Showing posts with label Guantanamo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guantanamo. Show all posts

Saturday, March 7, 2020

Former US Air Force psychologist questioned about his role in Guantanamo interrogation

(January 30) Former Air Force psychologist Dr. James Mitchell was pressed by lawyers representing alleged plotters of the 9/11 terrorist attacks as to his major part of helping the CIA's rendition, detention, and interrogation program.

The Guantanamo interrogation program
Mitchell's company was paid more than $80 million for its portion of the program. The program involved at least 119 detainees who were held in agency black sites following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Black sites and enhanced interrogation
Enhanced interrogation techniques are a euphemism for the techniques used at black sites such as Guantanamo Bay to questions detainees. Black sites were secret facilities often controlled by the CIA used by the US government to detain terror suspects. The detainees were often subject to torture and mistreatment. Then US president George W Bush confirmed the existence of the sites in a speech on Sept. 6, 2006. The sites included Bagram, Gitmo, and Abu Ghraib.
Methods used included beating, binding in stress positions, hooding, deafening noise, sleep and food deprivation and withholding of medical treatment. As well there was waterboarding, sexual humiliation, subjection to extreme heat and cold and confinement in small boxes.
US and European officials have claimed that "enhanced interrogation" was a euphemism for torture. Those officials include former CIA director Leon Panetta, a Guantanamo prosecutor, and a military tribunal judge. Both former president Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder also said that certain techniques used amounted to torture. Although they repudiated the use of these techniques no one was prosecuted for their use.
Mitchell's role
Dr. Mitchell was first hired in April of 2002 as a short term contractor to consult on the interrogation of an Al Qaeda agent Abu Zubaydah. However, by June of the same year, the CIA asked him to help design as well as operate their interrogation program. He and partner Dr. Bruce Jessen then became two of three official CIA waterboarders. Mitchell was paid over $1.4 million and Jessen over $1.2 million from the period 2002 to 2005. The two formed the company Mtchell Jessen Associates that earned $81 million for its work for the US government.
The two also had an agreement that protected them from legal liability for their actions. The US government paid out a million dollars in 2014 and another undisclosed amount in 2017 to representatives of 3 former inmates through a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Mitchell who is now 68 insisted that the techniques he used which were derived through retro-engineering material from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape Program (SERE) were approved by the president, justified by Justice Dept. legal memos, and given the green light by the CIA. However, as noted many critics considered the techniques forms of torture. Dr. Mitchell throughout his testimony condemned those who mistreated detainees whom he claimed were CIA officers operating outside his guidelines. He said there were FBI agents at Guantanamo doing similar work to him.
Obama drops contract with Mitchell and Jessen
Mitchell notes that the company year-to-year contract was dropped upon the election of Barack Obama. He said: "They were being pressured by the White House and the Senate, and for the convenience of the government, they said that they were going to cancel our contract. It was canceled after we’d been told it had been renewed.”
Many thought the waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques were not effective. The Democratic-led Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in 2014 that the enhanced techniques were not either a safe nor effective means of collecting intelligence. However, Republican members and some former CIA directors responded that they had no doubt that the program saved lives and was effective in weakening AL Qaeda. Obama banned the use of the techniques with an executive order in 2009 and in 2015 a law further limited methods of interrogation. However, Guantanamo is still open despite Obama's promise to close it and much international condemnation of the facility. In January of 2018 US President Trump issued an executive order that will keep the facility open indefinitely. As of May 2018 there were just 40 inmates left at the facility.


Previously published in the Digital Journal

Friday, July 12, 2019

Democrats want to ban Trump from sending more terror suspects to Guantanamo

(June 10) Democrats on the House Armed Service Committee are attempting to stop the Trump administration from detaining any new terror suspects at the prison facility in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

