FBI Tell of Abuse at Guantanamo

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

The Big Lie, Repeated, Works
January 8, 2007:

Several media outlets have been citing FBI documents claiming mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. However, these documents are the basis of what is really a big non-story. Why? Because the allegations of torture based on these documents have already been investigated by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2005 and found to have no basis in fact.

The documents in question? They are the same FBI memos that formed the basis of Senator Richard Durbin’s comparison of Guantanamo Bay to the actions of the Nazis and Khmer Rouge, and have been released in the course of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Now for what the media and ACLU won’t tell you. The DOD investigations in 2004 and 2005 turned up very few incidents of mistreatment, and those incidents that did occur were often dealt with on the spot. Three of the incidents ? and the response to them ? are worth noting. The first was an incident uncovered, during the investigation, of the allegations from FBI agents. A naval officer threatened the mother of one detainee, a violation of Article 134 the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That matter has been referred to the Naval Investigative Service for investigation. In a second incident, an inmate who was chanting, had duct tape placed over his mouth by MPs, at the direction of an interrogator concerned about a potential riot. The person responsible was verbally reprimanded by a JAG for this one-time incident. In the third incident, an interrogator who was spat on proceeded to smear some red ink on the detainee. She was verbally reprimanded on the spot as well. In the second two cases, the investigations recommended different punishment for the infractions, but it does not detract from the fact that the DOD acted on the spot.

As was the case when the original controversy broke in 2005, the media also failed to note two important facts. One is that at least a dozen of the detainees released from Guantanamo Bay are known to have re-joined al-Qaeda on the battlefield. One of these detainees, Rasul Kudayev, planned attacks in the Kabardino-Balkariya, in the Northern Caucasus that killed 45 people.

Other detainees, like Mohamed Qahtami (also spelled al Kahtami), suspected of being the 20th hijacker, were serious terrorists who had valuable information. Qahtami had held out against normal interrogation techniques over a period of eight months, and so permission was granted to use more aggressive techniques to get the information to engender a sense that resistance would be futile. They succeeded, and within two months, Qahtami was soon providing valuable intelligence on al Qaeda’s plans for future operations, how it was organized, and how the organization supported operations.

The only thing these latest round of reports has done is to give the mainstream media a chance to rehash old allegations and make the Department of Defense look like it is stonewalling and refusing to investigate allegations of torture. The ACLU gets plenty of press, which it can later use for a fundraising drive and to get attention in general. The DOD will get no credit for defending the country, nor will they get any credit for dealing with the real abuses. Given that several detainees, most notably Kudayev, have returned to the fight, the results of the ACLU’s lawsuit could have a negative impact on the civil liberties of innocent people. ? Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

42

[quote]makkun wrote:
Zap,

Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

If we are not careful the Islamic extremists may START acting inhumane?

Heh, brilliant response. Brilliant. Iran hangs rape victims. Not exactly known for it’s gentle treatment of prisoners, as it is.

They are asking for it, otherwise they would not have been born female.

Too many people do not understand the nature of our enemy.

I on the other hand think it’s a completely irrelevant answer: Every one sane knows and disagrees with the human rights practices in Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.

If we want this criticism of practices to be credible though, we need to stay clear of any involvement in them at all.

That’s the whole point of the complaints about abuse: To uphold our own stated values and standards, irrelevant of others’ - that’s what values are about.

Makkun[/quote]

The argument that our failure to give the terrorists air conditioning will spur the Islamic extremists to inhumane action is also being made and it is stupid.

I have never said we can do whatever we want because the bad guys are worse.

The anyone but Bush contingent should be embarrassed that they are complaining about such a trivial matter.

If they would focus on real issues perhaps they would have some credibility, but this is just one more case of crying wolf.

43

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

These are FBI agents talking, not accused terrorists. Maybe you don’t believe locking someone in a 100 degree room until he pulls his hair out is torture, although I question what your definition is then. But way to win friends in the Islamic world, profaning the Koran and wrapping detainees in the Israeli flag. Wow.[/quote]

Why is the FBI to be listened to here, but when they have film of Jefferson (Congressman from NOLA) taking bribes, “Oh, its all a setup! The FBI is just racist whitey trying to hold down the black man!”

