BS: Guantanamo survivors

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 10:44 AM

'"To my knowledge, Americans, Aussies, etc., do not cut the balls off their prisoners or skin them alive."

The writer obviously hadn't bumped into my pal's, wife's solicitor.'

Tell ME about that! Good one, Teribus (imagine a very high squeaky voice saying that.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:18 AM

Fair enough, Wolfgang. Since I haven't been a hostage in the hands of Lebanese terrorists, or an "illegal combatant" (or someone accused of being such) in the hands of the US authorities), I'd probably have been better to have said "comparable to", in the words of Terry Waites and John McCarthy, rather than "worse than. (Of course if the treatment of prisoners by our allies in the "Northern Alliance " is included, "worse than" would have been pretty clearly true.)

And so far as the run of German prisoners in 1945 is concerned, it's probably no more accurate to talk in blanket terms about them as "Nazi prisoners" than to refer in the same all-embracing way to those who fought in Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance and the invading forces as "Taliban prisoners". Moreover I accept that many of these German captives will have been treated in ways that offended against the accepted standard. Real senior Nazis were of course treated much much better.

But the correct standard to apply for Guantanamo Bay is not the conditions which may hold in US domestic prisons, but those internationally agreed, and contained in the Geneva Conventions. In a sense, it is the business of the US authorities how they run their own domestic prisons, subject to their constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" - but that is not so when it comes to prisoners taken in foreign wars, where internationally agreed standards are applicable.

As for "survivors", that seems a very fair term to use for people who have survived this kind of experience. The number of physical deaths is not the only mesure of this kind of thing. (Though again, three of those released had been in the infamous massacre in lorry containers early in their captivity - "early in their ordeal they survived a massacre perpetrated by Afghanistan's Northern Alliance troops, who herded hundreds of prisoners into lorry containers and locked them in, so that people started to suffocate. Iqbal described how only 20 of 300 prisoners in each container lived, and then only because someone made holes in its side with a machine gun - an action which killed yet more prisoners.)

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 07:08 AM

sorry, teribus.

yes, he did all that.
no , i don't agree with him.

but he's still entitled to be treated according to the rules of the geneva convention.

best wishes


freda

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 07:03 AM

duh..

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 06:48 AM

Hang on freda, so this poor unfortunate Aussie David Hicks

1. Converted to Islam
2. The went off and fought in Kosovo
3. Then went to Khasmir and fought there
4. then toddled off to Afghanistan to fight there

No bloody wonder the Americans are interested in this clown.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 06:41 AM

"To my knowledge, Americans, Aussies, etc., do not cut the balls off their prisoners or skin them alive."

The writer obviously hadn't bumped into my pal's, wife's solicitor.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 06:25 AM

Documentary about David Hicks to be screened on ABC (Oz) this week

AM - Tuesday, 16 March , 2004 08:24:00
Reporter: Tanya Nolan

TONY EASTLEY: A documentary to be aired on Australian television this week, attempts to reveal, for the first time, what led Australian David Hicks to become a Taliban fighter.

The President versus David Hicks tracks his life from Adelaide on to Pakistan and then on to Afghanistan. In the film his father, Terry Hicks examines his son's letters to try and find some answers.

Along the way, Terry Hicks meets the man who was in the cell next to his son in Guantanamo Bay. The film is produced and co-directed by independent film-maker Curtis Levy.

Tanya Nolan reports.

TANYA NOLAN: The president versus David Hicks shows how David Hicks found purpose and identity in the teachings of Islam. It charts his service with the Kosovo Liberation Army, then his travels to Pakistan and Afghanistan where he documents his conversion to Islam through numerous letters to his family.

His father Terry Hicks makes those private letters public for the first time. LETTER EXCERPT: 4th of March, 2000. Dear Family, Hello again... Happenings here in Pakistan seem to be way out of my control…

TERRY HICKS: I don't what he's talking about, which is out of his control, whether he's heavily influenced by other people at this stage, on his decision to turn around and go back into Kashmir, I don't know… we're not sure. I think it's a bit confusing here at this stage.

