More Gitmo prisoner abuse investigations

Politics International Politics
1

Incredible. Never learn.

[quote=“Yahoo News”]FBI agents documented more than two dozen incidents of possible mistreatment at the Guantanamo Bay military base, including one detainee whose head was wrapped in duct tape for chanting the Quran and another who pulled out his hair after hours in a sweltering room.

Documents released Tuesday by the FBI offered new details about the harsh interrogation practices used by military officials and contractors when questioning so-called enemy combatants.

The reports describe a female guard who detainees said handled their genitals and wiped menstrual blood on their face. Another interrogator reportedly bragged to an FBI agent about dressing as a Catholic priest and “baptizing” a prisoner.[/quote]Nope, it’s not about religion. Not at all. You’d almost think these yahoos want this to be a clash of civilizations.

[quote]Some military officials and contractors told FBI agents that the interrogation techniques had been approved by the Defense Department, including directly by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The documents were released in response to a public records request by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing Rumsfeld and others on behalf of former military detainees who say they were abused. Many of the incidents in the FBI documents have already been reported and are summarized in the ACLU’s lawsuit.

Defense Department spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter said the issues raised in the report are not new. A dozen reviews of detention operations have found no policies that condone abuse, he said.
[…]
In one report, an agent said he saw a detainee draped in an Israeli flag in a room with loud music and strobe lights. A note on the report said the Israeli flag “may be over the top but not abusive.” The words “may be” were then crossed out and replaced with “is.”[/quote]I wonder how that last bit will fly in Israel. It’s not as though relations with the neighbours aren’t already wretched enough.

2

Which of course has nothing whatsoever do the Sharia proscription against unbelievers occupying any land on earth that was at some point Islamic. It’s not as if that theological argument has been made by Hamas, Hizbullah, al-Qaeda, Iranian mullahs and ayatollahs (including Khomeini), muftis in Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, Indonesia, or Malaysia. Nope, it’s not about religion. Not at all.

Regarding the harsh treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, Sam Harris has some interesting things to say about it. In his book “The End of Faith”, he argues that we should legalize torturing prisoners, without limitiations. A foaming-at-the-mouth liberal atheist says this, you’re thinking? Yup. He argues that either we must stop conducting modern warfare, or start torturing medieval style, because to accept collateral damage but not accept torture is hypocritical. Collateral damage means more than just dead civilians, it also means, in some cases, blinded, mangled, burned, disemboweled, limbless, permanently handicapped survivors, who usually far outnumber the dead. We’ll accept crippling an innocent little girl, but not drilling the teeth of an al-Qaeda terrorist?

I don’t fully buy into the argument, because I am against torture in all cases, but he does present rather a compelling logic. Perhaps I am a hypocrite for being opposed to torture. No scratch that, I am a hypocrite for being opposed to torture, because I approved of the invasion of Afghanistan. What a comforting thought.

3

Yes, freedom is on the march. And there it goes, around the corner and out of sight.

As though this weren’t already a crooked game…

[quote=“NYT: Official Attacks Top Law Firms Over Detainees”]The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.

"This is prejudicial to the administration of justice," said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. "It's possible that lawyers willing to undertake what has been long viewed as an admirable chore will decline to do so for fear of antagonizing important clients.

[b]"We have a senior government official suggesting that representing these people somehow compromises American interests, and he even names the firms, giving a target to corporate America."[/b]

Mr. Stimson made his remarks in an interview on Thursday with Federal News Radio, a local Washington-based station that is aimed at an audience of government employees.

The same point appeared Friday on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, where Robert L. Pollock, a member of the newspaper's editorial board, cited the list of law firms and quoted an unnamed "senior U.S. official" as saying, "Corporate C.E.O.'s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists."

[…]
Karen J. Mathis, a Denver lawyer who is president of the American Bar Association, said: “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work - and doing it on a volunteer basis - is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.”

[b]In an interview on Friday, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he had no problem with the current system of representation. "Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases," he said.[/b]

Neither the White House nor the Pentagon had any official comment, but officials sought to distance themselves from Mr. Stimson's view. His comments "do not represent the views of the Defense Department or the thinking of its leadership," a senior Pentagon official said. He would not allow his name to be used, seemingly to lessen the force of his rebuke. Mr. Stimson did not return a call on Friday seeking comment.[/quote]
4

Isn’t this just suggesting a boycott?

Kurt Vonnegut quit his publishing house because it was bought by the Japanese. He switched to an American firm. He thought it was un-American.

Letting people know that their law firms are “Defending the Rights” or suspected FOREIGN soldiers/terrorists and suggesting a boycott is hardly trampling on their Rights. Maybe people won’t like the fact that foreign terrorists are getting the high priced OJ treatment, far better than most Americans, who didn’t want to kill US soldiers and civillians, will ever get.

[quote]
Karen J. Mathis, a Denver lawyer who is president of the American Bar Association, said: "Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law.[/quote]

For me, this is where I strongly disagree. US Law protects US citizens, not foreign fighters taken off foreign battlefields.