Libs…pick and choose…laughable

44

[quote]hedo wrote:
The Big Lie, Repeated, Works
January 8, 2007:

Several media outlets have been citing FBI documents claiming mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. However, these documents are the basis of what is really a big non-story. Why? Because the allegations of torture based on these documents have already been investigated by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2005 and found to have no basis in fact.

The documents in question? They are the same FBI memos that formed the basis of Senator Richard Durbin’s comparison of Guantanamo Bay to the actions of the Nazis and Khmer Rouge, and have been released in the course of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Now for what the media and ACLU won’t tell you. The DOD investigations in 2004 and 2005 turned up very few incidents of mistreatment, and those incidents that did occur were often dealt with on the spot. Three of the incidents ? and the response to them ? are worth noting. The first was an incident uncovered, during the investigation, of the allegations from FBI agents. A naval officer threatened the mother of one detainee, a violation of Article 134 the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That matter has been referred to the Naval Investigative Service for investigation. In a second incident, an inmate who was chanting, had duct tape placed over his mouth by MPs, at the direction of an interrogator concerned about a potential riot. The person responsible was verbally reprimanded by a JAG for this one-time incident. In the third incident, an interrogator who was spat on proceeded to smear some red ink on the detainee. She was verbally reprimanded on the spot as well. In the second two cases, the investigations recommended different punishment for the infractions, but it does not detract from the fact that the DOD acted on the spot.

As was the case when the original controversy broke in 2005, the media also failed to note two important facts. One is that at least a dozen of the detainees released from Guantanamo Bay are known to have re-joined al-Qaeda on the battlefield. One of these detainees, Rasul Kudayev, planned attacks in the Kabardino-Balkariya, in the Northern Caucasus that killed 45 people.

Other detainees, like Mohamed Qahtami (also spelled al Kahtami), suspected of being the 20th hijacker, were serious terrorists who had valuable information. Qahtami had held out against normal interrogation techniques over a period of eight months, and so permission was granted to use more aggressive techniques to get the information to engender a sense that resistance would be futile. They succeeded, and within two months, Qahtami was soon providing valuable intelligence on al Qaeda’s plans for future operations, how it was organized, and how the organization supported operations.

The only thing these latest round of reports has done is to give the mainstream media a chance to rehash old allegations and make the Department of Defense look like it is stonewalling and refusing to investigate allegations of torture. The ACLU gets plenty of press, which it can later use for a fundraising drive and to get attention in general. The DOD will get no credit for defending the country, nor will they get any credit for dealing with the real abuses. Given that several detainees, most notably Kudayev, have returned to the fight, the results of the ACLU’s lawsuit could have a negative impact on the civil liberties of innocent people. ? Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

[/quote]

OK, if they’ve been investigated and the more damning charges proved false, that changes things (although the investigation over Abu Ghraib looked like a white-washing, so forgive me some skepticism here). But who is Harold C. Hutchison, and where is this from? The Guardian is certainly left-wing, no question, but they have a pretty solid reputation for journalistic integrity.

45

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

These are FBI agents talking, not accused terrorists. Maybe you don’t believe locking someone in a 100 degree room until he pulls his hair out is torture, although I question what your definition is then. But way to win friends in the Islamic world, profaning the Koran and wrapping detainees in the Israeli flag. Wow.

Why is the FBI to be listened to here, but when they have film of Jefferson (Congressman from NOLA) taking bribes, “Oh, its all a setup! The FBI is just racist whitey trying to hold down the black man!”

Libs…pick and choose…laughable

[/quote]

Yeah, because I’m clearly a “Lib.” Being concerned about torture means you’re an automatic liberal huh, regardless of whether you (regretably) voted for Bush both times?

46

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
[…]

The argument that our failure to give the terrorists air conditioning will spur the Islamic extremists to inhumane action is also being made and it is stupid.[/quote]

I think there is a difference between not giving someone air conditioning and keeping someone cooking in a stress position over a longer time, until they shit themselves. That’s abuse and anyone who denies that is deluding themselves. And - of course will this type of news not make radicals even more radical (they are lost anyway); but I do think it will help radicalise (make them prone to morally support proper radicals) people who so far might have been on the fence. I don’t think that is so far fetched.

Good. I’ve heard that just too many times here.

