No Abuse of Guantanomo Prisoners

Many people, including people on this Board like Pyell, have claimed that the Guantanomo detainees have been absued and mistreated. Pyell even claimed that the International Red Cross was denied access, but that they have complained about mistreatment of prisoners.

That, it turns out, is compeltely false. Three Senators - 2 Republicans (including former-POW Sen. John McCain) and a Democrat (liberal Sen. Maria Cantwell) - recently returned from Gunatanomo and reported no evidence of mistreatment.

More importantly, the 12/13/2003 New York Times article reporting on that trip reported that the International Red Cross found no evidence of abuse of those prisoners, stating:

<<Like the senators, the Red Cross has found no cases of abuse in the treatment of the prisoners. >>

Why are people like Pyell and others lying and claiming that these prisoners are being abused and mistreated when even the International Red Cross doesn't say this?

All 3 Senators making this visit urged the Administration to finally either charge these detainees or release them, and I agree. But that is a separate issue from whether they were being mistreated.

>All 3 Senators making this visit urged the Administration to

>finally either charge these detainees or release them, and I

>agree. But that is a separate issue from whether they were

>being mistreated.

Well, one might argue that holding someone prisoner, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, family, friends and so forth is mistreatment in and of itself. Holding someone in an undefined state, with no prospect for release sounds just plain cruel to me. As was noted in another thread recently, our government lately doesn't have just the best track record in deciding whom to prosecute. (Richard Jewell, Wen Ho Lee, etc)

At least a few of these detainees just have to be innocent, guilty by association or whatever. I agree 100% with the senators that the administration needs to either charge or release the detainees. John McCain pointing this out is particularly poignant, given his status as a Viet Nam era POW.

Frankly, I do not think the whole Guantanomo Bay episode reflects well on our nation. Our nation is supposed to be the icon of liberty, justice and freedom in the world. Treating these prisoners in this fasion is not consistent with our Constitution. As a nation, we can and must do better.

--EBG

>Well, one might argue that holding someone prisoner,

>indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, family, friends and

>so forth is mistreatment in and of itself.

One might argue that, but that wasn't the argument I was addressing. I was addressing the argument that the prisoners were being mistreated beyond the mere circumstances of their detention.

And how is the description you just gave of the treatment of the Guantanomo prisoners - indefinite detention, no lawyers, etc. - any different than the treatment given to run-of-the-mill Prisoners of War?

>Holding someone in

>an undefined state, with no prospect for release sounds just

>plain cruel to me.

Yeah - dropping bombs on people is cruel, too. And parading them around with a tongue depresser in their mouth and then hording them off to await inevitable execution is also cruel.

But we're in a war. And the only way to protect our country and to win the war is to do creul things to those whom we reasonably believe (NOT beyond a reasonable doubt after trial) are our enemies. I guess you'll have to get used to that.

As was noted in another thread recently,

>our government lately doesn't have just the best track record

>in deciding whom to prosecute. (Richard Jewell, Wen Ho Lee,

>etc)

Have you ever heard of 9/11? Did that even change anything for you at all? If so, what?

>At least a few of these detainees just have to be innocent,

>guilty by association or whatever.

Yeah - and we've released a lot of them, and are preparing to release more.

I agree 100% with the

>senators that the administration needs to either charge or

>release the detainees. John McCain pointing this out is

>particularly poignant, given his status as a Viet Nam era

>POW.

Sen. McCain also pointed out that there's absolutely no evidence of any torture or mistreatment of these prisoners - something that is also particularly poignant given his status NOT JUST AS A POW, but as a POW who was fucking tortured!!!!

Why are so many people so eager to wipe away the rather fundamental differences between the U.S. and countries which do not adhere to these norms?

>Frankly, I do not think the whole Guantanomo Bay episode

>reflects well on our nation. Our nation is supposed to be the

>icon of liberty, justice and freedom in the world. Treating

>these prisoners in this fasion is not consistent with our

>Constitution. As a nation, we can and must do better.

Are you aware that throughout our Nation's history, many of the civil liberties which we enjoy in times of peace were abridged or suspended as a result of the necessities of war?

