Shut down Guantanamo Bay: UN

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
GENEVA - The United States should shut down the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay and either release all detainees being held there or bring them to trial, the United Nations said in a report released Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The report, summarizing an investigation by five U.N. experts, called on the U.S. government "to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention center and to refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

The report's findings were based on interviews with former detainees, public documents, media reports, lawyers and a questionnaire filled out by the U.S. government.

The United States is holding about 500 men at the U.S. naval base on the southeastern tip of Cuba. The detainees are accused of having links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime or the al-Qaida terror group, though only 10 have been charged since the detention camp opened in January 2001.

In a response included at the end of the report, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. offices in Geneva said investigators had taken little account of evidence against the abuse allegations provided by the United States and rejected an invitation to visit Guantanamo.

"It is particularly unfortunate that the special rapporteurs rejected the invitation and that their unedited report does not reflect the direct, personal knowledge that this visit would have provided," ambassador Kevin Moley wrote.

The five U.N. experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo since 2002. Three were invited last year, but refused to go in November after being told they could not interview detainees.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has been allowed to visit Guantanamo's detainees, but the organization keeps its findings confidential, reporting them solely to U.S. authorities. Some reports have been leaked by what the organization calls third parties.

Although the investigators did not visit Guantanamo, they said photographic evidence and the testimonies of former prisoners showed detainees were shackled, chained, hooded and forced to wear earphones and goggles. They said prisoners were beaten if they resisted.

"Such treatment amounts to torture," the report said.

Some interrogation techniques — particularly the use of dogs, exposure to extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation for several consecutive days and prolonged isolation — caused extreme suffering, the report said.

It also concluded that the particular status of Guantanamo Bay under the international lease agreement between the United States and Cuba did not limit Washington's obligations under international human rights law toward those detained there.

Many of the allegations have been made before, but the document represented the first inquiry launched by the 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission, the world body's top rights watchdog.

The five investigators, who come from Argentina, Austria, New Zealand, Algeria and Pakistan, were appointed by the commission to the three-year project. They worked independently and received no payment, though the U.N. covered expenses.

The U.S., which is a member of the commission, has criticized the body itself for including members with poor human rights records.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_re_eu/un_guantanamo
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
LOL The United Nations are adept at....

....Judgment by long distance, sight unseen. They have special magical powers no?

It appears to me Annan and his gang of thugs are grasping desperately at the few straws remaining to stir the pot before
Annan slithers back into the netherworld from whence he emerged.

The "Human Rights Commission" made these assessments? They can't even make this appear credible. For example Pakistan is going to issue an unbiased report? Too strange.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
I think not said:
Well if the UN says so I guess we should do what they want.


It is not about the UN, it is about human rights, thousands of muslim are held there with absotly no charge, this is outrageaous, when i see that , i just have good though for the resistance in iraq.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
aeon said:
I think not said:
Well if the UN says so I guess we should do what they want.


It is not about the UN, it is about human rights, thousands of muslim are held there with absotly no charge, this is outrageaous, when i see that , i just have good though for the resistance in iraq.

"soldiers" don't need to be charged in a state of war, that's the official position anyway. Human rights comments coming from the Human Rights Commission when countries the likes of Libya get to chair, is rather funny, don't you think? Maybe they should shut down Libya also?
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Thanks I think not, you just basically took the words right out of my mouth. The U.N. is a broken organization Aeon, it makes claims and demands about situations they don't even understand because they're so wrapped up in procedure and politics. As for Gitmo, it's a POW camp, not a prison, believe it or not there IS a difference. As I think not pointed out, POWs are not attributed to the same rights a regular civilian prisoner is. As by the Geneva Convetion (the 2nd one I believe), any POW captured may remain a POW as long as the war endures. So technically the U.S. has the right to detain insurgents, terror suspects, and the like at Gitmo until they're done with their War on Terror. Their human rights aren't violated, contrary to what the media says, and they're allowed to exercise their religious rights there. However I would like to draw special attention to this:

It is not about the UN, it is about human rights, thousands of muslim are held there with absotly no charge, this is outrageaous, when i see that , i just have good though for the resistance in iraq.