[quote]The anyone but Bush contingent should be embarrassed that they are complaining about such a trivial matter.

If they would focus on real issues perhaps they would have some credibility, but this is just one more case of crying wolf.[/quote]

Hm. Dunno, I skimmed through the FBI transcripts, and I don’t see this as a trivial matter. Sure - it’s not Abu Guraibh (sp?), but it’s still appalling. With strong values come obligations - I think that is not an unreasonable expectation.

Makkun

47

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Big Lie, Repeated, Works
January 8, 2007:

Several media outlets have been citing FBI documents claiming mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. However, these documents are the basis of what is really a big non-story. Why? Because the allegations of torture based on these documents have already been investigated by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2005 and found to have no basis in fact.

The documents in question? They are the same FBI memos that formed the basis of Senator Richard Durbin’s comparison of Guantanamo Bay to the actions of the Nazis and Khmer Rouge, and have been released in the course of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Now for what the media and ACLU won’t tell you. The DOD investigations in 2004 and 2005 turned up very few incidents of mistreatment, and those incidents that did occur were often dealt with on the spot. Three of the incidents ? and the response to them ? are worth noting. The first was an incident uncovered, during the investigation, of the allegations from FBI agents. A naval officer threatened the mother of one detainee, a violation of Article 134 the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That matter has been referred to the Naval Investigative Service for investigation. In a second incident, an inmate who was chanting, had duct tape placed over his mouth by MPs, at the direction of an interrogator concerned about a potential riot. The person responsible was verbally reprimanded by a JAG for this one-time incident. In the third incident, an interrogator who was spat on proceeded to smear some red ink on the detainee. She was verbally reprimanded on the spot as well. In the second two cases, the investigations recommended different punishment for the infractions, but it does not detract from the fact that the DOD acted on the spot.

As was the case when the original controversy broke in 2005, the media also failed to note two important facts. One is that at least a dozen of the detainees released from Guantanamo Bay are known to have re-joined al-Qaeda on the battlefield. One of these detainees, Rasul Kudayev, planned attacks in the Kabardino-Balkariya, in the Northern Caucasus that killed 45 people.

Other detainees, like Mohamed Qahtami (also spelled al Kahtami), suspected of being the 20th hijacker, were serious terrorists who had valuable information. Qahtami had held out against normal interrogation techniques over a period of eight months, and so permission was granted to use more aggressive techniques to get the information to engender a sense that resistance would be futile. They succeeded, and within two months, Qahtami was soon providing valuable intelligence on al Qaeda’s plans for future operations, how it was organized, and how the organization supported operations.

The only thing these latest round of reports has done is to give the mainstream media a chance to rehash old allegations and make the Department of Defense look like it is stonewalling and refusing to investigate allegations of torture. The ACLU gets plenty of press, which it can later use for a fundraising drive and to get attention in general. The DOD will get no credit for defending the country, nor will they get any credit for dealing with the real abuses. Given that several detainees, most notably Kudayev, have returned to the fight, the results of the ACLU’s lawsuit could have a negative impact on the civil liberties of innocent people. ? Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

OK, if they’ve been investigated and the more damning charges proved false, that changes things (although the investigation over Abu Ghraib looked like a white-washing, so forgive me some skepticism here). But who is Harold C. Hutchison, and where is this from? The Guardian is certainly left-wing, no question, but they have a pretty solid reputation for journalistic integrity.[/quote]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1764086/posts

He is a frequent contributor to Free Republic and Strategypage.

The facts he cites are a matter of public record whether you agree with his conclusions or not.

48

Oh, FreeRepublic, that’s a really credible source.

throws up

49

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Oh, FreeRepublic, that’s a really credible source.

throws up[/quote]

About as credible as you.

It’s public information referenced in an article, not specualtion.

Comprehension is key to understanding.

Typical liberal…argues the person or medium, ignores facts.

So were they incidents at Gitmo not investigated and dealt with or not?

50

From today’s Wall St. Journal.

