White House spokesman Scott McClellan said investigators failed to examine the facts and that their time would be better spent studying other cases.

The report says the US should try all approximately 500 inmates, or free them "without further delay".

Aspects of the treatment at the camp amount to torture, the UN team alleges.

We're back to an old discussion here so I'm most likely not jumping in too deep. Unfortunately all the wonderful old discussions of the tortures of Club Gitmo are no longer available, so I'll post a brief recap.

When it comes to enemy combatants and their being held as prisoners, in this country, with far too many lawyers per square acre, we find law professors and human rights attorneys galore generating enough legal opinions to fill all the floors in both WTCs. If they still existed.

Sufficeth to say, those who wish to find a scholarly legal rationale to assign defense attorneys to each Gitmo detainee, charge them with some crime, avail them of the evidence against them through discovery, and then get them on the dockets for speedy trials in US courts, will find that rationale they seek.

But it also a fact that the Bush administration has no dearth of lawyers either and the lawyers representing them have a different opinion on the legalities at issue.

Probably the most salient fact, after these, is that the American people tend not to give a flying &#*@ about imprisoned terrorists eating three squares a day, with their US supplied prayer rugs and Korans, having fewer civil rights than your average US citizen, US immigrant or even WWII POW who represented the military of another country. Even most of those who were against the war in Iraq don't have much sympathy for the Boys of Gitmo. It is the American soldiers guarding these prisoners for whom I reserve my highest regard. When the war simmers down and fizzles out, hey, they can go on back home to Peshawar or their Hindu Kush cave. In the meantime, very few Americans have the concerns for these fellows as a high priority. Myself, I'm comfortable that they are well looked after.

When you top it all off with the fact that the United Nations is the one wagging its finger at the United States, the report becomes all the more laughable. I'm with Scotty on this one. to the United Nations report!

Read the full 54 page report and prepare to when you read the torture sections. I'm not sure which was the most horrific. Perhaps I'd have to hear that from one who has deeper concerns than I. With what I've read, I'm not sure how anyone could expect to get a nation lathered up over these "abuses."

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/ungitmo021506.pdf

Here are but a few:

These are approved:

Using a hood for transport or questioning.

Deprivation of light and auditory stimuli

Forced grooming (shaving facial hair)

Use of stress positions (like standing) for maximum of 4 hours

These were alleged but not approved by the US:

Use of female interrogators who performed "lap dances during interrogations" and, in some cases, not being allowed to wash before prayer time after such torture.
US Government has, either implicitly or explicitly, encouraged or tolerated the association between Islam and terrorism!

After you finish with the UN bitching and moaning, please pay close attention to the US official response on the final pages. This is where you learn a most interesting fact relevant to how much 'TRUTH SEEKING" may have been involved in this report:

An offer to visit Gitmo to see for themselves first-hand, with unprecedented access was rejected by the Special Rapportuers.

May we all end up with the government we deserve. May we who can properly distinguish between a Cuban prison filled with terrorists and a White House with an unpopular president be able to hold out until such a time as clarity of thought returns to our delusional friends on the left, who would prefer to have the aforementioned parties switch locations.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

And these are the horrible conditions of the Gitmo prisoners

From the Telepgrah  

In a rare visit by a British journalist, Con Coughlin reports on the changes that have taken place at Guantanamo Bay detention centre.
    
They are the lost souls of the war on terror. Four years after they were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan, the hundreds of al-Qa'eda and Taliban fighters held at America's Guantanamo Bay detention centre find themselves trapped in a legal no-man's land.

During a rare visit this week to Camp Delta, the sprawling, heavily-guarded network of buildings where the inmates are held, I found a variety of detainees of varying ages and backgrounds still trying to come to terms with their incongruous surroundings on a Caribbean island.

I came across an elderly Pashtun tribesman with an immaculately groomed long, white beard and fierce, brown eyes, standing proudly outside his prison cell. There was a group of young Pakistani men in their early twenties engaged in a highly competitive game of football. And sitting in a quiet corner, under a metal shelter protecting them from the fierce midday sun, I found a group of middle-aged Afghan men engaged in soft-spoken conversation as they shared a communal meal.

These, according to American officials, are some of the most dangerous men on earth (there are no women detainees at Guantanamo). Of the estimated 70,000 fighters captured during the American-led coalition's war in Afghanistan, the 750 detainees that have been held at Guantanamo, the 45-square mile US Naval Base the American government leases from Cuba, have been identified, following security and intelligence checks, as key figures in the al-Qa'eda and Taliban terror networks who can provide information about terror campaigns against the West.

