Guantanamo

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Gitmo detainees' identities released
Suit forces Pentagon to end 4-year secrecy

Chicago Tribune
By Miranda Leitsinger and Ben Fox
Associated Press
Published March 4, 2006


GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba -- The Pentagon says he had a rocket-propelled grenade launcher in his house.

Zahir Shah says he had only a rifle--for protection against a cousin in a family feud--and that the only time he shot anything was when he hunted with a BB gun.

"What are we going to do with RPGs?" he asks, adding: "The only thing I did in Afghanistan was farming. ... We grew wheat, corn, vegetables and watermelons."

Shah's is one of hundreds of stories contained in thousands of pages of transcripts released Friday by the Pentagon after four years of secrecy about who is being held in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

A victory by The Associated Press in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit forced the Pentagon to release the documents, which contain the names, hometowns and other information about detainees that the Bush administration previously had hidden.

A federal judge rejected administration arguments that releasing the identities would violate the detainees' privacy and could endanger them and their families.

The names were scattered throughout more than 5,000 pages of hearing transcripts, but no complete list was given and it was unclear how many names the documents contained. In most of the transcripts, the person speaking is identified only as "detainee." Names appear only when court officials or detainees refer to people by name.

In some cases, even having the name did not clarify the identity. In one document, the tribunal president asks a detainee if his name is Jumma Jan. The detainee responds that no, his name is Zain Ul Abedin.

Most of the men were captured during the U.S.-led war that drove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan in late 2001 and sent Osama bin Laden deeper into hiding, and the newly released documents shed light on some of the detainees' explanations.

In another document, a detainee identified as Abdul Haim Bukhary denies he is member of Al Qaeda but acknowledges he traveled from his native Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces, and he says he met bin Laden about 15 years ago while fighting against Russia. He praises his captors for running a good prison.

"Prisoners here are in paradise," he says. "American people are very good. Really. They give us three meals. Fruit juice and everything!" Still, he says, he wants to return to his family.

It was not clear whether Shah and Bukhary are still being held.

Unclear who's been freed

The documents do not name all current and former Guantanamo Bay detainees. And even when detainees are named, the documents do not make clear whether they have since been released.

The documents do contain the names of some known former prisoners, such as Moazzam Begg and Feroz Ali Abbasi, both British citizens. A handwritten note shows Abbasi pleading for prisoner-of-war status.

Most of the Guantanamo Bay hearings were held to determine whether the detainees were "enemy combatants." That classification, Bush administration lawyers say, deprives the detainees of the Geneva Conventions' prisoner-of-war protections and allows them to be held indefinitely without charges.

Documents released last year included transcripts of 317 hearings, but had the detainees' names and nationalities blacked out. The current documents are the same ones--this time uncensored.

A U.S. military spokesman in Guantanamo Bay said the Pentagon was uneasy about handing over the transcripts.

"Personal information on detainees was withheld solely to protect detainee privacy and for their own security," said Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler. He said the Defense Department remains concerned that the disclosure "could result in retribution or harm to the detainees or their families."

Buz Eisenberg, a lawyer for a detainee, said he hopes the uncensored documents can help clear his client.

"We have been trying to litigate a case without ever knowing what the allegations were that the government claimed justified his continued detention," Eisenberg said. Eisenberg did not want to name his client because he had not asked the man for permission.

The documents should shed light on the scope of an insurgency still battling U.S. troops in Afghanistan, in part by detailing how Muslims from many countries wound up fighting alongside the Taliban there.

Abdul Gappher, an ethnic Uighur, says he traveled from China to Afghanistan, passing through Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan, in June 2001 to "get some training to fight back against the Chinese government." But he denied doing anything against the United States. He was captured in Pakistan and said Pakistani police officers "sold us to the U.S. government."

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of New York ruled in favor of the AP last week, a major development in a protracted legal battle.

Human-rights monitors say keeping identities of prisoners secret can lead to abuses and deprive their families of information about their fate.

About 490 prisoners are being held at Guantanamo Bay, but only 10 of them have been charged with a crime.

"You can't just draw a veil of secrecy when you are locking people up," said Jamie Fellner, director of the U.S. program for Human Rights Watch. "You have to do at least the minimum, which is to acknowledge who you are holding."

Embarrassing revelations

Some of the testimony seemed bound to embarrass the military.

A detainee named Abbasi complains that on two occasions, military police officers had sex in front of him, while others tried to feed him "a hot plate of pork," food banned by the Islamic faith. Some, he said, misled him into praying north toward the United States rather than toward Mecca as Muslims are required to do.

Like the other detainees, Abbasi wasn't allowed to see classified evidence against him. He repeatedly cited international law in arguing that he was unfairly classified as an enemy combatant. An Air Force colonel whose identity remains blacked out would have none of it.

"Mr. Abbasi, your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words international law again. We are not concerned about international law," the colonel says. Then he has Abbasi removed from the courtroom.

A Pentagon lawyer delivered the documents--60 files on a CD-ROM--about 20 minutes after the deadline at the close of business Friday. But within minutes, an officer returned and took back the CD-ROM, which contained letters from relatives of some of the prisoners that were not intended for release. A new version was provided more than an hour later.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
 
Re: Gitmo detainees' identities released

Guantanamo: Anatomy of a hearing

Among the newly-released transcripts from the
Guantanamo Bay tribunals is one involving the
former British prisoner Feroz Abbasi.


_41402930_feroz_abbas203_body.jpg

Ugandan-born Londoner
Feroz Abbasi converted to Islam


He was accused of being an "enemy combatant" after being captured in Afghanistan, and was released without charge in January 2005.

The transcript shows a brief but combative encounter between a defiant Feroz Ali Abbasi and an exasperated tribunal president, an unnamed US Air Force colonel. It ends with Feroz Abbasi being removed from the room.

It demonstrates the limited nature of these hearings - the evidence is mainly kept secret.

What is more revealing is a long document attached to the transcript which was hand-written by Feroz Abbasi. It is revealing about his motives, actions and complaints.

The document contains not just accusations of ill treatment by his interrogators and guards but also a request that he should be treated as a "prisoner of war", a declaration that he would be "humbled" to be regarded as a combatant, an admission that he went to fight for the Taleban or in Kashmir and an expression of deep anger against the US.

'Mistreatment'

Written in August 2004, the document states: "I, Feroz Ali Abbasi, in accordance with the Geneva Convention... hereby officially claim the status of prisoner of war..."

It goes on to list his accusations of mistreatment and names several FBI agents who interrogated him under "duress" in Afghanistan and who, he says, gave "erroneous reports" about him.

At Guantanamo Bay, he says, he had been told to pray in the wrong direction (north towards the US), had been offered a "hot plate" of pork, and had been denied exercise and light.

He also said two guards had sex either in his presence or in his hearing (it is not quite clear which) while they thought he was "sound asleep".

He called for numerous guards to be produced to answer his claims.

Feroz Abbasi also goes into considerable detail about why he went to Afghanistan and something of what he did there.

This is a fascinating account of how a young British Muslim was motivated.

He says: "I actually left Britain to either join the Taleban or fight for the sake of Allah in Kashmir."

He emphasises his commitment. "Do not be fooled into thinking I am in any way perturbed by you classifying me as a (nonsensical) 'enemy combatant'. In fact quite to the contrary I am humbled that Allah would honour me so."

'American terror'

He admits to having been present at a training camp in Afghanistan when al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden gave a talk.

"Yes, I was present at the very speech when with his own mouth and tongue he told Basic Training that he had received a fax from the Americans!"

This fax had apparently been either a threat or an offer, "or both". He says he did not hear the whole speech as he went off to "snack on some cold honey in my tent".

In his handwritten statement, his anger towards the US (and Israel) is apparent. He accuses the US of committing the "greatest terrorist acts known to history", the "atom bombings of the CIVILIAN POPULATION of Nagasaki and Hiroshima".

This produces his angriest passage: "Pure hate wells up in my veins to think the US could get away with such a thing. My eyes light up aflame and I yearn for justice, sweet justice against the tyrant that hurts INNOCENT CIVILIANS."

He says: "The US did not have any legitimate cause whatsoever [in Afghanistan] except that of a, quoting Bush, 'Crusade' to attack the Islamic Emirate, tear down Allah's law and replace it with oppressive democracy."

He defends himself against an accusation that he had said he wanted to fight "against Americans and Jews".

He had actually said "the Americans and the Jews", he says, giving a small lecture on the role of the definite article, and says he meant by that "the militarily aggressive Americans and Jews".

Impatience

He declares that al-Qaeda has not been found guilty of the attacks of 11 September 2001 and that the US has no evidence: "Not only does [it] not have a leg to stand on, it does not even have buttocks to sit on, nor a back or sides to lie on..."

When Feroz Abbasi read out that part of his statement to the tribunal, the president intervened again and said: "This is your last warning... this is not a matter of al-Qaeda... it is a matter of what you did in Afghanistan."

The hearing itself was almost wholly confrontational. Feroz Abbasi asks: "May I have my legal representative present please?"

To which the president replies: "No you may not. This is not a legal proceeding. It is a military tribunal."

Feroz Abbasi argues: "On the basis that the tribunal can actually hold me here in incarceration or release me, I would consider this a criminal proceeding."

He reads from his statement, asks for witnesses, including his mother whom he wants to talk about his frame of mind when he left home for Afghanistan.

After further exchanges in which Feroz Abbasi refers to Islamic and international law, the president says he "appreciates your concern for our souls" but concludes: "This is not Islamic law. It has no authority here" and "I don't care about international law. I don't want to hear the word International Law again."

The prisoner is finally ejected, stating as he goes: "All your actions will come before Allah... and Allah may forgive you and Allah may punish you."

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk


SOUCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4774566.stm


.
 
Nearly 30 percent at Guantanamo jail cleared to go

Nearly 30 percent at Guantanamo jail cleared to go
By Will Dunham
Fri Apr 21, 2:12 PM ET

Nearly 30 percent of the Guantanamo detainees have been cleared to leave the prison but remain jailed because the U.S. government has been unable to arrange for their return to their home countries, the Pentagon said on Friday.

The Pentagon refused to identify these 141 men despite having released on Wednesday its first comprehensive list of detainees held at the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Of these 141 detainees among the 490 still at Guantanamo, various military reviews have cleared 22 to be freed in their home countries and the remaining 119 for transfer to the control of their home governments.

"It's just an outrageous situation where people have gone through this system that has been established, such as it is, and the (U.S.) government itself has found there's no reason for them to be held any longer, and yet they continue to be held," said Curt Goering, a senior Amnesty International USA official.

"It makes a mockery of any kind of system of justice," Goering added.

Defense officials said the United States has no interest in detaining anyone for any longer than necessary and has been able to arrange for some detainees, but not others, to return to their home countries.

Officials cited U.S. policy not to expel, return or extradite individuals to other countries where it is more likely than not that they will be tortured or persecuted.

SENSITIVE TALKS

Asked why the government will not identify men cleared to leave Guantanamo, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler, a military spokesman, cited the sensitive nature of U.S. government discussions with other countries about the detainees.

"We do not discuss detainee movements or details related to their movements until after the movement has been completed for operational security reasons," Peppler said.

Rights activists decry the indefinite detention of Guantanamo detainees since the jail opened in January 2002, and accuse the United States of torture. The Pentagon denies the torture allegations and says many dangerous al Qaeda and Taliban figures are held there.

Air Force Maj. Michael Shavers, a military spokesman, said 10 detainees still at Guantanamo were cleared for release to their home countries and 12 for transfer to the control of their home governments under review processes in place until July 2004.

Nine detainees still at Guantanamo were deemed by military panels not to be an "enemy combatant," with these decisions coming no later than March 2005, officials said. The United States has labeled detainees "enemy combatants," denying them rights normally accorded to prisoners of war.

Shavers said five of these nine are members of the Uighur ethnic group from far western China. Many Muslim Uighurs seek greater autonomy for the region and some want independence. China has waged a campaign against what it calls their violent separatist activities.

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to consider whether a judge can free two of them, Abu Bakker Qassim and A'del Abdu Al-Hakim, refusing to review the judge's decision that a federal court cannot provide them relief while the United States seeks a country to take them.

Also still jailed are three detainees cleared for release and 107 cleared to be transferred to the control of their home governments by military panels that review each detainee's case at least annually, officials said. These hearings ran from December 2004 to December 2005.

The Pentagon said the detainees hail from 40 countries and the West Bank, with the largest number from Saudi Arabia, followed by Afghanistan and Yemen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060421...RxZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
 
`

U.N. Panel Backs Closing Guantánamo

`
guant.600.jpg

U.N. panel on torture called on the U.S. to close the detention center at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, seen earlier this month.


New York Times
By TOM WRIGHT and JOHN O'NEIL
Published: May 19, 2006

GENEVA, May 19 — A United Nations panel on torture called on the United States today to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and expressed concern over reports of secret detention centers and of a practice of sending terror suspects to countries with poor human rights records.

The panel's report came on the same day as an announcement by the American military that four inmates at the detention center tried to commit suicide on Thursday, and other inmates there attacked guards trying to prevent one man from hanging himself, according to news services reports.

Cmdr. Robert Durand said in a statement that all four of the inmates who attempted suicide were being treated, and that their lives were not in danger.

Three of the detainees "ingested prescription medications that apparently had been hoarded for this purpose," the statement said.

Later in the day, an inmate in a medium-security part of the prison attempted to hang himself. When guards entered the compound to intervene, some other inmates "attempted to prevent them from rescuing the detainee by using fans, light fixtures and other items as improvised weapons," the statement said.

"Minimum force was used to quell the disturbance and prevent the suicide," it said.

"At this point, I have no idea of motive, no idea of any coordination and no idea of any intended message," Commander Durand said, according to Reuters.

Earlier on Thursday, the military announced that 15 Saudi prisoners had been transferred back to their home country.

In the report release in Geneva, the panel, the Committee on Torture, said that the United States should clearly ban interrogation techniques like "water boarding," in which an inmate is held under water to create the fear of drowning; sexual humiliation, and the use of dogs to induce fear. It said that detainees had died during interrogation involving improper techniques.

The panel said it was "concerned" that prisoners were held for indefinite periods without sufficient legal safeguards in the Guantánamo Bay detention center, opened to hold Al Qaeda, Taliban and other terror suspects after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

The United States "should cease to detain any person at Guantánamo Bay and close this detention facility, permit access by the detainees to the judicial process or release them as soon as possible," the report said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow today said that prisoners at Guantánamo receive "every consideration consistent not only with the law, but the needs of safety and security," and that "everything that is done in terms of questioning detainees is fully consistent with the boundaries of American law."

Mr. Snow noted that President Bush has said that he would like to close the prison, but that such a move must wait until the Supreme Court has decided whether detainees should face civilian or military trials.

The United Nations panel reached no conclusion on the most explosive issue it considered, the charge that terror suspects had been held in a network of secret prisons in Eastern Europe that were not open to inspection by the International Red Cross.

The report criticized the refusal of American officials to comment on the charge, and said that the United States "should ensure that no one is detained in any secret detention facility under its de facto effective control."

The panel is composed of 10 special investigators, or rapporteurs, who make periodic reports on compliance with the international treaty banning terrorism, which the United States has signed.

Their recommendations are not binding, but the Bush administration made a significant effort to respond to charges raised during its investigation, sending more than two dozen American officials to appear before the panel earlier this month. It was the first time since the Sept. 11th attacks that a United States delegation had answered questions from an international body about abuses by soldiers and intelligence officers.

The delegation's leader, John B. Bellinger III, the State Department's legal adviser, acknowledged that there had been abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Guantánamo, but called them isolated and said that "our record has improved."

Mr. Bellinger today said the panel had failed to take in to account much of what the United States had told them during the hearings.

"It is unfortunate they have overwhelmingly focused on a very small number of incidents and not taken in to account the overall record of the United States," he said. "The report could just as easily been written before we appeared."

Mr. Bellinger also said the panel had overstepped its mandate in a number of areas, specifically by asking for Guantánamo Bay to be closed. The Fourth Geneva Convention, he noted, states there are certain categories of prisoners that can be held during an armed conflict without the right to visits by groups like the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The panel's report took note of what it called positive developments, including plans for a new Army field manual that would restrict interrogation techniques to those allowed under international law, and a law passed last December prohibiting the torture of American prisoners held anywhere in the world.