Abraham Lincoln, everyone's favorite defender of liberty, suspended the right of habeus corpus and other constitutional protections during the Civil War.

The main defect of liberal thought today - and the primary explanation for these profound differences - is that so many of you think of 9/11 as an isolated, discrete criminal act, rather than a reflection of the fact that we are engaged in a major, major war - one of the most threatening, if not the most threatening - which our country has ever faced, and, accordingly, extreme measures are required.

Thankfully, though, most Americans, and this Administration, do understand that, which is what is relegating you more and more every day to a distant and irrelevant minority.

>Thankfully, though, most Americans, and this Administration,

>do understand that, which is what is relegating you more and

>more every day to a distant and irrelevant minority.

There you go again, Doogie, acting as if you speak for most Americans. Nobody elected you to be the spokesperson for America, so keep on entertaining us with your neocon fascist claptrap. You really are quite amusing. Much more so than the mentally retarded children you are so fond of laughing at and making fun of.

DOug should some time in San Francisco, maybe a long weekend. That way he could see real anti-Bushies and real lefties!

Mistreatment? Keeping a prisoner in a cage barely the size of the mattress? Is that a good start? That's documented and shown in media reports.

There are allegations - though they can't go any higher because there is insufficient communication with the detainees - of undue pressure and improper interrogation methods.

And then there's the isolation. One of the Australian detainees was allowed to speak by phone to his father for the first time in TWO YEARS earlier this week. He saw his lawyers for the first time last week. And he's likely to be the first one to face trial, some time unspecified in the new year.

That all adds up to mistreatment in my book.

And it sits very uncomfortably with the Administration's loud calls for a fair and open trial of Saddam Hussein. If the ultimate butcher of Iraq can have a fair and open trial, what about the prisoners of Guantanamo?

Or does the US military have something to hide?

Let me also make this clear: conducting open trials and open prisoner camps is the best way to avoid unfounded accusations emerging. If the US military has nothing to hide, let's see it. I for one would be delighted to learn that the US military is treating these prisoners well.

There's still the small matter of 2 years detention without trial or charges, of course....

>Mistreatment? Keeping a prisoner in a cage barely the size

>of the mattress? Is that a good start? That's documented and

>shown in media reports.

The issue is that you claimed, falsely, that the International Red Cross complained that the prisoners were being mistreated. That was a lie. As the New York Times reported, they found no evidence of mistreatment of these prisoners.

>There are allegations - though they can't go any higher

>because there is insufficient communication with the detainees

>- of undue pressure and improper interrogation methods.

Can you read??? The International Red Cross DID visit those prisoners. Three Senators, comprised of both parties, including one with a quite vibrant and personal concern for the treatment of prisoners, just returned from there as well, and said there is no indiciation at all of prisoner mistreatment.

Why do you keep lying and saying that the U.S. Government has blocked access to these prisoners by the International Red Cross when they, and others who are unbiased, have had full access to this camp and found no evidence of mistreatment?

>And then there's the isolation. One of the Australian

>detainees was allowed to speak by phone to his father for the

>first time in TWO YEARS earlier this week. He saw his lawyers

>for the first time last week. And he's likely to be the first

>one to face trial, some time unspecified in the new year.

>

>That all adds up to mistreatment in my book.

Can you think of any reasons why terrorist suspects would be kept in isolation? Common criminals all over the world are kept in isolation for all sorts of reasons, but it's absolutely vital that terrorist suspects be entertained during the day.

The concern that people like you feel for terrorists is moving, really - let's put them all together so they can congregate and plot. Brilliant.

>And it sits very uncomfortably with the Administration's loud

>calls for a fair and open trial of Saddam Hussein. If the

>ultimate butcher of Iraq can have a fair and open trial, what

>about the prisoners of Guantanamo?

Have any of them had closed trials? And are you trying to say that Saddam Hussein is somehow worse than terrorists and therefore terrorists deserve better treatment?

And again - can you think of any reasons why a trial involving all sorts of evidence and informants and sources regarding terrorist activities may have to be closed to the public? Maybe if you concentrate real hard you'll come up with one.