The detainees come from a total of 44 countries and speak a total of 17 different languages. All have been detained as a result of Operation Enduring Freedom, the American-led military campaign against al-Qa'eda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The majority are Afghan, Pakistani, Saudi and Yemeni nationals, although there is also an Australian who converted to radical Islam to take up arms against the West.

Of 750 detainees, nearly 250 have been released. Some have been released after US officials deemed them no longer a threat or to possess useful information. Others - such as the British detainees - returned to their home countries following the intervention of their governments.

But the remainder face an uncertain future, as US officials insist they are too dangerous to be released, or that they possess high-quality intelligence that is regarded as crucial to the successful prosecution of the war on terror. Even after four years in detention, some of the detainees possess critical information about the international terror network being operated by Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'eda leader.

"One of the detainees was able to provide key information relating to the London bombings," a senior US military official at Guantanamo told The Daily Telegraph. "Even after four years they are able to provide crucial intelligence about the al-Qa'eda network."

American officials are also concerned about releasing detainees who, once released, could resume hostilities against coalition forces. At least 12 of those released so far on the grounds that they no longer posed a threat have been involved in anti-coalition attacks, including an Afghan who was fitted with a prosthetic limb while being held at Guantanamo.

During those four years the Guantanamo detention facility has changed beyond all recognition from the disturbing images that first appeared of bound, blindfolded detainees being taken for interrogation in orange jump suits. Those pictures were provided courtesy of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who allowed an American photographer unprecedented access to a sensitive border post on the Cuban border with Guantanamo to heap embarrassment on his long-standing American enemies.

The detainees are no longer held in the makeshift, iron-mesh open air structures at Camp X-Ray where the first arrivals were held following their arrival from Afghanistan in early 2002. Camp X-Ray itself now lies abandoned, covered in weeds.

The US Defence Department has spent hundreds of millions of dollars transforming what was once a sleepy, uneventful navy base into what is effectively a state-of-the-art, maximum high-security prison capable of holding hundreds of detainees for as long as the US wants to hold them. In many cases, US officials say this could be for the "duration of hostilities", which given the uncertain nature of the war on terror, could be decades.

For despite all the international criticism Washington has received over its treatment of the detainees - or "enemy combatants" as the US prefers to call them - Guantanamo has been institutionalised to the extent that work is still under way on building new, multi-million dollar maximum security facilities.

"Basically there is nowhere else we can hold these people," said a senior US official. "And so long as they pose a threat to our security, or can provide information that can help us prevent further bloodshed, then we need to have properly-equipped, maximum security facilities in Guantanamo in which we can detain them humanely."

Having undergone an exhaustive vetting and interrogation procedure, the inmates are now divided into three categories, which vary according to their willingness to accept the unique circumstances of their captivity.

There are those - the majority - whom US military officials classify as "compliant" - i.e. they accept the detention centre's routine - and are allowed the benefits of a normal prison regime.

The "compliant" are held in air-conditioned, steel-framed cells in purpose-built, single-storey blocks in the sprawling network of five prison camps that constitute Camp Delta, the replacement to Camp X-Ray.

Each block contains 48 cells surrounded by a double ring fence made of razor wire and permanently-manned watchtowers.

Each cell has its own primitive lavatory and wash basin. The inmates are issued with tan-coloured prison clothing, are provided with a range of toiletries, games such as backgammon and chess - which they play by shouting moves to inmates in neighbouring cells - and a copy of the Koran. Each cell has an arrow pointing in the direction of Mecca to enable them to conduct their daily religious devotions.

They are allowed two hours' exercise a day and to choose their three daily meals from a prison menu that includes ice cream, cookies and peanut butter. A fully staffed and equipped military hospital is available to treat any illness or medical condition, and the detainees have been treated for anything from wounds sustained fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan to cancerous tumours. (Jordan's Note - or I guess wounds resulting in "torture".)

American officials like to boast that there have been no fatalities among the 750 plus detainees who have passed through Guantanamo. (Jordan's Note - like anyone in their right mind believes that.)

"Compliant" detainees who are prepared to co-operate during interrogations with American intelligence officials are given additional privileges. This second category of detainee wears white jump suits, is allowed to live in communal accommodation, share meals with fellow inmates and play football and basketball.

But the third category - the non-compliant detainees, those who refuse to accept their confinement - pose the greatest problem for the American military. Many of these detainees are hard-core al-Qa'eda fighters who believe it is their divine mission to kill or injure their "infidel" captors. They have been known to attack their prison guards, and when unable to do so, pelt them with missiles made of faeces and urine - known as "a number four cocktail" - by the prison guards.