TANYA NOLAN: From his training and fighting with the Islamic fundamentalist paramilitary group Lashkar-e-Toiba in Kashmir, it's not quite clear what drew David Hicks to Afghanistan and the Taliban.

LETTER EXCERPT: Afghanistan is in the middle of a very, very heavy war in the north, no waiting here. I have arranged to go directly to the front.

TANYA NOLAN: What is clear is that he was considered by those who knew him, to be a good Muslim, something Terry Hicks was able to hear first hand from Jon Mohammed, the man who occupied a cell next to his son, at Guantanamo Bay.

Upon their capture the US stated that the detainees were significant members of the Taliban.

Jon Mohammed disputes that and says members of the group that was at war with the Taliban, the Afghani Northern Alliance, overstated their importance so they could get hold of a larger bounty.

JOH MOHAMMED (translated): The fact is, that our own people, our own Afghans handed us over, saying we were the leaders. For the sake of money, they'd arrest you and say that you were a leader. Anyone they catch is accused of being a Taliban leader.

TANYA NOLAN: The film maker Curtis Levy says he found a witness to the transaction that took place when David Hicks was handed to US authorities

CURTIS LEVY: One of the translators who worked on our film was travelling in the area where David was captured, and met a policeman who had been working in the garrison when David was arrested and claims that he saw this transaction happen, and that he said it was a common practice, but that in David's case, the figure was $15,000.

But I think the practice of handing over bounty for suspected Taliban fighters, or al-Qaeda or whatever, was quite common, and I think the American military makes no secret of that practice.

TANYA NOLAN: These claims are not verified in the film, although it does show an interview with members of the Northern Alliance about David Hicks' capture, but like much of the documentary, it leaves more questions than answers. ...........

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Hrothgar
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 05:28 AM

Is it a valid point that the prisoners had as much right to be in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban as the US and other foreign troops had to be there fighting against the Taliban?

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 04:52 AM

Some graphic reports in the British papers from the young men who have been released after being held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay for so long. Pretty graphic and appalling stuff it is. I'm reminded of accounts by hostages like Brian Keenan who were held prisoner by terrorists in Lebanon - though the conditions in these current cases appear to have been even worse.
.....
Do I get the impressioin that for Teribus, so long as it is possible to find someone else with an even worse record, it doesn't really matter that much what gets done by "our side"? (McGrath)

McGrath, you are the who has started the comparisons in your very first post and later go on doing further comparisons. Why do you wonder now that someone else reads what you offer for comparison and finds your own comparative evaluation of what you have read is not really backed up by the original documents.

As for your repeated comparison with the treatment of the German prisoners (you write 'Nazi prisoners', but I'm sure you know that not all of them were Nazis) after World War II: Let us skip the Eastern Ally for everybody knows that of their prisoners far less than one fourth did come back, most of them in 1955, ten years after the end of the war, roughly twelve years after being captured on average.

The number of prisoners who died in the hands of Western Allies is given with up to one Million (an exaggeration I guess and I admit the feeding at first was a real problem). There are innumerous reports of maltreatment, though I must say that by far the most of these reports are from prisoners in the hands of The Americans and the French, not from those in the hands of the British.

To give you an impression I cite (in my translation) from a letter of the council of the EKD (the united protestant churches in Germany) to the Allied forces:

"30th of January, 1946

Since nine months the weapons are silent...In the last couple of months former German soldiers have been returned from captivity, frequently in a wretched state. They have brought to the families the last sometimes uncertain news from tens of thousands comrades died in the camps. The reports we enclose with this letter are just a small selection from the daily incoming news and calls for help. ...Nothing is so tormenting like being in uncertainty about the fate of the dearest and nearest....

Please help to remove the obstacles preventing Millions of German prisoners from being allowed to write home and to receive news from home. Take care that the names of the innumerable many who have died in captivity will be announced. Ensure a humane treatment of all prisoners."