New bill's restrictions
A recent article describes the restrictions: "The committee’s annual policy bill, according to a copy obtained by Defense One, prohibits the use of funds to detain additional individuals “including United States citizens” and “would prohibit detention of additional individuals under the law of war or pursuant to a military commission proceeding.” It also requires the administration to come up with a plan “identifying a disposition other than continued law of war detention” at Gitmo for each of the 40 detainees currently held there."
Obama made it a campaign promise to close the facility but was unable to do so and faced bipartisan obstruction of his plans.
Obama's failed attempts to close Guantanamo
Wikipedia notes: "On 6 January 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which, in part, placed restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to foreign countries, thus impeding the closure of the facility.[25] In February 2011, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Guantanamo Bay was unlikely to be closed, due to opposition in the Congress.[26] Congress particularly opposed moving prisoners to facilities in the United States for detention or trial.[26] In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[27] On 4 November 2015, President Barack Obama stated that he was preparing to unveil a plan to close the facility and move some of the terrorism suspects held there to U.S. soil. The plan would propose one or more prisons from a working list that includes facilities in Kansas, Colorado and South Carolina. Two others that were on the list, in California and Washington state, do not appear to have made the preliminary cut, according to a senior administration official familiar with the proposal.[28] By 19 January 2017, however, the detention center remained open, with 41 detainees remaining.[6]"
Obama was forced in January of 2011 to sign a Defense Authorization Bill which placed restrictions on Obama's transfer of prisoners both to the mainland and foreign countries. This helped sabotage Obama attempts to close the facility. However, in 2015 Obama tried again to have some moved to the US. However, the facility is not only still open as money has been spent on repair and upgrading as illustrated by this 2017 article.
Guantanamo was begun under George W Bush
Wikipedia describes Guantanamo: "The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base,[1] also referred to as Guantánamo, G-Bay, GTMO, and Gitmo (/ˈɡɪtmoʊ/), which is on the coast of Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. Indefinite detention without trial and torture have led the operations of this camp to be considered a major breach of human rights by Amnesty International and a violation of Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.[2][3][4]The camp was established by President George W. Bush's administration in 2002 during the War on Terror. "
Trump vows to keep the facility open
On the campaign trail for president in 2016 Trump promised not only that he would keep Guantanamo open but that he would also fill it with bad dudes. Trump is bothered by the high expenses at the facility that retains just 40 inmates. Expenses may increase as the facility is home to aged suspected terrorists many of whom can expected to be in the facility until they die. No doubt medical costs will increase significantly.
The new bill notes that the increasing age of Guantanamo detainees poses a challenge as the US is obligated to provide medical services that meet appropriate standards of car. Although the bill bans transferring any of the remaining prisoners to Yemen, Somalia, Libya or Syria there is no blanket prohibition of transfers to the US.
There will be opposition to any transfers to the US
The bill would allow exceptions to the ban on transferring prisoners to the mainland US. It would allow transfers of prisoners to medical treatment not available at the prison. Under the Geneva Conventions the US must give detainees the same level of care as US service members. Senior officers at the base have been asking how they can be able to do this for the increasing elderly detainee population.
The House committee's bill is expected to be made public on Monday and marked up on Wednesday. Wikipedia describes marking up legislation: "Markup (or mark-up) is the process by which a U.S. congressional committee or state legislative session debates, amends, and rewrites proposed legislation."


Previously published in the Digital Journal

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Last UK resident still at Guantanamo returns home after 13 years

Shaker Aamer had been detained at Guantanamo for 13 years without charge. Many have been clamouring for his repatriation since he was cleared for transfer back in 2007
Aamer has been cleared for transfer twice, first under the George W. Bush administration and then under Barack Obama. The announcement that Aamer would return to the UK was made last month as noted in a Digital Journal article. His time at Guantanamo has left Aamer in poor health: A medical examination ordered by his lawyers in December 2013 revealed Aamer was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, as well as migraine headaches, asthma and kidney pain.Cori Crider, Aamer's attorney in the US, said:"We are, of course, delighted that Shaker is on his way back to his home and his family here in the UK. It is long, long past time. Shaker now needs to see a doctor, and then get to spend time alone with his family as soon as possible."Aamer was flown back to the UK on a private jet Friday just after midnight.
The release was the second in less than two days but there are still 112 prisoners remaining at Guantanamo. Aamer was approved for release with security arrangements that satisfy the US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. Aamer's wife and his four children in the UK have been working tirelessly for his release along with many others. This May, a bipartisan delegation of UK members of parliament worked for Aamer's release with Obama administration officials and members of the US Congress. Of the 112 remaining prisoner 52 are already cleared for release to other countries as was Aamer. In spite of the fact that Obama claims he is committed to closing Guantanamo the rate of release of inmates even those cleared for transfer has been painfully slow. Aamer is a Saudi national but had indefinite leave to stay in the UK where he is married to a UK citizen and has four children.
Aamer's daughter Johina now 17 has not seen her father since she was four years old. He has one son born after he had been sent to Guantanamo. Supporters of Mr. Aamer claim he was picked up in Afghanistan where he claimed he was working for a charity and sold to authorities by bounty hunters and ended up being transferred from one detention centre to another until he was rendered to Guantanamo. He claims he had been tortured. Authorities claim he was active in an Al Qaeda cell. Eventually, the media will no doubt be pressing Aamer to testify to his experiences at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
Moazzam Begg a former Guantanamo prisoner said that Aamer was probably one of the "most well-known prisoners" there as he had constantly fought for the rights of and been an advocate for the prisoners. Begg said that the effects of the long imprisonment will be lasting and he will have trouble dealing with his situation. Aamer spent long periods in solitary confinement. He also was force fed during a hunger strike. No doubt Aamer will wish to keep away from the public eye for a considerable period so he can adjust to his new situation.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Saudi with UK residency likely to be released from Guantanamo soon