It is during incidents such as this that the guards have responded in controversial ways, such as abusing the Koran (the famous incident of a Koran being flushed down a prison lavatory is alleged to occurred during one such confrontation.) But fearful of a repetition of the prisoner abuse that occurred at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, the guards are under instructions not to retaliate.(Jordan's Note - yeah right - they are tortured - yeah that's it!)

"We have investigated 15 allegations of abuse against the camp guards," said a Guantanamo official. "Only five of them have been upheld, and the appropriate action has been taken against the guards." (Jordan's Note - like we can beleive anything)

The non-compliant prisoners are held in segregated wings of the camp and are provided with only the basic amenities, including the notorious orange jump suits. They are only allowed three half-hour exercise periods a week.

Not surprisingly it is from this wing that the majority of the hunger strikers originate. At the height of the hunger strikes last autumn there were more than 100 inmates refusing to take food. Today that figure is down to just five, and only one of those has been on hunger strike since the protest began last August.

The US government has been heavily criticised by the United Nations and human rights groups for insisting on the right to force-feed the hunger strikers. But medical officials at Guantanamo reject the criticism. "We have a duty to treat these people in a humane fashion and to save their lives, and that is what we are doing." (Jordan's Note - it's wrong to force-feed inmates and try and keep them alive!! How dare the US abuse their rights to not eat - that alone is mental torture!)

In addition to coping with the hunger strikes, medical staff have had to deal with an estimated 30 suicide attempts over the past four years.(Jordan's Note - again, highly doubt they were "suicides")

To cope with the extra security demands of holding both the non-compliant detainees and those detainees who possess high value intelligence information the Americans have recently completed the construction of Camp Five, a maximum security prison modelled on a federal penitentiary in Indiana. Each of four blocks has an interrogation room where intelligence officers can question the detainees at leisure.

A measure of Washington's determination to maintain Guantanamo as its key detention facility in the war on terror for the foreseeable future is reflected in the fact that work is now under way on building a second structure at a cost of $31million.

For however much criticism they attract over Guantanamo, there is no sign of Washington backing down on its right to hold detainees at the Cuban base.

In essence, this argument is a dispute over the detainees' legal definition. For the Americans, the Guantanamo detainees are "enemy combatants", fanatical fighters who owe no allegiance to any country, wear no uniform and make no distinction between killing civilians and soldiers in their devotion to al-Qa'eda leader Osama bin Laden's war against the West.

As such, the Americans insist they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, and do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status, even though in their treatment the detainees receive many of the privileges and level of care required by international law.

But the Bush administration's insistence on creating a new category of battlefield detainee has been roundly condemned by human rights groups and the United Nations, who argue that if they are not classified as prisoners-of-war, they should charged or released.

It is to counter this latest charge that the US authorities will later this month - February 27 - start holding "military commissions", or military courts, to try those detainees accused of war crimes. So far only 10 have been charged, and only a small percentage are likely to be brought before the commission.

"The problem is getting the evidence to try them," explained an official. "These people were captured on the battlefield, and this is not exactly a place that you can send policemen to collect evidence that can be used for a prosecution case."

US officials continue to assess the detainees to see whether or not they can be released. But even here they face problems because they are obliged not to release detainees to countries where they might be tortured on their return. At present there are about 100 detainees - including some Chinese whom the Americans want to return home, but cannot because of the treatment they might receive from their home governments.(Jordan's Note - that's just an excuse to not send detainees home.)

Which means that for the foreseeable future they, along with all the other detainees, must languish in the no-man's land of Guantanamo Bay.

"Look, this is by no means ideal, but in the circumstances we believe it is the best solution," said a senior Pentagon official. "If anyone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it."
 

Jordan .

I'm going to address the questions that Dave asked on the Suicide Bomber thread here. I'd like the suicide bomber video to stand on its own. It is representative of an everyday act of the enemy of the West and we don't see these videos too often in the NY Times or on CNN, do we? With all their honest reporting, those diligent messengers just kinda let the ball drop when it comes to such imagery. It's understandable, I suppose, when you could show a nude prisoner cowering in the face of a cute black pup, there's no contest which pic will be most widely distributed. Shame since I'd welcome a smattering of these other messages now and again. The messengers don't even need to risk their lives by actually getting up close and personal to a pre-martyrdom Saudi. They only need to access the internet videos out of Arabic TV.

Anyway...