Are you even fully aware of what human rights constitute? I doubt it, as i've seen you use this catch phrase of the 21st Century time and time again in your posts, where the term isn't even warranted. The POWs in Gitmo are treated well, the only questionable issue is the force-feeding of hunger strikers, something I commend the U.S. for seeing as they could just let them die. As for no charge, as I said above and as I think not has said, POWs don't need to be charged, they simply need to sit around until the war is over. Over 1/2 of the POWs at Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan during the 2001-2002 action period. Those persons captured were engaging U.S. and coalition troops, therefore they are in every sense of the word; POWs. In February 2002, members of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry captured 3 men trying to smuggle a bomb in to Kandahar Airfield, those men were promptly shipped to Gitmo. Are those men innocent? Lastly there are non-muslims detained as well, get off your moral high horse and think this is another crusade against poor widdle muslims.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
aeon

You don't mention the fact your military were also engaged by this group. Please give them a nano-second of thought when considering human rights.

Where did the detainees come from. If they had worn a semblence of a uniform the problem could have been less of an issue. The ones who are still at Guantanamo are no doubt the heavy hitters of the lot - as many have been released and returned.

And Iraq? You fail to acknowledge the mass graves in that country.

Human rights has great import - but if you are going to argue it - please do some research into what actually constitutes the legitimacy of the claim "abuse".
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Re: RE: Shut down Guantanamo Bay: UN

Mogz said:
Thanks I think not, you just basically took the words right out of my mouth. The U.N. is a broken organization Aeon, it makes claims and demands about situations they don't even understand because they're so wrapped up in procedure and politics. As for Gitmo, it's a POW camp, not a prison, believe it or not there IS a difference. As I think not pointed out, POWs are not attributed to the same rights a regular civilian prisoner is. As by the Geneva Convetion (the 2nd one I believe), any POW captured may remain a POW as long as the war endures. So technically the U.S. has the right to detain insurgents, terror suspects, and the like at Gitmo until they're done with their War on Terror. Their human rights aren't violated, contrary to what the media says, and they're allowed to exercise their religious rights there. However I would like to draw special attention to this:



Are you even fully aware of what human rights constitute? I doubt it, as i've seen you use this catch phrase of the 21st Century time and time again in your posts, where the term isn't even warranted. The POWs in Gitmo are treated well, the only questionable issue is the force-feeding of hunger strikers, something I commend the U.S. for seeing as they could just let them die. As for no charge, as I said above and as I think not has said, POWs don't need to be charged, they simply need to sit around until the war is over. Over 1/2 of the POWs at Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan during the 2001-2002 action period. Those persons captured were engaging U.S. and coalition troops, therefore they are in every sense of the word; POWs. In February 2002, members of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry captured 3 men trying to smuggle a bomb in to Kandahar Airfield, those men were promptly shipped to Gitmo. Are those men innocent? Lastly there are non-muslims detained as well, get off your moral high horse and think this is another crusade against poor widdle muslims.




You can t use the geneva convention, when the bush administration turned their back on it, wrong choice in your argument.The pows at guatamo bay arnt threated well, otherwise the jail will be somewhere else where human rights are respected.

I am not saying canada is better, actually our leaders are a bunch of slot coward who are only able to lick american leaders back amd we are not in afganisthan for the good.

By the way do you really what terrorism means??

this is exactly what we are doing in afganisthan, what the american are doing in iraq and so on, that is the best definition of terrorism.


ter·ror·ism (t?r'?-r?z'?m)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


That is exactly us.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
I think not said:
aeon said:
I think not said:
Well if the UN says so I guess we should do what they want.


It is not about the UN, it is about human rights, thousands of muslim are held there with absotly no charge, this is outrageaous, when i see that , i just have good though for the resistance in iraq.

"soldiers" don't need to be charged in a state of war, that's the official position anyway. Human rights comments coming from the Human Rights Commission when countries the likes of Libya get to chair, is rather funny, don't you think? Maybe they should shut down Libya also?


True but why us officials sends cia in other country to investigate terrorism using tortured etcc??


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cant play the human right cards anymore, since they just don t care.
 

The Gunslinger

Electoral Member
May 12, 2005
169
0
16
Wetaskiwin, AB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cant play the human right cards anymore, since they just don t care.