>Or does the US military have something to hide?

Yes - they have a lot to hide. They torture people. They shoot people in the head for fun. They gas their own people. They fly airplanes into buildings. They're as bad as Al-Qaeda, as you've told us before. So yeah, the U.S. military" is the root of all evil and so it has to keep its actions secret so that this doesn't get uncovered.

But because of you're brilliance, you're able to see through all of that.

>Let me also make this clear: conducting open trials and open

>prisoner camps is the best way to avoid unfounded accusations

>emerging. If the US military has nothing to hide, let's see

>it. I for one would be delighted to learn that the US

>military is treating these prisoners well.

The last thing that the U.S. Government cares about is trying to please the likes of you, who think that the U.S. is the moral equivalent of Al-Qaeda. Can you think of any good reason why the Government would give a flying fuck about what people like you think?

RE: Americans love Bush

>There you go again, Doogie, acting as if you speak for most

>Americans. Nobody elected you to be the spokesperson for

>America, so keep on entertaining us with your neocon fascist

>claptrap.

There's a way to figure out what most Americans think. They have these new things now called "polls" that enable us to know this without having to speculate.

Here's what the one published today in the New York Times said:

**Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?

Approve - 58%

Disapprove 39%

Don't know - 9%

** Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism?

Approve - 68%

Disapprove - 28%

Don't know - 6%

** Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling foreign policy?

Approve - 52%

Disapprove - 38%

Don't know - 9%

** Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?

Approve - 59%

Disapprove - 39%

Don't know - 6%

** Do you think George W. Bush has more honesty and integrity than most people in public life?

More - 52%

Less - 39%

Don't know - 10%

Now, bucky, what were you saying about what "most Americans" think?

RE: Americans love Bush

CORRECTION:

* Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?

Approve - 59%

Disapprove - 35%

Don't know - 6%

RE: Americans love Bush

LAST CORRECTION - I read this poll at first in a difficult-to-read .pdf format. Here are the correct numbers, which are even more favorable to Bush than the ones I erroneously copied. For you Bush-haters, check them out yourself at http://www.nytimes.com and weep as you realize your irrelevance:

>**Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is

>handling his job as President?

>

>Approve - 58%

>Disapprove 33%

>Don't know - 9%

>

>** Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush

>is handling the campaign against terrorism?

>

>Approve - 68%

>Disapprove - 26%

>Don't know - 6%

>

>** Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is

>handling foreign policy?

>

>Approve - 52%

>Disapprove - 38%

>Don't know - 9%

>

>** Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is

>handling the situation in Iraq?

>

>Approve - 59%

>Disapprove - 35%

>Don't know - 6%

>

>** Do you think George W. Bush has more honesty and integrity

>than most people in public life?

>

>More - 52%

>Less - 39%

>Don't know - 10%

Now, bucky, what were you saying about what "most

Americans" think?

RE: Neilsen Ratings for Dictators....

Hmmh, I wonder what Hitler's Neilsen ratings would have looked like back in NAZI Germany?

RE: Americans love Bush

The problem is that most Americans don't think. They blindly trust their government, and, as long as a politician is wrapped in the American flag, believe everything he says. Why else would lower income Americans be supporting Bush's tax cuts and pork-barrel spending bills?

RE: Neilsen Ratings for Dictators....

>Hmmh, I wonder what Hitler's Neilsen ratings would have

>looked like back in NAZI Germany?

First, I only posted this because Bucky claimed that I had no basis for describing what "most Americans" think - i.e., that most Americans think that Bush's decisions with regard to the war on terrorism are the right ones. As this New York Times poll demonstrates, I described the views of "most Americans" on this subject with exquisite accuracy.

Second, I know that you hate democracy, as you prove every day with your virulent defense of brutal Arab dictatorships and your relentless attacks on the only real democracy in the Middle East, but in general, it's a good thing when an elected leader has the support and approval of the citizens whom he governs.

Third, while it may be true that mere popularity doesn't prove that a leader is making the right decisions, it does prove how irrelevant and discredited your views are, and it also demonstrates that your fellow citizens find your views vile.

