TERRORISM: Britons Allege Guantanamo Torture and Human Rights Abuse

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Disturbing allegations of both physical and psychological torture are starting to emerge as the five Britons released from Guantanamo Bay earier this week begin to speak of their two years held without charge by the Americans there.
 

BBC.co.uk
Interrogations while shackled hand and foot to the floor, punishment beatings by soldiers in riot gear, illegal non-medical mystery injections, and sleep deprivation are only a few of the allegations that represent a systematic regime of torture and human rights abuses that will lead to growing questions in the UK about the wellfare of all detainees, not least the 4 remaining Britons held there.

Legal action seems likely.

As US citizens become increasingly aware of these allegations,the US Administration will be forced to address these issues of grave concern by its ally, the UK.

Related News:
Guardian.co.uk
Scotsman.com


[Edited on 15-3-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I've just watched the first TV interview with one of the released prisoners.I'll post a link in a mo.

This is going to be a big story in the UK.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
Legal action seems likely.


It sure does.
Link

The father of a freed Guantanamo Bay detainee has pledged to sue the US government over his son's two-year incarceration at the camp.


Colin Powell is denying everything the released prisoners claim.
Link

"I think that unlikely," said Powell. "We don't abuse people who are in our care. I think we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian way."



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Some of the more bizarre allegations are of a sexual nature.

Jamal al-Harith alleges that women were brought into camp x-ray and that they fondled muslim detainees that had been sworn to chastity by their religion and that some detainees had their genitalia shaved.These claims might seem incredulous but Jamal al-Harith also gives a very credible description of his transport from Bagram to Guantanamo.









Those transported were given an apple on the 15 hour trip which they ate still shackled and hooded.Jamal al-Harith told also how those that needed the toilet had their bottoms wiped for them.He smiled as he said that he luckily held on and avoided that particular humiliation.


Q

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Let's see...trying to stir up some sympathy................

Nope. Can't do it.

Get a dictionary. Look up the words "unlawful combatant". If you want to show up in a war zone and fight against us while trying to appear as a 'civillian' in order to not get killed, that's your own foolish mistake. If you want Geneva protections, it's easy: get a uniform, rank, and serial number. If you don't have these, you have no right to demand these conditions.

These "non-medical mystery injections", if they were indeed applied, were likely sodium pentathol or some other truth-serum type concoction aimed at prying out secrets that could save American lives. I'm quite certain we weren't injecting them with clorox or bubonic plague.

I've seen the pictures of the aircraft interiors many times. Again, no sympathy. This system was designed to disorient, demoralize, and yes, make these people feel like they were no better than dogs. Exactly as it was intended.

By what right do these men claim innocence? "Oh, I just happened to be in Afghanistan with that bunch of Taliban you just waxed. I was just here to show them an exciting new way to cook a goat, really!" The release of these men does not preclude their guilt, only the fact that they were of no further use, or threat to us. Odds are they're just crazies for getting themselves into the situation in the first place.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Q,

You won't find "unlawful combatant" in any lexicon.That is a made up term.Made up by the USA.

Now it's obvious that you have swallowed the lies you have been told so I'll explain.

3 examples.

A man arrested as a spy by the Taliban and thrown in jail thought he would be released when the Americans entered Afghanistan was then deternmined to be an "unlawful combatant"? Explain.

Am ma arrested in Islamabad,capital of Pakistan,not a war zone determined to be an "unlawful combatant"? Explain.

A man arrested in West Africa,not even on the same continent as Afghanistan,determined to be an "unlawful combatant".

Now Q.I don't know what kind of news you are getting but I'll tell you you have been right royally lied to.

Britain release all 5 of the "unlawful combatants" almost as soon as they got here.One,this one who is speaking out,without ANY questioning.


WAKE UP!!!

You have been lied to and the value of American justice has been devatued all around the world.

You have no sympathy??

A sign of Brainwashed America!



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   
More Allegations Emerge.

One of the Briton's freed from Guantanamo Bay has said he received "horrific" treatment while he was detained by the US government.
Tarek Dergoul from Bethnal Green, east London, said in a statement he was held in inhuman conditions, interrogated at gunpoint and beaten.

The family of the 26-year-old believe his mental health has been "severely affected" by his experiences.


news.bbc.co.uk...


Q

posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Let's see....digging deeper.....