Shaker Aamer, a Saudi with residency status in Britain, is expected to be released from Guantanamo in June. He has a British wife and four children in London.
The UK has made repeated requests for Aamer's release. The 48-year-old Aamer is accused of having been a key recruiter and financier for Al Qaeda while in Britain and to have worked for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. However, he has been held in Guantanamo for 13 years without charge. A US government officialtold AFP that Aamer would be released along with up to 10 other detainees.
A new commander Rear Admiral Fernandez Ponds will take over the command of the facility in July. There are still 122 men held prisoner. 57 have been classified as "releasable" by a review committee, including Aamer. Obama promised to close the prison even during his first presidential campaign. Congress has continually blocked Obama's attempts to take actions that could lead to closing the base. The base is technically Cuban territory but has been leased from Cuba since 1903 at a cost of just over $4,000 annually but the Cuban revolutionary government has refused to cash the checks. Cuba considers the lease arrangement not binding. Recent normalization of relations with Cuba do not include the return of the base to Cuba. Recently considerable investment and upgrades to the base have been made indicating the prison is not likely to close for some time even if the plan is to transfer the 57 cleared for release out of the facility Lieutenant Colonel Myles Caggins, a Pentagon spokesperson said: "The goal is to transfer all 57. We're going to support the president's mission of closing Guantanamo through transfers of detainees and prosecutions through military commissions,"The transfer of the ten in June would be after a thirty day notice period to the US Congress and then Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, would sign off on the transfer.
48 of those to be transferred are Yemenis who will not be repatriated in spite of continual protests for them to be returned to Yemen. With the present conflict in Yemen, the US will be even less likely to allow them back to Yemen. The US has had trouble finding host countries but Uruguay accepted a number and Oman, Estonia, Slovakia, and Georgia have also accepted prisoners. The one place you can be sure will not accept them is the United States which jailed them in the first place.
Campaigners in the UK for Aamer's release were heartened by the news but noted that Aamer had been cleared for release eight years ago by the Bush administration and then again under Obama in 2009 but nothing has happened. Karla McLaren, of Amnesty International in the UK, noted: ‘These reports are obviously encouraging but we’ve been here before.There have been so many false dawns over the release of Shaker that we won’t believe it until a plane bringing him back actually touches down here in Britain. Guantanamo has always been a complete travesty of justice and whoever is in government must ensure... Shaker is returned to his family as soon as possible if he’s not going to be charged.’
Supporters of Aamer claim that he was detained in Kabul in 2001 while doing volunteer work for an Islamic charity. They say he was handed over to US military in exchange for money and then tortured at a secret "black site" prison. He denies accusations he helped finance Al Qaeda. Aamer wants to return to the UK but Washington wants to send him to Saudi Arabia. He fears he would be tortured there. Given that he has a wife and four children in the UK it surely makes sense to send him there. Aamer's lawyer say UK and US authorities want to silence Aamer who claims to have witnessed abuse in the presence of UK security official.The Daily Mail in the UK has long campaigned on behalf of Aamer. Aamer's family says that if he comes to the UK he will be quite willing to face a UK to answer any charges he is a dangerous extremist. Apparently, Washington does not want that either.
The Mail discovered documents that showed, David Milliband, when foreign secretary in the Labor government, had plotted to hand Aamer over to Saudi authorities if he were released while leading his UK family to believe he was trying to have him returned to them in Britain. It will be interesting to see where Aamer ends up, in the UK, or Saudi Arabia. Given past experience he may even end up staying in Guantanamo. The appended video deals with another detainee in Guantanamo who wrote and published a diary about his experiences in the facility well over 12 years.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

