Tuesday
Feb242009
War on Terror Watch: Everyone OK at Guantanamo Now. Leave Us Alone.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 6:47
Related Post: The “Other” Guantanamo - Report of the Center for Constitutional Rights
Related Post: Text of Pentagon Review of Conditions at Guantanamo Bay
Headlines will be devoted to the US Department of Defense's review of the Guantanamo Bay facility today: "Guantanamo detainees treated humanely, Pentagon report says". There will be highlighting of pleasant recommendations such as "more human-to-human contact, recreation opportunities with several detainees together, intellectual stimulation, and group prayer".
Insofar as an accused agency can investigate itself --- sort of the equivalent of Bernard Madoff telling the worlds that his accounts balance up quite nicely now --- this is welcome to hear. It will bolster the public show of President Obama, who requested the report last month, of putting Guantanamo above board even if it cannot be closed in the near-future.
But, how shall we put this? Horse Gone. Stable Door Bolted. Nothing in this report will meet the requirement of an investigation not of Guantanamo Now but Guantanamo Then. Until and unless there is an enquiry into the abuses that took place between 2002 and 2009, until and unless there is an admission by the US Government that it carries responsibility for those abuses, until and unless there is an assurance that this will not happen again, Camp X-Ray/Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay will be a reminder that America's leaders were prepared to jettison law and morality and the values they put forward.
And who is to say that the same process cannot and will not play out in another case? Perhaps four, eight years from now the Pentagon can give us the same assurances over a Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, even as today more detainees are being put into a facility which has also had its share of abuses and tortures but which --- for the moment --- remains out of the public spotlight.
Related Post: Text of Pentagon Review of Conditions at Guantanamo Bay
Headlines will be devoted to the US Department of Defense's review of the Guantanamo Bay facility today: "Guantanamo detainees treated humanely, Pentagon report says". There will be highlighting of pleasant recommendations such as "more human-to-human contact, recreation opportunities with several detainees together, intellectual stimulation, and group prayer".Insofar as an accused agency can investigate itself --- sort of the equivalent of Bernard Madoff telling the worlds that his accounts balance up quite nicely now --- this is welcome to hear. It will bolster the public show of President Obama, who requested the report last month, of putting Guantanamo above board even if it cannot be closed in the near-future.
But, how shall we put this? Horse Gone. Stable Door Bolted. Nothing in this report will meet the requirement of an investigation not of Guantanamo Now but Guantanamo Then. Until and unless there is an enquiry into the abuses that took place between 2002 and 2009, until and unless there is an admission by the US Government that it carries responsibility for those abuses, until and unless there is an assurance that this will not happen again, Camp X-Ray/Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay will be a reminder that America's leaders were prepared to jettison law and morality and the values they put forward.
And who is to say that the same process cannot and will not play out in another case? Perhaps four, eight years from now the Pentagon can give us the same assurances over a Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, even as today more detainees are being put into a facility which has also had its share of abuses and tortures but which --- for the moment --- remains out of the public spotlight.
Reader Comments (14)
At least Hitler allowed the Red Cross to enter Terezin (Theresienstadt).
The result was the same - the detained Jews were being treated humanely.
Terezin was not a concentration camp, but more a "weigh station" before Jews were sent off to the more famous camps. Nevertheless, tens of thousands died from disease and neglect.
Learn more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terez%C3%ADn
Again, at least Hitler had the courage to allow an unbiased 3rd party to examine the detainment before the false report was published.
The detainees are still treated better. The conditions in US prisons are worse.
I believe SOME of these allegations of abuse in Guantanamo are exaggerated and have been used as a political weapon against the War on Terror by its detractors. Why would the same people choose not to point out the human rights abuses in federal and state insitutions otherwise? Prisoner abuse didn't start in US-occupied Iraq and it didn't start in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The detainees are not being treated humanely, but I think I know the real reasons why critics are taking a stand on it. It's all political.