Nope. Still nothing. I'm afraid that it would seem to be you who has fallen for the thinly disguised anti-Americanism of the BBC. IF you'd pay close attention to your sources, you'd see my points. I'll break this down into bite-sized chunks for you.

Asif Iqbal...went to Pakistan 'to find a bride and settle down'...met his 'prospective bride' in Faisalabad, but decided to go to Karachi to 'think things over'...turns up in Northern Afghanistan, presumably in custody of the Northern Alliance. Gee, how did he end up there? I know I certainly wouldn't go there, what with the war on and all. Sounds fishy to me.

Shafiq Rasul...went to Pakistan for computer training. (Guess he couldn't get that in the UK?) Again, mysteriously turns up captured by SF at Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan. Somehow, I doubt IT's are in big demand there. Again, pretty fishy.

Ruhal Ahmed...went to Pakistan...for, umm...a wedding, yeah...with his good buddies Shafiq and Asif. Strangely, there was no mention of this wedding from the other two. Glub...Glub....

Jamal Udeen...Muslim school administrator...paid a lorry driver to take him from Pakistan to Iran...as part of a backpacking trip...I know I like to schedule all my vacations through a war zone, especially when I can pay someone I don't know to pack me through the area in the back of a truck. It just makes things so much more exciting, you know? Picked up in a Kandahar jail, no word how he got there. Any fishier, and the man would have gills.

Tarek Dergoul...caretaker for the elderly...went to Pakistan in 2001...to learn Arabic. Nope, can't get that in the UK either, I suppose. Coincedentally, he turns up in Tora Boraof all places. Reportedly gets an arm amputated after being wounded. The man was caught in Tora Bora during the offensive, for Christ's sake! How much suspicion do you require to detain someone?

And all these men we let go. As I said earlier, my belief is that they were fools to have gotten themselves where they were, and they were only released because they posed a greater threat to themselves than to anyone else.

Shall we look at some of these other winners still being held? The identities haven't been released yet, but here's the gist of it.

3rd runner up trained in Al-Queda camps in Afghanistan...was seen lurking around the abandoned British embassy in Kabul..and was reported to be inexplicably in posession of a list of Jewish organizations in New York when arrested. Guess he was planning to convert?

2nd runner up met with OBL himself--not once, not twice, but three times. Volunteered himself for suicide missions. Obviously, this was an upright, well-rounded and innocent civillian mistakenly captured by the evil, evil Americans. No, wait...

1st runner up (and this was a tough call!) trained in Al-Queda camps where he learned to use explosives and chemical weapons. Fled Afghanistan with the Taliban to Tora Bora, where he was fortunate enough to escape to Pakistan, the country where he was captured. I blame this on the stupendously moronic decision made to use Afghani forces to raid this area (his escape, that is).

And our grand-prize winner, the very creme de la creme, trained in the aforementioned camps...and was found in the home of none other than Al-Queda big cheese Abu Zubaydah himself! Sure enough, it was in Pakistan...so this somehow means he's in the clear?

Just because someone wasn't in the AO at the time of capture, doesn't mean that they aren't involved. This war does demand tactics previously unheard of in order to be won. The terrorists play by no rules--therefore, they deserve no protections afforded by them.

Yes, these 5 were near-immediately released by British authorities. Bear in mind that if they still posed a threat we'd certainly not have released them. Also bear in mind that the British legal system somewhere along the line picked up the mistaken belief that no-one should ever be executed...ever...regardless of their crimes.

I understand that you wish to appeal to my humane senses, JB1. I assure you that I do have them, and I do feel that anyone who is unreasonably detained should be duly compensated. I'm afraid that in these instances however, these terms simply are not applicable.

Don't believe all you read. Check several sources, and try to find the real story hidden under all the slant. All that you see is not "Brainwashed America"--it seems to me that there is much more brainwashing about America going on in the world today. We are not out to conquer the world, make a new empire, or blow the holy hell out of any country we don't like "because they're Muslims". I'm not saying all that we do is fine and good, because it isn't. We have our own little sneaky, no-good things we do, same as any country. I am saying that we're just about the only ones left with both the stones and the capability to stand up and try to take responsibility in fighting the battles that must be fought. Insofar as humane treatment goes, we're head and shoulders above 90% of the world--we give far more quarter than we receive.

