BS: Guantanamo survivors

Subject: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:05 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.

Here is a link to an account by three of the released men Revealed: the full story of the Guantanamo Britons (And this is in The Observer, a paper which actually came down in favour of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

And, not to be unfair, here's what Colin Powell had to say about it: "We don't abuse people who are in our care. I think we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian way."

Well, obviously someone is lying. It would be good to assume that there will be an independent inquiry to identify what actually happened, and what the conditions under which these people are being held.

It would be very wrong if the fact that horrible things have been, and are still being done by terrorists were to be used as a justification for behaviour that, if it is true, is a disgrace to everyone responsible for carrying out, authorising it, or colluding in it. That would be as wrong as when terrorists use this kind of thing as a justification for their own actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:31 AM

A recent 'Vanity Fair' has an interesting article on the camp - including interviews with people working there & with visitors, including at least one psychiatrist who has spoken to prisoners. I think it might have been the Dec or Jan issue - maybe you local library has a copy.

The camp contains a lot of depressed people (surprise!) & the medical team have invented a new diagnosis that the visitor did not agree with.

The interrogaters, all young & inexperienced work with translators & offer bribes (including better accomodation & conditions!) for confessions. The journalist spoke with other interrogaters elsewhere who do not agree that useful information can be obtained that way.

The article is well worth reading, I wish I could remember more about it.

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:35 AM

Hicks 'killed mice' for his sanity

March 14, 2004

AUSTRALIAN terror suspect David Hicks occupied himself in jail by killing mice, a report said today.

Britain's Observer newspaper reported Hicks - who is detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, awaiting a US military commission - went to desperate measures to maintain his sanity.

Fellow inmate Shafiq Rasul, who has been returned to England, told the newspaper Adelaide-born Hicks occupied his mind all day by catching and killing mice. (Former prisoners allege brutality)

He said more than a year ago, Hicks renounced Islam and shaved off his beard, no longer answering the regular call to prayer.

"He's just a little guy with a very deep voice," Rasul said. "If you met him you'd think he was the typical kind of Aussie you might see drinking Fosters in a bar."

Rasul said Hicks was housed in a white-walled, sound-absorbent cell in solitary confinement with a guard permanently stationed outside his door. He said interrogators had taken to using a formal system of rewards to get cooperation.

But the best-selling novels they offered as incentives usually had pages torn out, which the censor deemed too subversive or exciting. Hicks, 28, was captured by the US among Taliban forces in Afghanistan in December 2001.

His family has been meeting this week with his US military lawyer Major Michael Mori and tonight, his father, Terry Hicks, wife Bev and Maj Mori will all attend the screening of a new film about Hicks, which is to be released in Australia and the United States.

Terry Hicks says the film will show "David is not the demon he has been made out to be". The documentary, The President Versus David Hicks, attempts to trace David's path in the lead-up to him being captured by the US among Taliban forces in Afghanistan in December 2001.

"It's something to make the public aware that David is not what they're saying, the government have demonised him from the start," Terry Hicks said today. .....

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:45 AM

http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/documents/whyfairgo.htm
David Hicks, an Adelaide man, was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in early December 2001 while travelling with Taliban soldiers who were defending their territory from the Northern Alliance. David's father, Terry, said his son seemed unaware of the September 11 attacks and extremely doubtful of their authenticity when they spoke on a mobile phone a few days after the American bombing campaign had begun.

Since David's capture he has been handed over to the Americans who have moved him to Cuba and the infamous Camp X-ray. He remains there uncharged after numerous interrogations by both American and Australian government military officers and/or officials. He was detained in a small cage for more than five months, and was transferred to a small "shed type" prison cell about the middle of 2002. There is a bed, no chair and no window. The lights are on twenty four hours a day. He has only two fifteen minute exercise periods a week where he is walked shackled between two guards. He is forced to wear an overall type uniform whether it is forty-three degrees Centigrade (over one hundred degrees Fahrenheit) or less.

In a recent letter (early 2003) he wrote about an operation - the nature of this was not disclosed - where he was in hospital and was treated like a human being for three days. After this he was given a chair to sit on for three days.