My impression is, McGrath, that you have used this particular comparison not from knowledge but just bacause 'even the Nazi prisoners were treated better' sounds so good. Another trick by you in using words to get an effect is your choice of the thread title. By the use of the word 'survivors' you cleverly and nearly subliminally induce the feeling in the reader that surviving Guantanamo is something which is rare and in need of special mention.

In general, though I have contributed here too, I do think that the game of comparisons with very different situations started here with the first post is futile. The conditions at Guantanomo should be judged by the usual standards of treating prisoners in the USA. Compared with that I find that the physical harm and hardship is not worse than the usual US prison conditions (which are substandard from a European point of view, by the way). The psychological hardship, however, is much worse, for there is no appeal possible, no trial and no clearly communicated end of the term. This treatment of prisoners in Guantanomo I consider to be in blatant violation of human rights. There should be no place of earth free from protection by the law. The USA have created such a place in Guantanamo and later commentaries about international law will use this example to show what never should be allowed anywhere anymore.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 11:51 PM

Round 2.

But, it was NOT official company policy in Vietnam. Yes, it happened, and some of those guys were tried for having stepped outside policy. I maybe should have clarified that to start, Greg.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 11:49 PM

Point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 10:09 PM

To my knowledge, Americans, Aussies, etc., do not cut the balls off their prisoners or skin them alive

The miscellaneous body parts taken as souveniers in Viet Nam & elsewhere don't count, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 09:46 PM

(I may be worng, too.)

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 09:27 PM

I don't think Guantanomo is officially Cuban. One of those deals left over from a previous admin. Much like Embassies are sovereign territory of the country assingned to them, not the host country on whose soil the embassy sits. (I amy be wrong.)

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 09:15 PM

you're a real joker, sorefingers. ha ha. waddaya think about bamboo shoots under their fingernails? that'd be a real riot, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 08:30 PM

Mr NW I have changed my opinion. Instead of shooting them in the goolies I now think it would be better for all, if the US would let them go and encourage them ot go back to training camp - perhaps next time they would get it right?

Not!

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:55 PM

Well, if I had to choose gaolers, at least Fidel looks more like me than Bush does... (And my Dad did play football with Che's father down in the Argentine, or at least he used to say he did.)

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:39 PM

Kevin - Why not let Fidel deal with it - Tho you may not like the consequences.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 06:20 PM

Well, officially it's Cuba. Maybe they should let Fidel Castro handle the whole business.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 06:14 PM

..coercion, forced confessions under duress..

it doesn't matter that they may not have been hung upside down & whipped or whatever, what matters is that they were put under long term duress and forced to admit to being terrorists when they weren't - if the times hadn't NOT matched up - they would have been incarcerated for the rest of their lives ........

and people would have said, well they admitted it....they deserved it

is this China or America?

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:45 PM

Although, if it ever were to happen in any country, I would put my bets on the US, above all others, including my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:39 PM

I certainly agree with you there McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:33 PM

The US military has not been entirely exempt from carrying out atrocities in the past.

The difference from My Lai and stuff like that is that in this case, there is no doubt that whatever has been happening in Guantanamo Bay has happened under the orders of the people higher up. No question of being able to argue it's all down to some bunch of young soldiers who'd been screwed up by battle-fatigue and too many of the wrong drugs and so forth.

If the reports are accurate, it shouldn't just be the hand-on prison guards and their immediate commanders who stand trial, but the people higher up, all the way the top.

But of course that won't happen. That never happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:31 PM

Come to think of it, if Castro is the ultimate authority of Guantanamo Bay, I wonder what would happen if he served legal notice to the US, to have it shut down?...what a hoot! Where would the US military set it up next? North Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:22 PM

There is only one reason to keep prisoners in Guantanamo and that is to avoid having detainees avail themselves of rights guaranteed under the American Constitution. Why should an American administration want this, other than to retain the power to do things with their prisoners, not permitted on American soil, which could include torture.

