UN to U.S.: Shut down Guantanamo Bay prison now!

[BrainGlutton]

A report filed by five independent investigators working for the UN Human Rights Commission alleges violations amounting to torture at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. It demands the U.S. immediately try or release all the detainees, and shut down the prison. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060216...s_060216160136

The inspectors never actually visited Gitmo -- because the U.S. government would not allow them to actually interview the prisoners. But they did interview former detainees.

Should the U.S. comply?

[yojimbo]

US to UN

NO!

[Gangster Octopus]

I think the US shouldn't shut down Gitmo prison because the UN says so. The US should only act in it's own best interest. Now that may include a policy of shutting down Gitmo, butreacting to a UN demand is certainly not something the US should agree,too.

Now I know someone will com ein and say, "Isn't that what Saddam was doing?' I guess so, and if anyone wants to try and enforce this, then go right ahead. (P.S. I do not support the war in Iraq or this administration.)

[BobLibDem]

Try them all and if guilty, send to US prison and if not, set them free. Then pull out of Guantanamo entirely.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Try them all and if guilty, send to US prison and if not, set them free. Then pull out of Guantanamo entirely.

That's been my postition all along, too. Except some of these guys may indeed be POWs. In that case, let's set up a POW camp, and run it in strict accordance w/ the GC.

As for the UN... We'll give your input all the consideration it is due.

[XT]

Originally Posted by John Mace

As for the UN... We'll give your input all the consideration it is due.

Originally Posted by John Mace

That's been my postition all along, too. Except some of these guys may indeed be POWs. In that case, let's set up a POW camp, and run it in strict accordance w/ the GC.

Definitely. Not because the UN asked, but because its the correct thing to do. This administration needs to get off its ass and DO something about this situation instead of just letting it ride on. I'm not hopeful that they will get their head out though...

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Then pull out of Guantanamo entirely.

That ain't gonna happen. We might shut down the detention center, but we're not shutting down the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base until Castro dies.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

That ain't gonna happen. We might shut down the detention center, but we're not shutting down the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base until Castro dies.

I'm sure you're right, but it isn't right. I question why we even need a naval base in the Caribbean, and if we do why not move it to Miami or even Puerto Rico. It would make duty at the base a whole lot more pleasant, pump some money into the local economies, and make the US look a bit less imperialistic. This whole embargo thing has probably hurt the US as much as Cuba, when you consider all the business opportunities lost. Let's face it, we couldn't get him out so let's learn to live with him.

[Gfactor]

We should definitely continue to ignore norms of international law; after all, we're bigger and might makes right. Nice guys finish last. Why should we follow the rules we are accusing our opponents of breaking?

If anyone wants to read the actual report, here it is:

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/....2006.120_.pdf (pdf).

[Sevastopol]

The entire point of US foreign policy is to discover longstanding and international norms of decent conduct and then to violate them.

The greater the criticism of the US and the more soundly based that criticism is, the more pride emanates from the Whitehouse and its supporters.

After all they destroyed our buildings.

[Dubious Weasle]

While I am against the use of Guantanamo bay I feel it's necessary to point out that the "UN" didn't say anything of the sort.

"Five independent experts" for the UN Human rights commission said that Guantanamo should be shut down. This does not equal the UN nor is it a UN declaration or anything of the sort. Now, once again I agree with their statement but it's extremely inaccurate to describe their statement as "the UN says."

When the UN "says" something it means there was a vote. When a commission says something it means that there was a decision by one of the advisory panels. In this case, more along the lines of a House committee. The committee may make a call but it rarely means anything until congress votes on it.

[Hail Ants]

The inspectors never actually visited Gitmo -- because the U.S. government would not allow them to actually interview the prisoners. But they did interview former detainees.

Um, they're basing this assessment strictly on former prisoners statements? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. That makes this assessment completely, totally, and utterly worthless.

You need to understand something about prisons. Unlike 100% of the movies you've seen about them, prisons are not populated by poor, oppressed, wrongly-convicted, salt-of-the-Earth altrusians and staffed by evil, sadistic, inhuman guards.

I know people who work in high security prisons. 99.999999% of prisoners are brutish thugs who would (and do) kill you just as look at you for their own benefit, and 99.999% of the guards are just underpaid, overworked, bluecollar working men & women trying to feed their families.

I've heard stories and seen photos of prisoner on prisoner (and guard) violence that makes the Abu Gribah pics look like musical chairs.