All through your comments, Dave, you mention things like:

Our abuses

Heavy-handed military presences

These abuses

The terrible things we do.

We deserve to look bad

Etc.

For the sake of making your own case stronger, it would help if you gave examples. And then let's weigh the negative against the vast majority of positives and see what is most noteworthy of MASSIVE PRESS COVERAGE and that which merits a small article.

I read that whole 54-page UN Report. Did you? If so, you should be able to supply a few appalling examples of the abuse that make you twitch with outrage.

It's funny, because the report seemed completely to me though I read it closely so I could see the worst of the worst abuses, some of which I detailed above. Where are your examples?

What I continue to stress is the vast differences between such "torture" as seen in the suicide bomber video and female lap dancing interrogators at Gitmo. I know you accept the legal view of those who claim the US is breaking international law and not the view of any of the US lawyers who state otherwise. For that matter, the smiley suicide bomber, did not accept the official US version either. Not to draw a parallel, because I do not believe it exists, but I mention it only to illustrate that you and your fellow harsh critics will ultimately have to reconcile a basic fact. The fact is that you tend to judge that information which the enemy accepts as factual (i.e. UN reports on torture and abuse) as more valid than the information coming from official US sources. You may be correct, but I'm betting you're more likely off base with this modus operandi.

You say to me: "You want to just blame and silence the messenger."

I have never implied anything of the sort, Dave. What I do continue to suggest however, since many of the messengers have an agenda which is both anti-Bush and anti-war, is that the recipients of said messages become more discerning about what they are willling to swallow. What I do want is to demean and ridicule the messenger who brings forth the half-truths, distortions and outright lies. I'd propose to do that by presenting the additional information I find pertinant and useful in comprehending the WHOLE picture and not the snapshot.

Blame? The messengers are only partially to blame for the ever fluctuating international amorphous sensibility. It's in the air, really. But my primary blame is assigned to the primary players in the world of terror. The others (UN "investigators" who don't visit the prisons they condemn, Michaels Moore and now Winterbottom, for example) are mere Useful Idiots to a greater or lesser degree and should not be imbued with any more importance.

You ask me: "Do you believe in honest journalism and the importance of an informed voting public?"

A question like that does not merit a response. The answer is built in. Having asked it in the context of your other comments, you evidently think the answer is 'no.' At the same time, you also know I wouldn't answer that way. Mexican stand-off? Just about every post I write is about being FULLY not PARTIALLY informed but perhaps you just missed those parts. How many times have I said after reading an article about a news conference, for example, that you should go to the CSPAN link and read/hear/watch the entire event? I am helpless to alter your opinion if you think I would answer "no" to that question.

The US administration may not be the most ideal of all time but they are doing what I consider a commendable job at a most difficult time with half of the country more or less actively kicking and fighting. I believe much of the kicking and fighting is only because of the long term irrational hatred of Bush. Yada yada. I've said this all before.

I close,

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

There is one thing that needs to be kept in mind no matter what side of the isle you are on.  If you allow the rights of people to be treaded upon, no matter who they are, you run the risk of your own rights being intruded upon.  Yes, while we are in vile times and we need heightened protection, if we allow our government to detain people who have committed a crime without charging them or allowing them the right to counsel, it will allow the governemnt the right to do the same to us.  You have to ask yourself how you would want to be treated if the roles were reversed and you were a person being detained. I really don't think that anyone can say they would think that not being allowed to talk with a lawyer or being detained for an unreasonable amount of time is okay.  In fact, most people I know would turn around and sue for a violation of their constitutional rights.  So, just think about how you would feel if you were in this situation. 

smeds - you are in law school, right?

Because as you probably know, the question of whether or not non-Americans who are caught in the battlefield may not necessarly be granted Constitutional rights as you mentioned in your post. I know the Supreme Court ruled a year or so ago about something involving some detainees but I don't remember the details. And if memory serves me right it was evenly divided which suggests that it's not a sure thing and is up for interpretation and debate even.

The problem with these detainees is that they do not represent any country - that we can all agree on which limits how they fall under the Geneva Convention.

The other problem is that they were picked up off the battlefield and it's sorta hard to do any sort of "concrete" beyond a shadow of a doubt proof in a public court (non-military). It's not like we caught these guys on US streets about to blow up a building, but rather pointing guns at allies. In that case, they are POWs but may not necessarily fall under the Geneva Convention (again, up for debate).

It's not as clear cut as people on the left and right want to make it out to be. The law in this area is extremely gray and is up for interpreation.

But of course I'm not a lawyer so I'm open to your legal advice....

Jordan .