Sleep deprivation and lights NEVER being turned off --
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6543992/CJsafety-Abuse-US-Prisons-20050720
Click the link and read it. It's no different.
I'm not saying the detractors are ultimately apathetic when it comes to ill treatment of the detainees. They do care. However, when these things surfaced under Bush and Co., I became suspicious of their intentions. I think we have good reason to believe they have always been politically motivated.
That's Amnesty's job. It's just one NGO. I did not know of one campus group nor did I ever see a flyer posted by any outside entity for an open forum in my years as an undergraduate student at the State University of New York. I know of one -- 'Moratorium on Prison Construction Project' -- but it was never an issue among young people -- at least not in the middle and late 1990s. All eyes were on emerging market economies, harmful effects of globalization, and human rights in the 'Developing World' at the time.
Again, I think it's all politically motivated. I don't think critics are sincere in the cases of Mohamed and Beg. Call me cynical, but I think they were political pawns used against Bush and Co.
You saw the interview of the Gitmo guard that was posted here on EA a few days ago. He was wearing a 'Veterans Against the Iraq War' shirt. He didn't just decide to wear that shirt on the morning of the interview because he didn't have any other clean shirts wear...
I don't think these people give a god damn about the detainees.
I'm not sure how your not having seen anything critical of US prisons at the university you went to refutes evidence of Amnesty and HRW clearly having been concerned with this issue.
It hasn't been in the public conscious in the way that Gitmo has and I believe the left instigated it, bringing it widespread attention for political gain.
Amnesty is terribly biased. It has called Gitmo 'a gulag'. The US is not running a gulag. It has called the War on Terror a 'so-called War on Terror'. Also, note its silence on beheadings of foreigners in Iraq.
Amnesty is biased against America and it's biased against Israel. That organisation has lost a lot of credibility.
Every country that dislikes an Amnesty report simply calls it biased- America, Israel, Iran, Zimbabwee...
Amnesty seems to be supporting a LOT of disparate agendas through its bias....
"Amnesty is terribly biased. It has called Gitmo ‘a gulag’."
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/100/2005/en/dom-AMR511002005en.html" rel="nofollow"> Some context:
"The Administration has focused its attention on our description of the notorious detention camp at Guantánamo Bay as "the gulag of our times".
As they are fully aware, this metaphor was used because to many people Guantánamo has become an iconic symbol of human rights abuse and the arbitrary misuse of state power, just as the gulag had been during the Stalinist era. This is a fact and is very different from suggesting that Guantánamo was literally a gulag or from comparing it to a Soviet gulag.
Guantánamo will now be a blemish on US history. But its impact is wider: by lowering the human rights standards, the US has weakened its own moral authority to speak out on human rights."
"Also, note its silence on beheadings of foreigners in Iraq. "
Two releases from Amnesty International, again found with relative ease:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15355" rel="nofollow"> Iraq: Beheading of civilian condemned, hostages must be released
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE14/051/2004/en/dom-MDE140512004en.html" rel="nofollow">Iraq: Condemnation of beheading ("Kidnapping and then killing civilians are recognized international crimes involving the violation of people's most basic rights, and for which there can be no justification".)
"It has called the War on Terror a ’so-called War on Terror’"
This is because they, like many others, question the logic of declaring a war against something abstract like 'terror'.
Dave,
There is plenty of evidence showing concerns about US prisons have been in the "public consciousness" long before Guantanamo Bay was even opened. There is the film career of directors John Singleton and Spike Lee, both wildly successful critically and financially, and both deal with the same themes of legal injustice. There's rappers Tupac and Ice Cube, together who've sold over 50 million albums worldwide, who highlight problems and injustice with US prisons constantly. You might also be familiar with the works of internationally renowned activist Angela Davis or investigative journalist Bill Moyers. Criticisms of the injustices in America's prison systems have been part of the pop culture for decades. Maybe you just have bad taste?
