Guantanamo Bay: Shame on you, United States

[InfiniteNow]

I found these two consecutive comedic presentations to be rather poignant:

 

Torture Talk | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

 

Waterboarding | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

[DougF]

InfiniteNow

I found these two consecutive comedic presentations to be rather poignant:

God bit of humor. for a rather sad subject.

[Michaelangelica]

More humour?

Bikini billboard protests Guantanamo Bay trials

15th February 2008, 8:00 WST

 

Call them protest panties.

 

Designer Vivienne Westwood returned to London Fashion Week after a nine-year absence, and one of her models wore the outspoken designer’s political opinions where it would win a lot of attention - on the bum.

 

Westwood protested the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay by cladding the lead model in her show in orange and black underwear reminiscent of fluorescent orange jumpsuits worn by detainees at the US prison camp.

 

At the start of the show, the model strutted down the catwalk and turned provocatively to the assembled photographers to flash panties printed with the words: “Fair trial my arse”.

Bikini billboard protests Guantanamo Bay trials : thewest.com.au

Some might appreciate a close-up

From

The latest news in gadgets, gear, clothes, culture and more from men.style.com

[MegaManiac]

You WANT the TRUTH? You CAN'T :naughty: HANDLE the TRUTH!

 

It's ABSOLUTELY true. Most of us couldn't handle what it takes to keep this column of DISHES from toppling :eek_big: over. 4 those that need an explaination of "column of dishes" . . . it's the we live in!

 

If we can save

one American by1 :Guns: :esmoking: or 2 TERRORISTS :hammer: by me and rock on.

 

Maybe save 3000 Americans or something. :shrug:9/11? OK, more like :rant: 2974 Americans!!!

 

NOT:naughty: 4 VIOLATINGhuman rights! BUT, <--(that's a big BUT, huh) human rights apply to card carrying human beings!!!! NO 1 else!

 

With that being said, this is assuming that the US has solid intelligence and a positive ID of the subject(s) being, well . . . interrogated;)

 

 

:wave:

_______MNM________

 

PS. I don't like these smiley guys very much. I think we should ban their use on this site. Some people discover something new and just abuse the #%^*!@ out of it!

[REASON]

Geez, I hope all of your posts aren't in the form of a rebus. I feel like I'm a contestant in the old TV gameshow Concentration.

 

If you haven't already, I suggest you go back and read this entire thread. I believe your points have already been thoroughly addressed.

 

Instead of re-addressing them, I'll present a recent Op-Ed that I believe addresses some truths about Gitmo and other concerns that appear to be difficult to handle, and asks the question:

 

 

What Do We Stand For? - Paul Craig Roberts

 

...Today Congress is almost as superfluous as the Roman Senate under the Caesars. On February 13 the US Senate barely passed a bill banning torture, and the White House promptly announced that President Bush would veto it.

 

Torture is now the American way. The US Senate was only able to muster 51 votes against torture, an indication that almost a majority of US Senators support torture.

 

Bush says that his administration does not torture. So why veto a bill prohibiting torture? Bush seems proud to present America to the world as a torturer.

 

After years of lying to Americans and the rest of the world that Guantanamo prison contained 774 of "the world’s most dangerous terrorists," the Bush regime is bringing 6 of its victims to trial. The vast majority of the 774 detainees have been quietly released. The US government stole years of life from hundreds of ordinary people who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were captured by warlords and sold to the stupid Americans as "terrorists." Needing terrorists to keep the farce going, the US government dropped leaflets in Afghanistan offering $25,000 a head for "terrorists." Kidnappings ensued until the US government had purchased enough "terrorists" to validate the "terrorist threat."...

 

 

...The Gitmo trials are show trials. Their only purpose is to create the precedent that the executive branch can ignore the US court system and try people in the same manner that innocent people were tried in Stalinist Russia and Gestapo Germany. If the Bush regime had any real evidence against the Gitmo detainees, it would have no need for its kangaroo military tribunal.

 

If any more proof is needed that Bush has no case against any of the Gitmo detainees, the following AP News report, February 14, 2008, should suffice: "The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to limit judges’ authority to scrutinize evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay."

 

The reason Bush doesn’t want judges to see the evidence is that there is no evidence except a few confessions obtained by torture. In the American system of justice, confession obtained by torture is self-incrimination and is impermissible evidence under the US Constitution.

 

Andy Worthington’s book, The Guantanamo Files, and his online articles make it perfectly clear that the "dangerous terrorists" claim of the Bush administration is just another hoax perpetrated on the inattentive American public...

[MegaManiac]

Geez, I hope all of your posts aren't in the form of rebus. I feel like I'm a contestant in the old TV gameshow Concentration.

 

If you haven't already, I suggest you go back and read this entire thread. I believe your points have already been thoroughly addressed.