Presently, it seems that the Australian government officials have been trying to "persuade" David to confess to some crimes in order to be repatriated to his homeland. This is despite comments by Victoria Clarke, Pentagon spokesperson, in February of 2002 stating that all prisoners in Cuba were only the "rats and mice" of the Taliban and would possibly never be charged with any crime. (This includes the man said to be over one hundred years old who was sent home to Afghanistan in the last few months.) Furthermore American officers from the camp have visited Afghanistan and asked those in command to stop sending these unimportant prisoners to the camp and to concentrate on bigger fish - if and when they capture them.

David has not been charged with any crime in Australia. He has not been charged with any crime in Afghanistan. He is detained without charge, without trial and without access to family or consular assistance.

This intolerable situation has gone on long enough and we would welcome your support. Our group provides some press releases to depict the situation as it really is, and, not as some of the more tabloid type media has portrayed it. We are also raising funds to pay for David's return to Australia and his legal fees, estimated to be $5mill. Contributions can be sent to Fair Go For David, PO Box 634, PROSPECT EAST SA 5082.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:48 AM

The thing i wonder is=What were they doing there anyway?
one of them was captured in Afghanistan, he reckons he was innocently backpacking, backpacking my arse!

[who decides to go backpacking to Afghanistan when there is a war going on there?
very suspicious if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:57 AM

David has not been charged with any crime in Australia. He has not been charged with any crime in Afghanistan. He is detained without charge, without trial and without access to family or consular assistance.

enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:19 AM

Reasons why they happened to be in Afghanistan are given in the various stories. They sound quite convincing to me, and eventually it appears they sounded convincing to their captors. And the British police apparently didn't need long to accept the stories.

Moreover, regardless of whether being on the wrong side of a border when countries on the other side of the world decide to invade a country is a valid reason to detain civilians for more than a few hours at most, there is the question of the conditions under which which they were detained.

Nazi prisoners weren't treated as badly as this, even at the end of the war, not by the US and the UK anyway, if what has been reported by a range of people is true; and indeed what little we have been allowed to see is consistent with these stories by these young men.

It is important that the truth about these allegations is properly investigated, and that can't be done by agents of the people responsible for the running or supervision of Guanatanamo Bay, because they are the ones in the dock.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:33 AM

if these people had been declared prisoners of war, they would have had to have been detained in accomodation with conditions at least equivalent to the conditions that army soldiers lived in in the US.

by declining to acknowledge that they were being held as POWs of the US, these people have been held totally outside all internationally accepted standards and laws, without supervisions by any neutral outside organisation.

the crime is that the liberators have become perpatrators, in focussing on the perceived evil of their captives, the captors have taken on those very qualities themselves.

they have become like the thing they claim to oppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 12:06 PM

I was wondering if anything about this is getting in the media in the USA - I noticed when I pushed Google News to check something about it, none of the stories that came up seemed to be from US sources, not even the ones about Colin Powell claiming that the detainees have been treated in accordance with civilised strandards.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 01:00 PM

These guys are hardly likely to come home and say it was like living at home with mum's home cooking are they? They have a story they want to make a very great deal of money from, so of course they will make it sound as bad as possible. Before everyone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying it's a tea-party in Guantanamo Bay, but we need to be aware that ex-prisoners are just as capable of distorting the truth as are Dubya's merry band.

As jOhn says, what were they doing in Afghanistan (and especially consorting with the Taliban) anyway? Surely, anyone who didn't want to be embroiled in the hostilities would have got the hell out of there - the Yanks gave plenty of notice of what they were about to embark upon (which is a bloody sight more than those bastards from Al Quaeda did on 9/11).

Go on then - my head is bowed, I await the sword's kiss.
Johnny :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Metchosin
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 01:15 PM

There was a documentary shown on Canadian TV during the run up to the invasion of Iraq that basically substantiated the massacre of detainees who were transported by container truck in Afghanistan, right down to the bullet holes in the containers to supposedly provide air for the prisoners. I'm surprised there were Britons on board that any survived to tell the tale. The documentary stated that the camp in Afghanistan was overseen by the US.