Finally, comparing Bush to Hitler, even for purposes of trying to show that a popular leader is not a moral leader, is an excellent example of why people like you are as universally scorned as you are.

RE: Americans love Bush

>Now, bucky, what were you saying about what "most

>Americans" think?

>

>

>

>

The same thing I said before, which you conveniently ignored: Who appointed you to be spokesperson for the American people....and the answer is: no one, moron!

Anyone who knows anything about opinion polls is that they change based on perceptions at any given moment in time. Bush gets a bump because Saddam is in custody. Remember that GHWB had high polling numbers after Gulf Oil War I, and what happened to him at the next election? I case you've forgotten, we elected the best President America has had since FDR .......WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. I know it will pain you greatly to be reminded that Bill Clinton had high polling numbers at various times of his eight years of real (as opposed to "made for television RNC) accomplishments.

RE: Neilsen Ratings for Dictators....

>Second, I know that you hate democracy, as you prove every day

>with your virulent defense of brutal Arab dictatorships and

>your relentless attacks on the only real democracy in the

>Middle East, but in general, it's a good thing when an elected

>leader has the support and approval of the citizens whom he

>governs.

Three problems. First, I have never defended an Arab dictatorship here or anywhere. Second, Israel is not a democracy unless you think that apartheid South Africa was also a democracy. Third, Bush was not elected, but Hitler was.

RE: Americans love Bush

>The problem is that most Americans don't think.

Are these the same Americans who twice elected Bill Clinton? Or were they smart then and dumb now?

>Why

>else would lower income Americans be supporting Bush's tax

>cuts and pork-barrel spending bills?

Maybe because, like many ecoomists, they believe that tax cuts are a good thing for everyone, because tehy spur growth and create jobs?

Sen. Paul Tsongas (D) once said that you can't be pro-jobs and anti-corporation. You can't consistently urge that corporations be soaked with tax increases and then also claim, at least with a straight face, that you favor job creation. I'll give you a few minutes to figure out why that is - but apparently, the "lower income Americans" who support Bush's economic policies have already figured this out.

>Well, one might argue that holding someone prisoner,

>indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, family, friends and

>so forth is mistreatment in and of itself.

Of course it's mistreatment. Even convicted murderers and child rapists in the U.S. are not treated in that manner.

>At least a few of these detainees just have to be innocent,

Well, based on the fact that dozens have either been released already or scheduled for release, one would have to conclude either that there is no indication they will be a threat to U.S. security in the future or that Rumsfeld has lost his mind. If you pick the first alternative you would then have to wonder why they were confined at all. If they are terrorists, how is it possible to conclude they won't be a threat in the future? If they are NOT terrorists, why were they locked up to begin with?

>Our nation is supposed to be the

>icon of liberty, justice and freedom in the world.

Too late for that, I'm afraid. Thanks to our long history of supporting Arab dictators we are now viewed as a symbol of tyranny and oppression in that part of the world. Why do you think we were attacked in the first place, because the hijackers had too many beers at the Admirals' Club?

>Too late for that, I'm afraid. Thanks to our long history of

>supporting Arab dictators we are now viewed as a symbol of

>tyranny and oppression in that part of the world. Why do you

>think we were attacked in the first place, because the

>hijackers had too many beers at the Admirals' Club?

That's only half the story. It is are support for the repugnant zionist colony in Palestine that permits those Arab dictators not have to face the democratic wrath of their people. Until we end that dual track policy, I am fairly confident that we will continue to erode our own civil liberties at home, and stand in longer lines at the airport and the Admirals Club.

RE: Americans love Bush

>

>Maybe because, like many ecoomists, they believe that tax cuts

>are a good thing for everyone, because tehy spur growth and

>create jobs?

Dougie: Where's your little spell-checking sidekick when you need him the most? Since you have repetitively spelled "Guantanamo" incorrectly, I'm more than happy to step in and correct your deficiency.

We're still waiting to see the spur in job growth. My guy at Morgan Stanley tells me not to hold my breath. Anyone here remember the growth numbers John Snow was predicting, versus reality?