The current government has argued successfully in US court, that because Guantanamo Bay is on Cuban soil, Fidel Castro is the ultimate arbitrator of what occurs there. Now that's a bizarre concept.

However the government is having a bit of trouble, after seeking this ruling, as it still wants to use the American law when convenient for it's side, in cases where it would like to prosecute.   

The government can't have it both ways

I would prefer treatment in the hands of the Yanks too, I'm not a Muslim, but preferably not at the hands of the military and preferably on American soil, where I could avail myself of a guarantee of rights under US law. The US military has not been entirely exempt from carrying out atrocities in the past and that was in a situation where they were not guaranteed immunity from American scrutiny and law.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:38 PM

Do I get the impressioin that for Teribus, so long as it is possible to find someone else with an even worse record, it doesn't really matter that much what gets done by "our side"? That's the way terrorists seek to justify what they do.

Sooner the Americans than their allies in the Northern Alliance pt the Turkish police? Of course there's always the possibility that if you don't cooperate you might be passed over to people like that for outsourced interrogation.

It's worth noting that, after months of interrogation, the three young men from Tipton did confess that they had been in a meeting with Bin Laden, after denying that thye had, and saying thy'd been in England at teh time.

Only problem was MI5 then came up with the proof that they had been telling the truth all along, until the interrogators forced a false confession out of them. How many other prisoners have confessed to similar things in the same circumstances, but without a Government behind them that is at least half-heartedly trying to make things a bit fairer?

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:16 PM

To my knowledge, Americans, Aussies, etc., do not cut the balls off their prisoners or skin them alive. That has remained the domain of groups like the Taliban, Iragi police, Turkish police. AI is usually a good barometer of human rights violations. Frankly, if I had the choice, I'd prefer treatment at the hands of the Yanks.

HOWEVER, he has a right to a trial. And that ain't bein' attended to.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:01 PM

Er, stigweard, go back and read the Observer article, then read the accounts of messers Keenan, MacCarthy and Waite. You will see the difference.

Re: The "Tipton Three" - Observer Article, two references

That their first interrogations by British investigators - from both MI5 and the SAS - took place in December 2001 and January 2002 when they were still being held at a detention camp in Afghanistan. Guns were held to their heads during their questioning in Afghanistan by American soldiers, and physical abuse and beatings were rife. At this point, after weeks of near starvation as prisoners of the Northern Alliance, all three men were close to death.

Ahmed described an interrogation session which took place before he left Afghanistan by an officer of MI5 and another official who said he was from the Foreign Office: 'All the time I was kneeling with a guy standing on the backs of my legs and another holding a gun to my head.

"physical abuse and beatings were rife" ? Sounds pretty general comment when compared to the accounts of those held in Beirut. Note Ahmed does not mention being beaten when he describes his interrogation by the "officer" from MI5. What he does describe, I could vouch for, pretty much the same sort of thing was done to us during escape and evasion exercises and during "Operation Awkward" exercises in training.

Terry Waite - Hezbollah Hostage:
I was chained to a wall by my hands and feet; beaten on the soles of my feet with cable; denied all my human rights, and contact with my family for five years, and given no access to the outside world.

Very specific, personal.

Brian Keenan - Hezbollah Hostage:
During his imprisonment Keenan was chained, blindfolded, beaten and assaulted.

Very specific, personal.

John McCarthy - Islamic Jihad Hostage:
Imprisoned for 1943 days, held in 13 different locations in and around Beirut. He was beaten, always chained to the wall of his cells and allowed no contact with the outside world.

Again very specific, personal.

With the case of the Beirut hostages they were kept chained-up as the norm, they were blindfolded for much of the time or kept in darkness as the norm and beaten for no reason whatsoever.

How much was known about Al-Qaeda prior to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan? Please don't confuse the issue by thinking that war is the opposite of peace - quite simply it isn't. When the 650 detainees found themselves in Guantanamo they were there for a reason. They had to be interrogated and evaluated, that takes time. The information gleaned, irrespective of the role the person being interrogated took in proceedings that led to his capture is valuable and can be used to save life.