US still holds up to 60 prisoners indefinitely in Bagram in Afghanistan

- While the US and Afghanistan have just signed a bilateral security agreement that will allow US and some NATO troops to remain after the end of 2014, there are still outstanding issues such as the fate of a number of prisoners still held by the US.



Journalist Jessica Donati reported to Reuters that the status of a number of foreign individuals who are in custody in a section of Bagram Air Base north of Kabul will be unclear when the present mission ends on December 31st this year. The US will not have the right to continue to hold them there after the mission ends. The identity of the prisoners is not known nor even how many they are. However, all Afghan prisoners were turned over to the Afghan authorities so they are non-Afghans. Brigadier General Patrict Reinert, the commanding general of the US Army Reserve Legal Command claims that all the prisoners are foreign nationals captured by the US around the globe. They ended up at the site near the Bagram Air Base.
An article in Rolling Stone last year went into some detail about the facility: Around 60 non-Afghan nationals are currently being kept by the U.S. at the prison near Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan – all without charge or trial – following the hand-over of around 3,000 Afghan prisoners to the Afghan government in March. Chris Rogers of the Open Society Foundations describes the facility where the prisoners are held a second Guantanamo Bay that no one has heard about. Some of the detainees might face prosecution or mistreatment if returned to their home countries. The detainees are held as quasi prisoners of war as part of the ongoing war on terror against Al Qaeda and affiliates. The theory is that they can be legally held until the war is over! While the combat mission in Afghanistan may be over no doubt the US can claim that the war against terrorism continues. However, the US will need the permission of the Afghan government to continue to keep these prisoners at Bagram
The prisoners could be moved to Guantanamo but this seems unlikely. Many are no doubt in the Bagram facility because the US wanted to avoid attention to the fact that the US is still holding people indefinitely at Guantanamo in Cuba. Sending more captured suspected terrorists to Guantanamo would simply create unwelcome publicity at a time when Obama is supposed to be trying his best to close the facility. At last count, there were still 149 detainees held at the facility. Reinert said that some of the prisoners could be transferred to the US and tried in US courts in certain situations: "If someone has committed a crime overseas that could be a crime also in the United States, a detainee could be transferred back to the United States." This might not be a popular move and there may be many cases where there would not be sufficient evidence for a conviction.
 Maryam Haq, a lawyer with the Justice Project Pakistan(JPP) wants to ensure that all Pakistani prisoners are back in Pakistan before the end of 2014. The US already quietly sent back 14 Pakistani detainees because there was no real evidence against them. The detainees do not have their own lawyers. In 2009, detainee review boards(DRBs) were set up. The panels are composed of US administrative officials and their role is simply to decided whether inmates need to be kept in custody. One detainee called them a joke and noted that the only evidence that they had against him was a document he was forced to sign. Sarah Belal, the director of JPP, said that the US had an obligation to decide what to do with these individuals by the end of 2014: “These individuals are trapped in indefinite, illegal detention. The US and other governments have the means to bring this to an end – it is time that they and the public have the will.” Perhaps the solution to the problem will be to keep the Bagram prison open with the agreement of the new Afghan government upon agreeing to make appropriate payments to Afghan authorities for the right to do so.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Obama carries on and expands Bush policies