Excuse my cynicism, but after the Canadian, Arar's, deportation by the US to Syria for torture, it does appear to be US policy to have their dirty work done by others, whenever possible. I'm also at a loss as to how any civilised nation can justify Guantanamo.

Devising loopholes and resorting to expediency does seem to be the order of the day. Maybe that's what happens when you have an administration who believes that government should behave in the same manner as their corporate businesses and with the same moral imperative.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:36 PM

There are two problems.

1) We are making the assumption that because Americans are civilized people, therefore their government is also civilized with regard to war/clandestine activity. That is both a dangerous and less-than-thoughtful assumption.

2) We are ascribing a value system to the military leadership which we hope is how they think, but is not how they think. Indded expediency is the order of the day--it always is with time-sensitive material, sensitive intelligence and military action.

I am not arguing right/wrong; I am saying that it can be costly to think the other side has your (one's) motives. Civilian authority stops at the gates of military establishments.

Charles Ng was a killer who was arrested in Canada and held here for armed robbery. We refused to deport him to California because he faced the death penalty there. He was eventually deported to another state to face charges there, and that state then sent him to California. I don't feel the world lost much when Ng was killed by the State of California (if indeed he's dead), but the method by which he arrived in California certainly plays games with the spirit of the law. I guess what I'm getting at is that AUTHORITY and bureaucracy see things as quite black and white. People see lots of grey in the mixture. If you're (one's) going to view the potential release of Hicks as a possibility, the situation should be viewed through the eyes of the Australian and American governments and their militaries, not through the eyes of people who see his detention as being wrong and therefore he should be free. I agree he should not be being held without trial; but, the pressure on governments has to come from the Australian people and the American people. They are the players involved. It is unfortunate that Australia is in bed with the USA.

Sorry to sound so cold. I think he should be returned to Australia and dealt with there. Not dealt with by Americans and Australians at a military base in Cuba.

It may seem hopeless, what with Australia's terrible civil rights record. I think Amnesty International can help, and don't rule out the United Nations. I don't know whether Mr Hicks is innocent or guilty of crimes against Australia or the USA. But he does deserve a fair trial to determine whether or not that's so. He may have been at the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, but he may also simply be an idealist who was caught at the wrong place at the wrong time for the right reasons.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:55 PM

Just want to echo what Strollin Johnny says, and add, Mr Mc Grath you probably don't sense the anger that grew here in the US after the shock of 9-11.

I heard one old timer say it reminded them of Pearl Harbor, eventhough all the people on the planes as well as the Twin Towers were civilians not military.

Also what were those kids doing in Afghanistan at a time when there were high ranking international officials working to get the UN to do something about the abuse, beatings and murder of mostly women by the Taliban?. I recall several meetings in Europe where Afghan women who had escaped the terror telling their stories. I even seen websites about the shootings and beatings at the time.

It is no surprise, then, to find no women captured by the US in the war! In fact most of the intenational prisioners at Guantanamo are daft young punks with macho tendencies - wannabe polygamists - probably.

Let them go, naw, shoot em in the goolies first then let em go!

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 03:09 PM

It is possible that the stories of the prisoners are exaggerated, just as it was possible that the stories of people such as Brtian Keenan or Terry Waites about their experience as hostages in Lebanon could have been exagerated.

What both sets of captivity have in common is that monitoring of the conditions and treatment of prisoners by the appropriate people from outside was not permitted by the captors. And it still goes on.

I don't believe that posting long extracts from articles that are there at the end of a blue clicky is justifiable. But I do urge people to use that blue clicky in my opening post to read that piece in the Observer. Or hunt around and read some of the other coverage of these allegations.

"I'm not saying it's a tea-party in Guantanamo Bay" - I'm, afraid it's not about a tea party, it's about allegations of something disgusting and shameful, and not to be shrugged off flippantly like that.   