Because America kills tens of thousands of it's own citizens on a regular basis. This anti-America kneejerk thing you've got going Aeon is really annoying.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Re: RE: Shut down Guantanamo Bay: UN

Mogz said:
Thanks I think not, you just basically took the words right out of my mouth. The U.N. is a broken organization Aeon, it makes claims and demands about situations they don't even understand because they're so wrapped up in procedure and politics. As for Gitmo, it's a POW camp, not a prison, believe it or not there IS a difference. As I think not pointed out, POWs are not attributed to the same rights a regular civilian prisoner is. As by the Geneva Convetion (the 2nd one I believe), any POW captured may remain a POW as long as the war endures. So technically the U.S. has the right to detain insurgents, terror suspects, and the like at Gitmo until they're done with their War on Terror. Their human rights aren't violated, contrary to what the media says, and they're allowed to exercise their religious rights there. However I would like to draw special attention to this:

It is not about the UN, it is about human rights, thousands of muslim are held there with absotly no charge, this is outrageaous, when i see that , i just have good though for the resistance in iraq.

Are you even fully aware of what human rights constitute? I doubt it, as i've seen you use this catch phrase of the 21st Century time and time again in your posts, where the term isn't even warranted. The POWs in Gitmo are treated well, the only questionable issue is the force-feeding of hunger strikers, something I commend the U.S. for seeing as they could just let them die. As for no charge, as I said above and as I think not has said, POWs don't need to be charged, they simply need to sit around until the war is over. Over 1/2 of the POWs at Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan during the 2001-2002 action period. Those persons captured were engaging U.S. and coalition troops, therefore they are in every sense of the word; POWs. In February 2002, members of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry captured 3 men trying to smuggle a bomb in to Kandahar Airfield, those men were promptly shipped to Gitmo. Are those men innocent? Lastly there are non-muslims detained as well, get off your moral high horse and think this is another crusade against poor widdle muslims.

Mogz, Mogz, Mogz... when will you see the light. The people at GITMO were not fighting for the Taliban. They were building orphanages and helping the homeless. :roll:

Just like Aeon says... they weren't even wearing uniforms. How can you fight if you don't have the proper uniform and have all of your people in the same garb. :roll:

Everyone in GITMO was just caught up in the spread of US Imperialism. :roll:
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
You're right, i'm sorry :(

P.S. Aeon, some FYI, the Geneva Convention does not protect combats not uniformed. Therefore the U.S. could have easy executed every one of them as unlawful combatants. Think that outrageous? The German Army did it to Russian partisans in World War II.
 

shortmanx5

Electoral Member
Feb 10, 2006
186
0
16
Because America kills tens of thousands of it's own citizens on a regular basis. This anti-America kneejerk thing you've got going Aeon is really annoying.
The Gunslinger
??? Kills thousands of our own citizens????????????
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm763.cfm

No Good Reason To Close Gitmo
by Jack Spencer, Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., Jim Phillips, and Alane Kochems
WebMemo #763

June 14, 2005 | |

While billions are victim to the regular abuse and tyranny of governments such as those of Sudan and China, much of the world’s media and non-profit “human rights” resources focus on the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Not a single person has been killed at the facility since it opened, and yet the drumbeat of criticism grows by the day. Criticism and even calls to close the base have come not just from President Bush’s critics, but also from members of his own party. But a rhetorical barrage is no reason to shut a base. Those who would close the detainment center have failed to articulate a reasonable rationale for doing so. They also overlook a major challenge: there are few options, right now, to replace the detainment center. There are, however, many reasons to keep it open.

1. The function of Guantanamo Bay will be served somewhere. Closing Guantanamo will not relieve the United States from needing a facility to house and interrogate suspected terrorists. Should Guantanamo close, the government would have to relocate these functions. If there are problems with the detainment center, those problems should be transparently addressed. The Pentagon has taken great pains to ensure that all appropriate domestic and international agencies have adequate access to the facilities and has been responsive to credible allegations of abuse. Unlike in the tyrannical or regimes of North Korea or China, for example, alleged abuses of prisoners are investigated and those found guilty are held responsible. Moreover, there are established avenues by which Congress, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and the media exercise differing degrees of oversight in Guantanamo. Changing locations now would lead to a transition period during which these organizations would have less access than they do today.