The Gitmo High Life
By ROBERT L. POLLOCK
January 12, 2007; Page A12

For sheer irony it’s hard to beat this week’s spectacle of Cindy Sheehan protesting the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay – from inside the prison that is Cuba itself. It’s not uncommon for asylum-seeking Cubans to brave minefields and shark-infested waters to enter the U.S. naval base, which five years ago this week also became home to many top figures from al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That anniversary has brought forth predictable demands that Guantanamo be closed from the self-styled human rights activists at Amnesty International and other groups. But the world needs a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists, who continue to strike in Europe, Iraq and Afghanistan – even if they have failed to hit the United States since 2001. And after visiting Guantanamo just before Christmas, it was easy to understand why Belgian Police official Alain Grignard (who came last year with a delegation from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) was moved to declare it “a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”

This is no less true of Camp Five, Gitmo’s maximum security facility that houses its most dangerous detainees. Modern and clean, it looks just like a U.S. jail. Meals (I ate the same lunch the detainees did that day) are high in caloric content, if not exactly gourmet. The average detainee has gained 18 pounds. And in the interrogation room it’s the Americans who may have to suffer long hours in straight-back chairs, while the detainees – I kid you not – get a La-Z-Boy. I was shown a Syrian under interrogation via closed circuit television. His questioners were two pleasant-looking young women. He was smiling.

I’m not under the impression that these sessions are always fun and games. But detainees in Defense Department custody are treated according to the restrictive rules of the Army Field Manual, which bans all forms of coercive interrogation. I double checked with the camp’s lead interrogator: other government agencies – read CIA and FBI – have to follow those rules too. Not only does that mean no “torture” is going on. Your average good-cop bad-cop routine isn’t allowed. Cooperative detainees get rewards like movies. “Harry Potter” is one of their favorites.

When it comes to medical care, almost no expense is spared – as I discovered after spotting an overweight man lounging in the rec yard of Camp Five. “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?” I inquired (he was some distance away). “No, that’s Paracha,” came the somewhat exasperated reply.

Saifullah Paracha is a Pakistani businessman and media owner who claims two meetings with Osama bin Laden were purely for journalistic interest. He is believed to be an important figure in the case against Majid Khan, one of the 14 “high value” detainees recently transferred to Gitmo from CIA custody. Last year Mr. Paracha’s son Uzair was sentenced to 30 years in a U.S. prison for aiding an al Qaeda operative in a plot to bomb U.S. targets.

Maybe terrorism is stressful work. But whatever the reason, the elder Paracha also suffers from heart disease. So late last year – at an expense of some $400,000 – the U.S. government flew down doctors and equipment to perform cardiac catheterization. Mr. Paracha’s response was to refuse treatment and file a petition in U.S. federal court for transfer to a hospital in the U.S. or Pakistan. At least his lawyers were frank about their cynical motives: “His death in U.S. captivity would be a blow to American prestige.”

The medical care at Guantanamo seems state of the art. All detainees over 50 are offered colonoscopies; at least 16 have been performed. Gitmo’s psychiatrist told me that fewer that 1% of detainees suffer from mood disorders, a rate lower than that of the general population. That would appear to undercut claims that indefinite detention is itself a form of “mental torture.”

Guantanamo detainees don’t lack for legal representation. A list of lead counsel released this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request reads like a who’s who of America’s most prestigious law firms: Shearman and Sterling; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; Cleary Gottlieb; and Blank Rome are among the marquee names.

A senior U.S. official I spoke to speculates that this information might cause something of scandal, since so much of the pro bono work being done to tilt the playing field in favor of al Qaeda appears to be subsidized by legal fees from the Fortune 500. “Corporate CEOs seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists” who deliberately target the U.S. economy, he opined.

None of the above is meant to suggest Guantanamo is a fun place. What terrorist detention facility would be? (Base commander Adm. Harry Harris rejects the term “prison,” by the way: “We are not about punishment; we are about keeping enemy combatants off the battlefield.”) But the picture of Guantanamo usually painted by the press and human-rights activists is a terribly distorted one. Americans should rest assured that the men held there are probably getting better treatment than they deserve.

Mr. Pollock is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

Shocking treatment.

51

[quote]hedo wrote:
(text)[/quote]

Hedo, that is fine and all, but I won’t rest until the detainees, as a matter of human rights, each have their own Xbox, iPod, and box of Cuban cigars.

Also, the irony is overwhelming - I wonder how many nearby Cubans would love to claim a connection to al-Qaeda just to get the kind of treatment they could get at Gitmo?