>It is are support for the

>repugnant zionist colony

"are" support??? is that what they teach you in your night school international paralegal course?

>"are" support??? is that what they teach you in your night

>school international paralegal course?

I proofread what I write when my clients pay. I feel sorry for those who can't or don't, but can and do on an Internet message board. When or if you get a real job Oren, you may find yourself making a similar choice. Somehow, I think "if" is more likely and appropriate than "when".

Just to bring doug up to date, one of the two Australian captives has received the first visit by a lawyer to ANY of the more than 600 detainees (just in case you've forgotten, they've been detained without trial and without charges for over 2 years now).

Here's what the BBC News website had to say in reporting the lawyer's visit this week:

"The lawyer said that in order to be allowed to see his client, he had to sign a legal document preventing him from talking about anything related to Guantanamo Bay and what he saw there without the permission of the US military authorities.

Nevertheless, Mr Kenny said inmates appeared to be treated differently depending on whether they came from countries that had allied themselves with the Americans or not.

"I see a great destruction of what I would call the rule of law, that people should be treated equally before the law, that they should have the same standard of justice," he said.

"This is a case where the standard of justice seems to have different layers, one for the Americans, there may be another one for the British, there is certainly a different one for Australian - less than the American - and the rest of them in the camp... they weren't [part of] the allies' camp is their rationale and they will get a lesser standard than what the Australians will." '

Can someone explain why the lawyer had to sign a form preventing him from talking about what he saw in Guantanamo? Just what is the military trying to hide here? And if they have nothing to hide, why impose such a ridiculous restriction?

And if what the lawyer says is right, then American prisoners get better treatment than others. Can someone explain why that would be justified?

Until there is full and open access to Guantanamo, there can be no confidence that the military is running a prison according to basic standards.

And, of course, there is a ghastly irony in the capture of Saddam Hussein. He's going to get a relatively swift and open trial. President Bush has explicitly promised as much. Yet two years on, not a single Guantanmo prisoner has yet been charged with anything. Why is the butcher of Baghdad being treated so much better than the ordinary grunts of Guantanamo?

Doug, before you finish foaming at the mouth, cay you show me one place where I said that the International Red Cross had been denied access to the detainees? I didn't say that at all. What I did say is that the IRC did have access, and it risked its continuing right of access by publicly complaining a month or so ago about the treatment of these prisoners.

And this is what the IRC actually said, in the BBC website report for 10 October this year. It doesn't make attractive reading:

"Red Cross blasts Guantanamo

A top Red Cross official has broken with tradition by publicly attacking conditions at the US military base on Cuba where al-Qaeda suspects are being held.

Christophe Girod - the senior Red Cross official in Washington - said it was unacceptable that the 600 detainees should be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without legal safeguards.

The Red Cross is the only organisation with access to the detainees.

His criticism came as a group of American former judges, diplomats and military officers called on the US Supreme Court to examine the legality of holding the foreign nationals for almost two years, without trial, charge or access to lawyers.

Mr Girod said the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was making the unusually blunt public statement because of a lack of action after previous private contacts with American officials.

"One cannot keep these detainees in this pattern, this situation, indefinitely," he said during a visit to the US naval base where the Taleban and al-Qaeda suspects are being held.

'Ghosts'

US officials insist there are reasons for holding the alleged fighters and say they will get a fair legal hearing in due course.

The open-endedness of the situation and its impact on the mental health of the population has become a major problem

Mr Girod is leading a team from the ICRC which has just completed an inspection tour of the detention camp in Cuba.

Although he did not criticise any physical conditions at the camp, he said that it was intolerable that the complex was used as "an investigation centre, not a detention centre".

"The open-endedness of the situation and its impact on the mental health of the population has become a major problem," he told the New York Times.

Christine Huskey, an American lawyer representing 28 Kuwaiti inmates, told the BBC she had had "absolutely" no access to them.

"I represent a ghost," she said.

In the past 18 months, 21 detainees have made 32 suicide attempts, and many more are being treated for depression, the New York Times says.