Why is US Law suddenly applicable all over the earth to all Earth’s “citizens?”

I don’t applaud this POV, but I do understand it.

5

If it were just an ordinary boycott, that’d be one thing. But the protection of rights and the rule of law isn’t the same as your run of the mill consumer action. Most Americans might not like these guys getting better than average representation, but they ought to recognize that given the current state of affairs, the men in Gitmo could have Solon, Cicero and Solomon arguing on their behalf without it making difference to those in the orange jumpers; it might, however, do their own rights and system of justice a world of good.

Besides, given the source advocating it, this is decidedly more serious than any Joe mouthing off.

6

Would it make you feel better if a Hollywood actor was saying it? :laughing:

I think it addresses a fundemental problem with the people representing the folks in GITMO. Why are the “best of the best” lawyers choosing to defend foreigners who have taken armed action against the USA? Just because they can make a headline or two? Or they have “higher, ethical” reasons? Bah.

I don’t think it’s a witch hunt of any kind; people investing money want to know if they’re investments are sponsoring “war” stocks or “sin” stocks, so why shouldn’t big business know that the law firms representing them are also representing foreign terrorists?

Investors and customers have the Right to put pressure on the companies they pay money to, do they not?

Some people sell funds that invest in tobacco companies. Some people might choose to do business with law firms that don’t defend foreign terrosists.

What’s the problem here? The source? Why? maybe he thinks the representation the GITMO boys are getting is load of flung monkey poo too.

7

So anyone makes allegations and they are automatically true? Good. You all can have Guantanamo and I will choose Iran and its nuclear program. No need to prove the former; no need for us to prove the latter. Deal?

8

Well, that didn’t take long. [quote=“Washington Post: Pentagon Official Apologizes for Remarks”]A senior Pentagon official publicly apologized Wednesday for criticizing lawyers who represent terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for suggesting their firms be boycotted.

Charles “Cully” Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said his criticism of the lawyers on a local radio program last week did not reflect his “core beliefs.”

“My comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo,” Stimson said in a letter to the editor published in The Washington Post.
[…]
Stimson drew outrage from the legal community _ and a disavowal from the Defense Department _ after he said he found it shocking that lawyers at many of the nation’s top law firms represent detainees held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba. He suggested some were being untruthful about doing the work free of charge and said companies might want to consider taking their business to other firms that do not represent suspected terrorists.
[…]
“I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel,” Stimson said in the letter to the Post, adding that he supports pro bono work.[/quote]Sorry fred, what were you about regarding unsubstantiated allegations?

Oh, here’s the apology in his own words:

[quote=“Stimson”]During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not.

I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel. I support pro bono work, as I said in the interview. I was a criminal defense attorney in two of my three tours in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. I zealously represented unpopular clients – people charged with crimes that did not make them, or their attorneys, popular in the military. I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

CULLY STIMSON

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs

Defense Department

Washington[/quote]

9

Sorry Jaboney… When are you going to learn how to read?

The allegations were of abuse. The letter is an apology from the person who questioned the patriotism or legitimacy of these lawyers taking such cases. Did I miss something regarding, oh proof, that the allegations of such abuse and torture were in fact valid?

Back to you. Might I recommend that you start with three letters and work your way up.

A… B… C…

Maybe we can practice counting to five later today? Won’t that be fun.

10

No, no. I just couldn’t believe that you were still playing that game.

11

I find this a bit ironic. The “abuse” is under investigation Jaboney. You can’t wait to see for yourself whether or not it’s true, right?

It MUST be true or why else would it be reported, right?

Give the investigation a chance will you?

the case against Bush’s “illegal” wiretaps is still in court. Give the Court a chance.

Stop jumping to conclusions. Wait for the outcome. Then jump all you want. jesus.

If true, the rulebreakers should and surely will be punished.

horses
hold
them

12

What game? The one where I expect YOU to actually be able to read, think and respond in an intelligent fashion? Okay, let’s try again. Where in the statements that you have posted has any proof been offered that the allegations are in fact true? Alternatively, please explain how the US government official who apologized for criticizing the lawyers involved is relevant to proving those allegations?

Sometimes, it would appear that your veil of ignorance all too easily becomes your burqa of stupidity but then you must have picked this clever ploy up from Bob? Is it really a cleverly self-deprecating form of irony? I must have missed that out of ignorance of your intentions, however, stupid they might have been. Right?

13

I find this a bit ironic. The “abuse” is under investigation Jaboney. You can’t wait to see for yourself whether or not it’s true, right?

It MUST be true or why else would it be reported, right?

Give the investigation a chance will you?[/quote]

Look, if the lesson had been learned, Bush wouldn’t have tried to pull off another unconstitutional line-item veto with his signing statement on the McCain Detainee Amendment/ Detainee Treatment Act that Cheney did so much to try and block. That was three weeks ago.

Another way of saying, “Yeah, yeah. Laws are just pieces of paper. Now you run along, play your games, and let me get on with my work. And if I want to waterboard, I’ll waterboard.”