52

[quote]hedo wrote:

[…] And after visiting Guantanamo just before Christmas, it was easy to understand why Belgian Police official Alain Grignard (who came last year with a delegation from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) was moved to declare it “a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.” […][/quote]

Here the official OSCE press release regarding Grignard:

VIENNA, 9 March 2006 - An OSCE Spokesperson responded today to several misleading news agency stories about the visit of a delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE to the detention centre at the US naval base of Guantanamo.

The stories followed a press conference in Brussels on Monday by the President of the Belgian Senate, Anne-Marie Lizin, and others in her delegation that visited Guantanamo last week.

The OSCE Spokesperson said that, in the light of these reports, he wished to make it clear the Organization itself had not sent an expert to Guantanamo: “The person quoted in several of the stories as “an OSCE expert”, Professor Alain Grignard, accompanied the delegation despatched by the Parliamentary Assembly, based in Copenhagen, but he was not employed or commissioned by the OSCE.”

Without commenting on the views expressed by any members of the delegation at the press conference in Brussels, he added that the statements should therefore not be taken as being made on behalf of the 55-nation body, which is headquartered in Vienna.

He added that, contrary to persistent news agency stories, the OSCE was not preparing a report on Guantanamo for presentation in July: “This confusion may have arisen from the fact that the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly will hold its annual meeting that month and will as usual be receiving various reports, including possibly one on Guantanamo.”

I find it interesting that this article based one of its key statements on an inconsistency. Might that be spin?

Makkun

53

[quote]hedo wrote:
From today’s Wall St. Journal.

The Gitmo High Life
By ROBERT L. POLLOCK
January 12, 2007; Page A12

For sheer irony it’s hard to beat this week’s spectacle of Cindy Sheehan protesting the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay – from inside the prison that is Cuba itself. It’s not uncommon for asylum-seeking Cubans to brave minefields and shark-infested waters to enter the U.S. naval base, which five years ago this week also became home to many top figures from al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That anniversary has brought forth predictable demands that Guantanamo be closed from the self-styled human rights activists at Amnesty International and other groups. But the world needs a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists, who continue to strike in Europe, Iraq and Afghanistan – even if they have failed to hit the United States since 2001. And after visiting Guantanamo just before Christmas, it was easy to understand why Belgian Police official Alain Grignard (who came last year with a delegation from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) was moved to declare it “a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”

This is no less true of Camp Five, Gitmo’s maximum security facility that houses its most dangerous detainees. Modern and clean, it looks just like a U.S. jail. Meals (I ate the same lunch the detainees did that day) are high in caloric content, if not exactly gourmet. The average detainee has gained 18 pounds. And in the interrogation room it’s the Americans who may have to suffer long hours in straight-back chairs, while the detainees – I kid you not – get a La-Z-Boy. I was shown a Syrian under interrogation via closed circuit television. His questioners were two pleasant-looking young women. He was smiling.

I’m not under the impression that these sessions are always fun and games. But detainees in Defense Department custody are treated according to the restrictive rules of the Army Field Manual, which bans all forms of coercive interrogation. I double checked with the camp’s lead interrogator: other government agencies – read CIA and FBI – have to follow those rules too. Not only does that mean no “torture” is going on. Your average good-cop bad-cop routine isn’t allowed. Cooperative detainees get rewards like movies. “Harry Potter” is one of their favorites.

When it comes to medical care, almost no expense is spared – as I discovered after spotting an overweight man lounging in the rec yard of Camp Five. “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?” I inquired (he was some distance away). “No, that’s Paracha,” came the somewhat exasperated reply.

Saifullah Paracha is a Pakistani businessman and media owner who claims two meetings with Osama bin Laden were purely for journalistic interest. He is believed to be an important figure in the case against Majid Khan, one of the 14 “high value” detainees recently transferred to Gitmo from CIA custody. Last year Mr. Paracha’s son Uzair was sentenced to 30 years in a U.S. prison for aiding an al Qaeda operative in a plot to bomb U.S. targets.