In an article in Salon, Alex Kane a reporter for MondoWeiss, lists five ways in which Obama has carried on with Bush policies such as rendition, indefinite detention, warrant-less wiretapping, drone attacks, and use of Guantanamo.
Kane points out that on his second day of office Obama broke with the Bush era by signing executive orders that banned torture and he also promised that Guatanamo would be closed within a year. Guantanamo is still open.
Obama can hardly be blamed entirely for the failure to close Guantanamo since the Republican Party has tried to block attempts to close the base. Nevertheless, Obama has hardly continued to press that hard to close the base and he himself has signed bills that restrict his ability to close it.
As if often his strategy, Obama threatened to veto the NDAA of 2013 but then signed it. In the provisions of the act is one that restricts “the transfer of detainees into the United States for any purpose, including trials in federal court. It also requires the defense secretary to meet rigorous conditions before any detainee can be returned to his own country or resettled in a third country.”
Human Rights Watch has blasted the restrictions saying:
“Indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo is illegal, unsustainable and against U.S. national security interests, and it needs to end. The administration should not continue to just blame Congress. President Obama should follow through on his earlier commitments and make the effort to overcome the transfer restrictions.”
As the appended video indicates, 86 of the inmates at Guantanamo have been cleared for release. However, the restrictions imposed on their release means that they will still be held indefinitely.
Obama does not seem to care. He is more concerned with nominating for the CIA John Brennan, a person closely associated with all the Bush programs that Obama and Democrats railed against not so long ago, including torture and extraordinary rendition. Obama tried to appoint Brennan in his first term but memory of his service to Bush was still too strong. Instead he made him a top advisor on counter-terrorism. Brennan has been a staunch defender of the expanded drone program initiated by Obama.
Obama has expanded the drone program far beyond anything that existed under Bush. Not only does he use it in war zones but in any area where there are suspected militants. The Bush administration carried starting in 2002 carried out only 52 drone strikes. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism these strikes killed an estimated 438 including 182 civilians and 112 children. Even before Obama's second term begins he has ordered 300 drones strikes just in Pakistan. These strikes killed about 2,152 people including 290 civilians with 64 being children.
However there are other disastrous effects of the drone programs as the constant buzzing of drones above:
“terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.”
There is no sign of any end to the program just continuous expansion beyond targeting specific individuals to signature strikes. The Washington Post describes a new "matrix" being developed as part of:
“the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.”
This is just a sample of the detailed information presented in the article, which shows that Obama is carrying on and expanding Bush policies. Even as he does so, there is only limited opposition to what is happening. The nomination of Brennan is a perfect example of how any opposition has become muted. The reality for many liberals seems to be that there is no alternative, so keep quiet or the Republicans will get you if you don't watch out.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Retiring marine general who built and ran Guantanamo says it was a mistake.

The rest of the article is at this site. General Lehnert did complain but within the chain of command and nothing ever happened of course. One could hardly expect him to do much more at the time.

Retiring Marine general calls Guantanamo prison bad move
By Jeanette Steele
GUANTANAMO BAY
Since the 1960s, the base has served as a logistics point for the Navy's Atlantic Fleet. It also supports anti-drug operations in the Caribbean.
Joint Task Force 160 was activated in December 2001, and Camp X-Ray was prepared as a temporary location for detainees, who started arriving the next month.
More than 520 prisoners have been released to other countries; about 220 remain.
CAMP PENDLETON — Saying the United States lost the moral high ground, the outgoing Marine general who built and ran the Guantanamo Bay military prison in early 2002 said he quickly concluded that it was the wrong path and that the cells he constructed should be emptied.
Retiring Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert, now commander of seven Marine bases on the West Coast, also said bringing the remaining prisoners to Camp Pendleton — something the White House has discussed — is a bad idea because it could threaten the base's main job of training Marines.
Lehnert will step down next week after heading the Marine Corps Installations West command since 2005. He has guided a massive construction campaign at the bases he oversees from an office at Camp Pendleton.
In early 2002, then-Brig. Gen. Lehnert was commander of Joint Task Force 160, the unit given the job of quickly building prison cells at the U.S. base in Cuba for “enemy combatants” captured in Afghanistan. It was meant to be a short-lived job, and Lehnert left after 100 days.
“I came to the conclusion very soon that this probably wasn't the right way to go,” Lehnert, 58, said during a media round table yesterday. “Probably before I left Guantanamo, I was of the opinion it needed to go away as soon as possible.”
Lehnert said the United States has a moral obligation to treat the prisoners humanely. He added that he wasn't in charge of interrogations, which were handled by a different task force. That delineation of duties caused “creative tension” in the officer ranks, Lehnert said.
Human-rights organizations have criticized the U.S. government for holding people at Guantanamo without trial, sometimes for years, and for not following established standards of treatment for prisoners of war