You are correct that most of them would fall under the Geneva Convention because of the international issues.  However, there are quite a few who were detained on American soil, some being here legally and they would be afforded our constitutional rights. The biggest problem is with the fact that Gitmo is on US soil (because its an American base, but that has been up to debate also) and what laws would apply.  There are those that say American law should apply and those that say international law should apply.  My opinion is that international law should apply.  Especially since most of these people were detained in other countries and because it is a world wide problem, not just an American problem.  I feel that it shoudl be a joint effort and not just up to the US to prosecute these people.  There is also another problem with whether they are POW's or enemy combatants, which changes how they are to be dealt with.  I have been to lectures with lawyers who have represented some of these people in various cases and the bottom line is that there needs to be fairness in the process.  I'm not saying let them go, especially if they are truely guilty of whatever offense puts them there, I am saying let them have an attorney, let them be charged.  Even the Nazis in the Nuremberg Trials received representation and were charged and we can honestly say those were some horrible men.  Saddam is getting representation and has been charged. 

There are just too many issues going on in this area.  You're right, its not cut and dry.  There are many issues that need to be resolved.  We want this to be done right.  Things need to be taken care of to ensure that these situations are being taken care of.  Things may be better at the camp but, like I stated above, there needs to be a decision on what law is to be followed and we need to stick to it. 

If you don't mind I'd like to continue this dialgoue.

First, have you attended any seminars that have argued differently? That these detainees do not fall under the Geneva Convention? 

Let's assume that these detainees fall under international law (we'll exclude those who were captured in the US) and we'll go one by one.

On the old board I posted my opinion on these detainees and the GC. In your opinion, what section of the GC do these detainees fall under because that's critical? The GC lays out specific "rules" that designate who is covered under the GC. I don't quite remember what the section is but here's a snippet from the GC:

"Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:"

So we know htat they have to fall under one category that I am going to display below and comment with each

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Now, I'm 99.9% sure that Al Qaeda forces are not considered "armed forces of a Party" and would not be considered militias or volunteer corps forming an armed force. Terrorist groups do not fall under this category, IMO. They are not an official armed force. The Iraqi soldiers do fall under this category but Al Qaeda does not, IMO.

So let's continue to #2:

"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "

Okay now to be listed under the second category, you have to fullfill each of the four letters. Let's assume for a moment that Al Qaeda can be defined as an organized resistance movement (even though they still do not belong to a party but we'll skip that part for sake of argument). These detainees must have fullfilled the four items above. Well, we know they have a strutcure and commanders so A is fullfilled. I've never heard of Al Qaeda flying a flag to show who they are so I'm pretty sure that B is not fullfilled. They do not always carry arms openly because they are a terrorist group so they can't fall under C. And we all know that Al Qaeda does not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war so we know that they do not fullfill D either. As a result, IMO, they cannot fall under category 2 either because they do not fullfill the requirements of a, b, c and d.

NExt is Number 3: "3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."

As I menioned up in number 1, Al Qaeda is not a regular armed force so that immediately stops them being under 3. They also do not profess allegiance to any govt except Islam (whith is not a govt). 3 is very vague IMO so it's hard to actually be confident here but if Al Qaeda doesn't fit 1, I'm not sure how they can fit 3 either.

Number 4: "4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model."

This is in reference to those joining in on the fun so we can skip over this one too. Al Qaeda members would not fit here either.

5: "Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law."

Same as above - nothing here.

And finally - "6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

Ah yes, we may have hit paydirt. Of all the categories above, Al Qaeda has the best chance to fit here. So let's try this one out. Well, we know that Al Qaeda didn't just spontaneously get created when we went into Afghanistan so that's a mark against them. They had plenty of time to get arms together. But then, there's this small provision - "provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." Ooops - there we go again. We all know that Al Qaeda did not and does not do this so we are left with these detainees not falling under one of these six categories.

So in my opinion, the Geneva Convention cannot be used in this case. Because Al Qaeda does not follow the GC, they are not protected under the GC. The GC was written to ensure that all parties would respect each other during a time of war and to create some sort humanity during a time of no humanity. And the GC IMO just doesn't fit Al Qaeda or the detainees down in Gitmo. Again, I very well could be wrong, but the no law brain of mine just doesn't see Al Qaeda fitting here.

That means there must be other provisions in the GC that I am not aware about (thus my question to you, Smeds), or there's some sort of other international law that I need to read up on (but I only hear about the GC). So any insight here would be great.

Back this summer I wrote the following regarding this issue:

So if the GC doesn't apply to these prisoners (as I don't think it does) then we have to look at them as criminals or so we think....