But the 11-page report made clear that the United States and the international community remain far apart on a wide range of issues, including whether the torture treaty's protections apply to Guantánamo detainees. The panel also cited reports that the United States has been involved in "enforced disappearances," and said that it considered American officials' assertions "that such acts do not constitute acts of torture" to be "regrettable."

The panel challenged the Bush administration's practice of sending prisoners to countries where torture has been known to occur. American officials told the investigators that it only did so after receiving assurances that there would be no abuse, but the panel said that such pledges should only be accepted from countries that have good records on human rights, and after an examination of the details of an invididual case.

Military officials have said that they are trying to release many of the roughly 490 detainees now being held in Guantánamo. They say that the effort has been slowed, however, by the difficulty in arranging for clear assurances that they will not be abused when they are returned to their country of origin — in many cases, Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

Jennifer Daskal, the advocacy director for American programs at Human Rights Watch, a private group, praised the report, calling it "an incredibly strong and thorough critique."

" We hope the United States takes to heart these strong criticisms and begins to change its practices and policies, she said.

The panel also criticized practices in regular prisons in the United States, including the sexual abuse of inmates and the failure to separate all youthful offenders from adults.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/world/19cnd-torture.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087 &en=bb4c3b53906f002d&ex=1148184000
 
Guantanamo Prison Guards, Inmates Clash

May 19, 12:47 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By BEN FOX

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - Prisoners wielding improvised weapons clashed with guards trying to stop a detainee from committing suicide at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the military said Friday.

The fight occurred Thursday in a medium-security section of the camp as guards were responding to the fourth attempted suicide that day at the detention center on the U.S. Navy base, Cmdr. Robert Durand said.

Detainees used fans, light fixtures and other improvised weapons to attack the guards as they entered a communal living area to stop a prisoner trying to hang himself, Durand said.

Earlier in the day, three detainees in another part of the prison attempted suicide by swallowing prescription medicine they had been hoarding.

The attempted suicides and clash occurred on the same day the military transferred 15 Saudi detainees to their country, leaving about 460 prisoners at Guantanamo. It was unclear if the disturbances were related to the transfers.

The detainees who took part in the clash with guards were moved to higher-security sections.

The medium-security Camp Four, where the clash occurred, houses detainees in dorm-style rooms that hold up to 10 people. Camp Four is for the most compliant prisoners and those who are slated for release.

Those who attempted suicide received medical treatment, the military said. Their names were not released, and military officials declined to speculate about possible motives.

This was the second reported simultaneous suicide attempt at Guantanamo, which holds detainees suspected of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. The U.S. military said 23 detainees carried out a coordinated effort to hang or strangle themselves in 2003 during a weeklong protest in the secretive camp in Cuba.

There have been previous reports of protests and more minor disturbances at the detention center, including incidents in which detainees hurled urine and other bodily fluids at guards or banged on cell doors for hours at a time. A hunger strike that began in August has involved up to 131 detainees but now has dwindled to a handful.

Word of the clash came as a U.N. panel that monitors compliance with the world's anti-torture treaty called on the United States to close the prison.

There have been 39 suicide attempts at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, the military said. At least 12 were by Juma'a Mohammed al-Dossary, a 32-year-old from Bahrain.

Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, an attorney for al-Dossary's, said he visited his client last week and saw scars on his throat and the back of his neck from his most recent attempt in March.

Colangelo-Bryan, whose New York-based law firm, Dorsey and Whitney LLP, represents three detainees from Bahrain, said he did not know if any of his clients were involved in Thursday's incident.

The lawyer said the suicides reflect the desperation of detainees held for more than four years with no idea when, or if, they will be released.

"Under these circumstances, it's hardly surprising that people become desperate and hopeless enough to attempt suicide," he said.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060519/D8HMVDOG0.html?PG=home&SEC=news
 
Funny how quick the UN is to condemn the US for its 'torture' but when other countries do it they always look the other way... I have yet to see any videos or pictures of any torture going on down there... But if they close GITMO and the camps in Eastern Europe then where do we take the terrorist? I don't want them here in the states..
 
[frame]http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/19/gitmo.clash/index.html[/frame]
 
Some of you peeps are still clueless about what Guantanamo represents.
It is an American Gulag.
It is as simple as that!


  • Hundreds of “enemy combatants” were brought to Guantanamo primarily from Afghanistan.
  • Where did these detainees come from???
  • Many were sold to us by Afghan warlords for as much as $5000. per head. Special Op forces and CIA were walking around Afghanistan with Zero Halliburton Premier Attache Cases full of $100. dollar bills, purchasing so called “terrorists”.
  • All of this is covered in 35-year CIA veteran and former CIA station chief in Pakistan, Gary Schroen’s book: First In : An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan

The warlords sold us cab drivers, goat herders, students and very few authentic Al-Qaeda members. The fact that most of the men and children, yes children; there were detainess at Guantanamo as young as 13 years old , were innocent was known years ago.

<b>- Read the 2004 Washington Post article below -</b>

So now Cheney-Rumsfeld-bush had to figure out what to do with hundreds of men (the children were released following international outrage) who are innocent. Cheney-Rumsfeld-bush didn’t want these men in the US court system where they could actually have a semblance of a fair hearing & trial, so they classified these men as “enemy combatants”. Cheney-Rumsfeld-bush didn’t want to release these men back to their home countries, because their harrowing stories of torture & abuse would be on Arab TV channels 24/7. Britain got some of their innocent British citizen “enemy combatants” released
<font color="#0000FF"><b>'Delight' at Release of Guantanamo Men</b></font>

but the US has barred them from returning to the US to tell their stories.

Imagine yourself being abused, and tortured and treated like scum for more than 3 years. Imagine that in that time frame you haven’t even been charged with a crime because your interrogator has figured out that you are innocent. Imagine that they tell you that you will never be released. You would try to commit suicide, by any means necessary. Imagine trying to kill yourself and your American captors, strap you to a chair, stick a tube down your nose and force-feed you. Oh by the way the ‘food’ that they force feed you causes you to shit on yourself.
Guantanamo is nothing more than a torture chamber & Gulag that your tax dollars are paying for. It should be closed immediately. </font>

<hr noshade color="333333" size="10"></hr>


wpcom_logo_feb.gif



Detainees Seen As Minimal Threat

Camp official says releases are likely


250px-Camp_x-ray_detainees.jpg



By John Mintz,
Washington Post
October 6, 2004

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/06/detainees_seen_as_minimal_threat/

WASHINGTON -- Most of the alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban inmates at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are likely to be freed or sent to their home countries for further investigation because many pose little threat and are not providing much valuable intelligence, the facility's deputy commander has said.

The remarks by Army Brigadier General Martin Lucenti in yesterday's edition of London's Financial Times appeared to conflict with past comments by US military commanders who have stressed the value of the information obtained from the detainees and the danger many would pose if released.

"Of the 550 [detainees] that we have, I would say most of them, the majority of them, will either be released or transferred to their own countries," Lucenti was quoted as saying in the British newspaper. "Most of these guys weren't fighting. They were running. Even if somebody has been found to be an enemy combatant, many of them will be released because they will be of low intelligence value and low threat status.

"We don't have a level of evidence to feel that we can be confident to prosecute them" all, he added, according to the newspaper. "We have guys here who have never told us anything, except to say that they want to cut off the heads of the infidels if they get a chance."

Asked for comment about the remarks, military officials referred inquiries to the joint task force that runs the Guantanamo Bay prison. Army Major Hank McIntire, a spokesman, said yesterday that officials there would have no immediate comment while they work on a statement about the matter.

Lucenti's superior, Army Brigadier General Jay Hood, disagreed with Lucenti's assessment, telling the Financial Times that some detainees "are of tremendous intelligence value," and still reveal significant information. McIntire confirmed Hood's remarks yesterday.

Hood's predecessor, Army Major General Geoffrey Miller, has said frequently that most of the Guantanamo Bay detainees were providing useful intelligence.

"We're learning about the interconnection of terrorism on a global scale," Miller told the Washington Post earlier this year. "Golden threads, I call them. . . . I have found no innocent people in Camp Delta."

The US military has stepped up the pace of releases from Guantanamo Bay in the last several months, particularly since a US Supreme Court decision in June that said the government does not have the authority to deprive alleged members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban of their freedom without giving them access to federal courts. As of Sept. 22, the prison had released 146 detainees to freedom, and in 56 cases transferred them to the custody of their home governments, the Pentagon said. Some in the latter category were later freed.

Of the 202 men who have left Guantanamo Bay, only one was repatriated because a special board of US military officers at the prison ruled that he was not an "enemy combatant." He was returned to Pakistan on Sept. 18.

After the Supreme Court decision, the military began to hold Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine whether the detainees were ever enemy combatants; 115 such cases have been heard so far. Four other men have been brought before special military commissions for trial. </font>


Tough U.S. Steps in Hunger Strike at Camp in Cuba </font>

by Tim Golden
Feb. 9th 2006
page A.1

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70714F63F5A0C7A8CDDAB0894DE404482

United States military authorities have taken tougher measures to force-feed detainees engaged in hunger strikes at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after concluding that some were determined to commit suicide to protest their indefinite confinement, military officials have said.

In recent weeks, the officials said, guards have begun strapping recalcitrant detainees into ''restraint chairs,'' sometimes for hours a day, to feed them through tubes and prevent them from deliberately vomiting afterward. Detainees who refuse to eat have also been placed in isolation for extended periods in what the officials said was an effort to keep them from being encouraged by other hunger strikers. The measures appear to have had drastic effects. The chief military spokesman at Guantanamo, Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin, said yesterday that the number of detainees on hunger strike had dropped to 4 from 84 at the end of December.

Some officials said the new actions reflected concern at Guantanamo and the Pentagon that the protests were becoming difficult to control and that the death of one or more prisoners could intensify international criticism of the detention center. Colonel Martin said force-feeding was carried out ''in a humane and compassionate manner'' and only when necessary to keep the prisoners alive. H e said in a statement that ''a restraint system to aid detainee feeding'' was being used but refused to answer questions about the restraint chairs.

Lawyers who have visited clients in recent weeks criticized the latest measures, particularly the use of the restraint chair, as abusive.

''It is clear that the government has ended the hunger strike through the use of force and through the most brutal and inhumane types of treatment,'' said Thomas B. Wilner, a lawyer at Shearman & Sterling in Washington, who last week visited the six Kuwaiti detainees he represents. ''It is a disgrace.''

The lawyers said other measures used to dissuade the hunger strikers included placing them in uncomfortably cold air-conditioned isolation cells, depriving them of ''comfort items'' like blankets and books and sometimes using riot-control soldiers to compel the prisoners to sit still while long plastic tubes were threaded down their nasal passages and into their stomachs.

Officials of the military and the Defense Department strongly disputed that they were taking punitive measures to break the strike. They said that they were sensitive to the ethical issues raised by feeding the detainees involuntarily and that their procedures were consistent with those of federal prisons in the United States. Those prisons authorize the involuntary treatment of hunger strikers when there is a threat to an inmate's life or health.

''There is a moral question,'' the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr., said in an interview. ''Do you allow a person to commit suicide? Or do you take steps to protect their health and preserve their life?''

Dr. Winkenwerder said that after a review of the policy on involuntary feeding last summer Pentagon officials came to the basic conclusion that it was ethical to stop the inmates from killing themselves.

''The objective in any circumstance is to protect and sustain a person's life,'' he said.

Some international medical associations and human rights groups, including the World Medical Association, oppose the involuntary feeding of hunger strikers as coercive.

Lawyers for the detainees, although troubled by what they said were earlier reports of harsh treatment of the hunger strikers, have generally not objected to such actions when necessary to save their clients.

The Guantanamo prison, which is holding some 500 detainees, has been beset by periodic hunger strikes almost since it was established in January 2002 to hold foreign terror suspects. At least one detainee who went on a prolonged hunger strike was involuntarily fed through a nasal tube in 2002, military officials said.

Since last year, the protests have intensified, a sign of what defense lawyers say is the growing desperation of the detainees. In a study released yesterday, two of those lawyers said Pentagon documents indicated that the military had determined that only 45 percent of the detainees had committed some hostile act against the United States or its allies and that only 8 percent were fighters for Al Qaeda.

After dozens of detainees began joining a hunger strike last June, military doctors at Guantanamo asked Pentagon officials to review their policy for such feeding. Around that time, officials said, the Defense Department also began working out procedures to deal with the eventual suicide of one or more detainees, including how and where to bury them if their native countries refused to accept their remains.

''This is just a reality of long-term detention,'' a Pentagon official said. ''It doesn't matter whether you're at Leavenworth or some other military prison. You are going to have to deal with this kind of thing.''

Military officials and detainees' lawyers said the primary rationale for the hunger strikes had evolved since last summer. In June and July, they said, the detainees were mostly complaining about their conditions at Guantanamo.

Several lawyers said that military officers there had negotiated with an English-speaking Saudi detainee, Shaker Aamer, who is thought to be a leader of the inmates, and that the detainees had agreed to stop their hunger strike in return for various concessions.

Military officials denied that such negotiations had occurred. But military officials and the lawyers agreed that when another wave of hunger strikes began in early August they were more generally focused on the indefinite nature of the detentions and that it was harder for the authorities there to address.

Colonel Martin said the number of hunger strikers peaked around Sept. 11 at 131, but added that he could not speculate about why other than to note that ''hunger striking is an Al Qaeda tactic used to elicit media attention and also to bring pressure on the U.S. government.''

Until yesterday, Guantanamo officials had acknowledged only having forcibly restrained detainees to feed them a handful of times. In those cases, the officials said, doctors had restrained detainees on hospital beds using Velcro straps.

Two military officials, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the question, said that the use of restraint chairs started after it was found that some hunger strikers were deliberately vomiting in their cells after having been tube-fed and that their health was growing precarious.

In a telephone interview yesterday, the manufacturer of the so-called Emergency Restraint Chair, Tom Hogan, said his small Iowa company shipped five $1,150 chairs to Guantanamo on Dec. 5 and 20 additional chairs on Jan. 10, using a military postal address in Virginia. Mr. Hogan said the chairs were typically used in jails, prisons and psychiatric hospitals to deal with violent inmates or patients.

Mr. Hogan said that he did not know how they were used at Guantanamo and that had not been asked how to use them by military representatives.

Detainees' lawyers said they believed that the tougher approach to the hunger strikes was related to the passage in Congress of measure intended to curtail the detainees' access to United States courts.

Federal district courts have put aside most lawyers' motions on the detainees' treatment until questions about applying the measure have been litigated.

''Because of the actions in Congress, the military feels emboldened to take more extreme measures vis-a-vis the hunger strikers,'' said one lawyer, Sarah Havens of Allen & Overy. ''The courts are going to stay out of it now.''

Mr. Wilner, who was among the first lawyers to accept clients at Guantanamo and represented them in a case in 2004 before the Supreme Court, said a Kuwaiti detainee, Fawzi al-Odah, told him last week that around Dec. 20, guards began taking away items like shoes, towels and blankets from the hunger strikers.

Mr. Odah also said that lozenges that had been distributed to soothe the hunger strikers' throats had disappeared and that the liquid formula they were given was mixed with other ingredients to cause diarrhea, Mr. Wilner said.

On Jan. 9, Mr. Odah told his lawyers, an officer read him what he described as an order from the Guantanamo commander, Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood of the Army, saying hunger strikers who refused to drink their liquid formula voluntarily would be strapped into metal chairs and tube-fed.

Mr. Odah said he heard ''screams of pain'' from a hunger striker in the next cell as a thick tube was inserted into his nose. At the other detainee's urging, Mr. Odah told his lawyers that he planned to end his hunger strike the next day.

Another lawyer, Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, said one of his three Bahraini clients, Jum'ah al-Dossari, told him about 10 days ago that more than half of a group of 34 long-term hunger strikers had abandoned their protest after being strapped in restraint chairs and having their feeding tubes inserted and removed so violently that some bled or fainted.