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Obama Brings Guantanamo to Bagram

Obama's policies enrage many on the right but the same should be the case on the left. However many left oriented liberals still support Obama even though it was clear from the very first that on foreign policy Obama has been Bush lite or in Afghanistan Bush on steroids.
Obama has thrown crumbs for his leftis supporters to eagerly snatch. He promised to close Guantanamo and he issued rules against torture. But in the same breath he accepted the policy of rendition and now it is clear that he is rendering suspects to Bagram in Afghanistan. Now we have new rules that are supposed to give Bagram prisoners more rights but these rules are promulgated at the same time as the Obama administration is appealing a ruling by a federal judge that prisoners from outside Afghanistan have a right to challenge their imprisonment! Obama claims that giving prisoners these rights would be a threat to national security. Now Cheney could not have said it better.

Obama Brings Guantanamo to Bagram
by Andy Worthington, September 14, 2009


Following briefings by Obama administration officials (who declined to be identified), both the New York Times and the Washington Post reported yesterday that the government is planning to introduce a new review system for the 600 or so prisoners held at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, which will, for the first time, allow them to call witnesses in their defense.

On paper, this appears to be an improvement on existing conditions at the prison, but a close inspection of the officials’ statement reveals that the proposed plans actually do very little to tackle the Bush administration’s wayward innovations regarding the detention of prisoners in wartime, and the officials also provided the shocking news that prisoners are currently being rendered to Bagram from other countries.

Reform at Bagram is certainly needed. Until 2007, there was, as the Post explained, “no formal process to review prisoner status,” and, as District Court Judge John D. Bates noted in April, the system that was then put in place — consisting of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Review Boards — “falls well short of what the Supreme Court found inadequate at Guantánamo” (in Boumediene v. Bush, the June 2008 ruling recognizing the prisoners’ constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights), being both “inadequate” and “more error-prone” than the notoriously inadequate and error-prone review system of Combatant Status Review Tribunals that was established at Guantánamo to review the prisoners’ cases.

Revealing the chronic deficiencies of the review system at Bagram, Judge Bates quoted from a government declaration which stated that the UECRBs at Bagram do not even allow the prisoners to have a “personal representative” from the military in place of a lawyer (as at Guantánamo), and that “Bagram detainees represent themselves,” and added, with a palpable sense of incredulity:

Detainees cannot even speak for themselves; they are only permitted to submit a written statement. But in submitting that statement, detainees do not know what evidence the United States relies upon to justify an “enemy combatant” designation — so they lack a meaningful opportunity to rebut that evidence. [The government’s] far-reaching and ever-changing definition of enemy combatant, coupled with the uncertain evidentiary standards, further undercut the reliability of the UECRB review. And, unlike the CSRT process [which was followed by annual review boards], Bagram detainees receive no review beyond the UECRB itself.

In what appears to be a direct response to Judge Bates’ damning criticisms, government officials explained, as the Post described it, that:

Under the new rules, each detainee will be assigned a U.S. military official, not a lawyer, to represent his interests and examine evidence against him. In proceedings before a board composed of military officers, detainees will have the right to call witnesses and present evidence when it is “reasonably available,” the official said. The boards will determine whether detainees should be held by the United States, turned over to Afghan authorities or released.

While this checks all the boxes regarding the deficiencies identified by Judge Bates and includes the additional promise that, “For those ordered held longer, the process will be repeated at six-month intervals,” it hardly constitutes progress, as these plans essentially replicate the CSRTs at Guantánamo, which, lest we forget, were condemned as a sham process by Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a veteran of U.S. intelligence who worked on the tribunals. In a series of explosive statements in 2007, Lt. Col. Abraham explained that they relied on an evidentiary process that was nothing short of “garbage,” and were designed merely to rubberstamp the Bush administration’s feeble or non-existent justification for holding the majority of the men.

Hoping to fend off such criticisms, the government officials told the Post that “the review proceedings at Bagram will mark an improvement in part because they will be held in detainees' home countries — where witnesses and evidence are close at hand.”