I think, after Abu Ghraib, and all stories already coming out of Gitmo, this qualifies as “never learn”.

14

So wait, the foriegn soldiers caught on the battlefields in Afghanistan, incarcerated in GITMO deserve the Court’s protection and due process, but the POTUS doesn’t?

You wish all the defense that morality can buy, well, get pro bono for the GITMO boys to push through their defense, but a legal defense, or working through the system is denied to the POTUS?

Where the hell is the objectivity that you used to have Jaboney? This is the legal system we have; the one that let OJ go, and then convicted him; the one that awarded Bush the first election; the one that is working on the wiretapping case as we speak.

You seem to not have ANY patience for the system to run its course. How DARE Bush use the system! That’s foolish thinking.

When the Court’s final decison has been given, I will submit to it. Will you?

What would Dexter do?
:smiling_imp:

15

Yeah, that is kinda my point. Glad to see you finally got that at least subconsciously otherwise why did you use the term “stories” and not “reports” or “allegations” or “evidence” or “abuse” or “torture” or “accounts?” Hmmm. Even your subconscious realizes this. Now, if we could only get your political conscious to ditch the burqa of stupidity. I would settle for the veil of ignorance.

Why not let your consciousness follow your subconscious inclinations? Apparently, in a total surprise to me, on same level of your wormlike intelligence, you are capable of being positively affected by stimuli. Now as to proof of intelligence… ah, here, I remain “ignorant” of any such attributes in your being. The stupidity is, however, “proof positive.”

16

[quote=“jdsmith”]So wait, the foreign soldiers caught on the battlefields in Afghanistan, incarcerated in GITMO deserve the Court’s protection and due process, but the POTUS doesn’t?[/quote] What are you on about here?

[quote=“jdsmith”]What would Dexter do? :smiling_imp:[/quote]Probably, he’d recognize that Bush thinks with his Dick; that a stiff Dick knows no conscience; that this Dick is responsible for a situation that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives; strap him to a table and cut off George’s Cheney. :smiling_imp: backatcha :wink:

17

[quote=“Jaboney”]
I think, after Abu Ghraib, and all stories already coming out of Gitmo, this qualifies as “never learn”.[/quote]

Jaboney, do the parents of your students ever get pissed off that they aren’t learning anything while you blather on here about things you know nothing about?

18

I think I see something here…Hmmm…obsessing about a US Presidents genitalia…attributing immense power to this genitalia…a Canadian…fantasizing about genital mutilation…yes…a trend is emerging… :smiling_imp: :smiling_imp:

19

Off topic, but…[quote=“jdsmith”]Give the investigation a chance will you?

the case against Bush’s “illegal” wiretaps is still in court. Give the Court a chance.

Stop jumping to conclusions. Wait for the outcome. Then jump all you want. jesus.[/quote]
Any time this crew looks to get caught, they back off, and change the law so that what they’re doing is no longer illegal.

I’ll spare you most of the editorializing:

[quote][T]he administration announced yesterday that it would now seek a warrant from the proper court for that sort of eavesdropping.
[…]
…Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Bush had decided to end the warrantless program. He said the administration had worked out a way to speed the process of getting a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to intercept communications to and from the United States “where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of Al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.”[/quote]I wonder how this new system is substantially different from the previous one, which was both very fast and soft touch.

[quote=“jdsmith”]If true, the rulebreakers should and surely will be punished.

horses
hold
them[/quote]Unless, of course, they merely change the rules, or hobble the horses and gallop off out of town.

20

So, this is what oversight looks like.[quote=“CBC: U.S. ‘knew damn well’ Arar would be tortured: senator”]After sitting through withering criticism in a Senate hearing, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has promised more information on the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian who ended up in a cell in Syria after U.S. officials grabbed him on a stopover in New York.

Gonzales was grilled relentlessly on Thursday by Senate judiciary committee chairman Patrick Leahy. Leahy said that when Arar — a citizen of both Canada and Syria travelling on a Canadian passport — was detained in 2002, American authorities knew he would be tortured if they deported him to Syria.

“We knew damn well if he went to Canada he wouldn’t be tortured,” said Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont. "He’d be held and he’d be investigated.

"We also knew damn well if he went to Syria, he’d be tortured. And it’s beneath the dignity of this country — a country that has always been a beacon of human rights — to send somebody to another country to be tortured.

“You know and I know that has happened a number of times in the past five years by this country. It is a black mark on us.”

[b]Leahy noted that U.S. officials claimed to have had assurances that people sent to Syria would not be tortured.

“Assurances,” he snorted, “from a country that we also say now that we can’t talk to them because we can’t take their word for anything.”
[/b]
Arar, then an Ottawa-based engineer, was detained as a terrorism suspect, apparently because of a bad tip from the RCMP. He was flown to Syria, where he was held for a year.
[…]
[b]“Before you get more upset,” [Gonzales] told Leahy, “perhaps you should wait to receive the briefing.”

“How long?” the senator responded.

“I’m hoping that we can get you the information next week.”[/b][/quote]About time.

Now, past time for the RCMP to have the boots put to it.