According to the BBC the four Brits illegally detained at Gitmo are to be released today.
Expect more revelations from them about the torture regime at the Cuba Concentration Camp.
What explanation will the Bush apologists for torture make about releasing these ‘dangerous’ men back in to society after all their posturing about their threat to the American way of life.
Gitmo Kidnappees bah… illegally detained bah… the torture regime ah… Cuba Concentration Camp bah… the Bush apologists for torture bah… ‘dangerous’ bah… posturing about their threat to the American way of life bah…
I suppose there’s a discussing hidden away in here somewhere, but it’s hard to see for all the idiotic hyperbole and strawmen.
I think the debate is pretty clear, actually: what exactly, under due process of law, has changed such that these men are now to be released rather than imprisoned, which was not the case three years ago?
it takes a long time to check references. Give the Bushies a break!
More information:
And the debate is SentientMeat says- how does the Bush administration compose a consistent history about what they have done to these people.
Either they are criminals or they are to be allowed to be free.
Either they are POWs or Illegal combattants
Either they are a threat to the US or they are not
Either they should be tried before a tribunal or given the right to appeal to the Supreme Court
Either they should have attorneys or they shouldn’t
Either they were subjected to torture or they were not
Either they were ‘taken on the battlefield’ or they were kidnapped from a third country.
Composing a coherent hsitory and explanation will be well nigh impossible.
And US Army regs (Ch. 1-5 & 1-6 on page 2) (PDF) make it crystal clear that everyone starts off with POW status which can only be changed to criminal or illegal combatant by a fully documented tribunal. The US is clearly ignoring its own regulations in a manner which no Western government has to my mind attempted since WW2.
It looks like it is happening- Jack Straw the Foreign Secretary is to make a statement about this to the commons this afternoon- just reported on BBC TV news.
Kidnappees:
Not taken on the battlefield but kidnapped in third world quasi dictatorships with limited rule of law:
“Moazzam was taken to Guantánamo after being pulled from his bed in Pakistan”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163911.stm
“Richard Belmar, 23, from London
Held by Pakistani authorities before being moved to Cuba”
“Moazzam Begg, 36, from Birmingham
One of the two men who face a potential military tribunal.
The father-of-four from the Sparkbrook area had been held by the CIA in Pakistan in February 2002.”
“Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London
He has joint Zambian and British nationality. His family moved to the UK in the 1970s. He is a former motorcycle courier and was raised as a Catholic before converting to Islam in his 20s
He was held in Zambia before the local authorities placed him in the custody of the Americans. It is reported that he arrived in Zambia after leaving Afghanistan.”
Torture Regime:
“A British detainee at Guantanamo Bay has told his lawyer he was tortured using the ‘strappado’, a technique common in Latin American dictatorships in which a prisoner is left suspended from a bar with handcuffs until they cut deeply into his wrists.”
“According to the memos, the abuse was ‘systematic’, with frequent beatings, chokings, and sleep deprivation for days on end. Religious humiliation was also routine, with one agent reporting a case in which a prisoner was wrapped in an Israeli flag.”
“Reports of identical treatment were first published by The Observer last March, in interviews with three British detainees who had been released - Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed. They were then strenuously denied by the Pentagon. But according to another FBI memo dated 10 May, when an agent asked Guantanamo’s former commander, Major General Geoffrey Miller, about techniques the FBI regarded as illegal, he was told that the interrogators ‘had their marching orders from the Sec[retary] Def[ense]’, Donald Rumsfeld. General Miller told the US Congress under oath that although Rumsfeld had authorised the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners at Guantanamo, this had never happened.”
Appologists for torture:
“Alberto Gonzales, currently his chief legal adviser, told Mr Bush in early 2002 that the White House was not bound by the Geneva conventions in dealing with al-Qaida and the Taliban.
In August that year he helped orchestrate and approve a justice department memorandum arguing that interrogators could use techniques which the Red Cross has since described as “tantamount to torture”. “
Dangerous:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092807/posts
“Guantanamo Four are too dangerous to free, says US
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 08/03/2004)
The United States has disclosed its case against the Guantanamo Four, telling the Telegraph that the four imprisoned British Muslims were trained al-Qa’eda terrorists who would return to the fight if released.”
Threat to the American Way of life:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092807/posts
“Senior US officials, abandoning their policy of keeping secret the details of the allegations against the Guantanamo detainees, said they were convinced that if freed all four would pose “a serious threat” to America and Britain.”
Concentration Camp:
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck……
Plenty for debate here I think!
Well that is simply untrue, isn’t it?
A damned far cry from your version of the truth.
Let me spell out that quote in context, dear Brutus:
Bolding and square brackets mine. POW is the default - it is only changed by tribunal if there is a doubt about their status, such as whether they might be illegal combatants. Are you suggesting there is such a doubt? Fine - they get a tribunal. Are you suggesting there is no doubt that they are definitely illegal combatants? Read the regs again - a tribunal is still required no matter how open-and-shut you think the case is.
They are not ‘Enemy Prisoners of War’ (EPW). They are ‘Enemy Combatants’,which is ‘other legal status’ as ‘determined by competent authority’ (CinC).
No tribunals are mandatory for EC.
I too read the whole section and concur with you, Sentient. I tried to reply but I just could not get the pdf to give me quotes and wasn’t willing to type it all out by hand.