 

Instead of re-addressing them, I'll present a recent Op-Ed that I believe addresses some truths about Gitmo and other concerns that appear to be difficult to handle, and asks the question:

 

 

Just having a little fun with my first post-intro post. Maybe you didn't read my PS.

[REASON]

Just having a little fun with my first post-intro post. Maybe you didn't read my PS.

 

I did, and I know you were. I was having a little fun as well at your expense. Don't take it personally, it happens from time-to-time around here. :shrug:

 

And don't forget your end quotes (ex.

) when quoting someone else. Just a little tip.

[Kayra]

Some very interesting views CraigD, and they possibly explain some of my misunderstandings.

 

As to the largest flaw, spies can be considered “persons without country” as no government will lay claim to them. If they do, then the process shifts to a political arena. The same should be true with the GT prisoners. If any country (including the US) were to lay claim to a person, all laws both in the United States as well as international law, must apply. The act of spying was not the relevant part of the argument except that it provided a good example of this fact

 

If this single guideline is not followed, then the public perception of the hypocrisy damages the US’s ability to act in the world arena. Not longer can the US be the standard bearer to the world on what is correct or acceptable behavior. Their words would carry less weight when they condemn an individual or a country for unreasonable courses of action.

 

If discretion and secrecy are required in order to detain these prisoners and question them, then that creates a check or balance that is not easily overcome. This means that taking a prisoner in this manner entails a certain level of risk, and a risk/reward analysis would need to be performed to see if this particular person is worth it in the first place. I would suspect this would likely drastically reduce the number of prisoners at GT or places like it.

 

The moment it becomes known that you have a prisoner, it becomes necessary to run that person through the standard lawful system, trial and all. GB should have ceased to exist the day after it became public and all publically “known” prisoners should have been tried under US law.

 

I believe the problem of quantity of prisoners in the “war on terror” (I REALLY dislike that term and think it should be more akin to “Terror on Terror”) would be greatly mitigated by these limitations.

 

Thank you for the explanation on why the Bush administration chose the path they did. It makes its own kind of sense.

 

I disagree. Except in situations where near absolute secrecy on the parts of friends and even foes is possible, such as those involving a few spies over the course of decades, all legitimate governments must be able to act both secretly and within the law – even if, as appears in many ways the case with the current administration, they revise and create the law as needs warrant, and with less than adequate government review, checks, and balances. Amoral, brutal treatment of hundreds or thousands people over the course of a few years is, IMHO, beyond the fringe permitted of “spy games”.

 

The sheer volume of laws broken every day by the international intelligence agencies is likely to be staggering. Every act of spying is unlawful. Every theft of knowledge, every conversation listened to without warrant from that country, every act of sedition is unlawful in the country they are committed in. It is the very reason that the CIA is prevented from acting inside the US borders, as they essentially have carte blanche to break the law. Every government acts unlawfully all of the time as a necessary part of existing in today’s international community. They just try VERY hard to not get caught.

 

I fully understand that the new threats that terrorism presents have no historical precedence at this scale, and that governments like the US are struggling to make new lawful concepts to deal with these threats that remain within the core of the constitution.

 

Unfortunately, I do not believe that the Bush administration has accomplished this. I believe they used lawful slight of hand and trickery to evade the constitution, all in an effort to take the “Easy” road to a quick solution. But this should NOT be easy. If you go public with this, go all the way. Walking this narrow moral path should be a journey taken by the entire country, citizens and politicians alike. This should be a knock down drag out fight that would deeply divide the country until (and after) a consensus is reached. If the decision is made that transgressions against the constitution are necessary, so be it. Modify your constitution to allow such things and be done with it.

 

I too feel ambivalence. Though I’m deeply unhappy and disapproving of the conduct of my government over the past 6+ years, I could be much more so, and am grateful I’m not. It’s hard for me to imagine much greater ambivalence than the paired emotions of disapproval and gratitude.

 

A deeply insightful comment on your own perspective, and one I happen to almost agree with. Thank you.

 

In giving up freedom to attain security though, neither is deserved or attained.

[Michaelangelica]

Bush Ignores the Law Against Using Evidence Obtained from Torture in Gitmo Trials

AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Bush Ignores the Law Against Using Evidence Obtained from Torture in Gitmo Trials

 

John McCain Sells His Soul: Backs Off on Torture Ban

AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: John McCain Sells His Soul: Backs Off on Torture Ban

Whistleblower Website Under Attack

AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Whistleblower Website Under Attack

[DougF]

I think it's a good idea to reduced corruption by revealing unethical behavior in their governments and corporations.

 

you can still get the information at this site.

 

SUPPORT OUR FIRST AMENDMENT CASE TO APPEAL BUSH APPOINTEE JUSTICE WHITE'S ORDER TO CENSOR WIKILEAKS.ORG!