If it can be demonstrated that Colin Powell was speaking the truth when he said "we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian way", that would be very good news indeed. But just because he said it, that doesn't dispel the suspicion fuelled by these stories,and by other evidence, such as the pictures we have all seen. After all, if these stories are true, Colin Powell is among those who should be in the dock.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 03:16 PM

Which is it, the USA has treated and is treating the detainees in a legal and humane way, as Colin Powell has said, or they deserve everything they get because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it doesn't matter how they get treated?

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 03:47 PM

"In fact most of the intenational prisioners at Guantanamo are daft young punks with macho tendencies - wannabe polygamists - probably... Let them go, naw, shoot em in the goolies first then let em go!"

so between "In fact" and "probably" we see evidence of your ignorance and in the next line absolute proof of it. you demonstrate in your own words that you know nothing about what is going on in this situation but feel perfectly justified in a solution that is cruel, mean spirted and just plain stupid. no wonder the world is in the state it's in with people who think like this around to spew their ignorance spiced with cruelty.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 04:57 PM

what did 9/11 have to do with Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter?) those people that flew the planes were saudi arabian!

the US has used this excuse to invade two other countries who were not involved in the 9/11 disasters.

and the Taliban - bred in Pakistan, paid for by Pakistan, infiltrated by Pakistanis.. yes, an ugly, medieval bunch of one eyed freaks and lunatics. David Hicks was an idiot to get involved with them - and as a young religious brainwashee he probably thought he went in there to protect an islamic state from the pinko commie northern alliance. in fact un benown to him he was assisting Pakistan in its program of using the Taliban to gain control of afghanistan.

pawns, all pawns...

at no point did he engage in combat against american soldiers. now he's living in a cage in isolation for 2 years catching mice. and he's not even a muslim any more.

the whole point of human rights is that it doesn't matter how much of a dickhead someone is, how unpleasant, objectionable, or even how guilty they are - they have the right to be trated in a humane way, and offered certain processes and protection, while an objective court tries to find out WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID.

saddam hussein has the Red Cross checking in to see how he is - the poeple in Guantanamo bay don't have these rights - the are being treated worse than Saddam Hussein.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 04:59 PM

Hear, hear, freda.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:21 PM

A difference, and I don't defend torture for very good reasons, is that the detainees at G'Bay are there, are alive, are being released, not burried in unmarked graves, and if Kiplins ( and others )commentaties are to be believed, without thier sexual organs amputated and stuffed in thier mouths to choke them.

Ooops - sorry - I should not mention the traditional ethnic customs of Iraq or Afghanistan, besides the victims were only Russians, Tommy's, "Sowars" or fellow Iraquis, Arabs or Afghani's who were in the wrong place at the wrong time - And were suspected of being of the wrong political or tribal affiliation.

Not that that justifies any maltreatment, but I think it puts the matter in a different perspective.

Or am I being cynical ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:48 PM

I can't see where the different perspective comes in. There were plenty of prisoners who haven't survived. Massacred in Afghanistan, suicides, died for other reasons.

What comes out from reading this report is the impression of a powerful country which has decided to adopt the same techniques as terrorists who are holding hostages.

I suppose living in an unmarked grave for year in year out, and then being released is better than being buried in one permanently.

Once again, we didn't treat the Nazis like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:55 PM

hello, i dont believe them, i dont think they was tourists, [my freind called Bad Bob went to Kosovo to be a mercenery] if they caught him, he probably would say he was just visiting etc,
anyway i asked him why he went, i asked if he felt sorry for the people what side he was fighting on, [he only getting about 20 quid a week, and you can get more than that just been on the dole], he says "no, i don't give a shit about them, i just like killing people"
[he is a bit odd like that]

that was aages ago, maybe he's normal now, i dont know, i didnt seen him for ages.

anyway, i dont believe these people, ie = you dont go to a war place on purpose unless you want to be in a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Guantanamo survivors
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:01 PM

i think i spelled mercenery wromg, but you know waht i mean,
anywayt , they not going to admit they terrerists are they?
"yes, i'm a terrerist, and i just wanted to make trouble"

obviously they going to lie, bad people awlys do.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:39 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.