In almost every case prisoners are in prison because they deserve to be and Gitmo is no different, politics be damned...

[intention]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

...

Should the U.S. comply?

The US should not, and cannot, allow its policies to be dictated by anyone. Not the UN, not the EU, no one. We need to decide, in each case, what we should do.

To do anything else is an abdication of our responsibility. The question is not whether we should comply or not. The question is, what is the right path?

Often the right path may be to comply, but equally, it may be to do something totally different.

In either case, we cannot give up the decision making power. The choice is ours to make. We need to make it with all of the fairness and equity and logic and compassion and realpolitik and wisdom we can muster ... but we can't simply "comply". We need to make the choice ourselves, not hand it over to anyone else.

w.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

In almost every case prisoners are in prison because they deserve to be and Gitmo is no different, politics be damned...

I think comparing Guantanamo to a criminal prison must be one of the stupidest comments I've seen this week.

[Pjen]

Originally Posted by Dubious Weasle

While I am against the use of Guantanamo bay I feel it's necessary to point out that the "UN" didn't say anything of the sort.

"Five independent experts" for the UN Human rights commission said that Guantanamo should be shut down. This does not equal the UN nor is it a UN declaration or anything of the sort. Now, once again I agree with their statement but it's extremely inaccurate to describe their statement as "the UN says."

When the UN "says" something it means there was a vote. When a commission says something it means that there was a decision by one of the advisory panels. In this case, more along the lines of a House committee. The committee may make a call but it rarely means anything until congress votes on it.

Kofi Annan has backed the report and called for Gitmo's closure. If there was a vote in the General Assembly it would almost certainly result in a call for closure (even though many countries would be voting hypocritically because their actions are worse than the US ones). If it came to the Security Council, the US would veto the motion.

I think that saying that the UN has called for the closure of Gitmo is as close to reality that you are going to get.

[Pjen]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I think comparing Guantanamo to a criminal prison must be one of the stupidest comments I've seen this week.

I find it politically hypocritical from the stance intended, but actually very true.

Most people in prison are there by happenstance - sentencing is random and biased. Different equivalent countries imprison different numbers of people by mere political whim. Numbers of prison places go up and down randomly and for no apparent cause (in the last thirty years in the UK as crime has steadily fallen over that period, over the latter half of that period, prison places doubled with no noticable effect on long term decline in crime levels as the baby boomers became middle aged and consequently the number of 15-30 year old males dropped. Crime dropped at the same rate as the number of potential criminals (15-30 year oild males) dropped. Yet public pressure has led to more prisons being built.

The average prison population is made up of people who mostly could and should be dealt with elsewhere. Imprisonment is largely a means of satisfying the revengeful feelings of an ill educated population. And it costs too much.

Additionally prisons are an excellent place for young thugs to learn from role models how to become more skilled criminals.

Sounds similar to Gitmo- random detainees, no evidence of it working as an intervention, much evidence that it actually does the reverse of what was intended- prisons educate criminals in crime, Gitmo causes more terrorism.

[Dubious Weasle]

Originally Posted by Pjen

Kofi Annan has backed the report and called for Gitmo's closure. If there was a vote in the General Assembly it would almost certainly result in a call for closure (even though many countries would be voting hypocritically because their actions are worse than the US ones). If it came to the Security Council, the US would veto the motion.

I think that saying that the UN has called for the closure of Gitmo is as close to reality that you are going to get.

Yes, and if and or when there is such a vote then it would be accurate to say that the UN has called for closure.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

In almost every case prisoners are in prison because they deserve to be and Gitmo is no different, politics be damned...

So someone turned in by an enemy or for a bounty, or grabbed at random with no evidence, is almost certainly guilty ? I've yet to see evidence that a signifigant number are guilty, much less most.

[Sevastopol]

Merriam-Webster Online

3 entries found for Islam.

Main Entry: Is·lam
Pronunciation: is-'läm, iz-, -'lam, 'is-", 'iz-"
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic
islAm submission (to the will of God)
1 : the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet
2 a : the civilization erected upon Islamic faith b : the group of modern nations in which Islam is the dominant religion
- Is·lam·ic /is-'lä-mik, iz-, -'la-/ adjective
1 : guilty, culpable independently of legal process
- Is·lam·ics /-miks/ noun plural but singular or plural in construction

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

A report filed by five independent investigators working for the UN Human Rights Commission alleges violations amounting to torture at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. It demands the U.S. immediately try or release all the detainees, and shut down the prison. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060216...s_060216160136

The inspectors never actually visited Gitmo -- because the U.S. government would not allow them to actually interview the prisoners. But they did interview former detainees.