''He said that during these force feedings too much food was given deliberately, which caused diarrhea and in some cases caused detainees to defecate on themselves,'' Mr. Colangelo-Bryan added. ''Jum'ah understands that officers told the hunger strikers that if they challenged the United States, the United States would challenge them back using these tactics.''
</font>

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="14"></hr>

<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif">

<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Force-Feeding at Guantanamo Is Now Acknowledged </font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, helvetica, arial unicode ms, microsoft sans serif, verdana" color="#000000" size="3">
<b>by Eric Schmitt and Tim Golden

Feb. 22, 2006 | page A.6</b>

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10D16FE355A0C718EDDAB0894DE404482&n=Top/Reference/Times Topics/People/G/Golden, Tim

The military commander responsible for the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, confirmed Tuesday that officials there last month turned to more aggressive methods to deter prisoners who were carrying out long-term hunger strikes to protest their incarceration.

The commander, Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, head of the United States Southern Command, said soldiers at Guantanamo began strapping some of the detainees into ''restraint chairs'' to force-feed them and isolate them from one another after finding that some were deliberately vomiting or siphoning out the liquid they had been fed.

''It was causing problems because some of these hard-core guys were getting worse,'' General Craddock said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. Explaining the use of the restraint chairs, he added, ''The way around that is you have to make sure that purging doesn't happen.''

After The New York Times reported Feb. 9 that the military had begun using restraint chairs and other harsh methods, military spokesmen insisted that the procedures for dealing with the hunger strikes at Guantanamo had not changed. They also said they could not confirm that the chairs had been used.

On Tuesday, General Craddock said he had reviewed the use of the restraint chairs, as had senior officials at the Department of Defense, and they concluded that the practice was ''not inhumane.'' General Craddock left no doubt, however, that commanders had decided to try to make life less comfortable for the hunger strikers, and that the measures were seen as successful.

''Pretty soon it wasn't convenient, and they decided it wasn't worth it,'' he said of the hunger strikers. ''A lot of the detainees said: 'I don't want to put up with this. This is too much of a hassle.' ''

A spokesman for the Southern Command, Lt. Col. James Marshall, said that restraint chairs had been used in the feeding of 35 of the detainees so far, and that 3 were still being fed that way. He said the number of prisoners refusing to eat had fallen from 41 on Dec. 15 -- when the restraint chairs were first used on a trial basis -- to 5, according to a military spokesman.

Military officials have said the tough measures were necessary to keep detainees from dying. But while many of the strikers lost between 15 and 20 percent of their normal body weight, only a few were thought to be in immediate medical danger, two officers familiar with the strike said.

Lawyers for the detainees and several human rights groups have assailed the new methods used against the hunger strikers as inhumane, and as unjustified by the reported medical condition of the prisoners.

According to newly declassified interview notes, several detainees who had been on hunger strikes told their lawyers during visits late last month that the military had begun using harsher methods more widely in the second week of January. One Yemeni detainee, Emad Hassan, described the chair to lawyers in interviews on Jan. 24 and 25.

''The head is immobilized by a strap so it can't be moved, their hands are cuffed to the chair and the legs are shackled,'' the notes quote Mr. Hassan as saying. ''They ask, 'Are you going to eat or not?' and if not, they insert the tube. People have been urinating and defecating on themselves in these feedings and vomiting and bleeding. They ask to be allowed to go to the bathroom, but they will not let them go. They have sometimes put diapers on them.''

Another former hunger striker, Isa al-Murbati of Bahrain, described a similar experience to his lawyer, Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, in an interview on Jan. 28.

On Jan. 10, he said, a lieutenant came to his isolation cell and told him that if he did not agree to eat solid food, he would be strapped into the chair and force-fed. After he refused to comply, he said, soldiers picked him up by the throat, threw him to the floor and strapped him to the restraint chair.

Like Mr. Hassan, Mr. Murbati said he had been fed two large bags of liquid formula, which were forced into his stomach very quickly. ''He felt pain like a 'knife in the stomach' '' Mr. Colangelo-Bryan said.

Detainees said the Guantanamo medical staff also began inserting and removing the long plastic feeding tubes that were threaded through the detainees' nasal passages and into their stomachs at every feeding, a practice that caused sharp pain and frequent bleeding, they said. Until then, doctors there said, they had been allowing the hunger strikers to leave their feeding tubes in, to reduce discomfort.

Military spokesmen have generally discounted the complaints, saying the prisoners are for the most part terrorists, trained by Al Qaeda to use false stories as propaganda.

In a letter to a British physician and human rights activist, Dr. David J. Nicholl, on Dec. 12, the former chief medical officer at Guantanamo, Capt. John S. Edmondson of the Navy, wrote that his staff was not force-feeding any detainees but ''providing nutritional supplementation on a voluntary basis to detainees who wish to protest their confinement by not taking oral nourishment.''

General Craddock suggested that the medical staff had indulged the hunger strikers to the point that they had been allowed to choose the color of their feeding tubes.

Two other Defense Department officials said a decision had been made to try to break the hunger strikes because they were having a disruptive effect and causing stress for the medical staff.

That effort was stepped up, one official said, in January, when Captain Edmondson left Guantanamo for a new post after receiving a Legion of Merit Medal for ''inspiring leadership and exemplary performance.''
</font>

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="12"></hr>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"</hr><br>

<table border="7" width="100%" id="table1" bordercolorlight="#FF0000" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" bordercolordark="#FF0000" bgcolor="#000000">
<tr>

<td><CENTER>
<EMBED src="http://video.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/media4/now/042905/117detainees-hi.rm" width="330" height="250" controls="all" console="video" autostart="false"></EMBED><p>
<b><font color="#FFFFFF" face="Arial" size="3">CLICK PLAY TO VIEW GUANTANOMO VIDEO</font></b></center><p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">

<img src="http://images.google.com/images?q=t...e/weblog/images/uploads/Geoffrey_Miller_1.jpg">
Maj. General Geoffrey Miller after he finished setting up the <b>"Take The Gloves Off" </b>abuse & torture techniques at Guantanomo was ordered by Rumsfeld to go to IRAQ and set up the same abuse & torture at Abu-Gharib. Rumsfeld told him to <b>"Gitmo-ize Iraq". The infamous Abu-Gharib pictures showed Miller's handiwork to the entire world. </b></font>

<br>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"</hr><br>
<img border="0" src="http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2004/05/fotosirak/imagenes/02.jpg" width="500" height="439"></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial" size="3" color="#000000">Iraqi prisoner being threatened by attack dogs. The second &amp; third picture in this series that The New Yorker choose not to publish shows the dogs biting the prisoner and extracting blood. <span style="background-color: #FFFF00">Some dogs were trained to anally rape prisoners. </span></font></b><hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"</hr>

<img border="0" src="http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2004/05/fotosirak/imagenes/17.jpg" width="453" height="334">
<br>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"</hr>
<img border="0" src="http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/01/maltrato_prisioneros/img/charcopatada.jpg" width="300" height="193"><img border="0" src="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2005/01/18/courtmartialhandout372.jpg" width="372" height="192">
<br><b><font face="Arial" size="3" color="#000000">A British soldier kicks and beats an Iraqi, immobilized prisoner with a
network that surrounds his body. The spot on the ground is urine.</font></b>
<br><hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"</hr>

<br>
<img border="0" src="http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/01/maltrato_prisioneros/img/surf.jpg" width="250" height="355"></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="3" color="#000000"><b>British soldier Darren Larkin uses the body of an Iraqi prisoner as a table to surf, simulating to practice this sport, while his companion the soldier
Daniel Kenyon takes a photo of him with his camera </b></font>
<br>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"</hr>
<img border="0" src="http://www.granma.cu/espanol/2004/irak-horror/imagenes/turturas8.jpg" width="280" height="200"></p>
<p>
<img border="0" src="http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/01/maltrato_prisioneros/img/actopulgar.jpg" width="250" height="294"><img border="0" src="http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/01/maltrato_prisioneros/img/actosex.jpg" width="300" height="197">
<br>
<img src="http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2004/05/fotosirak/imagenes/03.jpg"><br>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"</hr>
<br>
<img border="0" src="http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/01/maltrato_prisioneros/img/aguacara.jpg" width="300" height="196"></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="3" color="#000000"><b>Bound Iraqi having his genitals crushed by British soldier&nbsp;
</b></font> <br>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"</hr>
<p>
<img border="0" src="http://www.granma.cu/espanol/2004/irak-horror/imagenes/turtura1.jpg" width="317" height="421"><img border="0" src="http://www.granma.cu/espanol/2004/irak-horror/imagenes/abuso4.jpg" width="243" height="319"></p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"</hr><br>
 
Some of those pics are reposts that we have already concluded they are fakes... If they let them go there will just be a few more suicide bombers to blow shit up in their home countries....
 
This story bothers me because I see illegal immigration, the Iraq occupation and Guantanamo Bay as part of a larger movement to re-establish White Supremacy on the other hand as a American in the middle of WWIII I believe America has to do whatever it takes to win this conflict. We can settle our racial differences later.
 
Group says children held at Guantanamo

United Press International

LONDON, May 28 (UPI) -- A British legal rights group says more than 60 of the detainees of the U.S. detention camp in Guantanamo Bay were under 18 at the time of their capture.

The findings by the group Reprieve directly contradicted the Bush administration's assurances to the British government that no children were being held, The London Independent reported on Sunday.

The group alleges that 10 detainees still being held were 14 or 15 when they were seized. Some were child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured, the newspaper said.

Lawyers for Reprieve say the latest figures were developed after the U.S. Defense Department released the first ever list of Guantanamo detainees earlier this month. The attorneys say they were able to confirm that 17 detainees on the list were under 18 when taken to the camp and another seven were probably juveniles. The group says they have credible evidence that another 37 inmates were under 18 when they were seized.

A senior Pentagon spokesman insisted that no one now being held at Guantanamo was a juvenile, the newspaper said.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060528-110004-4671r
 
The children of Guantanamo Bay

The 'IoS' reveals today that more than 60 of the detainees
of the US camp were under 18 at the time of their capture,
some as young as 14


By Severin Carrell
Published: 28 May 2006


The notorious US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay has been hit by fresh allegations of human rights abuses, with claims that dozens of children were sent there - some as young as 14 years old.

Lawyers in London estimate that more than 60 detainees held at the terrorists' prison camp were boys under 18 when they were captured.

They include at least 10 detainees still held at the US base in Cuba who were 14 or 15 when they were seized - including child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured.

The disclosures threaten to plunge the Bush administration into a fresh row with Britain, its closest ally in the war on terror, only days after the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, repeated his demands for the closure of the detention facility. It was, he said, a "symbol of injustice".

Whitehall sources said the new allegations, from the London-based legal rights group Reprieve, directly contradicted the Bush administration's assurances to the UK that no juveniles had been held there. "We would take a very, very dim view if it transpires that there were actually minors there," said an official.

One child prisoner, Mohamed el Gharani, is accused of involvement in a 1998 al-Qa'ida plot in London led by the alleged al-Qa'ida leader in Europe, Abu Qatada. But he was 12 years old at the time and living with his parents in Saudi Arabia.

After being arrested in Karachi in October 2001, aged 14, he has spent several years in solitary confinement as an alleged al-Qa'ida-trained fighter.

One Canadian-born boy, Omar Khadr, was 15 when arrested in 2002 and has also been kept in solitary confinement. The son of a known al-Qa'ida commander, he is accused of killing a US soldier with a grenade in July 2002 and was placed top of the Bush administration's list of detainees facing prosecution.

"It would surely be really quite stupid to allow the world to think you have teenagers in orange jumpsuits and shackles, spending 23 hours a day locked up in a cage," a source added. "If it's true that young people have been held there, their cases should be dealt with as a priority."

British officials last night told the IoS that the UK had been assured that any juveniles would be held in a special facility for child detainees at Guantanamo called Camp Iguana. But the US admits only three inmates were ever treated as children - three young Afghans, one aged 13, who were released in 2004 after a furore over their detention.

The row will again focus attention on the Bush administration's repeated claims that normal rules of war and human rights conventions do not apply to "enemy combatants" who were al-Qa'ida or Taliban fighters and supporters. The US insists these fighters did not have the same legal status as soldiers in uniform.

Clive Stafford Smith, a legal director of Reprieve and lawyer for a number of detainees, said it broke every widely accepted legal convention on human rights to put children in the same prison as adults - including US law.

"There is nothing wrong with trying minors for crimes, if they have committed crimes. The problem is when you either hold minors without trial in shocking conditions, or try them before a military commission that, in the words of a prosecutor who refused to take part, is rigged," he said. "Even if these kids were involved in fighting - and Omar is the only one who the military pretends was - then there is a UN convention against the use of child soldiers. There is a general recognition in the civilised world that children should be treated differently from adults."

Because the detainees have been held in Cuba for four years, all the teenagers are now thought to have reached their 18th birthdays in Guantanamo Bay and some have since been released.

The latest figures emerged after the Department of Defense (DoD) in Washington was forced to release the first ever list of Guantanamo detainees earlier this month. Although lawyers say it is riddled with errors - getting numerous names and dates of birth wrong - they were able to confirm that 17 detainees on the list were under 18 when taken to the camp, and another seven were probably juveniles.

In addition, said Mr Stafford Smith, they had credible evidence from other detainees, lawyers and the International Red Cross that another 37 inmates were under 18 when they were seized. One detainee, an al-Jazeera journalist called Sami el Hajj, has identified 36 juveniles in Guantanamo.

A senior Pentagon spokesman, Lt Commander Jeffrey Gordon, insisted that no one now being held at Guantanamo was a juvenile and said the DoD also rejected arguments that normal criminal law was relevant to the Guantanamo detainees.

"There is no international standard concerning the age of an individual who engages in combat operations... Age is not a determining factor in detention. [of those] engaged in armed conflict against our forces or in support to those fighting against us."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece
 
Question about Guantanamo Bay...

Does anyone know why Cuba allows the U.S. to house suspected terrorist in a prison at Guantanamo..even though.. the U.S. has a trade embargo against Cuba??
 
Re: Question about Guantanamo Bay...

Simple lease agreement - has nothing to do with a trade embargo or foreign policy.

In December 1903, the United States leased the 45 square miles of land and water for use as a coaling station. A treaty reaffirmed the lease in 1934 granting Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, payment of $2,000 in gold per year, equating to $4,085 today, and a requirement that both the U.S. and Cuba must mutually consent to terminate the lease. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay.htm
 
Re: Question about Guantanamo Bay...

Judge orders 17 Guantanamo detainees released to U.S.
A dramatic setback for the Bush administration


McClatchy Newspapers
By Marisa Taylor
Tuesday, October 7, 2008


WASHINGTON — In a dramatic setback for the Bush administration, a federal judge ordered the U.S. government Tuesday to immediately release and transfer to the United States 17 Chinese-born Muslims detained for almost seven years at Guantanamo.

The decision marked the first time a court has ordered the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. and could prompt the release of dozens of other Guantanamo detainees who have been cleared for release by the military but who can’t leave because the government hasn’t found a country to send them to.

Judge Ricardo Urbina declared the continued detention of the group from the ethnic Uighur minority to be “unlawful” and ordered the government to bring the detainees to the U.S. by Friday.

Reading his decision from the bench, Urbina said the government could no longer detain the Uighurs after conceding they weren’t enemy combatants. The judge also agreed with the Uighurs’ lawyers, who’ve argued the group can’t be returned to China because they could be tortured.

Urbina warned the government not to attempt to circumvent the group’s release by detaining them on immigration holds once they reach the U.S., saying “no one is to bother these people until I see them.”

Administration officials said they intend to file an "emergency motion" Tuesday night with the federal appeals court in Washington to block the ruling.

"This decision, we believe, is contrary to our laws, including federal immigration statutes passed by Congress," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "The district court’s ruling, if allowed to stand, could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country."

Urbina, who at times during the hearing appeared to scold Justice Department lawyers, noted the government hadn’t charged the detainees with any crime, revealed any evidence justifying their detention and then “stymied” their release by continuing to assert erroneously that they were enemy combatants.

When government lawyers started to raise security concerns, the judge challenged them to specify what they were, chiding them that “you’ve had seven years to study this.”

He described the government’s use of certain legal jargon as “Kafkaesque,” saying it “begs the question of whether they ever were enemy combatants.”

Supporters from the Uighur-American community who attended the hearing reacted to his ruling with loud applause and cheers.

“The American system has given us justice,” said Rebia Kadeer, president of the World Uighur Congress.

