It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Swede Says He Was Tortured in Guantanamo

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
According to Reuters today, a Swedish man is alleging torture at Guantanamo Bay by the US. The man was held at the prision for 2 1/2 years before being released in early July.
 



news.yahoo.com
A Swede released from the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay last week said he had been tortured by exposure to freezing cold, noise and bright lights and chained during his 2 1/2-year imprisonment.

Swedish Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds told public radio that if correct, the allegations meant that the U.S. had broken international laws. "That is wholly unacceptable," Freivalds said.


She said that she hoped that the U.S. would investigate the allegations.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I am all for doing what it takes, adapting to fight terrorism. However 2 1/2 years is a very long time to be jailed without counsel whatsoever. Couldn't they interrogate and be done with it - within say 6 months or less. This should be looked into simply for the fact that we are better than this.

Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com

[edit on 14-7-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Oh my dear sweet lord!

You have got to be friggin kidding?

He is a POW!!! He was captured on a battlefield. We did not go to Sweden and take him off the streets.

POW's don't have legal consul. That have the right to live,be fed and not tortured.

Torture is not bright lights.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
Oh my dear sweet lord!

You have got to be friggin kidding?

He is a POW!!! He was captured on a battlefield. We did not go to Sweden and take him off the streets.

POW's don't have legal consul. That have the right to live,be fed and not tortured.

Torture is not bright lights.


Actually he was captured by some Pakistani villagers and sold to Pakistani police, who gave him to the U.S. Army.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
Oh my dear sweet lord!

You have got to be friggin kidding?

He is a POW!!! He was captured on a battlefield. We did not go to Sweden and take him off the streets.

POW's don't have legal consul. That have the right to live,be fed and not tortured.

Torture is not bright lights.


He's not a POW. I guess you haven't been following the whole Gitmo thing. You see, after we invaded Afghanistan, we captured a bunch of people. Who are they? Who knows? Bush said that they are enemy combatants, and don't have any rights, unlike POW's, which have a litany of rights.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
curme is right. POW have rights. The people being held at the Guantanamo base are "detainees." It's a cute word - almost sounds like they can leave if they wanted. The US will not give them prisoner of war status because that would give them rights that the US government does not want these "detainees" to have. As detainees they have no rights at all and they can be held forever without explanation or counsel. As an American this stuff bothers me. If they are terrorists then lets try them in courts as terrorists and move on, but everyone should have legal rights and not lost in some state of limbo.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I think they are "unlawful combatants”

In international armed conflicts, the term “combatants” denotes the right to participate directly in hostilities.

The combatant’s privilege is in essence a licence to kill or wound enemy combatants and destroy other enemy military objectives.

Consequently (lawful) combatants cannot be prosecuted for lawful acts of war in the course of military operations even if their behaviour would constitute a serious crime in peacetime. They can be prosecuted only for violations of international humanitarian law, in particular for war crimes.

Once captured, combatants are entitled to prisoner-of-war status and to benefit from the protection of the Geneva Convention.

The term “unlawful combatant" is describing all persons taking a direct part in hostilities without being entitled to do so and who therefore cannot be classified as prisoners of war on falling into the power of the enemy:

Civilians taking a direct part in hostilities, as well as members of militias and of other volunteer corps — including those of organized resistance movements — not being integrated in the regular armed forces but belonging to a party to conflict, provided that they do not comply with the conditions of the Geneva Convention.

Once captured, unlawful combatants are NOT entitled to POW- status and do NOT benefit from the protection of the Geneva Convention.



Rebekka

[edit on 14-7-2004 by Riwka]




top topics
 
0

log in

join