Stigweard, you ask - "Does that mean they have no rights at all? That they deserve to have their rights taken away from them because a man with a gun says so?" The short answer to that is "Yes on both counts" and it has nothing whatsoever to do with justice.

MGOH,
"Colin Powells statement that "...we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian way" just does not seem to square with the facts."

How many of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have died in custody Kevin? Be interesting to find out whether or not they would have preferred to remain in Afghanistan as prisoners of the Northern Alliance - their incarceration would definitely have been shorter and their condition on release might not have been living - That's the bottom line Kevin, this is something that is being carried out in deadly earnest, under such circumstances it is best to remember that there are no rules - it's not a game.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 11:51 AM

Well for starters HJ, one scenario, if one followed the rule of law, one would charge them with a specific crime, submit the evidence against them, excluding that which was collected by means of torture, allow them to present evidence in their defence and subject them to a public trial in a reasonable time frame. That much has been considered minimal since 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta and even US law has the Magna Carta as it's foundation.

"38. In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

39. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 11:28 AM

Nice hypothetical question, Hugh, about a situation that has always arisen from tiem to time in a judicial system to which this has always been a pretty central issue, or so we are led to believe - but it sidesteps the questions which have been raised here about what kind of standards our servants ought to comply with, in a "democracy under law".

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 10:45 AM

Question:- If you have reason to believe that you are holding a mis-guided individual who would willingly continue to pose a threat to the community if he/she were released, just like holding a hungry tiger by the tail, JUST WHAT DOES ONE DO??

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 10:30 AM

Well, John McCarthy seems to think that in some ways it was worse. Either way it was vile - and unlike the Lebanon captors, the people running Guantanamo Bay have no worries about the authorities finding out what they are doing and moving in to free their prisoners.

"Captured in the course of an armed struggle" means there was a war going on. It doesn't even necessarily mean there were involved in it. There's always a war going on somewhere.

But in any case it's irelevant. The central,issue is the way in which the US and it's allies treats people it has taken captive, and whether or not this complies with the standard agreed on as basic civilised behaviour in such curcumstances. Whether they are compbatants, or confused civilians.

Some things are not to be defended, even when they are done by your own side. People who justify atrocities carried out by people with whom they share some political or religious beliefs are rightly criticised. That applies just as much when it comes the the US or UK government as it does when it's the IRA or Al Qaeda. Explaining why things happen is one thing, justifying them is another.

The bottom line is, Colin Powells statement that "...we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian way" just does not seem to square with the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Stu
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 09:58 AM

Er, sorry Teribus, but according to the Observer article, they were being systematically beaten, as well as being tortured using a variety of techniques, some more subtle than others (sleep deprivation, food rationing etc).

"In the case of the detainees at Guantanamo, they were captured in the course of an armed struggle" So? Does that mean they have no rights at all? That they deserve to have their rights taken away from them because a man with a gun says so? That's not justice - it's the same sort of oppression the two silly B's claim so much to despise.

Guantanamo has nothing to do with justice, truth or morality, and is simply an instrument of oppression and revenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 08:34 AM

Stop wriggling Kevin - YOU were the one who stated that in your opinion it was worse.

You must also take into account why they were taken:

In the case of those taken by Hezbollah in Beirut - they were hostages, pure and simple, the purpose of their captivity was to exert leverage and draw attention to a "cause". Those captives did not know from one day to the next whether they would live.

In the case of the detainees at Guantanamo, they were captured in the course of an armed struggle. The purpose of their captivity and their interrogation is to gain information. In the pusuance of that, they are not being systematically beaten, they are not chained up in total darkenss, in solitary confinement 24 hours a day. Those deemed to have not been members of Al-Qaeda, or possessing any information relating to that organisation, have been, and are being released.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:57 AM

"There was said to be evidence against three of them but legal technicalities made it inadmissable in court."

For example the "legal technicality" that what people say when they are being tortured isn't admissable evidence - largely because in those circumstances people are likely to say anything, as has been demonstrated time after time.

