BS: Guantanamo survivors

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 09:46 PM

(I may be worng, too.)

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 - 11:49 PM

Point.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: freda underhill
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 07:03 AM

duh..

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: 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: 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.