Citing “serious separation-of-power issues,” Justice Department lawyers immediately requested a delay to allow the government time to consider whether to appeal. The judge, however, refused and instead set a hearing to determine the conditions of release.

Despite the prospect of the government’s appeal, Kadeer said: “I believe they will be released.” Kadeer, a leader of the expatriate Uighur community, was once detained for several years in a Chinese prison as a political dissident, but released and sent to the U.S. after the State Department pressured the Chinese government.

Urbina, a Clinton appointee, said the men will be permitted to stay with Uighur families in the Washington area, but will be expected to check in with the court on a regular basis. Next week, the court will consider whether to impose other conditions of their release.

The Uighurs were first shipped to Guantanamo from Afghanistan after their capture by U.S. troops at a weapons training camp. The military accused the group of being members of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement and said the camp in Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountains was run by the Taliban. But the Uighurs denied being members of the group and receiving support from the Taliban.

The Uighurs also have insisted that they consider the U.S. to be an ally in their fight for more political freedom in China. Declassified documents turned over to their lawyers showed that as early as 2003 government officials had concluded they were not enemy combatants and had recommended releasing them.

Attorneys representing the group hailed the ruling as landmark and predicted it could lead to other releases.

“The decision is extraordinary,” said Neil McGaraghan, one of the attorneys. “This is finally a step toward justice.”

The decision comes after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned as “invalid” a military tribunal's conclusion that one of the prisoners, Huzaifa Parhat, is an enemy combatant. The court, the same one that could hear the department's appeal, directed the Pentagon either to release or transfer Parhat or to hold a new tribunal hearing “consistent with the court's opinion.”

After the appellate ruling, the government conceded that it no longer considered any of the Uighurs enemy combatants.

However, Justice Department lawyers continued to argue Tuesday that the release of the group into the U.S. could pose a security risk and warned that the decision could harm international relations with China. The judge dismissed both arguments. Justice Department lawyer John O’Quinn said he did not mean to suggest that the government would immediately move to detain the group once they were in the U.S.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53595.html
 
Re: Question about Guantanamo Bay...

<IFRAME SRC="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7845585.stm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7845585.stm">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Re: Question about Guantanamo Bay...

<font size="6">
A New Sheriff in Town ? ? ?</font size>


<font size="4">With Guantanamo closing, where will the detainees go?</font size>




<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" width="450" height="319"><param name="width" value="450"/><param name="height" value="319"/><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l10qEtfMtqQ&fs=1&rel=1&showsearch=0" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/l10qEtfMtqQ&fs=1&hl=en&showsearch=0" width="450" height="319" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
McClatchy's Steven Thomma discusses Obama's dentention orders


McClatchy Newspapers
By Scott Canon and
David Goldstein
Thursday, January 22, 2009


LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — If not Guantanamo, then where?

Anything but a welcoming party is forming here.

When President Barack Obama signed an order Thursday forcing the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center within a year, he put in sharp relief the possibility that some of the world's most potentially dangerous terror suspects could be hauled to Kansas.

The U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth is on a list of imperfect choices for holding nearly 200 men whose legal status is as murky as their backgrounds.

Obama's long-promised action only heightened chances that Leavenworth could be the new focus for a contentious debate over how to prosecute non-citizens for alleged actions overseas, and whether their legal limbo has a foreseeable end.

"We're a military community and people understand that we need to do what the commander-in-chief says," said Andrea Adkins, Leavenworth's economic development administrator. "But there is a security threat any place where these people are located."

Kansas politicians and local government officials have complained loudly about the possibility of America's most troublesome captives being brought to the Midwest. Opponents' arguments center on security - both that the military prison might not be equipped for such high-risk inmates, and that the base and the community might be targeted by terrorists.

"This is just not going to happen on our watch," said Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas.

Sen. Sam Brownback, another Kansas Republican, said he also has been told by officials from Muslim countries that they would no longer send officers to the Army Command and General Staff College if the detainees came to the Leavenworth Army base.

"We've already heard from students from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia that they will leave, or be pulled by their governments, if the detainees from Guantanamo are moved there," Brownback said. "It's where these relationships are built with foreign officers, particularly in the Islamic world. This really hurts us."

Obama's administration has yet to address where the Guantanamo inmates will end up. In fact, the detainee's ultimate destination poses a myriad of unsettled legal questions.

Currently 245 men are being held at the Guantanamo prison camp, which opened almost seven years ago. Most have been held for years without being charged with any crime. Roughly 60 have been cleared of accusations, but their home countries have so far refused their return.

Another undetermined number could be shipped to their home countries or to third-party nations seen as open to such overtures from the Obama administration.

But a significant majority will likely remain in U.S. custody - either to face prosecution, or because Washington considers them too great a threat to walk free in the United States or abroad.

"The message that we are sending the world," Obama said Thursday, "is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals."

Obama signed orders calling for the review of military war crimes trials, closing any remaining CIA secret prisons overseas, and banning the harshest interrogation methods employed during his predecessor's administration.

He already had suspended trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo for 120 days pending a review of military tribunals. The president also created a task force to recommend where to send terror suspects captured in the future since the Guantanamo prison's days are numbered.

Those moves instantly altered how the United States questions and prosecutes members of al Qaida, the Taliban and a disparate collection of foreign fighters who don't fit neatly into classification as prisoners of war or criminal defendants.


<font size="3">The changes largely won applause overseas.</font size>

German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said the prisoners are America's problem and that any Guantanamo inmates who can't go home "out of human rights considerations" will simply "need to remain in the United States."

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, also welcomed the orders and called for a further review of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Those who are considered innocent are entitled to their freedom without delay," Pillay said.

There has been speculation that the Guantanamo detainees could end up at the Pul-e-Charki prison outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Or that some might be sent to the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., or to one of two Marine bases in California.

<font size="3">Or to Leavenworth.</font size>

An informal survey Thursday on the streets of Leavenworth found reactions ranging from confidence that the Army would continue to keep the community safe, to concerns that the town will be visited by new dangers and its name become synonymous with terrorist incarceration.

"The question that comes to my mind is how secure it will be," said Timothy Swan, the owner of Alpha Geeks Computers in downtown Leavenworth.

Anita Maynard, the owner of the Queen's Pantry shop, feared the transfer of prisoners might too strongly reinforce Leavenworth's image as simply a prison town at the expense of its other attributes - such as being home to a college for mid-career Army officers.

Dianne Hawkins, a homemaker married to a soldier, said she had confidence that if the detainees came the Army could keep things safe.

But that security question was key for Brendan Sheehan, who runs a bicycle shop in Leavenworth. If he were assured that the town stayed safe, Sheehan said he could imagine an economic boon.

"That's that many more workers here in town," he said. "That could mean more customers."

Yet the city, Leavenworth County, and the local chamber of commerce have all taken public stands against making Leavenworth the new Guantanamo.

In addition to security worries, a statement by the city suggested it could take an economic hit if use of the town's small airport or local rail lines were restricted because of the high-risk inmates.

Opponents also insist that Leavenworth isn't suitable because it's only a medium security facility with just one maximum-security wing.

"These are some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world," said Roberts, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has toured Guantanamo.

Critics also said the base was not isolated, but located in the midst of a city of 35,000 people, near a river and not far from Kansas City International Airport.

What's more, Geneva Convention rules and U.S. law forbid housing enemy combatants with military prisoners charged with criminal offenses.

Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas pointed out that the campus-style construction would make it difficult to separate inmates, and the base lacks the necessary medical facilities.

Rep. Lynn Jenkins, a Republican elected in November whose district includes Leavenworth, was blunt.

Jenkins said the Guantanamo inmates would come to Kansas "over my dead body."

Staff writer Matt Schofield contributed to this report.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/60561.html
 
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
Big Ups QueEx-
For reviving these threads, that contain years of truth-telling outlining the criminal violations and deceitful contempt for the US Constitution that the Bushit administration engaged in throughout its disastrous eight year seizure of power. All the pro Bushit sycophants arguments have been exposed & relegated to the same trash bin that contains the Third Reich’s Nazi propaganda. The final act is – will anyone be prosecuted??
bush_nazi.jpg
 
<font size="5"><center>Former USS Cole commander
slams Obama on Guantanamo</font size><font size="4">


Meanwhile, chief judge of the Guantanamo war court on Thursday
spurned a request from President Barack Obama to freeze
the military commissions there, and said he would go
forward with next month's hearing for an alleged
USS Cole bomber in a capital terror case. </font size></center>



Miami Herald
By Carol Rosenberg
Friday, January 30, 2009


The chief judge of the Guantanamo war court, Army Col. James Pohl, on Thursday spurned a request from President Barack Obama to freeze the military commissions there, and said he would go forward with next month's hearing for an alleged USS Cole bomber in a capital terror case.

The decision was immediately denounced by the head of the American Civil Liberties Union, which said the ruling smacked of Bush administration holdovers at the Pentagon trying to prevent President Barack Obama from fulfilling his promise to close Guantanamo.

The order, said ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, "raises serious questions about whether Secretary of Defense (Robert) Gates is the 'New Gates' or is the same old Gates under a new president. Gates certainly has the power to put a halt to these proceedings, and his lack of action demonstrates that we may have more of the same — rather than the change we were promised.''

Meanwhile, retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kurt Lippold, who was commander of the Cole at the time of the attack, hailed the judge's ruling as "a victory for the 17 families of the sailors who lost their lives on the USS Cole over eight years ago.''

Lippold criticized Obama's order to freeze the war court and empty the prison camps. "Any delay in moving forward with the military commissions process is denying justice to the victims who have suffered as a result of these terrorist acts."

Pohl's decision stunned officials at the Department of Defense and White House, which had just begun to grapple with Obama's order to freeze the war court and empty the detention center within a year.

''The Department of Defense is currently reviewing Judge Pohl's ruling,'' said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon. "We will be in compliance with the president's orders regarding Guantanamo.''

White House aides noted that the order only applied to a single case and that all other pending trials had been stopped. White House Opress Secretary Robert Gibbs said the other stays "give us what we need to evaluate who is at Gitmo and make the decisions commensurate with the executive order that the president signed."

But there was no comment on what other steps Obama might take or whether he had the power as commander-in-chief to overrule the military judge.

Nashiri's Pentagon-appointed defense lawyer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen Reyes, said the prosecutor could still dismiss the charges against his client to comply with the president's request for a freeze. The charges could later be reinstated.

''The only way they can give effect to the president's order is by dismissing the charges,'' Reyes said.

Pohl's ruling came in the case of Abd el Rahim al Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian who faces a Feb. 9 arraignment on charges he helped orchestrate the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole. The bombing killed 17 U.S. sailors.

Nashiri is now held at the remote U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba after years of CIA detention during which, the agency has confirmed, he was subjected to waterboarding.

''On its face, the request to delay the arraignment is not reasonable,'' the judge, Army Col. James Pohl, wrote in his three-page ruling denying a prosecution request to delay Nashiri's first court appearance.

Pentagon prosecutors filed identical delay requests soon after Obama took office, arguing that the commander-in-chief needed a 120-day suspension in war court hearings to give the new administration time to study the process.

Other war court judges, including the Army colonel presiding at the trial of the accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, agreed to the delay.

But Pohl said he would not accede to the request. ''The public interest in a speedy trial will be harmed by the delay in the arraignment,'' he wrote.

He also noted that nothing would take place at the arraignment that would prevent Obama from taking other steps to stop the trial and that under the 2006 Military Commissions Act, it was up to a judge tio grant any delay. "The commission is bound by the law as it currently exists not as it may change in the future.''

Because the Pentagon sought military execution for Nashiri, the American Civil Liberties Union hired death penalty specialists to assist in his defense.

Meantime, the Defense Department division that administers the commissions was firmly on hold Thursday, with no plans to mount a war court air shuttle for reporters to see Pohl's scheduled Feb. 9 arraignment.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/61061.html
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7905657.stm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7905657.stm">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
After 7 years at Gitmo, resettled
Uyghurs grateful for freedom



art.bermuda.gitmo.cnn.jpg

Salahidin Abdalahut and Kheleel Mamut were
two of four Uyghurs released from Gitmo.
Thirteen remain there.


Cable News Network
June 12, 2009


HAMILTON, Bermuda (CNN) -- Two of four Uyghurs relocated to Bermuda after seven years of detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, denied Friday that they had ever been terrorists, and expressed gratitude toward President Obama for working to free them.

Asked what he would say to someone who accused him of being a terrorist, one of the men, Kheleel Mamut, told CNN's Don Lemon, "I am no terrorist; I have not been terrorist. I will never be terrorist. I am a peaceful person."

Speaking through an interpreter who is herself a Uyghur who said she was sympathetic toward the men, the other man -- Salahidin Abdalahut -- described the past seven years as "difficult times for me ... I feel bad that it took so long for me to be free."

The two Chinese Muslims were among four relocated from Guantanamo to Bermuda; another 13 remain in detention on the island.

He said he had traveled to Afghanistan not to attend any terrorist training camps, but because -- as a Uyghur -- he had been oppressed by the Chinese government. "We had to leave the country to look for a better life, a peaceful life, and Afghanistan is a neighboring country to our country and it's easy to go," he said. "It is difficult to obtain a visa to go to any other places, so it was really easy for us to just travel to Afghanistan."

Asked what he hoped to do next, he said, "I want to forget about the past and move on to a peaceful life in the future."

In addition to the four relocated from Guantanamo to Bermuda, another 13 Uyghurs remain in detention on the island.

The four were flown by private plane Wednesday night from Cuba to Bermuda, and were accompanied by U.S. and Bermudian representatives as well as their attorneys, according to Susan Baker Manning, part of the men's legal team.

The men, who are staying in an apartment, are free to roam about the island.

Mamut accused the Bush administration of having held them without cause, and lauded Obama for having "tried really hard to bring justice and he has been trying very hard to find other countries to resettle us and finally he freed us."

He appealed to Obama to carry out his promise to shut Guantanamo Bay within a year. "I would like President Obama to honor that word and to free my 13 brothers who were left behind and all of the rest of the people who deserve to be free," Mamut said.

Asked how he had been treated in Guantanamo Bay, Mamut said, "It is a jail, so there will be difficulties in the jail that we have faced and now, since I am a free man today, I would like to forget about all that. I really don't want to think about those days."

He cited a proverb from his homeland that means, "What is done cannot be undone."

Asked if he had anything to say to anyone watching, he said, "Thank you very much for those people who helped me to gain freedom."

He said he had spoken earlier in the day with his family. "They told me, "My boy, my son, congratulations on your freedom.' "

The move has had international repercussions, including causing a rift between the United States and Britain.

A British official familiar with the agreement but not authorized to speak publicly on the matter told CNN the United States had informed London of the agreement "shortly before the deal was concluded."

A U.S. official, speaking on background, said the British feel blindsided.

Bermuda is a British "overseas territory."

The four were twice cleared for release -- once by the Bush administration and again this year, according to a Justice Department statement.

The issue of where they go is controversial because of China's opposition to the Uyghurs being sent to any country but China.

Uyghurs are a Muslim minority from the Xinjiang province of far west China. The 17 Uyghurs had left China and made their way to Afghanistan, where they settled in a camp with other Uyghurs opposed to the Chinese government, the Justice Department said in its statement.

They left Afghanistan after U.S. bombings began in the area in October 2001, and were apprehended in Pakistan, the statement said.

"According to available information, these individuals did not travel to Afghanistan with the intent to take any hostile action against the United States," the statement said.

However, China alleges that the men are part of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement -- a group the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization -- that operates in the Xinjiang region. East Turkestan is another name for Xinjiang.

China on Thursday urged the United States to hand over all 17 of the Uyghurs instead of sending them elsewhere.

The United States will not send Uyghur detainees cleared for release back to China out of concern that they would be tortured by Chinese authorities. China has said no returned Uyghurs would be tortured.

A senior U.S. administration official told CNN that the State Department is working on a final agreement with Palau to settle the 13 remaining Uyghur detainees.