And what do you base the statement that "they were fighting against our own forces on the side of the Taliban"?

(And even if they had been, would that in any way excuse what appears to have happened? To me that seems the main issue.)

.....................................

Whether what happened to these prisoners is better or worse than what happened in Lebanom, it was clearly comparable in the eyes of some former hostages: -

Here's a quote from an article by Terry Waite, one of the Lebanon captives:

I can recognise the conditions that prisoners are being kept in at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay because I have been there. Not to Cuba's Camp X-Ray, but to the darkened cell in Beirut that I occupied for five years. I was chained to a wall by my hands and feet; beaten on the soles of my feet with cable; denied all my human rights, and contact with my family for five years, and given no access to the outside world.

Because I was kept in very similar conditions, I am appalled at the way we - countries that call ourselves civilised - are treating these captives. Is this justice or revenge?...

... would stand up for the rights of the alleged terrorist and of any other individual facing serious charges. I am not soft on terrorism - I have had too many dealings with it to be so - but I am passionate that we must observe standards of justice. I fear that unless firm action is taken to institute just and fair procedures, the long-term results for the US will be catastrophic.

And here's what John McCarthy, who was imprisoned along with Brian Keenan had to say:

"It seems to me that in this apparent war on terror, which is apparently to sustain and maintain and protect civilisation, we are treating these people in such an inhumane and uncivilised way."

Their case was even more extraordinary than his own, he thought.

"Whilst Brian Keenan, myself, Terry Waite and others were picked up in the streets of Beirut and then held there, these people were arrested and detained in Afghanistan and then shipped somewhere else," said Mr McCarthy.

"They may not even know where they are on the planet, which would add to the terror I would imagine they experienced, I mean the trauma.

"I can have some understanding of what it is like to be forced to wear a hood or blindfold and to be chained up as these prisoners appear to be."

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:33 AM

But, if they are prisoners of war as claimed by the USA (and I'm not a lawyer, nor have I been to Guantanamo Bay - and I bet none of those on this thread who claim to know what it's like have been there either) there's no requirement for a trial. We didn't put German POWs on trial during WW2, we simply held them in captivity until circumstances prevailed where they were no longer likely to take up arms again (which is what I'm led to believe the Convention requires). Surely what needs to happen now is for some mutually-accepted authority (I'd suggest the United Nations but we all know what a useless overpaid bunch of fence-sitters they are) to make a pronouncement about the status of those being held - POWs or not? If they're not POWs, try them soon or let them go. If they are POWs, keep them there until we've eliminated the Taliban and Al Quaeda (which means they'll probably be there for ever).

Maybe I'm too simple-minded, but it seems obvious to me.
Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: GUEST,Keit A o Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:31 AM

There was said to be evidence against three of them but legal technicalities made it inadmissable in court.
They were fighting against our own forces on the side of the Taliban, perhaps the cruelest of all regimes and the one that gave support and succour to Bin Laden's group for the attack of 9 11

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:28 AM

MGOH,

Brian Keenan - Hezbollah Hostage in the Lebanon
In 1985 Keenan was abducted in Beirut by the Hezbollah militia and held as a hostage in their war against the Israeli occupation of the Lebanon and the United States government's support for same. During his imprisonment Keenan was chained, blindfolded, beaten and assaulted in secret locations in the Lebanon, South Beirut, Baalbeck and near the Israeli border. He was moved fifteen times during his captivity, often in car boots or the underside of vehicles and spent one year without anything to read. Keenan was released on August 24th, 1990.

The Tipton Three - US Prisoners at Guantanamo
Interviews with the "Tipton Three" provide for the first time, the fullest picture yet of life inside the camp at Guantanamo.

- In 26 months they were subjected to more than 200 interrogation sessions each.

- That the camp at Guantanamo Bay has a section set aside for those under solitary confinement, in which they were confined for three months after having been wrongly identified by the Americans as having been pictured in a video tape of a meeting in Afghanistan between Osama bin Laden and the leader of the 11 September hijackers Mohamed Atta. In their particular instance they were released from solitary confinement after the UK's MI5 supplied documentary evidence corroborating their stories that they were in the UK at the time.