 

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia' date=' the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

 

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. [/quote']

 

Wikileaks - Wikileaks

[freeztar]

Here are some interesting news stories I found shareable.

 

A 2005 military investigation concluded that al-Qahtani had been subjected to harsh treatment approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld because he would not crack under interrogation. He is one of six Guantanamo detainees who were charged Monday in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks. The Pentagon said it was seeking the death penalty for all six.

 

Under the Military Commissions Act, statements obtained through torture are not admissible. But some statements obtained through "coercion" may be admitted at the discretion of a military judge.

Gitmo interrogator: Job is thankless - Guantanamo - MSNBC.com

 

In a Dec. 6, 2005, interview with Sky News from Berlin, Rice publicly sidestepped a question about whether British airports or airspace were being used in rendition, and whether the British government was aware of it.

 

"We have obligations under our international conventions and we are respecting the sovereignty of our allies," she said. "We are not using the airspace or the airports of any of our partners for activities that would lead renditions to torture. We don't send people to be tortured."

CIA confirms rendition flights to Brits - Terrorism - MSNBC.com

 

Well, in fairness, maybe she didn't know. :(

:)

[REASON]

Well, in fairness, maybe she didn't know. :shrug:

:(

 

Yeah. She knew enough to make the statement, "We don't send people to be tortured." I guess that is the party line though isn't it?

 

I wonder what it means that al-Qahtani, the alleged 911 conspirator, "would not crack under interrogation?" :)

[Michaelangelica]

Britain apologises for extraordinary rendition flights

Hasan Suroor

 

LONDON: After consistently denying that Britain had any role in America’s controversial “extraordinary rendition” flights, the government on Thursday admitted that two such flights did land on U.K. territory in 2002 for refuelling. Foreign Secretary David Miliband apologised to MPs for the previous denials but insisted that they were made in “good faith.”

 

In a statement, he said he was “very sorry” that previous claims about Britain’s non-involvement in the notorious flights had turned out not to be correct. He said information about the two flights had come to light after a U.S. records search.

FEB 22 article

The Hindu : International : Britain apologises for extraordinary rendition flights

 

Amnesty has been talking about this for years Here is a Jan 2006 article

"Rendition" and secret detention: A global system of human rights violations. Questions and Answers

Index Number: POL 30/003/2006

Date Published: 1 January 2006

"Rendition" and secret detention: A global system of human rights violations. Questions and Answers | Amnesty International

 

Dind't know? Pull the other one.

If so the CIA has become a law unto itself.

I guess after 50 years of abuses of human rights, and political interference, moving further down the "slippery slope" is just normal.

[REASON]

:) Kangaroo Court :)

 

 

Defense Stalls in Sept. 11 Case at Gitmo

 

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- The military is speeding ahead with plans to try six men at Guantanamo Bay for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but none of the defendants, who face possible execution if found guilty, has seen a defense lawyer yet.

 

Only one military lawyer has been assigned to the case, as the unit responsible for organizing the defense struggles with a lack of attorneys and paralegals and argues with commanders at Guantanamo over access to the men held at the U.S. military base in Cuba.

 

The problems underscore broader concerns that military tribunals -- expected to eventually try some 80 Guantanamo detainees -- overwhelmingly favor the prosecution, Army Col. Steve David, the chief defense counsel for the war-crimes trials, told The Associated Press.

 

He said his team faces a variety of disadvantages, including trial rules that allow classified hearsay testimony against the detainees and the fact that prosecutors can use material gathered over years while the men have been in custody -- before the defense has even begun to look for its evidence.

 

''I have grave concerns about the commissions process and grave concerns about the ability to provide them with a fair trial,'' David said in a recent phone interview from Washington.

 

The defense counsel's office is authorized 25 military attorneys and 12 paralegals but currently has only nine attorneys and six paralegals -- and they are already busy with pending cases against six other Guantanamo detainees. The additional legal help, once it arrives, will need extensive preparation, David said.

 

U.S. officials defend the tribunals and say they are working with defense counsel to ensure adequate attorney access. Last week, legal officials agreed to allow military lawyers to make phone calls to their clients, said a spokesman for the Guantanamo detention center, Navy Cmdr. Rick Haupt.

 

''Joint Task Force Guantanamo takes extraordinary steps to facilitate counsel access to their detainee clients,'' Haupt insisted in an e-mail to AP.

 

David said he expected staffing and access to be resolved eventually -- and pledged to give charged Guantanamo detainees ''the best representation possible.'' But several military lawyers on his staff also shared his concern about the overall fairness of the proceedings.

 

Prosecutors filed charges Feb. 11 against the six high-profile detainees, who include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, and Mohammed al-Qahtani, who allegedly would have been one of the hijackers if immigration officers had not prevented him from entering the United States.