I hope this helps you to understand my position on these matters.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Well, as an Englishman, I'm of the opinon these released prisoners should have been re-arrested immediately upon setting foot back in the UK, and tried for treason. If they're innocent, they'd walk free. Simple.

I for one am sick and tired of Blair's government being proactive towards the cause of Terrorism through it's utter inability to tackle terrorists, and those who openly incite terrorism, residing in the UK.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q
If you want Geneva protections, it's easy: get a uniform, rank, and serial number. If you don't have these, you have no right to demand these conditions.


Oh, so if an army invades your homeland, you aren't allowed to defend it unless you have a uniform? Don't be ridiculous.

You forget the US was the aggressor in this conflict. Sure, with good reason, but still. To invade a country, then detain anyone who resists and hold them in contradiction to the Geneva Convention is not only morally corrupt, it is a War Crime.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SabbyJ
Well, as an Englishman, I'm of the opinon these released prisoners should have been re-arrested immediately upon setting foot back in the UK, and tried for treason. If they're innocent, they'd walk free. Simple.

I for one am sick and tired of Blair's government being proactive towards the cause of Terrorism through it's utter inability to tackle terrorists, and those who openly incite terrorism, residing in the UK.


Maybe I am mistaken but didn't the UK opt out of the declaration of Human Rights just so they could detain suspected terrorists and jail them without trial? Just like they have numerous times in the past, imprisioning innocent people more often that not.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Im just curious, seeing the the US illegally entered Iraq, would it be ok for Iraqis to hold and totured US soldiers as they are only defending their country from "unlawful combatabts"?



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q
Get a dictionary. Look up the words "unlawful combatant". If you want to show up in a war zone and fight against us while trying to appear as a 'civillian' in order to not get killed, that's your own foolish mistake. If you want Geneva protections, it's easy: get a uniform, rank, and serial number. If you don't have these, you have no right to demand these conditions.


From the Geneva Convention Relative To The Treatment Of Prisoners Of War, 12 August 1949:



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:

...

(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;
3
(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.

...

(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.

So that's why they're unlawful combatants, is it? But - ah! Look at this...

Article 5



The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they
fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
4
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having
fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4,
such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their
status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


There you have it, in black and white. Check out the other treaties as well:

Major International Instruments on Disarmament and Related Issues


These "non-medical mystery injections", if they were indeed applied, were likely sodium pentathol or some other truth-serum type concoction aimed at prying out secrets that could save American lives. I'm quite certain we weren't injecting them with clorox or bubonic plague.


More likely a mixture of vaccinations, antibiotics and tranquilisers.


I've seen the pictures of the aircraft interiors many times. Again, no sympathy. This system was designed to disorient, demoralize, and yes, make these people feel like they were no better than dogs. Exactly as it was intended.


No argument there. But would it be used for real prisoners of war? As you can see in my previous reply, there is doubt as to what category these people fall under so "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their
status has been determined by a competent tribunal." I don't think this "competent tribunal" should consist of entirely U.S. officials. This is an international affair.


By what right do these men claim innocence? "Oh, I just happened to be in Afghanistan with that bunch of Taliban you just waxed. I was just here to show them an exciting new way to cook a goat, really!" The release of these men does not preclude their guilt, only the fact that they were of no further use, or threat to us. Odds are they're just crazies for getting themselves into the situation in the first place.


Maybe so. I have no sympathy for them, personally. I think that the regime of terror they contributed to was responsible for far worse. However, rule of law must apply. If this sort of thing is left to spiral out of control, then the so-called spirit of freedom and democracy that the U.S. and its allies fights for will become nothing more than a sick joke. Perhaps it already has.

And there is NO such phrase as "unlawful combatant" under the Geneva Convention. The phrase does not occur either in the Geneva Conventions relating to either The Treatment Of Prisoners Of War OR The Protection Of Civilian Persons In Time Of War. Either treaty, in fact, could be applied to the Afghan hostages.

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Lampyridae]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
*cough**cough*



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Ahh yes, Lampyridae, would this not also apply to those held at or within "Belmarsh - Britain's very own Guantanamo Bay", for which John Bull 1 also addressed back in January of this year?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a thought, why, with all the fervor going on in the UK over the US's "Gitmo", that they aren't equally calling Belmarsh "war crimes" material?

In such Lampyridae, very nice presentation....btw, may I ask your's and other's thoughts on these?