Should the U.S. comply?

Who was that fat lady lawyer who represented perpetrators of the first Trade Center bombing and got in trouble for passing info between terroorists(I use fat only in the descriptive sense)?

Maybe that is why we didn't want any UN "human rights experts" talking to them.

[SentientMeat]

The UN might just as well have asked the Soviet Union to close its gulags. The US clearly has no intention of acting like "any other civilised nation".

I'd like to see economic sanctions at least talked about at the UNGA, despite not being at all realistic in terms of actual enforcement. Or perhaps some back door of the WTO allowing blatant infringement of US intellectual property rights, or something? If the US are going to stomp around in Kruschev's boots, the rest of the industrialised democratic world ought at least to think of some way of making it counter to US national interests overall to ignore the UN Charter they helped to write.

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by John

Except some of these guys may indeed be POWs. In that case, let's set up a POW camp, and run it in strict accordance w/ the GC.

ie. return them to their country of origin when the war ends, you mean?

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Pjen

Sounds similar to Gitmo- random detainees, no evidence of it working as an intervention, much evidence that it actually does the reverse of what was intended- prisons educate criminals in crime, Gitmo causes more terrorism.

Skipping past your views of the essentially arbitrary nature of Western criminal justice, let's just say that Western criminal prisoners aren't routinely tortured by those imprisoning them- well, since the Enlightenment, at any rate. Also, they've had their day in court.

[UselessGit]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

Um, they're basing this assessment strictly on former prisoners statements? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. That makes this assessment completely, totally, and utterly worthless.

You need to understand something about prisons. Unlike 100% of the movies you've seen about them, prisons are not populated by poor, oppressed, wrongly-convicted, salt-of-the-Earth altrusians and staffed by evil, sadistic, inhuman guards.

I know people who work in high security prisons. 99.999999% of prisoners are brutish thugs who would (and do) kill you just as look at you for their own benefit, and 99.999% of the guards are just underpaid, overworked, bluecollar working men & women trying to feed their families.

I've heard stories and seen photos of prisoner on prisoner (and guard) violence that makes the Abu Gribah pics look like musical chairs.

In almost every case prisoners are in prison because they deserve to be and Gitmo is no different, politics be damned...

Gitmo is indeed no different from a standard US high security prison; they're both full of criminals that have been charged, prosecuted and sentenced by a jury of their peers. All have legal representation and are allowed to be in contact with their families. How are them crazy pills working?

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by UselessGit

both full of criminals that have been charged, prosecuted and sentenced by a jury of their peers.

Erm, you forgot trial. Where was the trial in which evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt was presented to a jury or three-officer tribunal under due process of law?

It is clear that the US is ignoring its own regulations in favour of an whimsical executive order from the president here.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

Um, they're basing this assessment strictly on former prisoners statements?

Not exactly. From the link in the OP:

[url]Washington rejected the draft version, which was leaked earlier this week, as making a "baseless assertion", saying its authors had never visited the prison which houses mainly detainees captured in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The UN human rights experts began talks with the United States in 2002 on a possible visit.

They got a green light from Washington last year, but cancelled their scheduled December visit after failing to secure US assurances that they could speak freely to prisoners -- a standard procedure accepted by other governments, the experts noted.

They again demanded "full and unrestricted access" to Guantanamo in their report.

The experts based their findings on the US government's answers to a questionnaire, as well as interviews with former inmates in Britain, France and Spain, and lawyers for some individuals current detainees.

They also gathered information from human rights groups and declassified US documents.[/quote]

[Pjen]

Originally Posted by Dubious Weasle

Yes, and if and or when there is such a vote then it would be accurate to say that the UN has called for closure.

Except that motions from the GA are merely advisory and are widely ignored. Only the SC can make policy and that would be vetoed by the US if it were against the Us Govt's wishes. Kofi Annan would not speak out on this unless he thought (through discussions with the SC members and GA rpresentatives) that he was representing the overall opinion of the UN. That is why he was elected as SG- to represent the views of the UN with other bodies.

Given the UN structure, this is the best indication of the UN's views. The Secretary General and the bureaucracy together is the best you will get.