2. Closing Guantanamo Bay to placate critics is unjustified. It would be naive for the United States to assume that the same unsubstantiated criticisms that now surround the Guantanamo Bay facility would not be transported to the next one. The facility itself and what happens at it do not drive its critics, exactly; rather, their activism is motivated by how the United States and its allies are conducting the war on terrorism in general. Critics of the war do not distinguish between the two. To appease the critics would require changing how the United States fights the war on terrorism, which is unacceptable. American policymakers should be aware that conceding on Guantanamo, given the broad context of critics’ complaints, would be tantamount to conceding the war on terrorism itself.

For instance, on a recent television interview a representative of a “human rights” organization manipulated statistics and rhetoric taken from the broader campaign against terrorism to describe the actions and facility at Guantanamo Bay.[1] At one point in the interview, he argued that at least 28 individuals have died in U.S. custody as a result of criminal homicide. None of these deaths, however, occurred at Guantanamo. The implication was that whether these actions took place at Guantanamo was irrelevant and that actions and events occurring at any point or place in the war on terrorism may be generalized to any specific place or event.

But the details do matter. According to the Department of Defense, “The department works closely with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and representatives visit detainees in our charge at their discretion. There have been 187 members of Congress and congressional staff who have visited Guantanamo to include (sic) 11 Senators, 77 Representatives and 99 Congressional staff members. There have also been some 400 media visits consisting of more than 1,000 national and international journalists.”[2] Even skeptics must admit that it would be hard to carry out any systematic abuse of detainees under such intense and constant scrutiny.

3. Releasing the detainees now is not a realistic option. While holding detainees indefinitely is not likely, releasing them now is not a realistic option. Many detainees released from Guantanamo Bay returned to their home countries only to resume terrorist attacks against civilians. According to The Washington Post, at least 10 of the 202 detainees released from Guantanamo were later captured or killed while fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[3] Mark Jacobson, a former special assistant for detainee policy at the Department of Defense, estimated that as many as 25 of the 202 had taken up arms again.

For example, Mullah Shahzada, a former Taliban field commander who apparently convinced officials at Guantanamo that he had sworn off violence, was freed in 2003, and immediately rejoined the Taliban. He was subsequently killed in battle in the summer of 2004 in Afghanistan. Maulvi Ghafar, a Taliban commander captured in 2001, was released in February 2004. He was subsequently killed in a shootout with Afghan government forces in September 2004. Abdullah Mesud, a Pakistani who was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, bragged that he was able to hide his true identity for two years at Guantanamo before being released in March 2004. He was considered a low-risk security threat because of his artificial leg. After returning to Pakistan, Mesud led a group of Islamic militants—part of a campaign against the Pakistani government—that kidnapped two Chinese engineers working on a dam. One of the engineers and several militants were subsequently killed in a government raid.[4] Mesud is still at large.

Clearly, the detainees kept at Guantanamo pose a significant threat to Americans, U.S. allies, and civilians in their home countries. This threat must be weighed long and hard before any decision is made to release an individual detainee or to change the system under which detainees are held.

4. Changing the physical location of the detainees is not legally significant. Neither the detainees nor the United States stand to gain significantly in the legal arena if the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is closed. The “illegal enemy combatants” held at the facility have access to U.S. courts (as held by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush[5]). Detainees have been making much use of their access to legal counsel, as evidenced, for example, by a November 2004 District Court opinion holding that the Bush Administration had overstepped its authority in several areas.

Moving the detainees within the continental United States will not give them additional rights because Guantanamo Bay is already considered sufficiently under U.S. control to provide rights to them.[6] After the Rasul opinion, the detainees and the U.S. government will have the same legal advantages and disadvantages within the U.S. as they do at Guantanamo Bay. There are no compelling legal reasons to move the detainees and close Guantanamo Bay.