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/12/bermuda.uyghurs/
 
<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=int&vid=/video/world/2009/06/12/florcruz.china.xinjiang.explainer.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

<font size="3">CNN's Jaime Florcruz visits the Uyghurs region, a
very distinct Muslim minority community in China</font size>
 
<img src="http://www.bartcop.com/obama-hope-fading.jpg" width="260" height="343" />
<font face="helvetica, verdana, georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#D90000">Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama</font>

<b>By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet

May 15, 2009</b>

http://www.alternet.org/story/140022/
<br>As the Obama administration continues to fight the release of some 2,000 photos that graphically document U.S. military abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, an ongoing Spanish investigation is adding harrowing details to the ever-emerging portrait of the torture inside and outside Guantánamo. Among them: &quot;blows to [the] testicles;&quot; &quot;detention underground in total darkness for three weeks with deprivation of food and sleep;&quot; being &quot;inoculated … through injection with 'a disease for dog cysts;'&quot; the smearing of feces on prisoners; and waterboarding. The torture, according to the Spanish investigation, all occurred &quot;under the authority of American military personnel&quot; and was sometimes conducted in the presence of medical professionals.
<br>More significantly, however, the investigation could for the first time place an intense focus on a notorious, but seldom discussed, thug squad deployed by the U.S. military to retaliate with excessive violence to the slightest resistance by prisoners at Guantánamo.
<br>The force is officially known as the the Immediate Reaction Force or Emergency Reaction Force, but inside the walls of Guantánamo, it is known to the prisoners as the Extreme Repression Force. Despite President Barack Obama's publicized pledge to close the prison camp and end torture -- and analysis from human rights lawyers who call these forces' actions illegal -- IRFs remain very much active at Guantánamo.
<br><strong>IRF: An Extrajudicial Terror Squad</strong>
<br>The existence of these forces has been documented since the early days of Guantánamo, but it has rarely been mentioned in the U.S. media or in congressional inquiries into torture. On paper, IRF teams are made up of five military police officers who are on constant stand-by to respond to emergencies. &quot;The IRF team is intended to be used primarily as a forced-extraction team, specializing in the extraction of a detainee who is combative, resistive, or if the possibility of a weapon is in the cell at the time of the extraction,&quot; according to a declassified copy of the Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta at Guantánamo. The document was signed on March 27, 2003, by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the man credited with eventually &quot;Gitmoizing&quot; Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons and who reportedly ordered subordinates to treat prisoners &quot;like dogs.&quot; Gen. Miller ran Guantánamo from November 2002 until August 2003 before moving to Iraq in 2004.
<br>When an IRF team is called in, its members are dressed in full riot gear, which some prisoners and their attorneys have compared to &quot;Darth Vader&quot; suits. Each officer is assigned a body part of the prisoner to restrain: head, right arm, left arm, left leg, right leg. According to the SOP memo, the teams are to give verbal warnings to prisoners before storming the cell: &quot;Prior to the use of the IRF team, an interpreter will be used to tell the detainee of the discipline measures to be taken against him and ask whether he intends to resist. Regardless of his answer, his recent behavior and demeanor should be taken into account in determining the validity of his answer.&quot;The IRF team is authorized to spray the detainee in the face with mace twice before entering the cell.
<br>According to Gen. Miller's memo: &quot;The physical security of U.S. forces and detainees in U.S. care is paramount. Use the minimum force necessary for mission accomplishment and force protection ... Use of the IRF team and levels of force are not to be used as a method of punishment.&quot;
<br>But human rights lawyers, former prisoners and former IRF team members with extensive experience at Guantánamo paint a very different picture of the role these teams played. &quot;They are the Black Shirts of Guantánamo,&quot; says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented the most Guantánamo prisoners. &quot;IRFs can't be separated from torture. They are a part of the brutalization of humans treated as less than human.&quot;
<br>Clive Stafford Smith, who has represented 50 Guantánamo prisoners, including 31 still imprisoned there, has seen the IRF teams up close. &quot;They're goons,&quot; he says. &quot;They've played a huge role.&quot;
<br>While much of the &quot;torture debate&quot; has emphasized the so-called &quot;enhanced interrogation techniques&quot; defined by the twisted legal framework of the Office of Legal Council memos, IRF teams in effect operate at Guantánamo as an extrajudicial terror squad that has regularly brutalized prisoners outside of the interrogation room, gang beating them, forcing their heads into toilets, breaking bones, gouging their eyes, squeezing their testicles, urinating on a prisoner's head, banging their heads on concrete floors and hog-tying them -- sometimes leaving prisoners tied in excruciating positions for hours on end.
<br>The IRF teams &quot;were fully approved at the highest levels [of the Bush administration], including the Secretary of Defense and with outside consultation of the Justice Department,&quot; says Scott Horton, one of the leading experts on U.S. Military and Constitutional law. This force &quot;was designed to disabuse the prisoners of any idea that they would be free from physical assault while in U.S. custody,&quot; he says. &quot;They were trained to brutally punish prisoners in a brief period of time, and ridiculous pretexts were taken to justify&quot; the beatings.
<br>So notorious are these teams that a new lexicon was created and used by prisoners and guards alike to describe the beatings: IRF-ing prisoners or to be IRF-ed.
<br>Former Guantánamo Army Chaplain James Yee, who witnessed IRFings, described &quot;the seemingly harmless behaviors that brought it on [like] not responding when a guard spoke.&quot; Yee said he believed that during daily cell sweeps, guards would intentionally do invasive searches of the Muslim prisoners' &quot;private areas&quot; and Korans to &quot;rile the detainees,&quot; saying it &quot;seemed like harassment for the sake of harassment, and the prisoners fought it. Those who did were always IRFed.&quot;
<br>&quot;I'll put it like this,&quot;*Stafford Smith says. &quot;My clients are afraid of them.&quot;
<br>&quot;Up to 15 people attempted to commit suicide at Camp Delta due to the abuses of the IRF officials,&quot; according to the Spanish investigation. Combined with other documentation, including prisoner testimony and legal memos, the IRF teams appear to be one of the most significant forces in the abuse of prisoners at Guantánamo, worthy of an investigation by U.S. prosecutors in and of themselves.
<br><strong>The IRF-ing of Omar Deghayes</strong>
<br>Perhaps the worst abuses in the Spanish case involve Omar Deghayes, whose torture began long before he reached Guantánamo, and intensified upon his arrival.
<br>A Libyan citizen who had lived in Britain since 1986, in the late 1990s, Deghayes was a law student when he traveled to Afghanistan, &quot;for the simple reason that he is a Muslim and he wanted to see what it was like,&quot; according to his lawyer, Stafford Smith. While there, he met and married an Afghan woman with whom he had a son.
<br>After 9/11, Deghayes was detained in Lahore, Pakistan, for a month, where he allegedly was subjected to &quot;systematic beatings&quot; and &quot;electric shocks done with a tool that looked like a small gun.&quot;
<br>He was then transferred to Islamabad, Pakistan,where he claims he was interrogated by both U.S. and British personnel. There, the torture continued; in a March 2005 memo written by a lawyer who later visited Deghayes at Guantánamo, he described a particularly ghoulish incident:
<blockquote>
<br>&quot;One day they took me to a room that had very large snakes in glass boxes. The room was all painted black-and-white, with dim lights. They threatened to leave me there and let the snakes out with me in the room. This really got to me, as there were such sick people that they must have had this room specially made.&quot;
</blockquote>
<br>Deghayes was eventually moved to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where he was beaten and &quot;kept nude, as part of the process of humiliation due to his religion.&quot; U.S. personnel placed Deghayes &quot;inside a closed box with a lock and limited air.&quot; He also described seeing U.S. guards sodomize an African prisoner and alleged guards &quot;forced petrol and benzene up the anuses of the prisoners.&quot;
<br>&quot;The camp looked like the Nazi camps that I saw in films,&quot; Deghayes said.
<br>When Deghayes finally arrived at Guantánamo in September 2002, he found himself the target of the feared IRF teams.
<br>&quot;The IRF team sprayed Mr. Deghayes with mace; they threw him in the air and let him fall on his face … &quot; according to the Spanish investigation. Deghayes says he also endured a &quot;sexual attack.&quot; In March 2004, after being &quot;sprayed in the eyes with mace,&quot; Deghayes says authorities refused to provide him with medical attention, causing him to permanently lose sight in his right eye. Stafford Smith described the incident:
<blockquote>
<br>&quot;They brought their pepper spray and held him down. They held both of his eyes open and sprayed it into his eyes and later took a towel soaked in pepper spray and rubbed it in his eyes.
<br>&quot;Omar could not see from either eye for two weeks, but he gradually got sight back in one eye.
<br>&quot;He's totally blind in the right eye. I can report that his right eye is all white and milky -- he can't see out of it because he has been blinded by the U.S. in Guantánamo.&quot;
</blockquote>
<br>In fact, Stafford Smith says his blindness was caused by a combination of the pepper spray and the fact that an IRF team member pushed his finger into Deghayes' eye.
<br>The Spanish investigation into Deghayes' torture draws much from the March 2005 memo, which described several acts of abuse of Deghayes at the hands of the IRF teams. (The memo refers to IRF by its alternative acronym ERF):
<blockquote><strong>ERF-ing Omar -- The Feces Incident</strong></blockquote>
<blockquote>On one of the ERF-ing incidents where Omar was abused, the officer in charge himself came into the cell with the feces of another prisoners [sic] and smeared it onto Omar's face. While some prisoners had thrown feces at the abusive guards, Omar had always emphatically refused to sink to this level. The experience was one of the most disgusting in Omar's life.</blockquote>
<blockquote><strong>ERF-ing Omar -- The Toilet Incident</strong></blockquote>
<blockquote>In April or May 2004, when the Guantánamo administration insisted on taking Omar's English-language Quran, he objected. The ERF team came into Omar's cell and put him in shackles. He was not resisting. They then put his head in the toilet, pressed his face into the water. They repeatedly flushed it.</blockquote>
<blockquote><strong>ERF-ing Omar -- The Beating</strong></blockquote>
<blockquote>In one ERF-ing incident, Omar was shackled by three American soldiers in their black Darth Vader Star Wars uniforms. The first was going to punch Omar, but before he could, the second kneed Omar in the nose, trying to break it. The third queried this, and the second said, &quot;If his nose is broken, that's good. We want to break his ******* nose.&quot; The third soldier then took him to hospital.</blockquote>
<blockquote><strong>ERF-ing Omar -- The Drowning</strong></blockquote>
<blockquote>The ERF team came into the cell with a water hose under very high pressure. He was totally shackled, and they would hold his head fixed still. They would force water up his nose until he was suffocating and would scream for them to stop. This was done with medical staff present, and they would join in. Omar is particularly affected by the fact that there was one nurse who &quot;had been very beautiful and kind&quot; to him to [sic] took part in the process. This happened three times.</blockquote>
<blockquote><strong>ERF-ing Omar -- Tango Block</strong></blockquote>
<blockquote>Omar was out on the Tango block rec yard when 15 ERF soldiers came, with two other soldiers in the towers, armed with guns. They grabbed him (and others) and sprayed him.</blockquote>
<blockquote>They then pulled him up into the air and slammed his face down, on the left side, on the concrete. They had someone from the hospital there, and she just watched. She then came up to him and asked whether he was OK. He was taken off to isolation after that.</blockquote>
<br>A medical examination cited in the Spanish investigation confirmed that Deghayes suffered from blindness of the right eye, fracture of the nasal bone and fracture of the right index finger, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder and &quot;profound&quot; depression.
<br><strong>Evidence Destroyed?</strong>
<br>At the Pentagon, an official paper trail should exist that documents the IRF-ing of Deghayes. What's more, according to Gen. Miller's SOP memo, all of the actions of the IRF teams were to be videotaped as well.
<br>After a prisoner was IRF-ed, &quot;The medical personnel on site will conduct a medical evaluation of the detainee to check for any injuries sustained during the IRF,&quot; and, &quot;all IRF Team members are required to submit sworn statements.&quot; These statements, reports and video were &quot;to be kept as evidence.&quot;
<br>As of early 2005, there were reportedly 500 hours of video; the ACLU attempted to force their release, but they never have been produced.
<br>&quot;Where are those tapes?&quot; asks CCR*President Michael Ratner. In some cases, the answer may well be that they never existed or no longer do. &quot;When an IRFing took place a camera was supposed to be present to capture the IRFing,&quot; said Army Spec. Brandon Neely, who was on one of the first IRF teams at Guantánamo. &quot;Every time I witnessed an IRFing a camera was present, but one of two things would happen: (1) the camera would never be turned on, or (2) the camera would be on, but pointed straight at the ground.&quot;
<br>Neeley recently gave testimony to the University of California, Davis' Guantánamo Testimonials Project. He also described one IRF-ing where the video of the incident was destroyed.
<br>Regarding the videos, Stafford Smith says, &quot;There are some things I can't talk about, but I will confirm there is photographic evidence. I am absolutely confident that if all of the photographs were revealed to the world, they would provide irrefutable physical evidence that the prisoners had been&quot; abused by the IRFs.
<br>As for the &quot;sworn statements&quot; by IRF team members, a review of hundreds of pages of declassified incident reports reveals an almost robotic uniformity in the handwritten accounts, overwhelmingly composed of succinct portrayals of operations that went off without a hitch. Almost all of them contain the phrases &quot;minimum amount of force necessary&quot; and the prisoner &quot;received medical attention and evaluation&quot; before being returned.
<br>&quot;All internal investigations of Gitmo so far have completely whitewashed the IRF process,&quot; says Horton. &quot;They did so for obvious reasons.&quot;
<br>&quot;The IRF program was supported by advice secured from the Justice Department suggesting that insubordinate behavior could be cited to justify a departure from guidelines against physical force. It has a conspiratorial odor to it,&quot;*says Horton. &quot;In fact the use of IRFs was illegal, a violation of Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Convention] and a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which forbids the use of unnecessary force against prisoners.&quot;
<br>While Spain will probably pursue the role the IRF teams played in the torture of its citizens or residents, its scope goes far beyond those specific incidents.
<br><strong>&quot;I have seen detainees IRF'ed while they were praying, or for refusing medication.&quot;</strong>
<br>Deghayes' treatment at the hands of the feared IRF teams mirrors that of several other released Guantánamo prisoners.
<br>David Hicks, an Australian citizen held at Guantánamo, said in a sworn affidavit, &quot;I have witnessed the activities of the [IRF], which consists of a squad of soldiers that enter a detainee's cell and brutalize him with the aid of an attack dog ... I have seen detainees suffer serious injuries as a result of being IRF'ed. I have seen detainees IRF'ed while they were praying, or for refusing medication.&quot;
<br>Binyam Mohamed, released in February, has also described an IRF assault: &quot;They nearly broke my back. The guy on top was twisting me one way, the guys on my legs the other. They marched me out of the cell to the fingerprint room, still cuffed. I clenched my fists behind me so they couldn't take [finger]prints, so they tried to take them by force. The guy at my head sticks his fingers up my nose and wrenches my head back, jerking it around by the nostrils. Then he put his fingers in my eyes. It felt as if he was trying to gouge them out. Another guy was punching my ribs, and another was squeezing my testicles. Finally, I couldn't take it any more. I let them take the prints.&quot;
<br>A report prepared by British human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce, documents the alleged abuse of a Bahraini citizen, Jumah al Dousari by an IRF team. Before being taken to Guantánamo, al Dousari was widely known to be &quot;mentally ill.&quot; On one occasion, the IRF Team was called into his cell after al Dousari allegedly insulted a female soldier. Another prisoner who witnessed the incident described what happened:
<blockquote>
<br>&quot;There were usually five people on an ERF team. On this occasion there were eight of them. When Jumah saw them coming, he realized something was wrong and was lying on the floor with his head in his hands. If you're on the floor with your hands on your head, then you would hope that all they would do would be to come in and put the chains on you. That is what they're supposed to do.
<br>&quot;The first man is meant to go in with a shield. On this occasion, the man with the shield threw the shield away, took his helmet off, when the door was unlocked ran in and did a knee drop onto Jumah's back just between his shoulder blades with his full weight. He must have been about 240 pounds in weight. His name was Smith. He was a sergeant E-5. Once he had done that, the others came in and were punching and kicking Jumah. While they were doing that the female officer then came in and was kicking his stomach. Jumah had had an operation and had metal rods in his stomach clamped together in the operation.
<br>&quot;The officer Smith was the MP sergeant who was punching him. He grabbed his head with one hand and with the other hand punched him repeatedly in the face. His nose was broken. He pushed his face, and he smashed it into the concrete floor. All of this should be on video. There was blood everywhere. When they took him out, they hosed the cell down and the water ran red with blood. We all saw it.&quot;
</blockquote>
<br><strong>Force Feeding as a Form of Torture</strong>
<br>The IRF teams were also used to force-feed hunger-striking prisoners at Guantánamo, including in August 2005. Deghayes was among the hunger strikers, writing in a letter, &quot;I am slowly dying in this solitary prison cell, I have no rights, no hope. So why not take my destiny into my own hands, and die for a principle?&quot;
<br>While the U.S. government portrayed a situation where the hunger strikers were being given medical attention, lawyers for some of the men claim that the tubes used to force feed them were &quot;the thickness of a finger&quot; and &quot;were viewed by the detainees as objects of torture.&quot;
<br>According to attorney Julia Tarver, one of her clients, Yousef al-Shehri, had a tube inserted with &quot;one [IRF member] holding his chin while the other held him back by his hair, and a medical staff member forcibly inserted the tube in his nose and down his throat&quot; and into his stomach. &quot;No anesthesia or sedative was provided to alleviate the obvious trauma of the procedure.&quot; Tarver said this method caused al-Shehri and others to vomit &quot;substantial amounts of blood.&quot;
<br>This was painful enough, but al-Shehri, described the removal of the tubes as &quot;unbearable,&quot; causing him to pass out from the pain.
<br>According to Tarver, &quot;Nasal gastric (NG) tubes [were removed] by placing a foot on one end of the tube and yanking the detainee's head back by his hair, causing the tube to be painfully ejected from the detainee's nose. Then, in front of the Guantanamo physicians … the guards took NG tubes from one detainee, and with no sanitization whatsoever, reinserted it into the nose of a different detainee. When these tubes were reinserted, the detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from the other detainees remaining on the tubes.&quot; Medical staff, according to Tarver, made no effort to intervene. This was one of many incidents where IRF*teams facilitated such force-feeding.
<br>Aside from hunger strikes, other forms of resistance were met with brutal reprisal. Tarek Dergoul, a prisoner interviewed by Human Rights Watch, described how IRF teams beat him because he &quot;often refused to cooperate with cell searches during prayer time. One reason was that they would abuse the Quran. Another was that the guards deliberately felt up my private parts under the guise of searching me.&quot;
<br>Dergoul said, &quot;If I refused a cell search, MPs would call the Extreme Reaction Force, who came in riot gear with plastic shields and pepper spray. The Extreme Reaction Force entered the cell, ran in and pinned me down after spraying me with pepper spray and attacked me. The pepper spray caused me to vomit on several occasions. They poked their fingers in my eyes, banged my head on the floor and kicked and punched me and tied me up like a beast. They often forced my head into the toilet.&quot;
<br>Jamal al-Harith claims he was beaten by a five-man IRF team for refusing an injection: &quot;I was terrified of what they were going to do. I had seen victims of [IRF] being paraded in front of my cell. They were battered and bruised into submission. It was a horrible sight and a frequent sight. … They were really gung-ho, hyped up and aggressive. One of them attacked me really hard and left me with a deep red mark from my backbone down to my knee. I thought I was bleeding, but it was just really bad bruising.&quot;
<br><strong>The IRF-ing of Army Sgt. 1st Class Sean Baker</strong>
<br>Ironically, perhaps the most well-publicized case of abuse by this force was not inflicted on a Guantanamo prisoner, but on an active-duty U.S. soldier and Gulf War veteran.
<br>In January 2003, Sgt. Sean Baker was ordered to participate in an IRF training drill at Guantánamo where he would play the role of an uncooperative prisoner. Sgt. Baker says he was ordered by his superior to take off his military uniform and put on an orange jumpsuit like those worn by prisoners. He was told to yell out the code word &quot;red&quot; if the situation became unbearable, or he wanted his fellow soldiers to stop.
<br>According to sworn statements, upon entering his cell, IRF members thought they were restraining an actual prisoner. As Sgt. Baker later described:
<blockquote>They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and, unfortunately, one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he -- the same individual -- reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe. When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was 'red.' … That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: 'I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier.'</blockquote>
<br>Sgt. Baker said his head was slammed once more, and after groaning &quot;I'm a U.S. soldier&quot; one more time, &quot;I heard them say, 'Whoa, whoa, whoa,' you know, like … he was telling the other guy to stop.&quot;
<br>According to CBS:
<blockquote>Bloodied and disoriented, Baker somehow made it back to his unit, and his first thought was to get hold of the videotape. &quot;I said, 'Go get the tape,' &quot; recalls Baker. &quot; 'They've got a tape. Go get the tape.' My squad leader went to get the tape.&quot;</blockquote>
<blockquote>Every extraction drill at Guantanamo was routinely videotaped, and the tape of this drill would show what happened. But Baker says his squad leader came back and said, &quot;There is no tape.&quot;</blockquote>
<br>The <em>New York Times</em> later reported that the military &quot;says it can't find a videotape that is believed to have been made of the incident.&quot; Baker was soon diagnosed with traumatic brain injury. He began suffering seizures, sometimes 10 to 12 per day.
<br>&quot;This was just one typical incident, and Baker was recognizable as an American,&quot; says Horton. &quot;But it gives a good flavor of what the Gitmo detainees went through, which was generally worse.&quot;
<br><strong>IRF-ing Continues Under Obama</strong>
<br>On Jan. 7, 2009, a prisoner named Yasin Ismael threw a shoe in frustration at the inside of a cage to which he had been confined. The guards accused Ismael of attacking them and called in an IRF team.
<br>According to his attorneys, &quot;The team shackled him, and he put up no resistance. They then beat him. They blocked his nose and mouth until he felt that he would suffocate and hit him repeatedly in the ribs and head. They then took him back to his cell. As he was being taken back, a guard urinated on his head. Mr. Ismael was badly injured, and his ear started to bleed, leaving a large stain on his pillow.&quot;
<br>Less than two weeks later, on Jan. 22, newly inaugurated President Obama issued an executive order requiring the closure of Guantánamo within a year and also ordered a review of the status of the prisoners held there, requiring &quot;humane standards of confinement&quot; in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
<br>But one month later, the Center for Constitutional Rights released a report titled &quot;Conditions of Confinement at Guantánamo: Still In Violation of the Law,&quot; which found that abuses continued. In fact, one Guantanamo lawyer, Ahmed Ghappour, said that his clients were reporting &quot;a ramping up in abuse&quot; since Obama was elected, including &quot;beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-force feeding detainees who are on hunger strike,&quot; according to Reuters.
<br>&quot;Certainly in my experience there have been many, many more reported incidents of abuse since the inauguration,&quot; Ghappour said.
<br>While the dominant media coverage of the U.S. torture apparatus has portrayed these tactics as part of a &quot;Bush era&quot; system that Obama has now ended, when it comes to the IRF teams, that is simply not true. &quot;[D]etainees live in constant fear of physical violence. Frequent attacks by IRF teams heighten this anxiety and reinforce that violence can be inflicted by the guards at any moment for any perceived infraction, or sometimes without provocation or explanation,&quot; according to CCR.
<br>In early February 2009, at least 16 men were on hunger strike at Guantanamo's Camp 6 and refused to leave their cells for &quot;force feeding.&quot; IRF teams violently extracted them from their cells with the &quot;men being dragged, beaten and stepped on, and their arms and fingers twisted painfully.&quot; Tubes were then forced down their noses, which one prisoner described as &quot;torture, torture, torture.&quot;
<br>In April, Mohammad al-Qurani, a 21-year-old Guantánamo prisoner from Chad managed to call Al-Jazeera and described a recent beating: &quot;This treatment started about 20 days before Obama came into power, and since then I've been subjected to it almost every day,&quot; he said. &quot;Since Obama took charge, he has not shown us that anything will change.&quot;
<br>Al-Jazeera reported:
<blockquote>Describing a specific incident, which took place after change in the U.S. administration, al-Qurani said he had refused to leave his cell because they were &quot;not granting me my rights,&quot; such as being able to walk around, interact with other inmates and have &quot;normal food.&quot;</blockquote>
<blockquote>A group of six soldiers wearing protective gear and helmets entered his cell, accompanied by one soldier carrying a camera and one with tear gas, he said.</blockquote>
<blockquote>&quot;They had a thick rubber or plastic baton they beat me with. They emptied out about two canisters of tear gas on me,&quot; he told Al-Jazeera.</blockquote>
<blockquote>&quot;After I stopped talking, and tears were flowing from my eyes, I could hardly see or breathe.</blockquote>
<blockquote>&quot;They then beat me again to the ground, one of them held my head and beat it against the ground. I started screaming to his senior 'see what he's doing, see what he's doing' [but] his senior started laughing and said 'he's doing his job.'&quot;<br />
</blockquote>
<br>In another incident after Obama's inauguration, prisoner Khan Tumani began smearing excrement on the walls of his cell to protest his treatment. According to his lawyer, when he &quot;did not clean up the excrement, a large IRF team of 10 guards was ordered to his cell and beat him severely. The guards sprayed so much tear gas or other noxious substance after the beating that it made at least one of the guards vomit. Mr. Khan Tumani's skin was still red and burning from the gas days later.&quot;
<br>The CCR has called on the Obama administration to immediately end the use of the IRF teams at Guantánamo. Horton, meanwhile, says &quot;detainees should be entitled to compensation for injuries they suffered.&quot;
<br>As the abuse continues at Guantánamo, and powerful congressional leaders from both parties and the White House fiercely resist the appointment of an independent special prosecutor, the sad fact is that the best chance for justice for the victims of U.S. torture may well be an ocean away in Madrid, Spain.
<br>&quot;The Obama administration should not need pressure from abroad to uphold our own laws and initiate a criminal investigation in the U.S.,&quot; says Vince Warren, CCR's executive director. &quot;I hope the Spanish cases will impress on the president and Attorney General Eric Holder how seriously the rest of the world takes these crimes and show them the issue will not go away.&quot;
<br><em>Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His writing and reporting is available at <a href="http://rebelreports.com/">Rebel Reports</a>. </em>
</font>
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"></hr>