Maybe terrorism is stressful work. But whatever the reason, the elder Paracha also suffers from heart disease. So late last year – at an expense of some $400,000 – the U.S. government flew down doctors and equipment to perform cardiac catheterization. Mr. Paracha’s response was to refuse treatment and file a petition in U.S. federal court for transfer to a hospital in the U.S. or Pakistan. At least his lawyers were frank about their cynical motives: “His death in U.S. captivity would be a blow to American prestige.”

The medical care at Guantanamo seems state of the art. All detainees over 50 are offered colonoscopies; at least 16 have been performed. Gitmo’s psychiatrist told me that fewer that 1% of detainees suffer from mood disorders, a rate lower than that of the general population. That would appear to undercut claims that indefinite detention is itself a form of “mental torture.”

Guantanamo detainees don’t lack for legal representation. A list of lead counsel released this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request reads like a who’s who of America’s most prestigious law firms: Shearman and Sterling; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; Cleary Gottlieb; and Blank Rome are among the marquee names.

A senior U.S. official I spoke to speculates that this information might cause something of scandal, since so much of the pro bono work being done to tilt the playing field in favor of al Qaeda appears to be subsidized by legal fees from the Fortune 500. “Corporate CEOs seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists” who deliberately target the U.S. economy, he opined.

None of the above is meant to suggest Guantanamo is a fun place. What terrorist detention facility would be? (Base commander Adm. Harry Harris rejects the term “prison,” by the way: “We are not about punishment; we are about keeping enemy combatants off the battlefield.”) But the picture of Guantanamo usually painted by the press and human-rights activists is a terribly distorted one. Americans should rest assured that the men held there are probably getting better treatment than they deserve.

Mr. Pollock is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

Shocking treatment.

[/quote]

First of all, I would take anything from the Journal’s editorial page here with a big grain of salt, they have been consistent apologists for torture.

I have read good things about Gitmo, there was a very sympathetic article about a reservist warden there in the New York Times Magazine a while back. But if you think there haven’t been, at the very least, “coercive interrogations” there, you’re kidding yourself.

54

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
hedo wrote:
(text)

Hedo, that is fine and all, but I won’t rest until the detainees, as a matter of human rights, each have their own Xbox, iPod, and box of Cuban cigars.

Also, the irony is overwhelming - I wonder how many nearby Cubans would love to claim a connection to al-Qaeda just to get the kind of treatment they could get at Gitmo? [/quote]

Aren’t you too smart to fall back on the kind of idiotic hyperbole that so many people in both parties resort to these days?

55

[quote]hedo wrote:
[…]
I’m not under the impression that these sessions are always fun and games. But detainees in Defense Department custody are treated according to the restrictive rules of the Army Field Manual, which bans all forms of coercive interrogation. I double checked with the camp’s lead interrogator: other government agencies – read CIA and FBI – have to follow those rules too. Not only does that mean no “torture” is going on. Your average good-cop bad-cop routine isn’t allowed.
[…][/quote]

As is force feeding. Here a letter from mental health professionals regarding this practice, published in the Lancet:

Forcefeeding and restraint of Guantanamo Bay hunger strikers

We write regarding the forcefeeding and restraint of Guantanamo Bay detainees currently on hunger strike. The World Medical Association specifically prohibits forcefeeding in the Declarations of Tokyo and Malta, to which the American Medical Association is a signatory. […] John Edmondson (former commander of the hospital at Guantanamo) instigated this practice, and we have seen no evidence that procedures have changed under the current physician in charge, Ronald Sollock. Edmondson, in a signed affidavit, stated that ‘the involuntary feeding was authorized through a lawful order of a higher military authority.’ This defence, which has previously been described as the Nuremberg defence,5 is not defensible in law. In a reply to an earlier draft of this letter, Edmondson said that he was not forcefeeding but ‘providing nutritional supplementation on a voluntary basis to detainees who wish to protest their confinement by not taking oral nourishment’. […] The New York Times, however, reports that hunger striking detainees are strapped into restraint chairs in uncomfortably cold isolation cells to force them off their hunger strike. We urge the US government to ensure that detainees are assessed by independent physicians and that techniques such as forcefeeding and restraint chairs are abandoned forthwith in accordance with internationally agreed standards."

More details and a list of the 255 signatories under:

Makkun

56

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

Aren’t you too smart to fall back on the kind of idiotic hyperbole that so many people in both parties resort to these days?[/quote]

Well, the first paragraph was merely sarcastic humor in reference to Hedo’s post.

