US Hell: Guantanamo Military Prison

Black Swan

When campaigning for president in 2008, didn't current President Obama promise to close Gitmo if elected? Do campaign promises mean anything in the US? He had been sworn into office late January 2009, and Gitmo is still open. How many years ago was that?

Abu Wa’el Dhiab has been in Gitmo for 7 years, and is now being forced fed to keep him from dying. He has been on several hunger strikes to protest Gitmo treatment.

Apparently foreign prisoners (Oops, detainees) at Gitmo are not protected under the US Constitution and its Amendments? Slavery is permitted for US citizen prisoners (if I read their Constitution, Amendments, and case laws correctly), but only after due process and safeguards have been satisfied through their judicial system, and if that due process results in a conviction. But Gitmo prisoners (Oops, detainees) are denied due process, with the convenient classification of military detainee (forever?).

For the past 7 years has Abu Wa’el Dhiab been suffering from cruel and unusual punishment, which, if he were not a detainee of the US Military at Gitmo, would be allowed due process to appeal his treatment, rather than to appeal by hunger strikes?

Are any of the Democrat or Republican candidates running for November 2014 election/reelection to the US Senate or House promising to close Gitmo, or are they remaining silent on this issue?

Does Gitmo represent the highest standards of the civilized world, or something considerably less? What message does Gitmo send to ISIS recruiters and candidates?

BoJack Horseman

Black Swan wrote: »

Does Gitmo represent the highest standards of the civilized world, or something considerably less? What message does Gitmo send to ISIS recruiters and candidates?

ISIS hates us, Gitmo or no Gitmo.
Perhaps it has a use as a tool of fear? (Though I doubt it works.

Perhaps when he sat in the big chair & really pondered it, Obama seen that maybe, just maybe it serves a purpose.

It can still be a useful tool though while still having some respect for human rights.

Ken.

Black Swan wrote: »

When campaigning for president in 2008, didn't current President Obama promise to close Gitmo if elected?

I don't know what the American system is but i'm gonna assume that as an ordinary member of parliament he didn't have access to all the info that for example George Bush had. Once he won he would have been fully briefed and may have changed his mind.

Since George W. or his party never countered Obama's promise to close Gitmo I'm also going to assume their is some super secret stuff they can't say publicly.

Amerika

Personally, I think Gitmo serves a good and useful purpose. Even Barack Obama, one of it’s more ardent opponents and who campaigned on shutting it down, discovered its need and usefulness when faced with reality.


“A Judge ordered a Guantanamo detainee freed. Abd al Rahim Abdul Rassak was quoted as saying, "I'm going to Disney World... and then I'm going to blow it up."
/humor

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Personally, I think Gitmo serves a good and useful purpose. Even Barack Obama, one of it’s more ardent opponents and who campaigned on shutting it down, discovered its need and usefulness when faced with reality.

Both the GW Bush and Obama administrations have violated the Geneva Convention as pertains to prisoner (aka, detainee) Abu Wa’el Dhiab, and should be charged accordingly. If USA is to lead the world by example, it should be held to the highest of civil standards in both war and peace, and not fall to the level of those they would imprison. To do otherwise, makes them no better than those they detain.

Abu Wa’el Dhiab has been strapped into "what detainees call the 'torture chair' and insert a tube up his nose in the name of keeping him alive..." The videos of these procedures have been redacted by the Obama administration, but a judge has ordered that they be preserved and later surrendered. In earlier years he would have benefited from Gitmo recreational activities, including being strapped down in a chair for waterboarding sports. Last year they denied his access to socks and boxer underwear, which exemplifies just one of many kinds of humiliating and degrading treatments for detainees at Gitmo.

If there were hundreds of USA or Irish defense force "detainees" held by ISIS in someplace like Gitmo for a decade, the unfair drums would be beating load and clear about inhumane treatment in the news media and other places, and demanding intervention, including military action.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950:

PART I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 2: Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

Article 3: To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

PART II: GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 13: Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Article 17: No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Article 27: Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war in sufficient quantities by the Detaining Power

AbusesToilets

If any western soldier was held by ISIS, the chances of them surviving the process would be slim.

One of the main obstacles to closing Gitmo is that no other country wants the prisoners and in previous circumstances, detainees that were returned to their native countries for further detention ended up being released and subsequently returning to combat.

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

...detainees that were returned to their native countries for further detention ended up being released and subsequently returning to combat.