Criminals for the most part do not take up weapons against a military force on foreign soil. Maybe they are "criminals" so the question comes up if the US Constitution applies to them. According to the US Supreme Court, it does. I of course disagree because the US is at a time of war, but we are at a war that does not follow the same guidelines of the GC so the GC can't be used as some sort of proof as to how they should be treated.

If the US wants to treat them in accordance (or close to it) of the GC then that's good and I believe that's important but the US is NOT required to follow the GC with these detainees IMO because they do not fall under any of these categories.

So, the semantics is simple. You can't just trhow the word POW around and immediately say that the GC applies because they are POWs. That's not true - to be a POW, you must fall under one of these categories. If not, then the prisoner seems to be in limbo, IMO.

Sorry, it's not as perfect and succinct as Ray's above, but this discussion cannot be perfect nor is it succinct because it's based upon a bunch of legalise that most of us can't understand and have to interpret based on our little knowledge of laws and treaties.

BTW - Saddam is a POW becuase Saddam represents a govt - that's the difference between him and the guys down in Cuba.

 It's not like the US has just thrown the GC out the window. Except in a few rare cases, the GC has been used with Iraqi detainees. Disregarding the Abu Grahb scandal for a moment (which I know is difficult for some), there have been no (or few) complaints regarding how IRaqi detainees were held. It's only with suspected Al Qaeda members. So it's not like the US is doing this just for "fun" but actually has some legalise behind it. Take the 20th highjacker for example - he is currently getting a trial under our court of law - so once again, the Bush admin view these specific individuals as slightly different and I think for very good reason.

Jordan .

I would love to attend a seminar where someone has argued differently, but unfortunately, there has been none, or if there has been any, the law school has done a poor job of informing us of them.  I did, however, attend a seminar given by a gentleman who is now a law Prof at Case Western and and for 19 years worked counter terrorism for the Israel Defense Forces (basically their army).  He was very interesting, I didn't agree with how he did somethings, but it was interesting to see how to deal with terrorists from a non-Western point of veiw.  I will look for his podcast and post it on here when I find it. 

As for the Geneva Convention and what section they fall under, that is what I was referencing when I said we have to determine if they are enemy combatants or if they are POW's.  You are correct in saying that the treatment is different.  A problem that has arisen is that quite a few of these individuals have not been given a definition, if you will, so it is murky on how to deal with them.  As for the definition fo Al Queida, I know that there has been a lot of debate on where they fall.  As far as I know, there is still debate going on.  However, I could be wrong, but the last I heard is that there is still no agreement as to them.  I never said that they were POW's, I said that there needs to be a decision as to whether they are POW's or enemy combatants or something else.

As for another section of the Geneva Convention that would be used, I will have to read it over and get back to you on that one.  I have this feeling that there is somethign that I am missing, but I am not sure what it is. 

Yes I remember SCOTUS saying that the Constitution applies in certain cases and that we can use a military tribunal for this.  My only concern is that it is not only the US putting people in Gitmo, our Allies are also.  That's why I think that it should be a joint effort instead of just the US. 

I am including a link to the full text of the Geneva Convention  and the factsheet for the International Bill of Human Rights.  I don't know of any other Conventions which would be followed.  Look at Article 2, Part I of the Geneva convention.  In my interpretation of that, where it says:  Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.... This leads me to believe that the Convention actually would apply in this instance.  I would have to do some deeper digging to be for sure, but that's what I think this section means.

I just feel that we rushed into this so fast and on emotion and now things are so messed up down there.  We set up the camp before we set up the justice system, it was a mess from the beginning.  Like I said before, if they truly did commit some crime, they should be punished, I am just concerned with them not getting representation or being charged with anything. 

My copy and paste of my comment this summer should've been in context with that thread when some people were throwing around the phrase POW as if that was enough to put them underneath the GC. I know you didn't use the term POW, but it was used in that thread last summer as if that's all that mattered which was my point of posting last year. At the time we didn't have a lawyer, or a law student, so that's why I bring it up again.

My whole concern with this issue is that both sides are trying to view this as black and white and it's not black and white at all. There's a lot of legality here that has to be covered, and I don't think anyone will ever know for sure. Now if the clause you pulled does mean that the US is supposed to treat all detainees as if they should be covered under the GC then I can go with that, but then when we start looking at the cateogires, I think it's fairly obvious that the detainees do not fall under these categories, so they are technically in limbo which has been the US' argument. And if they do not fall under the GC, are they truly covered under the GC? Legal writings are never as simple as that but the GC does seem fairly straightforwad where even a layman can read it - unlike the tax code. So that's why I'm wondering if there's another international law out there, and what exactly is demanded. Anytime I hear this debate it's always "Geneva Convention" this and "Geneva Convention" that but I highly doubt most have read a single sentence of the convention and are just picking up the talking points from the media and others, and I'm looking for more meat than that (and that's all I ever hear it seems).

