Guantanamo in Iraq?

Great Debates
1

If you can get away with it at Guantanamo and Bagram, why not try it in Iraq.
I think I discern a pattern here:

*Red Cross denied access to PoWs

Up to 3,000 Iraqis - some of them civilians - believed to be gagged, bound, hooded and beaten at US camps close to Baghdad airport

Ed Vulliamy in Baghdad
Sunday May 25, 2003
The Observer

The United States is illegally holding thousands of Iraqi prisoners of war and other captives without access to human rights officials at compounds close to Baghdad airport, The Observer has learnt.
There have also been reports of a mutiny last week by prisoners at an airport compound, in protest against conditions. The uprising was ‘dealt with’ by the Americans, according to a US military source.

The International Committee of the Red Cross so far has been denied access to what the organisation believes could be as many as 3,000 prisoners held in searing heat. All other requests to inspect conditions under which prisoners are being held have been met with silence or been turned down.

There is circumstantial evidence that prisoners are being gagged and hooded, in the manner of the Afghans and other captives held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - treatment in itself questionable under international law.

Unlike the Afghans in Cuba, there is no doubt about the status of these captives, whether PoWs or civilians arrested for looting or other crimes under military occupation: all have the right, under the laws of war, to be visited and documented by the International Red Cross. ‘There is no argument about the situation with regard to the Iraqi armed forces and even the Fedayeen Saddam,’ said the ICRC’s spokeswoman in Baghdad, Nada Doumani.’*

2

And today’s question is- why is the US media not picking this up? Is this continued defiance of the Conventions just not news in the US?

3

As the article says, the problem is that, unlike the Afghani case, here they cannot violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter of it as well. I expect that the Red Cross will be let in as soon as the international pressure heats up. These are probably people the U.S. has identified as interesting for intelligence reasons, and the fact that they are reported to be bound, gagged, and hooded, suggests that they don’t want them talking to each other to compare stories and so forth.

Some people will of course speculate further on what is going on. And others will scream for them to back up their speculations. But the fact is, without international observation to keep track of things, people have every right to be suspicious of what is going on. For all we know, the “mutiny” could have simply been a convienient way to dispose of various characters. Again, pure specualtion, but speculation the U.S. deserves to have thrown at it if it refuses to follow proceedure and disclose what it is doing to these people and why. And the only way to lay to rest things like that is to let international authorities see what’s going on. Anything less is a scary rejection of Western liberal ideals of transparency and due process.

When some other country does it, it’s a sign of their complete depravity. When we do it, you have to understand that there were important exigent circumstances.

4

I like that turn of phrase.

5

If you can get away with it at Guantanamo and Bagram, why not try it in Iraq.

I thought the ICRC was visiting Guantanamo? According to this press release they’ve been there for over a year.

6

And they had to fight to get there, and they still maintain (quietly as is there modus operandi) that the US is failing in its duties under the conventions.

The ICRC is definitely not visiting the Iraq POWs in the early days, as was the case with Guantanamo and Bagram- the US has apparently learnt that it can get away with avoiding the ICRC for a period of time until the heat gets too much.

BTW apparently the Brits have allowed full access to the ICRC in the South.

7

Up to 3,000 Iraqis - some of them civilians - believed to be gagged, bound, hooded and beaten at US camps close to Baghdad airport … in searing heat…

So in other words, just like before we got there. Sounds to me like we’re just trying to make them feel comfortable by giving them the environment they’re used to. It’s like keeping the new fish floating in the bag for a while when you stick it in the new aquarium. Let it get adjusted.

8

This isn’t even almost humorous.

9

We don’t care. We dont have to care. We’re the Americans!

10

If you give them “american style” comfort and freedom, they’ll start rioting in the streets, looting, and cursing those who gave them the freedom and comfort. It’s safer to keep the most dangerous of them locked up for the time being. They won’t know what they’re missing, as they never did.

11

Oh, how the US moaned when the Geneva Convention protection was denied to their miscellaneous POWs.

Not a mention yet that I have found in the US press of this. Why not?

The US entered a treaty to afford protection to captured POWs and now seems to consider itself exempt whilst complaining to the ICRC about Iraq’s treatment of US POWs.

Doesn’t read well in the rest of the world!

12

Or maybe we do care…………

News for the patient, from the Red Cross itself:

So, apparently, the Red Cross was visiting the sites in question before the OP even hit the board.

The first prisoners arrived at Guantanamo on Jan. 11; the Red Cross arrived on Jan. 18. That’s seven days. At least they didn’t have to “fight” for very long.

13

The original report which I posted quoted the ICRC’s spokeswoman in Baghdad, Nada Doumani:

'The ICRC has gained access to prisoners held in camps at Umm Qasr in the south. But with regard to the larger numbers reportedly held in Baghdad, said Doumani, ‘we are still waiting for the green light, more than a month after the end of the conflict. This is in breach of the third Geneva Convention.’ She said the laws of war should give the ICRC access ‘as quickly as possible’.

The ICRC has a policy of not publicising non-compliance by parties until all other methods fail, always acting in the best interests of the POWs. Much of what they say early in a dispute is anodyne; it is only later that vthe truth emerges:

re Guantanamo:

'To date, 55 out of 158 men have been interviewed, in private and at length, and the Red Cross has announced that it will deliver its first report in a month’s time. Beyond this, it will say only that the fact that its delegates have been seen to emerge unscathed from their talks alone with the men has already done something to defuse tension at the base, where prisoners had been perceived by their captors as wild and dangerous animals.

Since the Red Cross is the only organisation with access to the men, what is its actual role, and what influence or power can it exert?

The strength of the ICRC, but also the cause of some of the ambiguity that surrounds it, is that it acts in secret. Neutrality and confidentiality remain as central to its operations as they did in the Franco-Prussian war.’

my emphasis.

Apparently this has also allowed you to quote selectively from the ICRC. Although they were allowed ‘access’ to Camp X-Ray there were considerable difficulties in securing the POWs’ GC rights that continue to this day.

All ICRC reports read as if ‘things are going quite well’ and ‘the ICRC hopes for improvement’, this even when dealing with major atrocities rather than relatively minor (but disgusting) actions at Guantanamo.

And also note that the ICRC was only admitted to Guantanamo after world-wide outcry about Rumsfeld’s and Ashcroft’s initial statements that the ICRC had no standing in the matter because the POWs were to be called ‘Illegal Combattants’.

Additionally my comment on ‘getting away with it’ referred to the sub-headline as well:

‘Up to 3,000 Iraqis - some of them civilians - believed to be gagged, bound, hooded and beaten at US camps close to Baghdad airport.’ as well as delay in ICRC access.’

Any mention yet of this in the US Press?