"Illegal combatant (also unlawful combatant)"
en.wikipedia.org...

"Guantanamo Bay"
en.wikipedia.org...

Excerpt:

"Beginning in 2002 the base has been used to house suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere at Camp X-Ray, and has also been used in the past to house Cuban and Haitian refugees who have been intercepted on the high seas. The peculiar legal status of Guantanamo Bay aids in these uses, because sovereignty of Guantanamo Bay ultimately resides with Cuba. People detained at Guantanamo are legally outside of the United States and do not have the Constitutional rights that they would have if they were held on United States territory (see Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1995)). The U.S. has classified the prisoners held at Camp X-Ray as illegal combatants rather than prisoners of war, which would also have given them protection through the Geneva Conventions."

Thoughts?


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's a thought, why, with all the fervor going on in the UK over the US's "Gitmo", that they aren't equally calling Belmarsh "war crimes" material?


Again nice side step Seekerof and again, I like the look of that fence you're sitting on.


Again I'll have to ask you again what I asked on the other thread. If these accusations are true, do you think what he was put through is right, now considering that he has been released without charges?



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
There is NO side step John..It was a legitimate question. You can not call one side bogus, while the other side is JUST as bogus.


seekerof



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
There is NO side step John..It was a legitimate question. You can not call one side bogus, while the other side is JUST as bogus.


You do it yet again. Can't you just answer the question? The topic at hand is whether the way these people are treated are barbaric or not. You have not offered an opinion of this at all.
Instead, you have taken up your new favourite past time of "I'm not going to address the issue, but instead I'm going to say "well look what other countries do, so that lets us off the hook"".

If the UK, Germany e.t.c. put their hand in the fire would the US do likewise? Are you 5 years old or something?

How about you take responsibility for your own actions without saying like a little kid "Well he's got an ice cream over there, why can't I have one? It's not fair. Bahhhh!!!".

How about you just actually give an opinion of whether this kind of treatment is right or not, not who else is doing it.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
OK, interesting things you brought up here, Seekerof. I'm no lawyer, so I'll just have my best guess at these.

Belmarsh

Internment without trial. Errr... I guess that goes against the basic declaration of human rights. Right to a fair trial, I guess. Britain doesn't even have a Constitution, as far as I know, so they can do pretty much whatever they like.

Powerpoint Slide Of EU Consitution - Overview

As far as we can see here, EU constitution will only really come through by about 2009, and it will supersede all the laws of its member states. It's supposed to embody the principles of democracy, human rights, transparency, etc. But it's not been signed yet... there's only EU law, which I guess is purely civil court, not criminal court. So you can sue, I think.

In this case, it's a local court thing - there's no declared war or military personnel being involved. And as such, there's less international regulation as to what goes on. In theory, it's called the Westphalian system, where what goes on in each individual state is nobody else's business. However, the Westphalian principle's been trampled on so much, it's all about who has the beef to tell others what to do and who doesn't.

Illegal Combatant

The term was first introduced in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed): ...

All right, as far as this one goes, this is a US Supreme Court ruling... in case of international law, and in particular, when dealing with nationals of a sovereign country captured in their own territory, the Geneva convention should theoretically be followed. Also, Geneva Convention (III) and (IV) were signed in 1949, after this ruling. In other words, the United States in theory, should be bound by these conventions.

Guantanamo Bay

The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular with cubans. The Cuban Government strongly denounces the treaty on grounds that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1959 declares in its article 52 that a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force. In this case by the inclusion, in 1903, of the Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution. The Cuban Convention was warned not to modify the Amendment and was told that the U.S. troops would not leave Cuba until its terms had been adopted as a condition from U.S. to grant independence.

Ah! A bit of law that I do sort of know about. A very interesting one this. Cuba's never recognised the US's right to lease, and because the contract was signed under duress (it might have been, I don't know the circumstances), then it's null and void. They shouldn't be there in the first place... and when you bring the prisoners into it, heck, I don't know.

The real trouble is, international laws have no teeth. They require enforcement - and just how are you going to do that? That's why things like the Geneva Convention aren't really laws... for breaches you can be tried for war crimes, but you have to lose the war first.

The reason why everybody's so outraged at US and UK treatment of terror suspects is not that it's particularly bad in comparison to what goes on in the rest of the world, it's that the Western world looks to them as a sort of moral compass. If that's out of whack, what now?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join