So at least you and I can agree that it's not black and white, and that the categorization of the detainees is truly up in the air as to their rights, or no rights.  

Jordan .

I always love first hand points of view.  Even if the party is not clearly remembering the facts, or slanting the truth, it's good to hear from a horse's mouth.  Here's a good story from some of the Gitmo "torture" victims. And it's from The Guardian, no less. Interesting story...

 Susan

Asadullah strives to make his point, switching to English lest there be any mistaking him. "I am lucky I went there, and now I miss it. Cuba was great," said the 14-year-old, knotting his brow in the effort to make sure he is understood.

Not that Asadullah saw much of the Caribbean island. During his 14-month stay, he went to the beach only a couple of times - a shame, as he loved to snorkel. And though he learned a few words of Spanish, Asadullah had zero contact with the locals.

He spent a typical day watching movies, going to class and playing football. He was fascinated to learn about the solar system, and now enjoys reciting the names of the planets, starting with Earth. Less diverting were the twice-monthly interrogations about his knowledge of al-Qaida and the Taliban. But, as Asadullah's answer was always the same - "I don't know anything about these people" - these sessions were merely a bore: an inevitably tedious consequence, Asadullah suggests with a shrug, of being held captive in Guantanamo Bay.

On January 29, Asadullah and two other juvenile prisoners were returned home to Afghanistan. The three boys are not sure of their ages. But, according to the estimate of the Red Cross, Asadullah is the youngest, aged 12 at the time of his arrest. The second youngest, Naqibullah, was arrested with him, aged perhaps 13, while the third boy, Mohammed Ismail, was a child at the time of his separate arrest, but probably isn't now.

Tracked down to his remote village in south-eastern Afghanistan, Naqibullah has memories of Guantanamo that are almost identical to Asadullah's. Prison life was good, he said shyly, nervous to be receiving a foreigner to his family's mud-fortress home.

The food in the camp was delicious, the teaching was excellent, and his warders were kind. "Americans are good people, they were always friendly, I don't have anything against them," he said. "If my father didn't need me, I would want to live in America."

Asadullah is even more sure of this. "Americans are great people, better than anyone else," he said, when found at his elder brother's tiny fruit and nut shop in a muddy backstreet of Kabul. "Americans are polite and friendly when you speak to them. They are not rude like Afghans. If I could be anywhere, I would be in America. I would like to be a doctor, an engineer _ or an American soldier."

This might seem to jar with the prevailing opinion of Guantanamo among human rights groups. An American jail on foreign soil, Guantanamo was designed, according to Amnesty International, to deny prisoners "many of their most basic rights", which in America would include special provision for the "speedy trial" of juveniles. But, seized in the remotest wilds of violent Afghanistan, the boys knew practically nothing of their rights, and expected less.

They were also unaware that the American defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, had described Guantanamo's inmates as "hard-core, well-trained terrorists" and "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth."

Naqibullah and Asadullah were arrested one night in November 2002, in Musawal village, Paktia province, by around 30 American special forces soldiers. More than 30 local men were also arrested, and remain in Guantanamo.

Naqibullah, the local imam's son, said he stumbled into the raid while cycling from a friend's house. Asadullah is from a village three days' walk away, in neighbouring Logar province, but was working for a local farmer along with several men who were also arrested.

It seems likely the Americans were looking for a local commander, Mansoor Rah man Saiful, who had fought against the Taliban for years, but joined the radical Islamists when America attacked Afghanistan. If so, they were unsuccessful: Mr Saiful is still at large.

The captives were taken to Bagram airbase, a short helicopter ride away. Naqibullah grins as he mimes the Chinook's whirring rotary blade; but he was less relaxed at the time. "It was terrifying, I didn't know what was happening to me," he said, seated cross-legged in a small reception room, cut into a thick fortress wall. "There were many of us in a small cell. Some men were screaming to be let free."

Naqibullah was interrogated every day at Bagram. "They kept asking me, 'Do you know the Taliban? Do you know al-Qaida? Have you given them shelter? Have you given them food?'," he said.