The second paragraph was no hyperbole at all - Castro’s brutality is no secret, and I have no doubt many of his political prisoners would dream of the kind of ‘horrors’ we visit on Gitmo detainees.

57

[quote]makkun wrote:
hedo wrote:
[…]
I’m not under the impression that these sessions are always fun and games. But detainees in Defense Department custody are treated according to the restrictive rules of the Army Field Manual, which bans all forms of coercive interrogation. I double checked with the camp’s lead interrogator: other government agencies – read CIA and FBI – have to follow those rules too. Not only does that mean no “torture” is going on. Your average good-cop bad-cop routine isn’t allowed.
[…]

As is force feeding. Here a letter from mental health professionals regarding this practice, published in the Lancet:

Forcefeeding and restraint of Guantanamo Bay hunger strikers

We write regarding the forcefeeding and restraint of Guantanamo Bay detainees currently on hunger strike. The World Medical Association specifically prohibits forcefeeding in the Declarations of Tokyo and Malta, to which the American Medical Association is a signatory. […] John Edmondson (former commander of the hospital at Guantanamo) instigated this practice, and we have seen no evidence that procedures have changed under the current physician in charge, Ronald Sollock. Edmondson, in a signed affidavit, stated that ‘the involuntary feeding was authorized through a lawful order of a higher military authority.’ This defence, which has previously been described as the Nuremberg defence,5 is not defensible in law. In a reply to an earlier draft of this letter, Edmondson said that he was not forcefeeding but ‘providing nutritional supplementation on a voluntary basis to detainees who wish to protest their confinement by not taking oral nourishment’. […] The New York Times, however, reports that hunger striking detainees are strapped into restraint chairs in uncomfortably cold isolation cells to force them off their hunger strike. We urge the US government to ensure that detainees are assessed by independent physicians and that techniques such as forcefeeding and restraint chairs are abandoned forthwith in accordance with internationally agreed standards."

More details and a list of the 255 signatories under:

Makkun[/quote]

I agree. If they want to starve themseleves to death we should let them.

58

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
From today’s Wall St. Journal.

The Gitmo High Life
By ROBERT L. POLLOCK
January 12, 2007; Page A12

For sheer irony it’s hard to beat this week’s spectacle of Cindy Sheehan protesting the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay – from inside the prison that is Cuba itself. It’s not uncommon for asylum-seeking Cubans to brave minefields and shark-infested waters to enter the U.S. naval base, which five years ago this week also became home to many top figures from al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That anniversary has brought forth predictable demands that Guantanamo be closed from the self-styled human rights activists at Amnesty International and other groups. But the world needs a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists, who continue to strike in Europe, Iraq and Afghanistan – even if they have failed to hit the United States since 2001. And after visiting Guantanamo just before Christmas, it was easy to understand why Belgian Police official Alain Grignard (who came last year with a delegation from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) was moved to declare it “a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”

This is no less true of Camp Five, Gitmo’s maximum security facility that houses its most dangerous detainees. Modern and clean, it looks just like a U.S. jail. Meals (I ate the same lunch the detainees did that day) are high in caloric content, if not exactly gourmet. The average detainee has gained 18 pounds. And in the interrogation room it’s the Americans who may have to suffer long hours in straight-back chairs, while the detainees – I kid you not – get a La-Z-Boy. I was shown a Syrian under interrogation via closed circuit television. His questioners were two pleasant-looking young women. He was smiling.

I’m not under the impression that these sessions are always fun and games. But detainees in Defense Department custody are treated according to the restrictive rules of the Army Field Manual, which bans all forms of coercive interrogation. I double checked with the camp’s lead interrogator: other government agencies – read CIA and FBI – have to follow those rules too. Not only does that mean no “torture” is going on. Your average good-cop bad-cop routine isn’t allowed. Cooperative detainees get rewards like movies. “Harry Potter” is one of their favorites.

When it comes to medical care, almost no expense is spared – as I discovered after spotting an overweight man lounging in the rec yard of Camp Five. “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?” I inquired (he was some distance away). “No, that’s Paracha,” came the somewhat exasperated reply.

