that I would be its victim. It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next, and tortured in medieval ways - all orchestrated by the United States government.

While I want to recover, and put it all as far in my past as I can, I also know I have an obligation to the people who still remain in those torture chambers. My own despair was greatest when I thought that everyone had abandoned me. I have a duty to make sure that nobody else is forgotten.

I am grateful that, in the end, I was not simply left to my fate. I am grateful to my lawyers and other staff at Reprieve, and to Lt Col Yvonne Bradley, who fought for my freedom. I am grateful to the members of the British Foreign Office who worked for my release. And I want to thank people around Britain who wrote to me in Guantánamo Bay to keep my spirits up, as well as to the members of the media who tried to make sure that the world knew what was going on. I know I would not be home in Britain today, if it were not for everyone's support. Indeed, I might not be alive at all.

I wish I could say that it is all over, but it is not. There are still 241 Muslim prisoners in Guantánamo. Many have long since been cleared even by the US military, yet cannot go anywhere as they face persecution. For example, Ahmed bel Bacha lived here in Britain, and desperately needs a home. Then there are thousands of other prisoners held by the US elsewhere around the world, with no charges, and without access to their families.

And I have to say, more in sadness than in anger, that many have been complicit in my own horrors over the past seven years. For myself, the very worst moment came when I realised in Morocco that the people who were torturing me were receiving questions and materials from British intelligence. I had met with British intelligence in Pakistan. I had been open with them. Yet the very people who I had hoped would come to my rescue, I later realised, had allied themselves with my abusers.

I am not asking for vengeance; only that the truth should be made known, so that nobody in the future should have to endure what I have endured. Thank you.

This is the statement issued by Binyam Mohamed on his return to the UK

******************************************************************



Although the above statement was initially printed in GuardianUK - i first saw it on an American site - Common Dreams.

The first comment on the page, caught my eye


Quote:
Given all that Mr. Mohamed has gone through, this statement -- in both its truth and clarity -- is nothing less than an act of literature. For that, I gratefully thank Binyam Mohamed.

Though it seems so little in the face of the grave crimes that we as a nation have been perpetrating upon Mr. Mohamed and the people of the world (including our own citizens) I offer an apology for my complicity in all of this.

I humbly beg forgiveness.

Tom Johnson
Austin, TX



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/23-5



Some people are too cowardly to face the truth and others are not.


February 24, 2009
The Long Road to Recovery
Who is Binyam Mohamed?

By ANDY WORTHINGTON

http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington02242009.html

*********************************************************************

Published on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 by The Guardian/UK
Guantánamo: We Need the Truth
Without transparency about Binyam Mohamed's torture, the damage done will linger for years after the camp's closure

by Sarah Teather

With a stoic grace, Binyam Mohamed has described his return to the UK today after seven long years of detention in Guantánamo Bay as "more in sadness than in anger".

I have met that sense of emptiness and loss before. I have worked with two constituents who returned to the UK after a long incarceration in Guantánamo. In both cases the men had been illegally taken, in the process known as extraordinary rendition, by the CIA from an African country; and in both cases there were allegations of torture and degrading treatment. The journey to rebuild a life and to reconnect with family has been long, slow and fraught with pain. How do you come to terms with the lost years, the shame of allegations you cannot refute, or to witnessing humanity at its very darkest? Binyam Mohamed will need his friends and family around him, and the time and space to move on. It will therefore fall to others to ask the vital questions he is too weary to ask for himself.

We must not be squeamish or turn a blind eye to what has happened to him. Over seven years he has been shackled and blindfolded, flown to dark prisons across the world and kept incommunicado. He has made allegations of systematic torture, and says he had up to 20 or 30 cuts made into his penis and genitalia, with chemicals poured on the wounds for extra pain. In Guantánamo, reports suggest he was routinely humiliated and abused, resulting in long periods on hunger strike in protest. In all this time, Mohamed was never charged with a crime.

We might have expected the government to protect a UK resident from such barbaric treatment. Instead, their fingerprints are all over his case file.

Torture is wrong, pure and simple. Civilised and democratic governments, including Britain, should have absolutely no role in a practice that is both ineffective and inhumane, and there is no excuse to put our so-called special relationship with the US before the rule of law. It is not enough to simply speak out against torture: the foreign secretary has a duty to help root out and end such practices.

We cannot stamp out torture unless we know why and how it was allowed to happen in the first place. Barack Obama's commitment to close Guantánamo is a huge leap forward, but we need a full investigation to make sure that such fundamental basic principles can never be flouted again. Without this openness and transparency, the damage done by Guantánamo will linger on long after the detention camp is closed.

The Labour government should be standing up to the United States, not colluding in a cover-up. If British residents have been subjected to torture, and if our own government have turned a blind eye, then we have a right to know. If the British government is sitting on vital evidence then it should immediately release it to the public.

Binyam Mohamed has said that, when he asked a camp guard why he was being tortured, the guard replied, "It's just to degrade you, so when you leave here, you'll have the scars and you'll never forget."

We should not forget either. The wounds and scars inflicted on Mohamed are not just a personal tragedy for him, they also represent a vicious assault on the values and humanity of our country. Labour's already bruised and battered human rights record lies in tatters. President Obama has promised a fresh start but, before the slate can be wiped clean, we have to be told the truth.
© 2009 Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
Sarah Teather is Liberal Democrat MP for Brent East and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Guantánamo Bay



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/23/binyam-mohamed-return-uk


oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 08:44 pm
@Endymion,
Quote:
While I want to recover, and put it all as far in my past as I can, I also know I have an obligation to the people who still remain in those torture chambers.


That this guy tries to demonize Guantanamo this way indicates that he may be one of the enemy after all.
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 02:15 am
@oralloy,

You are pathetic do you know that?
I don't care if he is the reincarnation of Hitler
I don't want my country to behave like Hitler's Nazis under ANY circumstances. Individuals must be tried for their crimes.
Torture is a crime.
Being held without charge is a crime.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 02:48 am
@Endymion,
Endymion wrote:
You are pathetic do you know that?


No I'm not.



Endymion wrote:
I don't want my country to behave like Hitler's Nazis under ANY circumstances.


Lucky you. America has never and will never behave like Nazis.



Endymion wrote:
Individuals must be tried for their crimes.


Good. Let's start with Clinton.



Endymion wrote:
Torture is a crime.


US soldiers always seem to end up getting tortured when they are captured. When do we start trying their torturers?



Endymion wrote:
Being held without charge is a crime.


No it isn't.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 02:52 am
@Endymion,
Endymion wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Anyway, I'm thinking more concrete enemies, like al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and maybe warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

At the most abstract, how about: "any group linked to the 9/11 attacks, or who knowingly aided such a group after the attacks".


So, you mean the Saudis and George Bush


No. I mean al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
 

Related Topics

The Story of Jumah al Dossari - Discussion by Diest TKO
Shame on Obama for not closing Gitmo - Discussion by Olivier5
9/11 Families Outraged - Discussion by H2O MAN
A Gitmo what if - Discussion by H2O MAN
Sigh, more lies about abuses - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 09:27:33