obama-hope-fading.jpg
 
Times2.jpg


<hr noshade color="#333333" size="6"></hr>

tol-logo.gif
<img src="http://www.tuatm.net/images/Banana_Rats/Hutia01_Large.jpg" width="250" height="185">
<font face="arial" size="2" color="#FF0000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>40 pound Cuban Rats</b></font>

<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#D90000">Guantánamo Bay: The Inside Story</font><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000FF"><b>
There’s a McDonald’s on the high street, suburban houses, rats the size of dogs, and 229 of the world’s most high-profile prisoners. Six months after President Obama declared that he would close it down, Naomi Wolf heads to Guantánamo Bay to see whether anything has changed</b>
</font>
<font face="helvetica, verdana, georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>
From The Times

July 25, 2009

Naomi Wolf </b>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6725411.ece

Six months ago this week President Obama, on his second day in office, promised to close the Guantánamo detention camp within a year, and to undo the secretive and coercive detention and interrogation policies of George W. Bush. But has Obama been as good as his word?

I went to Guantánamo last month to see for myself what difference, if any, Obama’s election had made. My trip was surreal from start to end. I was in line for the rotating junket to the island, and had been given a date by a nervous-sounding and very young Lieutenant Cody Starken. I signed papers that committed me to not reporting classified information — on pain of prosecution. Then I got on a tiny aircraft — unmarked on any announcement board — out of Fort Lauderdale airport.

On the aircraft were bland-looking contractors, male and female, who deflected my small talk, and two young staffers from the Centre for Constitutional Rights, the organisation representing the detainees when no one else would touch the work, and which now co-ordinates hundreds of lawyers from across the country doing so: Pardis Kebriaei, a staff lawyer, and Jess Baen, a legal worker, tried to answer all my questions until my military handler determinedly parted us on our arrival. Lawyers are kept in a compound on one side of the military base at Guantánamo, journalists housed on the other side; they may never communicate with or run into one another. As a journalist, a handler sticks within 18in of you at all times, standing outside when you go to the bathroom and near by when you buy personal items at the commissary; your phone calls and e-mail are monitored.

Passport check was followed by our descent over the glittering curve of the sea on to the edge of Cuba, which was studded with lights. A tired, courtly Navy media specialist, MC1 Mapp, whisked me through security checks; I took in the heat, humidity, mosquitoes and languid crowds of Filipino and Jamaican contractors. We stepped into a ferry; then a young, chipper Sergeant Hillegass — in his other life, a 911 dispatcher — met us in a van and drove us to a street of identical townhouses. I was left alone in the house.

My mobile phone could not call out directly, my BlackBerry did not work, there was no internet access for my computer. My press kit had a scene of a lush sunset on the cover, and a speedboat.

Breakfast — with a TV crew from Poland and another from Russia, and our military handlers — was at a lively mess hall that looked like something out of summer camp, except that all the tired, strapping young people were in pressed fatigues. Then two African American soldiers, Petty Officer Bennet, a genial woman in her thirties who wanted to be a graphic designer, and a charming man a bit older, Petty Officer Dwight, took us to our first stop, Camp X-Ray.

As the military handlers made pleasant jokes about the heat, I took in a low-tech vision of Hell. This was the site of the first scenes from Guantánamo, where men sweltered in kennel-like cages. These were the cages themselves: about 50, each about 8ftx12ft, an aisle down the centre for guards to move in, a slab of corrugated iron on top of each cell, and a pipe with a funnel at groin level, in which to urinate; open to the elements; no walls, no true shade. Concrete floors. There had been buckets for defaecation, MC1 Dwight told us; but the prisoners had thrown the faeces at the guards. There was a communal shower, now crumbling — but the prisoners had not liked to shower in groups, naked.

The scene was being reclaimed by nature: vines and brambles were swallowing the wire, twisting around the doors. At 10am the humidity was so intense that sweat was pouring down our faces. The temperature was close to 40C. I went into a cell; grinding heat, drenching humidity, pure exposure to the sun. It was as if you were being cooked in a man-sized convection oven. “Look out!” shouted Petty Officer Dwight. “Banana rats!”

I looked up and shrieked, staggering to my feet: climbing across the wire walls and on to the roof of the cell was a 40lb rodent, with a long wiry tail, the size of a bulldog. Another one scurried along the base of the wall, a baby on its back; a third made itself at home in the undergrowth of the neighbouring cell — big, grotesque creatures with no fear. I imagined what it must have been like to try to sleep in that black heat, these animals slipping in and out of the cages with their great claws and teeth.

Behind the cages was the interrogation hut — a plywood shack painted with a red cross. A one-man cage stood near by. From Human Rights Watch reports and documents in Michael Ratner’s book Guantánamo: What the World Should Know, I knew that this was the notorious isolation cell. Prisoners in a detention camp are so cowed by the sight of the isolation cell and those held in it that they become compliant, since isolation is far more damaging psychologically to many prisoners than anything else.

“This is the isolation cell?” I asked Petty Officer Dwight. “Yes,” he said. Then he advised us that the detainees themselves had requested it. “They asked that other detainees who were disruptive and disturbing them be taken here for a ‘time out’. This was a ‘time-out’ area … if someone was to act up and they needed a ‘time-out’.”

It was the first of many times I would look at PO Dwight — a decent guy whose true passion was hairstyling — and wonder if he believed what he had been trained to say. But he gave this, and other “facts”, with a kind of innocence. He took us into the interrogation rooms. About 25 chairs were stacked in a corner — unusual chairs for a military setting. The seats were padded; the structure itself was made of a bamboo material; and, oddest of all, each of the arms of the chairs curled into an elaborate spiral. I leant in more closely: on each chair’s arms was a clear mark from what appeared to have been several layers of gaffer tape. I looked at the legs of the chairs, where a prisoner’s ankles would be: the same apparent gaffer-tape marks.

I went into the interrogation room. A table, two chairs. Gaffer tape remained in long strips on the plywood walls, not holding anything together, but positioned near by like an office supply; a pile of wadded-up grey gaffer tape remained on the floor.

PO Dwight reminded us of the scenes we had witnessed on TV of prisoners at Camp X-Ray being transported restrained, lying on stretchers — though no one had asked about it; the stretchers were, he said, for the wellbeing of the prisoners; to move them more easily. It was not, he was keen to assure us, that they had been sick, or hurt.