That is the substance of it - what these three saw and experienced while being held as prisoners of Northern Alliance in Afghanistan has got nothing to do with their time as prisoners of the US military at Guantanamo Bay.

Yet, somehow, MGOH seems to think that their treatment and the conditions they endured in Guantanamo appears to have been even worse than in the case of Brian Keenan. That contention, Kevin, is absolutely ridiculous.

Their account delivered to the Observer in the course of a 12 hour interview did not state that any of them were subjected to anything coming remotely close to the same treatment meeted out to Brian Keenan at the hands of his Hezbollah captors.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 06:57 AM

One of the released captives was picked up in a Taliban jail, allegedly after being taken prisoner when the van driver taking him to Iran from Pakistan on his way backl home to England, took a road that went through a part of Afghanistan which was a long way away from any war zone.

When he got back to England he was immediately released, because there was no reason even to suspect him.

Of course there are three issues here. One is whether there was any reason for the people out in Afghanistan to have some suspicions about what they were doing there, and what they might have been doing. And I think most people would agree that there was reason enough.

But the other thing is whether holding on to them and interrogating them for two years was proportionate. On the basis of the information that has come out, that doesn't seem right.

And the third is the wider one - if is it true that the conditions under which prisoners have been kept and the way in which they have been treated have been as described in these accounts, thinking does anyone really think that this is how a civilised country should behave? As I have pointed out, even at the end of a brutal and savage war, we didn't treat the Nazis like that. There are rules for how people taken prisoner in a war should be treated, and they don't include the kind of stuff we have been hearing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 05:11 AM

its so easy to think you know whats going on in another country. those paki/afghan borders have been very fluid for years. and if there's trouble in one spot, people drive somewhere else to avoid it.


but this is like the middle east threads - is anyone listening?


those english guys are so lucky their govt did the right thing and got them out of there. and the UK negotiators - would they be naive too?

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 04:45 AM

I understand one of the men released from Guantanamo claimed he was in in Pakistan working on web sites and took the wrong bus to discover he was in an armed gang of Taliban in Afghanistan. What bollocks! Any one with half an ounce of gumption would have steered well clear of a war zone. They a very lucky not to be dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 04:14 AM

The people held at G'bay should be allowed the option to stand trial in a court of law that is under UN control or under the control of a neutral country with a proper legal defence.

Evidence can then be presented and a judicial decision reached as to whether these people are innocent or guilty and then punished, plus more importantly if they are a future threat.

They too could present their evidence of maltreatment. If true it would be an embarrasment to the US Govt.

At present they are being held under conditions outside of the Geneva Convention by a government that has refused to join a proposed International Court of Justice because it is worried its own military personel could be arrested and tried for war crimes or actions against civilians that could be construed as war crimes.

This issue is likely just to keep going around in circles until the US Govt joins the International Court and presents it's evidence that these people are a threat and not just pawns.

But woe betide a court that then releases one of these people who then goes on to make a terrorist attack.

A further problem is trying to find a neutral country or organisation that would host such an impartial court, it woulds be seen by terrorist organisations as a prime target.

There is I feel a question mark over why these people were in a war zone.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 04:02 AM

Hi John

I don't know about the English guys, but i'd be surprised if the American govt would release them if they were truly terrorists.

David Hicks, one of the two Australians in Guantanamo Bay, has never claimed to be a backpacker. he was a muslim convert who went to Afghanistan to fight with the taliban against the Northern Allaince (an afghan army opposed to the former communist regime.He was more than a mercenary, because it was a religious war - religious values against secular values (God against the commies).and he was on the religious side.

now I am not supporting his decision to do that, i strongly condemn it because the taliban are notorious human rights violators. It is worth noting that Al Qaeda is a different bunch of people than the Taliban. The taliban are Pakistani based, Al Qaeda is Saudia Arabia based. While the taliban were everywhere in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda were in small pockets. They also would have had to win their territory from the local warlords, and couldn't just waltz in and be everywhere.