IAW means ‘in accordance with’.
We have been having this argument for some three years now- much of it was lost in the great hamster massacre of 2002.
Despite such quotes from incontroverable sources about the GC and POW status, all we managed to show was that if people wanted to bend the interpretation of international law to their own political agenda, then they would do so and refuse to enter into rational and cited argument. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
The US contingent will be waking up and going to work soon- let’s wait to see what arguments are posed against this post from that side of the pond!
Read my post again. What do you think the words in red mean?
You might agree that US Army regulation 190-8 should be ignored here - that is a different debate. I merely pointed out that the US was ignoring its own regulations in this case.
“1–6. Tribunals
a. In accordance with Article 5, GPW, if any doubt arises as to
whether a person, having committed a belligerent act and been taken
into custody by the US Armed Forces, belongs to any of the categories
enumerated in Article 4, GPW, such persons shall enjoy the
protection of the present Convention until such time as their status
has been determined by a competent tribunal.b. A competent tribunal shall determine the status of any person
not appearing to be entitled to prisoner of war status who has
committed a belligerent act or has engaged in hostile activities in
aid of enemy armed forces, and who asserts that he or she is entitled
to treatment as a prisoner of war, or concerning whom any doubt of
a like nature exists.
c. A competent tribunal shall be composed of three commissioned
officers, one of whom must be of a field grade. The senior
officer shall serve as President of the Tribunal. Another non-voting
officer, preferably an officer in the Judge Advocate General Corps,
shall serve as the recorder.
d. The convening authority shall be a commander exercising general
courts-martial convening authority.
e. Procedures.
(1) Members of the Tribunal and the recorder shall be sworn.
The recorder shall be sworn first by the President of the Tribunal.
The recorder will then administer the oath to all voting members of
the Tribunal to include the President.
(2) A written record shall be made of proceedings.
(3) Proceedings shall be open except for deliberation and voting
by the members and testimony or other matters which would compromise
security if held in the open.2 AR 190–8/OPNAVINST 3461.6/AFJI 31–304/MCO 3461.1 • 1 October 1997
(4) Persons whose status is to be determined shall be advised of
their rights at the beginning of their hearings.
(5) Persons whose status is to be determined shall be allowed to
attend all open sessions and will be provided with an interpreter if
necessary.
(6) Persons whose status is to be determined shall be allowed to
call witnesses if reasonably available, and to question those witnesses
called by the Tribunal. Witnesses shall not be considered
reasonably available if, as determined by their commanders, their
presence at a hearing would affect combat or support operations. In
these cases, written statements, preferably sworn, may be submitted
and considered as evidence.
(7) Persons whose status is to be determined have a right to
testify or otherwise address the Tribunal.
(8) Persons whose status is to be determined may not be compelled
to testify before the Tribunal.
(9) Following the hearing of testimony and the review of documents
and other evidence, the Tribunal shall determine the status of
the subject of the proceeding in closed session by majority vote.
Preponderance of evidence shall be the standard used in reaching
this determination.
(10) A written report of the tribunal decision is completed in
each case. Possible board determinations are:
(a) EPW.
(b) Recommended RP, entitled to EPW protections, who should
be considered for certification as a medical, religious, or volunteer
aid society RP.
(c) Innocent civilian who should be immediately returned to his
home or released.
(d) Civilian Internee who for reasons of operational security, or
p r o b a b l e c a u s e i n c i d e n t t o c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , s h o u l d b edetained.
f. The recorder shall prepare the record of the Tribunal within
three work days of the announcement of the tribunal’s decision. The
record will then be forwarded to the first Staff Judge Advocate in
the internment facility’s chain of command.
g. Persons who have been determined by a competent tribunal
not to be entitled to prisoner of war status may not be executed,
imprisoned, or otherwise penalized without further proceedings to
determine what acts they have committed and what penalty should
be imposed. The record of every Tribunal proceeding resulting in a
determination denying EPW status shall be reviewed for legal sufficiency
when the record is received at the office of the Staff Judge
Advocate for the convening authority.”
And one further regulations is particularly relevant here:
Also note 1-5 4)b & c’s unambiguous proscription of sensory deprivation, collective punishment, insults and threat of violence.
Those are the words you are going through great pains to ignore?
Now what do you think those words in teal mean? Were you absent for the whole ‘enemy combatant’ debate? The designation of ‘Enemy Combatant’, as made by a ‘competent authority’ (President Bush), removes legal doubt as to their status.
You guys are going to be chasing your tails all day if you keep fixating on the legal status of EPW; These fellows are not EPWs.
That only applies if a tribunal is necessary to determine their status. In our happy case, it was not.
The competent tribunal detailed immediately after, in section 1-6.
If President Bush is the “competent authority”, could you direct me to the proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual of Courts Martial of section 1-5 3) in which he acted as presiding officer?
Section 1-5 a 2) clearly states that everyone requires UCMJ proceedings to have their legal status changed from POW, without exception. Again, you might agree with ignoring the regulations, but your attempt to weasel and squirm your beloved administration out of the unambigious fact that they are ignoring them is sadly characteristic doublethink.
No, that is untrue. The only people who get the tribunal are those whose status is in doubt to begin with (for the 3rd time):
You obviously don’t like the rules, but selectively ignoring relevant clauses doesn’t do much to bolster your case.