On to lunch at the mess hall. After lunch, we were taken on a bizarre tour of a baking facility, where an exuberant, smiling South Korean woman in a hairnet (“I love food service! I love my job!”) showed off trays of hot, fragrant buns and baklava. We heard for the third or fourth time from our military handlers that they, too, wished that they could have that delicious baklava, but that it was reserved for the prisoners’ discerning palates.

The food-service employee displayed a set table of detainees’ actual meals — meat, rice, sauce, salad, and those tasty buns and pastries. She pressed us to try them: the ground meat was spiced in a “culturally appropriate” Middle Eastern style and was not bad. Then she showed off a dozen fridges filled with fresh produce — strawberries, watermelon, maple syrup.

She politely refused to answer questions about what her role was, or who employed her. Private-sector contractors take care of the manual, building, cleaning and service work: to a casual observer, it is they, and not the military, who run Gauntánamo. Military men and women have, if minimally, to answer reporters’ questions; contractors do not even have to identify themselves. Contractors work in medical facilities; clear journalists’ video; deal with classified material; but they are answerable only to their employers. Their houses are far more luxurious, on the island, than are those of the military.

Military spokespeople must give answers, but the answers are maddeningly evasive. Can detainees get mail from their loved ones? I asked often. What if someone dies of natural causes, who notifies the family? If a loved one calls, can prisoners take the call? What happens to care packages from loved ones? What if a spouse asks to visit? Can I see the letter that tells her that she can’t? I put these questions “in writing” and asked them at least five times up the chain of command, and followed up multiple times on my return. Most of my questions were met — from higher-level “media specialists” such as Lieutenant-Commander Brook DeWalt or Major Haynie — with non-answers. “I don’t know, but I can ask for you.” “That is above my pay grade.”

The detainee handlers and the lawyers for detainees often flatly contradict each other. The handlers and my press kit claim that “Detainees get a call every couple of months” or quarterly, and that “they make phone calls on a regular basis — every few weeks”. But Kebriaei says that her clients can make calls “every six months if they are lucky”. “Detainees get mail all the time,” the handlers claim. “Care packages are destroyed,” says Kebriaei, who described the security-driven destruction of the orthopaedic shoes that her elderly client needed for his swollen feet.

And so, on we went in the afternoon, to Camps 5 and 6 — hulking state-of-the-art maximum-security prison edifices. But with a difference, as a smiling nameless blonde soldier said to us (name tags are stripped from uniforms when soldiers are inside the detention centres — the process is called “sterilising” — and the prisoners themselves are addressed by number, never by name). These soldiers looked as if they had been chosen from the coolest fraternity and sorority on campus. They were unusually physically attractive. Our guide, Lieutenant Fulghum, was a bright, charming Irishman with a twinkle in his eye and killer abs. When he greeted the twentysomething blonde soldier with the phrase, “Honour bound, Ma’am”, it was as good as a wink. (“Honor Bound to Defend Freedom” is the motto). “Honour bound, Lieutenant,” she smiled back.

As we moved down the corridor the weird intimacy of the place — which had, according to many detainees and reports such as Broken Laws, Broken Lives, a study by Physicians for Human Rights, been the scene of so much abuse — hit me.

There in front of me was a shower stall fully fronted with glass, facing into a public central hallway where military men and women passed regularly. It forced male prisoners daily into a state of public nudity, which is illegal according to US and international law.

The guards showed us a demonstration cell: it was spotless. Hooks folded down so that no one could hang himself; there was a toilet in a corner, a plastic wedge of a bed, and high-tech mechanical doors that shut of their own accord. No sun, no sightlines, no natural light. I noted the guards’ use of facemasks. “Facemasks are to help protect soldiers,” our tour guide said. “We do have assaults — spitting, throwing faeces and urine.”

Another diorama was set up in another cell, of “comfort items”. It looked unchanged from photos of Guantánamo that I had seen in the Bush era. Here was a Koran; toiletries; a padded mattress the thickness of a yoga mat, for those who “co-operated”; a thinner mattress, fewer “comforts”, for those who did not.

Opposite this room was yet another cell, which the military handlers were most proud of. “The TV room is a big change,” one of the handlers said. There was a big blue squishy sofa facing a nice big flat-screen TV. We were told that the detainees get to watch TV three hours a day; that their favourite TV show is The Deadliest Catch, about fishing; and that they also love Harry Potter. There was a tray table where prisoners could eat baklava while watching Harry Potter — and there, at the base of the sofa, were leg shackles, bolted to the concrete floor.

At the end of the hall I opened a door. Before me was an unused cell, packed halfway to the ceiling with hundreds of cans of Ensure, the liquid nutrient used in force-feeding. (Jen Nessel, of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, had told me that 24 detainees were being force-fed daily, in restraining chairs, because they were on hunger strike.) Lieutenant Fulghum came to get me, annoyed. “No one is supposed to go this far down the hall,” he snapped. I asked if anybody was on hunger strike. “We are not allowed to say. The medical staff handles that,” Lieutenant Fulghum said.

We were taken outside to Camp 6: there was a modest-sized recreation area surrounded by wire; and there they were, the causal heart of the whole monster. The detainees — Pakistani, Afghan, Iraqi and Yemeni men in their twenties, thirties and forties, wearing white T-shirts and khaki shorts — milled about; one or two threw a basketball out of range. The journalists were moved back down the hallway before they could see us, as if we were on safari. I asked if I could speak to them. My handler smiled. “No way.”

Our handlers took us out of the first structure to the grassy area between the buildings. In the second building, our handlers promised, we would see — since Obama had taken office — art classes; English classes. A library.

Outside, all around us, we saw a facility — one scheduled to be closed by December 2009 — under massive new construction: dozens of labourers were digging, surrounded by the grinding noise of building. A facility that Congress thinks it is discussing the “how” of closing — and that the President has claimed for six months is already slated for closure — was metastasising under our very eyes. When I asked about this I was told that the money had been allocated already and so it would be more expensive to stop construction than to keep it going. Through that open causeway of construction, the detainees in their central cage caught sight of us.

A sharp, sudden roar arose from the knot of men who spotted us. One of the prisoners looked straight at me and, his face twisted with an emotion that I could not read, screamed: “Go! Go!”

“Why are they saying ‘Go?’” I asked.

The handler looked at me. The Muslim men in the cage were being managed by guards who were mostly African American, and who shouted in colloquial English to get their attention: “Yo! 289! Stop that!” “They learn English from the guards,” he explained. “They aren’t saying ‘Go’.”

What they had screamed out to us — across the greatest possible distance — was: “Yo!”

After these camps, our handlers showed us Camp 4, part of Camp Delta, used to house “more compliant” detainees. A dozen prisoners milled about in a bigger central space (“We call this ‘The Patio’ or ‘The Lanai’,” our handler said; the new talking points also refer to communal meals as “feast days”.) This cage, too, was surrounded by mesh and guards.

I asked a guard if he had formed any personal opinions about the men he was guarding. He paused for a moment. “They don’t complain. They are needy,” he said. I asked what he meant. “Emotionally needy,” he said. “It comes out as asking for things all the time — a certain brand of shampoo, extra blankets … it is a kind of dependency.” The guard was suddenly whisked away. We were then taken to a medical bay. In the white-on-white bay was a military nurse — her name removed from her uniform; she refused to identify herself. And a psychologist stood ready to brief us, next to yet another diorama. Before us was a display of Ensure fanned out across a medical tray table. The nurse, a pleasant, pretty white middle-aged woman with a soft hairstyle and a rueful smile, gestured at the display like a car showroom model. She gave us a rundown of how they feed the prisoners who were on hunger strike.

The nurse confirmed that some detainees were on hunger strike and said that they were fed forcibly “when they refuse to take feeding fluids”. But she didn’t call it force-feeding: “We call it ‘enteral feeding’,” she corrected me. “It goes down the nose and into the stomach.The patients are given a variety of flavours,” she said, going back to her infomercial-style presentation and gesturing at the cartons. “Strawberry, French vanilla, butter pecan — they have a choice. Our admiral did this for a week and he gained four pounds,” she said fondly.

I turned to the psychologist, a dark-haired man in his late forties, heavily muscled, with the same featureless area on his chest where name tags ordinarily are. He, too, refused to give me his name when I asked. I asked him what happens if a detainee is depressed. “We will go see them. They can request the Behavioural Health Unit.” He said that they get “talk therapy” if they need it. “I can empathise,” he said. “I see it as being very similar to people who are detained in any correctional facility.”

I pointed out to the man that perhaps his patients were “depressed and anxious” because of what they had suffered in Guantánamo. (It is now well documented that detainees were subjected to “stress positions”, sleep deprivation, waterboarding and extremes of hot and cold. But for those working at Guantánamo, the talking points on torture seem to be that “abuse may or may not have happened, there is no way to know”: A Department of Defence spokesman, Joe Della Vedova, had called the claim that prisoners had been tortured at Guantánamo, “a posture of the defence”; Petty Officer Dwight called it “a matter of opinion”. And Lieutenant-Commander DeWalt called it “an assertion” and “a point of view”.) I would subsequently discover that the day before I met the psychologist and the nurse, a detainee, Muhammad al-Hanashi, had died, in what the Joint Task Force Guantánamo press office reported as an “alleged suicide”. Six weeks later, that death still has not have been investigated by an independent body.

But Andrew Selsky, of Associated Press, interviewed Binyam Mohamed, a former prisoner who knew the young man; Mr Mohamed said that suicide was “totally out of character” for Mr al-Hanashi. He was, according to Mr Mohamed, a positive person who had been elected by the prisoners as their representative. Associated Press reported that on January 17, 2009, Mr alHanashi had been summoned to a meeting with Admiral David Thomas, Commander of JTF Guantánamo, and the head of the Guantánamo guard force; Mr al-Hanashi never returned to his cell, but was taken directly to the psychiatric ward. Elizabeth Gilson, a lawyer for a detainee who was also in the ward, knows more about what happened; but she can’t tell anyone; it is classified.

The JTF Guantánamo press release reporting the death would be terse; the details nonexistent; there would be little follow-up in the media — because there was nothing the Guantánamo press office would release that would give anything to go on. His body would, presumably, go somewhere — but Mr al-Hanashi himself would, during the days I was at Guantánamo, simply disappear.

here was a final stop: another trailer inside the same area as Camp Delta, where the Combat Status Review Board takes place. There were security cameras in the corners of the room covered with towels for, we were told, “classification reasons”. There Captain Dan Bauer, another handsome, dark-haired, pleasant man, explained the combat status review tribunal (CSRT) process. Twenty serious-looking high-ranking military men sat to our right watching his presentation to us. In the room was his desk: and two chairs facing it. I turned on my little Flip camera and started recording. Captain Bauer claimed in his talk that witnesses were brought in from outside“whenever reasonable”. I looked at the base of both chairs. Both chairs had shackles. The process had been “formed”, Captain Bauer explained, “to afford the detainees the opportunity to attend and provide witness statements that were relevant and readily available on behalf of their own defence”. The system, he repeated several times, sorts them into those who are “enemy combatants” and those who are “no longer enemy combatants”.

He explained that “about 520 detainees were designated as enemy combatants, the remaining 40 or so are no longer enemy combatants”. Why, I wondered, was there no category for “never been enemy combatants”? A Russian reporter with us asked if the detainees have access to telephones or the internet, so that they can communicate with people in their country, to get documents and witnesses.“No,” Captain Bauer said. “In that case what would happen is that there was something that — if there was a process by which if they felt made their case, then what the board would do is the Dept of Defence works with the Department of State to contact, er . . . the nations of detainees to try to make arrangements just to get whatever information — er, that they need.” He said that detainees are taken “in the heat of the battlefield” and that there they “put the pieces together”.

I asked if everyone in the room with the detainee was employed by the US Government. Captain Bauer confirmed that.

“As I understand the process,” the Polish reporter said, “it is the detainee alone against the US Government?”

“I don’t understand the question,” Captain Bauer replied.

I asked why there were two different chairs with shackles. Captain Bauer explained that if the detainee had another detainee as his witness, then he would be present. In sources provided by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and the American Civil Liberties Union I had read that prisoners had been abused to provide false confessions implicating other prisoners, in just this setting, and that their “enemy combatant” status had been based on these false confessions. Testimony of witnesses who were not from within the prison system, so not subjected to coercion, was of course crucial for the review to be effective. Have there ever been any, or were any witnesses there, on the island right now?

“I can’t confirm whether there have or not.”

“Would you fly them here?”

“The Department of Defence, the Department of State, work with foreign agencies to make those arrangements.”

“Have they made those arrangements — ever?”

“Ummm … we afford the opportunity. Whether it’s been done or how often it’s been done, I don’t, I don’t know the answer.”

That afternoon we got to Guantánamo’s main street, which was like a main street anywhere in the US — McDonald’s, a Wal-Mart-style store: T-shirts for sale reading “It Don’t Gitmo Better Than This”, “Guantánamo Resort and Spa” and “Guantáanamo, Pearl of the Antilles”. You could get postcards of the banana rats.

Dinner was more salad displays; a pasta fiesta; a make-your-own sundae bar. It was like a food court in a really good mall. I tried to watch the sunset, under the scrutiny of my handler.

t six the next morning we awoke, dressed and convened outside, but — something was wrong. Petty Officers Dwight and Bennet were looking sadly at a flat tyre on the white van in the driveway that was to transport us. I tried my computer in the backyard for the hell of it, and to my surprise found that I got a thin thread of access to the outside world. A friend in Egypt had sent me a bombshell news clipping about Mr al-Hashani’s alleged suicide. While we had been at the medical bay, the Guantánamo press office had been scrambling to word a bland press release. The whole world knew about this death.

Only we, the journalists actually present at the scene, had had no idea. Petty Officers Dwight and Bennet eventually got us on wheels — taking us through the chic, upscale neighbourhoods of the contractors, with their barbecues, playstructures and verandas, through the boxy, hut-like quarters of the enlisted men and women — and back to the site of the military commissions.

There a new set of handlers showed us another sterile portable cell where detainees conferred with their lawyers. I asked our guide if there was lawyer-client privilege, or was the cell under surveillance? “I can’t answer that,” the guide said. (The defence lawyer Wells Dixon said that he always assumed that his conversations with his client were being listened in to.) We were taken in to the state-of-the art “courtroom” itself, where the ill-starred military tribunals meet. It is unbelievably expensive-looking: rows of gleaming wooden tables for the lawyers of the detainees — and seats with shackles at the base for the detainees at the end of each table; a raised dais where the “panel” — about 20 members of the military — sits facing the tables; and a raised platform in the front of the room, where the “judge” sits in the middle and on one side sits the detainee and on the other, the witness for the defence. Two contractors showed me around. One, “Mo”, showed me how you can put a $5 note under a light on a desk and it shows up onscreen behind the judge’s chair much magnified. I looked up: “In God We Trust”, the motto read.

Then he showed me the stop-motion button system on the audio feed that means that a censor can redact any information that comes out that he wishes to cut — so the press in the galley area behind glass at the back of the room, and down in the hangar, will never know what was redacted. The button system is in the same area as the “witness chair”, which seemed odd to me.

I asked if the chair had ever been used.

“Well … no,” he said. Not to his knowledge. Then he showed me again with great pride the live feed that was hooked up directly into the “courtroom” that could “transmit witness testimony into the courtroom from anywhere in the world”.

“Has it ever been used to transmit actual witness testimony?” I asked.

“No,” he replied. “But we have the capability.”

At the end of the trip, I asked Deputy Press Officer Major Haynie to respond to the statement that no witnesses had ever been called to the CSRT process. I did not get an answer. Five weeks later I asked the Pentagon spokesman Vedova for a response — no answer — and six weeks later I called Lieutenant-Commander DeWalt to confirm or deny that external witnesses had never been called to the CSRT process.

He said that the 9/11 families were coming down to witness motions at the military tribunals and they would be housed in townhouses or officers’ quarters. I asked if the families of defendants would be allowed to observe the motions as well. “I don’t believe there are defendants’ families on this visit.” I asked him if defendants’ families have ever been brought in. “Not to my knowledge,” he conceded. I asked DeWalt if, in the rebranded military commissions under Obama’s Administration, real witnesses will be flown in from outside the prison system. “It’s a fair question — I’ll get back to you,” he said. So far, he has not done so.