Your suggestion is similar to saying that despite the President of the USA backing his Scretary of Stat's views on Iraq being a little naughty, one cannot say that the USA is saying this until there is a resolution of both houses to support it. Sometimes the executive with unspoken support is all that is needed to represent the views of a country/business/organization.

[Pjen]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Skipping past your views of the essentially arbitrary nature of Western criminal justice, let's just say that Western criminal prisoners aren't routinely tortured by those imprisoning them- well, since the Enlightenment, at any rate. Also, they've had their day in court.

I agree. I was just pointing out some of the similarities that exist in response to the comment from MrDibble

"I think comparing Guantanamo to a criminal prison must be one of the stupidest comments I've seen this week."

I agree that in many other respects that there are major differences. The history of confinement whether for criminality, warfare, poverty or madness is that there are many overwhelming similarities.

We no longer confine in great numbers for poverty or madness, but continue to do so for criminality and have recently decided to reinstitute Major and minor Guantanamos. All confinement is questionable unless there is a clear purpose. I would argue that this clear purpose is almost never there in the majority of cases.

[Pjen]

Originally Posted by UselessGit

Gitmo is indeed no different from a standard US high security prison; they're both full of criminals that have been charged, prosecuted and sentenced by a jury of their peers. All have legal representation and are allowed to be in contact with their families. How are them crazy pills working?

I assume this statement should have been followed by a series of



or

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Dubious Weasle

While I am against the use of Guantanamo bay I feel it's necessary to point out that the "UN" didn't say anything of the sort.

"Five independent experts" for the UN Human rights commission said that Guantanamo should be shut down. This does not equal the UN nor is it a UN declaration or anything of the sort. Now, once again I agree with their statement but it's extremely inaccurate to describe their statement as "the UN says."

When the UN "says" something it means there was a vote. When a commission says something it means that there was a decision by one of the advisory panels. In this case, more along the lines of a House committee. The committee may make a call but it rarely means anything until congress votes on it.

Right, this is meaningless. A vote by the general Assemby would be symbolic, a Vote by the Security Council would really mean something. So, "the UN" has said nothing of the sort. A Senate Commitee has "said" that various internet software & computer companies 'shouldn't" bow to Red China's censorship demands. Do anyone think that has the authority of Law now?

I'll point out that under the Geneva Convention, the International Red Cross has the unique & sole duty to Inspect under that body of treaties. The USA has given the Red Cross full and unrestricted access. I am not sure if legally (under the Geneva Conventions) we can give other agencies the same. The prisoners aren't zoo animals there for a show. Allowing everyone in to have a "lookie-loo" is degrading in of itself- and the Red Cross has said so. Thus, the UN is asking for something I don't think we can give them- not suprisingly.

[UselessGit]

Originally Posted by Pjen

We no longer confine in great numbers for poverty or madness, but continue to do so for criminality

Fair enough. Although one could argue that most crime is a result of poverty and/or madness... at least the rich get tried (I remembered the trial part this time...) and sentenced just like the poor.

Ok, let's try this:



Sorry for going off-topic; in a feeble attempt at getting on board, I would want to express my belief that the USA should indeed shut Gitmo down--it's doing much more to America than it does for it--but never because the UN said so (being aware that the UN has, indeed, not done so). In fact, the USA should never do anything the UN tells them to. It's a trend we have to start somewhere.

Seriously.

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I'll point out that under the Geneva Convention, the International Red Cross has the unique & sole duty to Inspect under that body of treaties. The USA has given the Red Cross full and unrestricted access.

Have you read what the Red Cross had to say about Guantanamo? One article. My favorite part of this article is this statement:

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

That article was written 28 MONTHS ago. So much for due course.

The year after that article in 2004, the Red Cross AGAIN re-stated their concerns, as seen in this article. The article starts: "The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday U.S. officials have failed to address concerns about significant problems in the treatment of terrorism suspects held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by UselessGit

In fact, the USA should never do anything the UN tells them to. It's a trend we have to start somewhere.

1. Why?

2. When have we ever done what the UN told us?

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Have you read what the Red Cross had to say about Guantanamo? One article. My favorite part of this article is this statement: That article was written 28 MONTHS ago. So much for due course.