Didn't this also occur with POWs of prior wars, where many of them returned to military service after a prisoner exchange, or whatever?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Both the GW Bush and Obama administrations have violated the Geneva Convention as pertains to prisoner (aka, detainee) Abu Wa’el Dhiab, and should be charged accordingly. If USA is to lead the world by example, it should be held to the highest of civil standards in both war and peace, and not fall to the level of those they would imprison. To do otherwise, makes them no better than those they detain.

Abu Wa’el Dhiab has been strapped into "what detainees call the 'torture chair' and insert a tube up his nose in the name of keeping him alive..." The videos of these procedures have been redacted by the Obama administration, but a judge has ordered that they be preserved and later surrendered. In earlier years he would have benefited from Gitmo recreational activities, including being strapped down in a chair for waterboarding sports. Last year they denied his access to socks and boxer underwear, which exemplifies just one of many kinds of humiliating and degrading treatments for detainees at Gitmo.

If there were hundreds of USA or Irish defense force "detainees" held by ISIS in someplace like Gitmo for a decade, the unfair drums would be beating load and clear about inhumane treatment in the news media and other places, and demanding intervention, including military action.

Al Qaeda and the other militant Islamic terrorists are unlawful combatants, according to just about everyone’s definition. I’m pretty sure under the Geneva Convention, it only provided prisoner-of-war status to lawful combatancy. Therefore they were entitled to the lowest level of protection under international law of any category of people involved in an armed conflict.

Skylinehead

Amerika wrote: »

Al Qaeda and the other militant Islamic terrorists are unlawful combatants, according to just about everyone’s definition. I’m pretty sure under the Geneva Convention, it only provided prisoner-of-war status to lawful combatancy. Therefore they were entitled to the lowest level of protection under international law of any category of people involved in an armed conflict.

What about the innocent detainees? What category do they come under?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Al Qaeda and the other militant Islamic terrorists are unlawful combatants, according to just about everyone’s definition. I’m pretty sure under the Geneva Convention, it only provided prisoner-of-war status to lawful combatancy.

Because the USA signed and is party to the Convention, they must respect the rules of the Convention, even if those they imprison (aka detain) did not sign, and are not parties to the Convention.

There are many different types of detainees in Gitmo, all of which are covered under the Convention. "Members of militias or volunteer corps" approximate "Al Qaeda and the other militant Islamic" detainees. Non-AQ fighters were also detained and imprisoned at Gitmo that were "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" (i.e., many Afghan citizens that resisted the invading US led armies). In the latter case, Afghan citizens have been resisting invaders of their country since recorded history, more recently the former USSR (CCCP), and now the US led military allies.

If a foreign army invaded Ireland today, I would fight them. Would that make me a terrorist or a freedom fighter? Regardless, non-regular military citizens resisting invading foreign armies are covered under the Convention.

You cannot have it both ways. If you class Gitmo detainees as military combatants, and thereby deny them due process in a US criminal court, then they are under the Convention. If they are not covered under the Convention, then they should be charged and tried in a US criminal court in the timely fashion accordingly (not a decade later). The US tries both citizens as well as non-citizens in their courts when they break laws, why not Gitmo detainees? If in fact they are not covered under the Convention, but criminals, then their rights to due process have been denied and violated, and the GW Bush and Obama administrations have BOTH been breaking their own laws accorded both citizen and non-citizen criminals for a decade.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

PART I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 2: Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

Article 4: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied...

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Amerika wrote: »

Therefore they were entitled to the lowest level of protection under international law of any category of people involved in an armed conflict.

The Convention does not have a "lowest level of protection" for prisoners (aka detainees), nor do the US federal and state courts. There are protections against adverse discrimination or "lowest level" treatment in both the Convention and US laws.

Manic Moran

I believe only Common Article 3 has been deemed to apply to the detainees by the courts.

They do not have to accord full pow protections of the Convention, but there are certain minimum standards which are required.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I believe only Common Article 3 has been deemed to apply to the detainees by the courts.

The GW Bush administration acknowledged Common Article 3 as applying to Gitmo detainees, yet the treatment of the detainees under the GW Bush administration appears to violate Article 3, in particular:

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

Of course the GW Bush administration did not think that waterboarding was "cruel treatment" or "torture," even if former Vice President Dick Cheney would probably have died if administered such treatment (given his heart condition).

Call Me Jimmy

In terms of wartime and peacetime... is the US in a state of war now since 9/11? Will it ever not be in 'wartime' again?

Black Swan

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

In terms of wartime and peacetime... is the US in a state of war now since 9/11? Will it ever not be in 'wartime' again?

GW Bush launched the 2 longest wars in US history. Obama has recently declared war on ISIS. The GW Bush and Obama adminstration's intrepretation of Pax Romana is defined as RIP.

Manic Moran

I think ISIS basically declared war on the US. Obama is sortof doing some half-assed response in kind.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think ISIS basically declared war on the US. Obama is sortof doing some half-assed response in kind.

Déjà vu al Qaeda.

FISMA

Black Swan wrote: »

Do campaign promises mean anything in the US?

No.

How are they working out back on the auld sod?

:rolleyes:

Black Swan

FISMA wrote: »

No.

How are they working out back on the auld sod?

:rolleyes:

For some reason voters on both sides of the pond don't hold political candidates to their campaign promises after they win.

Egginacup

Black Swan wrote: »

When campaigning for president in 2008, didn't current President Obama promise to close Gitmo if elected? Do campaign promises mean anything in the US? He had been sworn into office late January 2009, and Gitmo is still open. How many years ago was that?

Abu Wa’el Dhiab has been in Gitmo for 7 years, and is now being forced fed to keep him from dying. He has been on several hunger strikes to protest Gitmo treatment.

Apparently foreign prisoners (Oops, detainees) at Gitmo are not protected under the US Constitution and its Amendments? Slavery is permitted for US citizen prisoners (if I read their Constitution, Amendments, and case laws correctly), but only after due process and safeguards have been satisfied through their judicial system, and if that due process results in a conviction. But Gitmo prisoners (Oops, detainees) are denied due process, with the convenient classification of military detainee (forever?).

For the past 7 years has Abu Wa’el Dhiab been suffering from cruel and unusual punishment, which, if he were not a detainee of the US Military at Gitmo, would be allowed due process to appeal his treatment, rather than to appeal by hunger strikes?

Are any of the Democrat or Republican candidates running for November 2014 election/reelection to the US Senate or House promising to close Gitmo, or are they remaining silent on this issue?

Does Gitmo represent the highest standards of the civilized world, or something considerably less? What message does Gitmo send to ISIS recruiters and candidates?

First off....don't use that term "Gitmo". The concentration camp is in GUANTANAMO BAY. Using cutesy little nicknames is wrong much the same as every Vietnamese human being was simply referred to as "Charlie".

Egginacup

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If any western soldier was held by ISIS, the chances of them surviving the process would be slim.

One of the main obstacles to closing Gitmo is that no other country wants the prisoners and in previous circumstances, detainees that were returned to their native countries for further detention ended up being released and subsequently returning to combat.

Why not try all these "worst of the worst" (including the children who have just been banged up in a cage in Cuba)?
Why not actually have a really quaint thing such as an "investigation" with evidence and witnesses and CHARGES instead of having these humans in a cage with no explanation as to why they are there.
Would such a recommendation make me a terrorist?

Egginacup

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If any western soldier was held by ISIS, the chances of them surviving the process would be slim.

One of the main obstacles to closing Gitmo is that no other country wants the prisoners and in previous circumstances, detainees that were returned to their native countries for further detention ended up being released and subsequently returning to combat.

This is probably quite a childish explanation.
The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are all innocent. They have been held without charge and tortured (sensory deprivation is defined as torture).
There are people in Guantanamo Bay who have been there for 10 years. They have never watched a television show or listened to a radio broadcast. They have no idea where they are. Their peasant friends, family, wives have no idea where they are. These humans were held and isolated and not a shred of evidence to justify them being kidnapped and stuck in a cage on the other side of the world for years. Not only that but their captors won't even allow the Red Cross to visit them.

Now, the United States talk about how they are a "shining light unto the world", they fight for the rights of the weak and defenceless, they want to spread democracy all over the world and yet they have concentration camps with innocent people rotting in them and will probably never get out ..just because they might have an interview with someone and say they were tortured.

edward2222

Skylinehead wrote: »

What about the innocent detainees? What category do they come under?

I think they are the one who are killed.....

mcko

Well you are right or you are wrong, if the West expounds liberal free speech then how can we justify concentration camps.