As for calling Amnesty International "politically motivated," come on now, you know that's ridiculous. AI is an international NGO, which stands for Non Governmental Organization. By definition, it bars government officials (read: politicians) from even participating. You're going to have an extremely hard time convincing anyone that Amnesty International is somehow a "political" organization seeing as how it in no way participates in any political exercise, American or otherwise.
At this point, with the debunking all done by the other commentators, I'm a little lost as to your point, Dave. Even if everyone in this discussion was 100% lying and everything you were saying was absolutely true, I still have no idea what you're getting at. If Amnesty International is playing politics and the American left doesn't care about detainees but rather is just using them as an excuse to bash George W Bush...so what? Does that legitimize the crimes against humanity taking place at Guantanamo Bay? Does that mean no one should discuss it, criticize it, or even report on it? What exactly is the outcome you're looking for?
NGOs are not subject to any outside accountability as far I know. But Amnesty, a promoter of abortion rights, is carrying out its stated mission at all times... Yeeaah...
You missed the last part...
"At this point, with the debunking all done by the other commentators, I’m a little lost as to your point, Dave. Even if everyone in this discussion was 100% lying and everything you were saying was absolutely true, I still have no idea what you’re getting at. If Amnesty International is playing politics and the American left doesn’t care about detainees but rather is just using them as an excuse to bash George W Bush…so what? Does that legitimize the crimes against humanity taking place at Guantanamo Bay? Does that mean no one should discuss it, criticize it, or even report on it? What exactly is the outcome you’re looking for?"
In plain english, what the heck is your point, man?
You missed the last part…
“At this point, with the debunking all done by the other commentators, I’m a little lost as to your point, Dave. Even if everyone in this discussion was 100% lying and everything you were saying was absolutely true, I still have no idea what you’re getting at. If Amnesty International is playing politics and the American left doesn’t care about detainees but rather is just using them as an excuse to bash George W Bush…so what? Does that legitimize the crimes against humanity taking place at Guantanamo Bay? Does that mean no one should discuss it, criticize it, or even report on it? What exactly is the outcome you’re looking for?”
****************
The left doesn't like taking national security into account. It never seems to be a mitigating factor for Amnesty International. Yes, I know some interrogation techniques have come under harsh criticism for being ineffective, but they are still a matter for debate and nobody has had the last word...yet. Obama wants 'The Army Field Manual' to be the sola scriptura on interrogation, but Qaeda operatives and other trained Islamic militants know how to outsmart the The Army Field Manual. It's part of their training.
Amnesty also appears to be more heavy-handed on democratic countries that have rule-of-law.
Dave,
Do you have evidence that "the left doesn't like taking national security into account?" Here's a link to Barack Obama's platform (mandated by 52% of the US electorate) that includes numerous references to national security and the safety of the American people.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Do you have evidence that "Qaeda and other trained Islamic militants know how to outsmart" the Army Field Manual, or that it's "part of their training?" There is ample evidence to the opposite, that suspects held at Guantanamo Bay and other GWOT facilities respond remarkably well to classic interrogation techniques. I would also, of course, be interested in how you came into this intimate knowledge of al-Qa'eda's training regimen. You may also want to inform the FBI (https://tips.fbi.gov/) or other relevant intelligence agencies since, as you said, terrorism policy is "still a matter of debate" and you apparently have exceptionally precise knowledge on the operational capabilities of al-Qa'eda.
As you know from the excellent coverage here at Enduring America, as well as many other publications, Obama's plan to use the Army Field Manual as a guide to interrogations may not be the complete, end of the story. There are reports that CIA, NSA and some military intelligence units may actually be devising their own interrogation techniques completely outside of the Field Manual. If you have evidence that the entire US government is, however, not creating its own standards for techniques but is instead going off the US Army Field Manual, please feel free to report it here or elsewhere (http://www.ireport.com/).
As for your final crack about Amnesty International, I think you understand how hilariously ridiculous that is, unless you can somehow convince me that Sudan or China or North Korea are "democratic countries that have rule-of-law." Forgive me but, LOL.