The year after that article in 2004, the Red Cross AGAIN re-stated their concerns, as seen in this article. The article starts: "The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday U.S. officials have failed to address concerns about significant problems in the treatment of terrorism suspects held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

But they are only writing that report as the USA has given them full & unrestricted access. The ICRC has concerns, sure. They have "concerns' over many things under their juristiction. The USA is working with the ICRC to address those concerns. True, we may not make the ICRC 100% satisfied, but we are working with them, and giving them full access.

Not every nation does or has allowed the ICRC full access:
http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1995/1/28_2.html
"China Says No to Free Red Cross Prison Visits Beijing cannot allow the International
Committee of the Red Cross unsupervised visits with any of China's 1.285
million prisoners, a senior prison official said Friday.
China also had told the ICRC it was not obliged to allow outside scrutiny
of 2,679 "counter-revolutionaries" in its 690 prisons because they are not
political prisoners ....

http://www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burm.../msg00021.html
"to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to
visit the country's prison labour campjs, ICRC officials
said yesterday.

"The visits will start this Friday," ICRC head-of-
delegation Leon de Riedmatten. "This is an important
task."

Riedmatten said the government's decision to allow ICRC
inspections of prison labour camps was an important step
forward in cooperation with the international
organization, whose main task is to monitor and assure
standard protection for political prisoners worldwide.

ICRC closed its Burma office in 1995 due to lack of
cooperation with authorities on prisoner protection"

http://www.pownetwork.org/docs/part1.htm
"...after Democratic of Vietnam (DRV) wartime actions regarding American prisoners became well documented. Those actions ranged from a refusal to allow ICRC inspections of POW camps, the use of brutal torture, .."

http://www.answers.com/topic/prisoner-of-war
"Although the North Koreans promised to respect the Geneva Convention in the Korean War, they refused to recognize the impartial status of the Red Cross and denied it access to the territory they controlled."

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Not every nation does or has allowed the ICRC full access:

So? The U.S. is more cooperative with the Red Cross than several totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorships have been. Are we supposed to be impressed?

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

But they are only writing that report as the USA has given them full & unrestricted access...
[Sniped post for brevity]

...Dude. Nice bunch of completely irrelevent cites. Can I let you in on a secret? Most of the people at Guantanemo Bay are not terrorists. Most of the people at Guantanemo Bay were not Taliban. You have been lied to. The International Red Cross are reporting back on the treatment of largely innocent people. That is the point you seem to be missing. Only 5% of the 517 people at Guantanemo Bay were captured in battle with US forces. There is not one high value Taliban detainee at the prison. There are no Taliban government officials. There are no Police Chiefs. There are no "Mayors."

There were people handed to US Forces for bounty payments. The US offered "millions of dollars" in bounty payments to the Afghani and Pakistani people. And the people stepped up to the plate, turning in their neighbours, their enemies, random taxi drivers, and travellers on the borders. Some two hundred people have been released from Guantanemo, and reading just a random sampling of their stories back up the contention that people were often "randomly gathered" rather than "captured on the battlefields."

"But they are lying!" You will probably rebut. "I trust the administration and I trust our military!" Feel free to use this arguement. But just be aware that your arguement is based completely on faith. The evidence that has been made public on the Guantanemo detainees is absolutely pathetic. Feel free to read the Denbeaux report, and when you come back feel free to give us your rebuttals.
http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_r...al_2_08_06.pdf
...and if you don't trust the report, because you feel the authors have a "bias" against the US, all the released information is available on the net with a bit of googling, here is a sampling:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/detainees/list.html
So the US allows more access to Guantanemo Bay to the International Red Cross than Tibet does. Do you think that matters to some poor guy locked up for three years because he was wearing a casio watch?

[UselessGit]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

1. Why?

2. When have we ever done what the UN told us?

Dangit, did I wander into GD again?!? I thought the existence of "Why" had been succesfully eradicated by a celebrated shaved space-rodent in the '70s... The main reason for ignoring the UN is that while it may not be the most evil regime in recent history (not a snipe at the Bush administration), it is structurally unsound and terminally inefficient if not entirely useless; an expensive, global exercise in futility, if you will. As for the US having done exactly that: keep up the good work! John Bolton may be crazier than a barrel of minks but even a broken watch is right twice a day, right?

Considering their concerns is just common courtesy, being happy to listen to opposing opinions and all that, but it's ridiculous to expect the USA to consider the UN as any sort of authority. I'm not an American, though, so I may be way off. Probably am, come to think of it.