David Hicks father took a lawyer and documentary maker to the area in Afghanistan and interviewed people in the area. Comments were made re two things:

at no point did David engage in combat against american soldiers.

Afghans in the area would never have trusted a person of western origin with any secrets - if Al Qaeda was in the area in any form, (which has not been proven) David would not have been trusted with that knowledge.

He went there to fight a religious war. Another country (the US) moved in soon after. He is now condemned as a member of Al Qaeda, when no evidence to that effect has ever been presented and no charges have ever been laid.

He has not been given the legal rights that American citizens in that postion have been given. He doesnt have a non military lawyer and can't be tried in an independent court.

And until a real court gathers and examines the evidence and makes a decision, no one will ever know what the situation is. Luckily he has an American military lawyer who is a decent man who is condemning his own govt (the US) for their treatment of his client.

David was a member of the Taliban army. I condemn him for that, because they were such an brutal and obnoxious bunch. But he was not violating any law by doing that. At the time he joined the Taliban, they were the government army, in power in their country, fighting a war aginst insurgents.

If David Hicks is a member of Al Qaeda, I condemn him. But no one has found out yet, we are still waiting.

and in the meantime, the legal rights that protect that we all have, are being eroded in the name of anti terrorism. When there is no legal accountability, no proper rules of evidence in a country, our children and the next generations will be the next victims.

All we are asking for is that accepted international laws are followed and respected.

freda

ps hope your hamster's going well

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Hrothgar
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 03:28 AM

Doesn't the Geneva Convention deal with prisoners of war? If so, how can Powell say they were treated under the Convention if they were not treated as prisoners of war?

If they were not prisoners of war, why have they not been released or charged with a criminal offence (or several offences, if that can be managed)?

If they were fighting for the Taliban, what is really wrong with that? Remember, the Taliban were the effective government of a sovereign country, even if they were a bunch of bastards. There are lots of countries being run by people no better than the Taliban, and they haven't been invaded yet. I am yet to be convinced that the current Afghani government are any better, for a start.

Now, to come to the crunch - what happens to me if I am accused of something in a foreign country and thrown in gaol? Will the Australian governemnt just leave me there to rot, because I don't suit their political book?

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:37 AM

Anyway= mo offence intended t Mcgrath [i think ypur real names kenny?] or anyone else BUT= i still reckon these guys "were up to no good", they were picked up in an Al Qaida training camp, nobody in his right mind goes on holiday "backpacking", or "visiting frends" in a war zone, [i've had a good think about this, ], [ i'm no expert, but i reckon, they wrre up to no good.


these guys are suspeccted terrorists, yet the loony left brigade, do-gooders etc are screaming human rights!

i will reiterate, they were arrested in a suspected terrorist training camp.

yes, they are entitled to a fair trial, as we all are.

smoke, fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:24 AM

anyway=i dident say he was a "nutcase", he was just a bit odd, just a bit eccentric, a bit strange, [had unusual hobbies, [killing people etc].

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:28 PM

the a team was mercanaries, but tyey , they waas ok, they never kiled anyone, and they was good at making stuff, [bit like blue peter, but on a bigger scale, and they helped good peole, ie only chased the bad guys etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:25 PM

yes, thats it, mercenary.thanks.

ps=maybe your right, you probalby are, you know about these sort of things, and i;m a bit drunk.

another ps, i'm not arguinf with you, i dont know much about it, and argiung is no good anyway, you just fall out with people, and evryone gets fed up.john

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:22 PM

The man in question still needs a trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:15 PM

The fact that your mate was a mercenary and a nutcase doesn't mean everyone else is.

Afghanistan might sound an awful long way and a strange place to go to when you're in Hull. But if you're in Pakistan, for perfectly normal reasons crossing, the border is hardly a strange or even a suspicious thing to do. It wasn't as if it was a hostile country so far as Pakistan was concerned.