5. Guantanamo Bay is no Gulag. Blinded by hatred of America and U.S. policies and seeking to shift the blame away from terrorist crimes, Amnesty International’s Secretary-General Irene Zubeida Khan recently called Guantanamo Bay detention camp the “Gulag of our times.” She added, according to some reports, “Ironic that this should happen as we mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.”It is not clear whether this was a statement of deep ignorance or deliberate deception. Ms. Khan, though, is not alone in her criticism. Amnesty’s Washington director, William Schulz, has said that Guantanamo’s terrorist detention facility is “similar at least in character, if not in size, to what happened in the Gulag.”

Comparing Guantanamo’s tropical Caribbean detention facility with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s frozen concentration camp empire makes about as much sense as calling the London police “Nazis.” Amnesty’s gall in abusing the dead and trivializing their suffering for its own political purposes is appalling. Gulag (from “Main Directorate of Camps” in Russian) began as an extermination machine for political opponents. It quickly became a meat-grinder in which tens of millions of innocent Soviets and citizens of other countries perished. Islamists may manipulate some anti-American elements in the human rights community whom they consider, to borrow Lenin’s phrase, “useful idiots.” This strategy has been surprisingly successful, perhaps due to the political inclinations of those who lead the major human rights groups in the U.S. today. For whatever reason, Amnesty and Ms. Khan are ignoring real threats to human rights, especially those of women in the Islamic world, and are playing into the hands of terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying the West. The human rights community’s bizarre priorities are no reason, however, to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Conclusion
The debate over whether or not to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is about much more then that facility itself. It is a debate over how the United States and its allies are conducting the war on terrorism. If the United States concedes that its actions in Guantanamo Bay are such that they warrant closing the facility, how can the U.S. defend keeping other facilities open? And if the United States cannot house and interrogate suspected terrorists, how can it prosecute the Global War on Terrorism? The issue of whether the Gitmo detention facility should be closed should not be used as a proxy referendum for the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism.

Jack Spencer is Senior Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security, Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow, Jim Phillips is Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Studies, and Alane Kochems is a Research Assistant, in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:
[1] Remarks by Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, on Fox News Sunday, “Transcript: Gitmo Debate on FNS, June 12, 2005, at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159296,00.html.

[2] U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), “Guantanamo Provides Valuable Intelligence Information,” June 12, 2005, at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050612-3661.html.

[3] John Mintz, “Released Detainees Rejoining the Fight,” The Washington Post, October 22, 2004, p. A1.

[4] Tim McGirk, “Out of Captivity,” Time Asia Magazine, October 18, 2004, at http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/
printout/0,13675,501041025-725179,00.html.

[5] Rasul v. Bush, 540 U.S. 1175 (2004).

[6]See Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1995).
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: Shut down Guantanamo Bay: UN

shortmanx5 said:
Because America kills tens of thousands of it's own citizens on a regular basis. This anti-America kneejerk thing you've got going Aeon is really annoying.
The Gunslinger
??? Kills thousands of our own citizens????????????


Note the sarcasm Gunslinger is using.....
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Re: RE: Shut down Guantanamo Bay: UN

Mogz said:
You're right, i'm sorry :(

P.S. Aeon, some FYI, the Geneva Convention does not protect combats not uniformed. Therefore the U.S. could have easy executed every one of them as unlawful combatants. Think that outrageous? The German Army did it to Russian partisans in World War II.

The US military and quasi-military forces have tortured and murdered
innocent people in every country theyv,e ever been in, they butchered six million in southeast asia alone, not to mention 58,000 Americans killed for nothing. :(
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Re: RE: Shut down Guantanamo Bay: UN

darkbeaver said:
Mogz said:
You're right, i'm sorry :(

P.S. Aeon, some FYI, the Geneva Convention does not protect combats not uniformed. Therefore the U.S. could have easy executed every one of them as unlawful combatants. Think that outrageous? The German Army did it to Russian partisans in World War II.

The US military and quasi-military forces have tortured and murdered
innocent people in every country theyv,e ever been in, they butchered six million in southeast asia alone, not to mention 58,000 Americans killed for nothing. :(

Please define quasi-military.

When I saw 6 million butchered I had to believe that that must be just aeon up to his old twisting of facts. I found out that I was right. N. Vietnam claimed that 1.1 million soldiers were killed during the war and possibly two million civillians. And that doesn't mean just by US forces. But it sounds better if you put them in the "US Butchered" column.

But what the heck aeon... just add three million on to the total, it sounds better that way.