 

So far, only al-Qahtani has been assigned a military lawyer. That lawyer, Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, said officials at Guantanamo denied him a joint meeting with al-Qahtani and a civilian attorney earlier this month. It would have been their first encounter. Broyles said the presence of the civilian lawyer was key to establish rapport.

 

Haupt denied Broyles' claim that Guantanamo officials blocked the meeting and said al-Qahtani refused to attend.

 

In a bid to establish rapport with detainees, military defense lawyers have lobbied for the right to wear civilian clothes when they meet with them and to have civilian lawyers present when possible. Loosening its rules somewhat, the U.S. now allows military lawyers to have their first meeting in civilian clothes but requires them to wear their uniforms thereafter.

 

Army Col. James Sawyers, a defense lawyer who was denied permission to meet with a client in civilian clothes in October, said the change does not go far enough.

 

He has met with the man about five times in his uniform and that ''there is no question in my mind that it has hurt my relationship,'' he said.

[REASON]

Former Prosecutor to Testify for Detainee

 

Until four months ago, Col. Morris D. Davis was the chief prosecutor at Guantánamo Bay and the most colorful champion of the Bush administration’s military commission system. He once said sympathy for detainees was nauseating and compared putting them on trial to dragging “Dracula out into the sunlight.”

 

Then in October he had a dispute with his boss, a general. Ever since, he has been one of those critics who will not go away: a former top insider, with broad shoulders and a well-pressed uniform, willing to turn on the system he helped run.

 

Still in the military, he has irritated the administration, saying in articles and interviews that Pentagon officials interfered with prosecutors, exerted political pressure and approved the use of evidence obtained by torture.

 

Now, Colonel Davis has taken his most provocative step, completing his transformation from Guantánamo’s chief prosecutor to its new chief critic. He has agreed to testify at Guantánamo on behalf of one of the detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden.

 

Colonel Davis, a career military lawyer nearing retirement at 49, said that he would never argue that Mr. Hamdan was innocent, but that he was ready to try to put the commission system itself on trial by questioning its fairness. He said that there “is a potential for rigged outcomes” and that he had “significant doubts about whether it will deliver full, fair and open hearings.”

 

“I’m in a unique position where I can raise the flag and aggravate the Pentagon and try to get this fixed,” he said, acknowledging that he is enjoying some aspects of his new role. He was replaced as chief Guantánamo prosecutor after he stepped down but is still a senior legal official for the Air Force.....

[REASON]

It appears prisoners aren't the only victims of the Guantanamo fiasco. Some of the guards that are following orders are suffering psychological trauma. Obviously these guys don't make very good prison guards since they are afflicted with compassion and a sense of ethics.

 

Guantánamo guards suffer psychological trauma - Guardian UK

 

The guards at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp are the "overlooked victims" of America's controversial detention facility in Cuba, according to a psychiatrist who has treated some of them.

 

In some cases, a tour of duty at the camp has made guards suicidal and prompted a variety of psychiatric symptoms, from depression and insomnia to flashbacks. The guards' testimony also provides a harrowing insight into the treatment of prisoners.

 

Professor John Smith, a retired US Air Force captain, treated a patient who was a guard at the camp. "I think the guards of Guantánamo are an overlooked group of victims," Smith told the American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting in Washington DC on Saturday. "They do not complain a lot. You do not hear about them."

 

The patient ('Mr H') is a national guardsman in his early 40s who was sent to Guantánamo in the first months of its operation, when prisoners captured in Afghanistan were beginning to flood into the camp. Mr H reported that he found conditions at the camp extremely disturbing. For example, in the first month two detainees and two prison guards committed suicide.....

[REASON]

Bush has vetoed the recent bill that bans the use of "waterboarding" by the CIA claiming that it is a valuable tool in the prosecution of the "War on Terra." Considering the CIA has already allegedly banned the practice internally, it appears the real reason Bush vetoed this bill is to maintain the illusion that his administration doesn't break the law and torture people. It is protectionism of his administration, not of the United States as he would imply. Lies and more lies. January can't come soon enough for our government.

 

Bush vetoes bill banning waterboarding - AP

 

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

 

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said. The bill provides guidelines for intelligence activities for the year and includes the interrogation requirement. It passed the House in December and the Senate last month.

 

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," the president said...

 

...The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 includes a provision barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees, including CIA prisoners, in U.S. custody. Many people believe that covers waterboarding.

 

There are concerns that the use of waterboarding would undermine the U.S. human rights efforts overseas and could place Americans at greater risk of being tortured when captured.

 

The military specifically prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The CIA also prohibited the practice in 2006 and says it has not been used since three prisoners encountered it in 2003.

 

But the administration has refused to rule definitively on whether it is torture. Bush has said many times that his administration does not torture.