The next morning I was due to depart when word came that the one flight out was cancelled. Instead, I was to fly out on military transport. On the aircraft I chatted with those seated around me. To my right was a military doctor, who acknowledged that he had been flown to the island to attend to the post-mortem of the dead prisoner.

“Will there be an investigation?” I asked.

That was the investigation, he explained. When I later asked Lietenant-Commander DeWalt about the death of Mr al-Hanashi, he said that there was an ongoing investigation, and that he could not give “details of that situation — we are holding off on any speculation — because it would get in the way of investigators doing their job”.

Sitting behind the doctor on the aircraft was a genial young clergyman, Chaplain Mubarak, who turned out to be one of four Muslim chaplains in the Navy. He, too, had been flown in for the death — from Chicago. He had been tasked with “culturally sensitive” treatment of the corpse. He explained that in Islam only another Muslim could wash the dead man’s body. Had he been allowed to give spiritual support to Mr al-Hanashi’s fellow prisoners? No.

I made my way down the aisle to join another lawyer, whom I had met in the waiting room: George Clarke, a corporate lawyer with Miller and Chevalier, a big law firm in Washington. He works pro bono for his clients who are detainees. “I represent two of the 17 Uighurs that are still here. They were all cleared to go — by the Department of Defence, by the courts, by the military . . . innocent guys. But they have been here for seven years.”

To explain why the detainees are not permitted to speak to reporters, Clarke says, the Department of Defence is citing the Geneva Conventions. “Which is kind of interesting because their position has been that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to these guys. If the Geneva Conventions applied they would be able to have a canteen from which to buy things, tobacco that they could have, a right to organise themselves and have a representative.”

“Remember,” Clarke says, “for a lot of these guys, there’s no evidence. The military said that of the 240 guys left here maybe 80 will eventually be ‘tried’ in some form. What about the rest? A lot of these people have been held because they stayed at a guest house or they had some supposed connections or affiliations [with al-Qaeda]. ‘Connections’ are like … someone’s brother was a member. Or allegedly a member. The whole world has a misconception that these guys were picked up on the battlefield. And a whole lot of them were not.

“This country is based on the rule of law,” Clarke continued quietly. “If you truly have no reason to hold someone, you can’t hold them. National security cannot override freedom.

“At the end of the day our freedom is more important. If we lose our freedom — what are we trying to secure?”

What, indeed?

We landed, the lights of Washington now twinkling brightly below us, but the answer still unclear.

</font>
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"></hr>

obama-hope-fading.jpg
 
<font size="5"><center>
White House allies say Obama
bungled Guantanamo closing</font size></center>



482-12web-GUANTANAMO-major.major_story_img.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

A new report says the White House made big mistakes in
its plans for the prison.


McClatchy Newspapers
By Steven Thomma
Novwmber 11, 2009


WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison by Jan. 22 was followed by a series of mistakes and missteps by his administration that will delay the prison's closure for months, according to a report from a policy organization with close ties to the White House.

Those mistakes — which ranged from initially having too few people on board to handle the workload to misreading Congress — have put the timetable months behind schedule and will push the prison's closure well beyond the January deadline, which Obama announced with great fanfare two days after he took office.

The White House declined to comment on the report.

The administration is expected to announce within days the results of its review of legal cases against the remaining detainees at Guantanamo, a review that originally was scheduled to be finished in July. Among its conclusions, the administration is expected to say whether it will prosecute the accused 9/11 mastermind and four alleged co-conspirators in a federal civilian court.

"We hope we'll see the announcement very soon on the 9/11 case, that they're going to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other conspirators in federal court," said Ken Gude, a scholar at the Center for American Progress and the author of its new report on Guantanamo. The liberal policy organization enjoys close relations with the Obama administration, which has hired several of its scholars for senior positions.

In his study, Gude said the White House made mistakes in implementing the high-profile Guantanamo policy from the very beginning.

"It was always going to be difficult, but some unforeseen obstacles were thrown in its path, and the new administration made some mistakes that have cost time and sucked energy away from the core mission of closing the prison," he said in the report.

Two task forces — one set up to study the case files of the more than 200 detainees still held at the prison and the other charged with examining the overall detention policy — fell behind almost from the start.

A key problem was that the Obama administration was hours old and didn't have enough people to follow through quickly after Obama announced the closing plan. Those who were there couldn't find needed files quickly.

"The task forces struggled right out of the gate," Gude said in the report.

Then, he said, they made a critical mistake by not moving quickly to move some detainees out of Guantanamo. For example, he said, the administration should've worked with the Virginia congressional delegation to smooth the way politically to release a group of Uighurs to Northern Virginia, where there's a community of the Chinese Muslims.

"They could have put that together in six to eight weeks," Gude said in an interview. "It would have taken some of the sting out of the criticism of bringing them into the United States."

With little groundwork done to move some Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. or elsewhere, the Obama administration made what Gude called its "biggest mistake" in April by asking Congress for $80 million to finance the prison closing.

"Asking Congress for money for Guantanamo opened the door for conservatives on Capitol Hill, and the Obama administration was caught completely off guard when they began aggressively pushing back against the funding," Gude said in his report.

Gude called the backlash "ridiculous" because it was based on the implied argument that the country's maximum security prisons couldn't hold terrorists transferred from Guantanamo and that the closing of Guantanamo thus would endanger Americans.

Nonetheless, Gude said, "The White House failed to support its allies in Congress that were willing to push back against the fear mongering. The lack of early backing from the administration sealed the defeat. The result was a blowout, with Congress overwhelmingly voting to bar the release of any Guantanamo detainees into the United States and placing severe restrictions on any other kinds of transfers."

That also made it harder for the U.S. to convince other countries to take some of the detainees, either for release or detention.

"Many American allies are willing to help the United States and accept detainees, but quite reasonably expected the United States to share in the responsibility," Gude wrote. "It is a hard sell for America's allies to tell their citizens that they are accepting Guantanamo detainees even though the U.S. Congress feels that they are too dangerous for release in America."

Gude thinks the prison will be closed, and noted that 16 countries now have accepted or pledged to accept some of the detainees there.

However, he and the Center for American Progress, which is headed by former Obama transition chief John Podesta, urged several steps to get the closing on track. They include:
_ Setting a new deadline of July, rather than simply letting the January deadline slip.

_ Prosecuting the alleged 9/11 conspirators in federal court and limiting military commissions to what they called battlefield crimes.

_ Limiting military detention to those captured in combat zones and using criminal law to try those captured "far away" from any battlefield.

_ Sending those convicted in federal courts to maximum security prisons in the U.S., and sending those remaining in military custody to the prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan.​

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/78718.html
 
<font size="5"><center>
U.S. will move its war court
from Guantanamo to Illinois</font size></center>



McClatchy Newspapers
By Margaret Talev
and Carol Rosenberg
December 15, 2009


WASHINGTON — The White House said Tuesday it will move its war court from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to President Barack Obama's home state of Illinois, but officials couldn't say how soon or at what cost, and acknowledged they'll need support from Congress to fully implement the transition.

Administration officials declined to estimate how many of the 210 detainees at Guantanamo would move to the Thomson Correctional Center, but White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he "wouldn't get in the way of contradicting" an estimate by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., of about 100 detainees.

A letter to Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and a presidential memorandum made official the federal government's intention to acquire the largely empty maximum-security facility about 150 miles west of Chicago.

A senior White House official said in a background briefing that the 146-acre prison was the intended site for the latest version of the military commissions trials, meant for war on terror captives accused of committing war crimes. The official also said the administration intended to transfer any so-called indefinite detainees to the facility, which would require congressional action.

Many Illinois officials and congressional Democrats support the idea, but Republicans cited concerns for Americans' safety, and human rights advocates underscored opposition to indefinite detentions on or off U.S. soil. Others worried Obama is being rushed by the antiwar base.

The latest move comes after nearly a year of obstacles being thrown in the path of Obama's plans to close the military prison in southeast Cuba.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a military lawyer, agrees with emptying Guantanamo camps "if done correctly," but suggested the latest development is more evidence that Obama's team "has lost its bearings in an effort to close Guantanamo as quickly as possible.

"The administration has sent a confusing message to our troops on the battlefield who no longer know when civilian law enforcement rules or the laws of war might apply," Graham said.

Even advocates of Guantanamo's closure viewed the skeletal plan outlined Tuesday with skepticism, however. "If Thomson will be used to facilitate (detainees') lawful prosecution, then this is truly a positive step," said Joanne Mariner, the counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. "But if the administration plans to hold the detainees indefinitely in the Thomson prison without charging them, President Obama will simply have moved Guantanamo to Illinois."

"It will pose no danger to the community," National Security Adviser James L. Jones said Tuesday, while Durbin vowed, "We will never forget 9/11."

On paper, officials said, the facility, first opened in 2001, would be the nation's most secure.

The letter to Quinn said acquiring Thomson would allow the federal government to carry out Obama's order to close the facility at Guantanamo, where suspected terrorists have been housed since 2002.

Reported abuses at Guantanamo during the Bush administration inflamed Islamic radicals and incurred disapproval from the international community. Obama sought to empty the prison camps at Guantanamo by Jan. 22, but has acknowledged the deadline can't be met.

Of detainees still at Guantanamo, five have been designated for federal trial, with another 25 under consideration. The Pentagon's Chief War Crimes Prosecutor, Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, has said his staff is building war crimes court cases for as many as 55 of the 210 detainees now at Guantanamo.

Separately, officials said they'd also use the portion of the Thomson prison used for Guantanamo detainees — as opposed to federal prisoners — for indefinite detainees, of whom there were nine approved by the federal courts through habeas corpus review, the yardstick a senior administration official said he'd use.

Two senior administration officials, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity at White House insistence, said current law would allow Guantanamo detainees awaiting military commission proceedings to be transferred to Thomson and would allow the facility to become the new site for those proceedings.

Guantanamo detainees awaiting prosecution through civilian courts wouldn't go to Thomson but to the jurisdiction where they'd be tried, such as alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four fellow accused, whom Attorney General Eric Holder have designated for trial in New York. Detainees to be sent to other countries would stay at Guantanamo until leaving the U.S., the officials said.

As for "indefinite detainees," whom the government likely couldn't prosecute but who are considered too much of a threat to national security to release, administration officials said they'd need Congress to change the law before they could be transferred to U.S. soil.

(Talev reported from Washington. Rosenberg, who reports for the Miami Herald, reported from Miami.)



http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/80706.html
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1750>
<A HREF="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/">link</A>

</IFRAME>



,
 
Obama Plans to Close Guantanamo
Whether Congress Likes It Or Not​


The White House is drafting options that would allow President Barack Obama to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by overriding a congressional ban on bringing detainees to the U.S., senior administration officials said.

Such a move would be the latest and potentially most dramatic use of executive power by the president in his second term. It would likely provoke a sharp reaction from lawmakers, who have repeatedly barred the transfer of detainees to the U.S.

Officials, who declined to say where detainees might be housed if taken to the mainland, said the U.S. has ample space in its prisons for several dozen high-security prisoners. The administration has reviewed several facilities that could house the remaining detainees, with the military brig at Charleston, S.C., considered the most likely.


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...e-guantanamo-whether-congress-likes-it-or-not


 
Such a move would be the latest and potentially most dramatic use of executive power by the president in his second term. It would likely provoke a sharp reaction from lawmakers, who have repeatedly barred the transfer of detainees to the U.S.

You think ?

 
Originally posted May 2006

...Imagine yourself being abused, and tortured and treated like scum for more than 3 (as of 2014 now 11 years). Imagine that in that time frame you haven’t even been charged with a crime because your interrogator has figured out that you are innocent. Imagine that they tell you that you will never be released. You would try to commit suicide, by any means necessary. Imagine trying to kill yourself and your American captors, strap you to a chair, stick a tube down your nose and force-feed you. Oh by the way the ‘food’ that they force feed you causes you to shit on yourself.
Guantanamo is nothing more than a torture chamber & Gulag that your tax dollars are paying for. It should be closed immediately.....


the-guardian-logo.jpg



Guantánamo Bay Force-Feeding Videos To Be Released

Judge orders US government to prepare public versions of 28 videos showing force-feeding of hunger-striking Syrian detainee



<video width="640" height="360" controls>
<source src="http://cdn.theguardian.tv/mainwebsite/2013/10/9/131009GuantanamoAnimation-16x9.mp4" type="video/mp4">
<source src="http://cdn.theguardian.tv/mainwebsite/2013/10/9/131009GuantanamoAnimation-16x9.mp4" type="video/ogg">
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>

About 100 men have been imprisoned at Gitmo for as-long-as 11 years without charge, they are told they will be released but are never released. They have given up hope and wish to die. They are being force fed twice daily to prevent their death. WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE.





by Spencer Ackerman | Friday 3 October 2014 |http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/03/guantanamo-force-feeding-videos-released


A US federal judge has ordered the disclosure of videotapes that show the force feeding of an inmate on hunger strike at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility.

Days before the first legal challenge to the force feeding was due to begin, Judge Gladys Kessler of the Washington DC district court on Friday ordered the US government to prepare public versions of 28 videos showing a Syrian detainee, Abu Wa’el Dhiab, forcibly removed from his cell and fed through a tube inserted through his nose into his stomach.

Kessler’s ruling came after a coalition of media organisations, including the Guardian, applied for disclosure of unclassified versions of tapes that the US government has never made available.

The Justice Department and the military only acknowledged the existence of the tapes last year in filings to Kessler.

The tapes will provide unprecedented visibility into a practice that Dhiab and other detainees says amounts to torture, a claim categorically rejected by the Obama administration and the military.

While the government is expected to appeal the decision later on Friday, Kessler ordered that the public versions of the tapes to be released obscure “all faces other than Mr Dhiab’s, voices, names, etc.” The unclassified version of the videos “may then be entered on the public docket,” Kessler wrote.

The government contended that keeping the tapes under seal was necessary to protect national security, but Kessler found that its arguments were “unacceptably vague, speculative, lack specificity or are just plain implausible.”

An argument that the detainees would learn how to develop “countermeasures” to defeat forcefeeding - to which they have been subjected for months or years - “strains credulity,” Kessler wrote.

Kessler’s ruling, a major setback for the Obama administration, came a day after the judge rejected out of hand the government’s request to block the public from viewing almost all aspects of the legal challenge to the force-feeding.

Opening arguments in Dhiab’s effort to stop the forced feedings and cell removals are expected on Monday. Government challenges to Kessler’s ruling on the partial disclosure of the videotapes may prompt a delay.

In a court filing through his attorneys, Dhiab said he wanted the American public to see the force-feeding and cell removals “to see what is going on at the prison today, so they will understand why we are hunger-striking, and why the prison should be closed. If the American people stand for freedom, they should watch these tapes. If they truly believe in human rights, they need to see these tapes.”

Despite Dhiab’s explicit desire to make the videos public, the former commander of Guantánamo, Rear Admiral Richard Butler, argued that exposing the videos would violate the US obligation under the third Geneva convention to “protect detainees from public curiosity”. Guantánamo authorities have used that contention for years to block press access to various aspects of the facility’s operations.

But Kessler wrote that Butler’s argument “would turn the third Geneva convention on its head.”

“Rather than a source of rights to humane treatment, Article 13 would become a means to shield from public view treatment that Mr Dhiab (and undoubtedly other detainees) view as inhumane,” she ruled.

Dhiab has been detained without charge at Guantánamo Bay since 2002, despite the US government clearing him for release since 2009. He and an undisclosed number of detainees have launched hunger strikes to protest their prolonged confinement and their treatment.

After they garnered global attention and outrage through a hunger strike that last year encompassed nearly all Guantánamo detainees, the military command at the facility stopped releasing practically any information relating to the strikes.

 
Guantanamo: Blacked Out Bay (Full Length)
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/tVrmwFtoFjM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Almost 800 men have been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility since it was established in 2002. Today, fewer than 150 remain. Despite the fact that more than half of current detainees have been cleared for transfer from the base, and in spite of the executive order signed by President Barack Obama in 2009 ordering the closure of the prison within one year, there's no indication it will be shuttered anytime soon.

VICE News traveled to Guantanamo to find out what the hell is going on. After a tightly controlled yet bizarre tour of the facility, we sought out a former detainee in Sarajevo and a former guard in Phoenix to get their unfiltered impressions of what life is like at Gitmo.
 
Back
Top