Saifullah Paracha is a Pakistani businessman and media owner who claims two meetings with Osama bin Laden were purely for journalistic interest. He is believed to be an important figure in the case against Majid Khan, one of the 14 “high value” detainees recently transferred to Gitmo from CIA custody. Last year Mr. Paracha’s son Uzair was sentenced to 30 years in a U.S. prison for aiding an al Qaeda operative in a plot to bomb U.S. targets.

Maybe terrorism is stressful work. But whatever the reason, the elder Paracha also suffers from heart disease. So late last year – at an expense of some $400,000 – the U.S. government flew down doctors and equipment to perform cardiac catheterization. Mr. Paracha’s response was to refuse treatment and file a petition in U.S. federal court for transfer to a hospital in the U.S. or Pakistan. At least his lawyers were frank about their cynical motives: “His death in U.S. captivity would be a blow to American prestige.”

The medical care at Guantanamo seems state of the art. All detainees over 50 are offered colonoscopies; at least 16 have been performed. Gitmo’s psychiatrist told me that fewer that 1% of detainees suffer from mood disorders, a rate lower than that of the general population. That would appear to undercut claims that indefinite detention is itself a form of “mental torture.”

Guantanamo detainees don’t lack for legal representation. A list of lead counsel released this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request reads like a who’s who of America’s most prestigious law firms: Shearman and Sterling; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; Cleary Gottlieb; and Blank Rome are among the marquee names.

A senior U.S. official I spoke to speculates that this information might cause something of scandal, since so much of the pro bono work being done to tilt the playing field in favor of al Qaeda appears to be subsidized by legal fees from the Fortune 500. “Corporate CEOs seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists” who deliberately target the U.S. economy, he opined.

None of the above is meant to suggest Guantanamo is a fun place. What terrorist detention facility would be? (Base commander Adm. Harry Harris rejects the term “prison,” by the way: “We are not about punishment; we are about keeping enemy combatants off the battlefield.”) But the picture of Guantanamo usually painted by the press and human-rights activists is a terribly distorted one. Americans should rest assured that the men held there are probably getting better treatment than they deserve.

Mr. Pollock is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

Shocking treatment.

First of all, I would take anything from the Journal’s editorial page here with a big grain of salt, they have been consistent apologists for torture.

I have read good things about Gitmo, there was a very sympathetic article about a reservist warden there in the New York Times Magazine a while back. But if you think there haven’t been, at the very least, “coercive interrogations” there, you’re kidding yourself.[/quote]

GD

It’s not the only source out there mentioning this type of information.

And surely if you claim bias on behalf of the WSJ you can’t take the NYT’s at it’s word. The Times, at this point in it’s history, is a shell of it’s former self. I read it for over 30 years but can’t really count it anymore for much besides restaurant reviews.

It certainly seems the prisoners are being held in a facility with better food and hygiene as well as medical care then they have experienced in their home countries.

People will believe what they want to believe but it certainly seems they are treated well and better then they would be just about any place else in the world.

59

[quote]hedo wrote:
I agree. If they want to starve themseleves to death we should let them.
[/quote]

Yeah, especially those that are there because someone turned them in for
monetary reward or some other mistake.

Unncecesary brutality is not required, does not match our principles and does not advance our cause. What it does is assuage the feelings of certain citizens at the expense of their honor and principles.

After Abu Ghraib, there is simply no room for such nonsense. Whether or not someone has done worse is simply a childs argument. Apparently, a lot scared little children are happy to have the government strike out for them in this way.

Strangely, a clean death on the battlefield or in combat is much preferable to inhumane treatment in detainment camps.

The really big problem is that the US no longer has the credibility to be a moral authority with respect to human rights issues.

Some of you have said as much here yourself. Human rights are simply not important to you. The concept is a joke. Lucky for you, the people at the top feel the same way, and they have made the efforts of the US with respect to human rights, a joke.

This problem is something that is going to be around to haunt you for generations… even though some of the reports of abuse are perhaps very inflated indeed.

60

[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
I agree. If they want to starve themseleves to death we should let them.

Yeah, especially those that are there because someone turned them in for
monetary reward or some other mistake.

[/quote]

So you’re saying they should be allowed to starve themselves to death? Hell, I figured that would be worse. Guess not.