Mr Girod says prisoners who spoke to his team regularly asked about what was going to happen to them.

"It's always the number one question," he said. "They don't know about the future."

Camp officials have said most of the detainees' mental health problems existed before they arrived.

The Geneva-based ICRC is the only group outside the US Government allowed to visit the detention camp.

In exchange for access, the committee has agreed to take any initial complaints directly to Washington. It publicises its views only when it feels they are not being heeded.

In this instance, the ICRC says it has been urging the White House for months to make significant changes in Guantanamo.

The administration, Mr Girod said, should consider establishing a policy of giving detainees some idea of when they can learn whether they will be charged or released.

'Repugnant'

On Sunday a group including former American judges and military officials filed legal papers urging the US Supreme Court to intervene.

Don Guter, the US navy's judge advocate general until last year, said it was not acceptable simply to hold suspected al-Qaeda or Taleban members until the US war on terror was over.

The argument filed to the Supreme Court by Mr Guter and others said: "The lives of American military forces may well be endangered by the United States' failure to grant foreign prisoners in its custody the same rights that the United States insists be accorded to American prisoners held by foreigners."

That view was backed by ex-prisoners-of-war, some of whom told the Supreme Court they owed their lives to the fact that their captors abided by the Geneva conventions.

On Wednesday an Australian lawyer representing some of the suspects said they were being submitted to torture.

US officials have denied torturing detainees, saying they are allowed to practise their religion and given good medical care. "

"The last thing that the U.S. Government cares about is trying to please the likes of you, who think that the U.S. is the moral equivalent of Al-Qaeda. Can you think of any good reason why the Government would give a flying fuck about what people like you think?"

Let me see:

1. The USA is supposed to be based on concepts of freedom and democracy that are said to be a beacon for the rest of the world.

2. The USA is supposed to believe that some things are so fundamental that they go beyond mere popularity. That's why it has an entrenched Bill of Rights, that has been there since 1792 to protect citizens against populist governments.

3. Yet the USA is flouting the basic standards of human decency that it is prepared to extend to murders, rapists, and, believe it or not, terrorists, so long as those criminals are detained on US soil.

Is that enough to be going on with?

Doug, it's not who I am that matters in this debate, but what I'm saying. What I'm saying relates to the basic principles and standards on which the USA is based. It doesn't matter whether I'm American, Australian, left wing, right wing, young, old, gay or straight. These basic principles apply to everybody, according to the US Bill of Rights. It's the message that matters, not the messenger.

>Can someone explain why the lawyer had to sign a form

>preventing him from talking about what he saw in Guantanamo?

>Just what is the military trying to hide here? And if they

>have nothing to hide, why impose such a ridiculous

>restriction?

You are in seirous denial over the existence of terrorism and its dangers. I would be most grateful for an answer to this question: If there are any actual terrorists at Guantanomo, can you think of any reasons why the U.S. military wouldn't want people who visit there to leave and talk about the prison, how its laid out, what the security measures are, what techniques they use to interrogate, etc.?

Other than the fact that they are sticking poison needles in the eyes of the prisoners and cutting of their thumbs if they don't behave, can you think of any reasons why they might be concerned about secrecy in a camp like that?

>Just to bring doug up to date, one of the two Australian

>captives has received the first visit by a lawyer to ANY of

>the more than 600 detainees (just in case you've forgotten,

>they've been detained without trial and without charges for

>over 2 years now).

I asked this before - I noticed that you, nor any of your "there-is-no-war" comrades answered. Prisoners of war are kept for much longer than 2 years. Are they given access to lawyers? Trials? Definite release dates?

If we captured Osama bin Laden and interrogated him for 2 years without giving him access to lawyers and putting him on trial, do you think there'd be anything wrong with that?

>Until there is full and open access to Guantanamo, there can

>be no confidence that the military is running a prison

>according to basic standards.

The International Red Cross - the organization you held out as the High Priests of Human Rights and all that is Good and Just - DID have access to that camp and, contrary to the lies you told here, said there's no evidence of mistreatment. What more do you think the U.S. should do? Turn it into a fucking amusement park and sell admission tickets to the public?