"I told them, 'I don't know these people, and I am too young to give anything to anyone without my father's authority'." After two weeks, Naqibullah said, he was asked whether he had any objection to being taken to "another place".

"I said, 'What can I do? You will take me wherever you want to'." That night, bound, blindfolded and fitted into orange overalls, he was loaded on to a cargo plane and flown non-stop to Cuba. Naqibullah's first 10 days in Guantanamo were the worst of his life, he said. He was put in a tiny cell with a single slit-window as his interrogation continued. Then everything changed. "I was taken to an American general who said, 'We will educate you and soon you will go home'. And my situation improved."

Naqibullah, Asadullah and Mohammed Ismail were moved into one large room, which was never locked. They were taught Pashto (their own language), English, Arabic, maths, science, art and, for two months, Islam. "The American soldiers ate pork but they said we must never do that because we were Muslim," said Naqibullah. "They were very strict about Islam."

The boys played football every day, and sometimes basketball and volleyball with their guards. Asadullah said his particular friends were called Special Sergeant M and Private O - their real names were kept from him. Officially, he was called Prisoner 912. "But my friends called me Asadullah, which made me happy."

The boys never spoke to Guantanamo's other prisoners - "lots of Arabs and Afghans," according Naqibullah.

Meanwhile, their own interrogation became a predictable affair. "I said, 'Look, I don't anything about the Taliban'," said Asadullah. "But anyway, the Taliban were the government so lots of people worked with them. Just because you were Taliban it doesn't mean you're a criminal."

After five months, Naqibullah wrote home for the first time. Taking this first letter, written on Red Cross notepaper, from his pocket, he now reads it aloud. "My greetings to beloved family, to my beloved father, to my beloved uncles, to my beloved cousins, to my beloved brothers. I am in good health and happy. I am in Cuba, in a special room, but it is not like a jail. Don't worry about me. I am learning English, Pashto and Arabic." The next two lines of the letter were scrubbed out by the Guantanamo censor. Asadullah said he couldn't for the life of him remember what they said.

Despite their gentle treatment, the boys were homesick. "I was very sad because I missed my family so much," said Asadullah. "I was always asking, 'When can I go home? What day? What month?' They said, 'You'll go home soon', but they never said when."

Meanwhile, the boys' parents were suffering agonies. In Khoja Angur, Asadullah's village, the boy's mother describes how she cried "every night thinking about my son."

Covered entirely by a sheet of turquoise silk, she speaks through a male relative while the Guardian's translator stares respectfully at his feet. So conservative is Asadullah's society that his mother's name is a family secret. "I prayed to God, I asked, 'Where is my son?'," she continued. "He was just a boy, much too young to disappear on his own."

Asadullah was gone for seven months before his parents discovered his whereabouts. For the first two months, his uncles and cousins were afraid to tell his elderly father, Abdul Rahman, that he was missing, believing the shock might kill him. Almost the entire male population of Khoja Angur, a fortified mud-village, snowbound and ringed by icy peaks, downed tools and went searching for the boy. "They went to Bagram, but the Americans said they didn't know anything about him," said Abdul Rahman, white-bearded and heavy-breathing. "They went to Logar and Gardez, even to Kandahar, but no one knew about him."

When Asadullah returned to Khoja Angur last month - at a day's notice - the village elders gathered to ask how the Americans had treated him. When he said they had treated him well, they ruled that the matter was closed. "We have nothing against the Americans, they looked after the boy. They taught him English and other things," said Haji Mohammad Tahir, an elder of the village, gesturing to Asadullah's drawings of the planets, which were proudly displayed on the floor.

But, for Asadullah's father, the matter is not closed. He borrowed several thousand dollars to support his relatives' families while they looked for his son. To raise the money, he was forced to forfeit his land. Now, his creditors come visiting every day to demand money that he cannot repay, he said. His eldest son - a shopkeeper in Kabul - last week cancelled his engagement, for want of $2,000 to pay the dowry. And that is not Abdul Rahman's only concern. "I thank God that my son has come back, but he has changed," he said. "He is impatient and refuses to listen to his elders. He has grown disobedient."

So, while Naqibullah is at home now, helping his father in the fields, Asadullah is in Kabul, seeing if the UN will continue his schooling. "There is no electricity and no clinic in my village. It's a bit boring, nothing new happens there," he said, looking embarrassed.

Loitering in Kabul this week, Asadullah came across an American soldier. "I asked him, 'How are you, sir?'," he recalled, grinning shyly. The soldier said he was well, and asked the boy what he wanted. Asadullah replied: "Nothing, I was just asking," as the American walked away.

 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin