Claims of torture in Guantanamo Bay

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

OG: The definition of torture, sensory deprivation can cause damage as bad as torture, again from the link I posted:

  • Justice RICHARD GOLDSTONE Former chief Prosecutor UN War Crimes Tribunals

Well I would describe those techniques as forms of torture.

WHITE: Not as psychological torture or stress and duress? To you that's torture plain and simple.

GOLDSTONE: Well it's a form of torture. Stress and duress of that degree would be a contravention.. I'm
using torture in its technical legal sense under the Torture Convention. *

22

I certainly understand sensory deprivation, as I have just passed my two year anniversary on Gupshup!:)

The above quotation is one man's opinion, and certain the US has the right to interrogate it's detainees. So far offering them ice cream when it gets hot in Cuba has yielded few results. Given the importance of terrorists information, and thier possible knowledge of upcoming murders, I would argue that stress and duress is perfectly appropriate.

When I hear a formal complaint from the Red Cross, not a hypothetical question asked during an interview, then I may join you in objecting.

23

OG self inflicted deprivation is not torture, masochistic maybe but not torture ;) ...please clarify what you believe is an offical statement? There has been plenty of research into things like sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation (a lot I believe by israelis and human rights workers investigating Israeli tactics towards Palestinains), and the devastating effect it has on prisoners. I believe repeated suicide attempts have been made by prisoners and some have suffered mysterious heart attacks and considering the religious background of many of the people arrested that says a lot for what they are going through. While many Americans may believe "those terrorists" deserve their fate, several priosners were later proved to have nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

24

Ohioguy

It seems as though you constantly require waking up. Everytime you are awoken, you tend to fall asleep again because you do not like what you hear or it does not conform to your ideals.

Maybe you should hibernate and keep asleep and don't wake up.

In reality, the US is breaking the Geneva convention at the Bay and is applying torture tactics.

What we need is a good old dose of Karachi Kops on Americans asses. Believe me, you Americans will be running to the Bay willingly and asking to be locked up.

25

"the devastating effect"

One has to balance the horrific physical and emotional damage done to the victims of terrorists also. How do you draw a line on when tough interrogation becomes torture, frankly I don't care. As long as our guys are not hooking up electrodes, beating people bloody, or stooping to the "Karachi Kops", I am reasonably satisfied. Most of the information these people would have is so stale now as to be useless. Undoubtedly the suicide attempts will happen, as people realize that being a terrorist means being jailed for life if you are caught.

Ultimately if the US were to send all of these guys home it would look as impotent as Clinton lobbing a few Tomahawk missles at vacant camps. The fact that Guantanamo is such a visible place may actually help those detained worldwide in cooperating.

When I hear from the Red Cross that they are charging the US with torture I will evaluate what they are charging an form an opinion. Until then I am not uncomfortable with the treatment of the detainees.

And Sholay, 9/11 woke me up. Too late...

26

Ohioguy

Now you know why people feel comfortable with how US citizens are being treated!

It works both ways.

I personally think that the way the detainess are being treated is no less barbaric than the slave trade. The only difference is that they were flown over rather than shipped, therefore did not die en route in their own faeces.

You cannot go to WAR with a country and then refuse to treat the captives as POW'S. America went to WAR with Afghanistan. Similarily, US captives in any war cannot be treated as POW'S. The US is a nasty piece of work and has no sympathy in my books.

By treating these captives as they are, only confirms the vilification the States has for Muslims. Despite what you say, this is the reality. The War on Islam has been ongoing way before either of us were born and will continue even after we are gone. You have to look at the bigger picture and investigate events throughout history.

Yes 9/11 did wake you up. Or did it wake up the prejudices.

27

Sholay,

If the detainees were POW's, what precisely would be different?

Slave trade? Oh please stop with all the emotionally burdened crap. You should write for the Guardian or Independent, that type of tabloid word usage sells a lot of papers....

And please, the "War on Islam" ? What are you some pathetic victim? It's a big world, plenty of room for all of us. I am not responsible for the actions of my father, nor are you for yours. Nobody is waging a war on your religion.

28

Ohioguy

Unfortunately, your comments speak volumes about your views. It's evident that you haven't studied too much about Western and Eastern history. What you currently see, seems to be 'the be all and end all' scenario.

If you honestly cannot see the War on Islam, maybe it's better that you stay asleep.

As a matter of fact you are!

29

Well my little keyboard jihadi, you are not answering the question. If the detainees being held as battlefield combatants WERE considered to be POW's, then how would they be treated differently. What additional rights and privileges would they have? Do you deny that a fatwa was issued by Al Qaeda, essentially declaring war on the US? What are we to do in the face of a fatwa such as this?

So stop pretending to be a victim in the world, and have this discussion, and at least google something rather than making broad sweeping statements that are nothing more than regurgitated anti-US drivel.

30

What additional rights? Lets see...civil liberties in general. No torture....hmmm you wanna see the UN declaration as well as ICRC and FIRC adopted papers or you want a quick summary off the top of my head?

31

The only objection that I have seen from the Red Cross is that the detainees have not been informed of their rights to a trial (if any), and that the trials have not progressed. That so far has been the only objection from the Red Cross, which has been onsite and has inspection rights.

If we are indeed at war with Al Qaeda, (if it is possible to be at war with a stateless organization), then POW's would not be repatriated til the conflict ended. Has Al Qaeda surrendered? POW's would not be tried, they would be held.

And by the way, combatants in any war who do not wear a uniform are NOT entitled to any protections whatsoever under the Geneva conventions. Similarly mercenaries (foreign fighters paid as the al-qaeda were) are not entitled to protections under the Geneva conventions either.

32

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
And by the way, combatants in any war who do not wear a uniform are NOT entitled to any protections whatsoever under the Geneva conventions. Similarly mercenaries (foreign fighters paid as the al-qaeda were) are not entitled to protections under the Geneva conventions either.
[/QUOTE]

Show me where that is stated in the conventions.

33

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Part III : Methods and means of warfare – Combatant and prisoner-of-war status section II – Combatant and prisoner-of-war status

Article 47 – Mercenaries

  1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/0/9edc5096d2c036e9c12563cd0051dc30?OpenDocument

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, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Please note that Item (b) is for the general protection of innocents. It is important on a field of combat to be able to distinguish between civilians and soldiers. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda not only did not wear distinctive uniforms or some recognizable sign, they frequently “melted into the countryside”, blending with civilians for their own protection.

34

Armed forces to me doesnt sound like Army or a military structure. Remember the Militias in Somalia obeyed the ICRC's convention with regard to US soldiers. So they werent a military outfit. But they were armed forces.

Al Qaeda you and i both agree is an armed force. They deserve their rights under this agreement.

35

Is some insomniac trying to selectively quote from the Geneva Conventions to defend their collapsing argument?

POW pictures airing against Geneva Conventions: ICRC](http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/mar/24/brkafp_5-1.htm)

36

Wrong:

  1. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Al-Qaeda meets the definition of mercenaries. They were well paid by OBL, they are not naturalized citizens of Afghanistan, they has separate chains of command from the Afghan army., and per the above, they did not wear uniforms, therefore they sacrifice rights as POWs.

37

Stick to one agreement. Once decided, lets discuss the words used in that agreement. Like i said the Red Cross accepted Somalia rebels as armed forces. They arent a military outfit. You concur?

Once that is done we handle the UN.

38

There is a substantial difference between an indigenous rebel force and the Al-Qaeda. So no I do not accept the premise or the precedent.

The Geneva conventions are quite clear.

The term "enemy combatants" has been used precisely from the passages I quoted, and for the reasons I have quoted. Rather than digress about Somalia and debate similarities and differences, please try to focus on two issues.

The detainees in Guantanamo are not entitled to POW status for two reasons, both of which I have stated above, they were mercenaries, and they did not wear distinctive markings. I could debate the topic from the angle that they also did not obey the rules of warfare, as the Taliban was famous for brutal and illegal tacics, but then again that has become the norm lately.

This is precisely why the detainees have been given essentially the same protections as the Geneva Convention, but they are not technically POW's. Lastly, even if they were POW's they would not be tried, they would be held until the end of the conflict. Is the conflict over? Will the conflict ever be over? Infact, under the Geneva conventions, even POW's are to be removed to an area of safety, and away from the battlefield, with no discussion of how far that might be from the actual area of conflict.

So precisely what is your complaint? That they have not been tried? They do not need to be tried. They are enemy combatants, picked up off of a battlefield, and they will be repatraited at the end of the conflict, or by the choice of the detaining force......

This thread started because some LAWYER for some detainee makes a bunch of noises to the media, screaming TORTURE to get some attention. That is because he really cannot do a thing to obtain the release of his client until the end of the conflict. So he screams to the press and makes a fuss, and that is about the limit to what he can do. End of story.

39

Ohioguy

Now that I've returned, let me deal with our resident great pretenders queries.

There is no war on the web, and not every muslim is a terrorist waging Jihad at every turn. So labelling everyone a Jihadi is not doing your reputation any justice. We are not in the 18th century stuck on some cotton fields working for Master Luke. I know old habits die hard, but please try!

As far as the POW scenario is concerned, Prisoners of war (POWs) are combatants in an international armed conflict who have fallen into the hands of the enemy. Persons entitled to POW status include: members of the armed forces, members of militia or similar forces who meet certain conditions, persons accompanying the armed forces without belonging to them, civilians taking up arms “en masse” and others. Captured journalists are also entitled to the protections of POW status.

POWs cannot be prosecuted for the mere fact of having participated in the armed conflict. They may however be prosecuted for war crimes. POWs must be released and repatriated at the end of the active hostilities.

George Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1 2003, indicating that the war was over.

The Detaining Power -- and not the individual military units who have captured them -- are responsible for the well-being of POWs. POWs are entitled to rights derived from the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other laws and customs of war. The Third Geneva Convention is a very detailed code regulating the rights and duties of POWs.

POWs must be humanely treated at all times; willful killing of POWs, their ill treatment or torture or willfully causing great suffering (including moral suffering inflicted for reasons such as punishment, revenge or pure sadism) or serious injury to body or health, or depriving them of the rights of fair trial, constitutes war crimes.

POWs must be protected in their honor. In particular they must not be subject to insults, violence and public curiosity whether from enemy forces or civilians. They must not be paraded or interrogated in front of the media, and their images should not be used for political purposes.

If they are questioned, POWs are only obliged to give their name and rank, date of birth and army serial number or equivalent information. No torture or other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to obtain from them any type of information.

POWs must be interned in premises affording guarantees of hygiene. The Detaining Power has an obligation to provide food, clothing and shelter to POWs. Wounded or ill POWs should be provided with the same medical care that is given to the members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power.

Among the rights afforded to POWs are to: practice their religion, send and receive letters, receive a copy of the Geneva Conventions, and appoint a representative among themselves to deal with the detaining authorities.

Thes are the rights I believe you asked for. How much of the above rights has your beloved hypocritical country given and would you condone these rights? Obviously not!

You now have the answer to your question concerning the rights of POW's.

Moving on, here's a liitle lesson on the Convetion for you as well.
In 1864 a five man party organized an international conference of 13 nations in Geneva to discuss the possibility of making warfare more "humane". At the end of the conference on 22nd August, 1864, the representatives signed the Geneva Convention. The agreement provided for the neutrality of ambulance and military hospitals, the non-belligerent status of persons who aid the wounded, and sick soldiers of any nationality, the return of prisoners to their country if they are incapable of serving, and the adoption of a white flag with a red cross for use on hospitals, ambulances, and evacuation centres whose neutrality would be recognized by this symbol.

The campaign then began to persuade the different countries to ratify the Convention. It was approved by Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Switzerland in 1864. They were followed by Britain (1865), Prussia (1865), Greece (1865), Turkey (1865), Austria (1866), Portugal (1866), Russia (1867), Persia (1874), Serbia (1876), Chile (1879), Argentina (1879) and Peru (1880).

It was not until 1882 that the USA signed the Geneva Convention.

After the USA signed the Geneva Convention others followed including Bulgaria (1884), Japan (1886), Luxemburg (1888), Venezuela (1894), South Africa (1896), Uruguay (1900), Guatemala (1903), Mexico (1905), China (1906), Germany (1906), Brazil (1906), Cuba (1907), Panama (1907) and Paraguay (1907).

The Geneva Convention was amended and extended in 1906. After the First World War it was decided to further amend the convention. In 1929 a total of 47 nations agreed on rules about the treatment and rights of prisoners of war.

During the Second World War several nations failed to abide by the Geneva Convention. At the fourth convention in 1949 (21st April - 12th August) the attending nations agreed to extend and codify existing provisions for four groups of victims - the sick and wounded, shipwrecked sailors, prisoners of war and civilians in territory occupied by an army.

Don't tell me you didn't know this.

The problem with the US is that you make up the rules as you go along. You were never good at making them, so following them is even a greater burden.

Al Qaeda is a multi-national organisation, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. It was set up to establish a Muslim Caliphate and has a military wing, economic wing, social wing, and hierachy. It is not a mercenary unit? Therefore your argument in favour of the treatment at the Bay is flawed from the offset.

It is your lot who dubbed it a terrorist organisation and believe so to this day. Get your facts right.

Similarily, Al Qaeda depicts your country as a terrorist organisation and will treat you as so. So the you are in a no win situation when it comes to the labelling game. It's just a great shame that the US and it's citizens will come up with any cockety bull story to justify their real intentions.

40

OG: I take it you believe what is happening at camp X ray is torture but is excusable because of the legal definition of the status of the inmates? Again aren't you also assuming all the inmates are in fact guilty of being terrorists?

There have been several documented cases of people who have died of heart attacks because of the way they have been kept in the camps as well as several cases of people who had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda or even the Taliban ending up in Guantonamo Bay. While you play with legal semantics, the moral question of what maybe happening to innocent people does not seem to bother you?

Using the ICRC as an excuse doesn't help, being a non political organisation and NOT a lobby group it's job is not to highlight cases of abuse, even so it has clearly stated in the articles and links mentioned above previously that what's going on is not kosher...