This may be the case, but at no point in the officials’ statements was any mention made of the government’s obligations to hold prisoners seized in wartime as prisoners of war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. In practical terms, this would not necessarily help the prisoners secure their release, because the Conventions assert that prisoners of war can be held until the end of hostilities, and at present, from the best estimates made available, prisoners are held for an average of 14 months before being transferred to Afghan custody (or, in some cases, released outright), and around 500 prisoners have left Bagram to date.

However, under Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions, if there is any doubt about the status of prisoners seized in wartime, competent tribunals must be held, close to the time and place of capture, in which prisoners are allowed to call witnesses. As I have explained at length before, these tribunals were held during every U.S. war from Vietnam onwards, but were deliberately suppressed by the Bush administration (contributing decisively to the filling of Guantánamo with men who had no connection whatsoever to any form of militancy whatsoever), and what President Obama must do, if he is intending to ensure that the United States once more embraces the Geneva Conventions, is to pledge that all prisoners seized in future will be subjected to these tribunals on capture, rather than holding versions of the CSRTs at some unspecified time afterwards.

By refusing to do so, I can only infer that he and his administration have, essentially, accepted the Bush administration’s aberrant changes regarding the detention of prisoners in wartime as a permanent shift in policy, with profound implications for the Conventions in general.

If Obama’s plan stands, any country anywhere in the world will be able to seize enemy soldiers during wartime (including U.S. soldiers, presumably), and, instead of holding competent tribunals, feel justified in holding them for an unspecified amount of time before subjecting them to innovative tribunals, which bear a resemblance to the competent tribunals, but which are, instead, clearly designed to shred Article 5 and to allow prisoners to be held until their circumstances can be explored further — and, again by inference, until they can be milked for their supposed intelligence value, with all the ominous undercurrents that phrase involves.

In the case of Bagram, a further complication is that, according to the Post, the Conventions have been shredded still further, because about 200 of the 500 prisoners who have left Bagram “have been convicted in Afghan courts, all based on evidence the United States provided.”

These fundamental assaults on the Geneva Conventions, combined with the evidence regarding the dubious relationship between the U.S. and the Afghan courts, are disturbing enough, as they demonstrate, in defiance of the claims made by government officials, that the Obama administration is only tinkering with its predecessor’s fundamental disregard for international laws and treaties.

However, the timing of the government’s announcement is also enormously suspicious because, as the Times explained, it comes “as the administration is preparing to appeal a federal judge’s ruling in April that some Bagram prisoners brought in from outside Afghanistan have a right to challenge their imprisonment.”

That ruling, which I quoted from above, was made by Judge Bates, in the cases of three foreign prisoners seized in other countries and “rendered” to Bagram, where they have languished without rights for up to six years. In April, when Judge Bates ruled on their habeas corpus appeals, he had no hesitation in granting them the right to challenge the basis of their detention through the courts because, as he explained unambiguously, “the detainees themselves as well as the rationale for detention are essentially the same.” He added that, although Bagram is “located in an active theater of war,” and that this may pose some “practical obstacles” to a court review of their cases, these obstacles “are not as great” as the government suggested, are “not insurmountable,” and are, moreover, “largely of the Executive’s choosing,” because the prisoners were specifically transported to Bagram from other locations.

As I explained at the time, it was inconceivable that the government could come up with an argument against Judge Bates’ ruling, or, indeed, that there was any justification whatsoever for doing so, because “only an administrative accident — or some as yet unknown decision that involved keeping a handful of foreign prisoners in Bagram, instead of sending them all to Guantánamo — prevented them from joining the 779 men in the offshore prison in Cuba.”

However, although Judge Bates, in a later ruling, sided with the government by refusing to grant habeas rights to an Afghan prisoner seized in the United Arab Emirates in 2002 and also rendered to Bagram, primarily because he agreed with the government’s claim that to do so would cause “friction” with the Afghan government regarding negotiations about the transfer of Afghan prisoners to the custody of their own government, the Obama administration refused to accept his ruling about the foreign prisoners and launched an immediate appeal. As a result, it is, I believe, completely justifiable to conclude that the entire rationale for introducing a new review process for all the prisoners at Bagram is to prevent the courts from having access to the foreign prisoners held there. Reinforcing this conclusion is another admission, hidden away towards the end of the Times report, in which it was noted that the officials also explained that “the importance of Bagram as a holding site for terrorism suspects captured outside Afghanistan and Iraq has risen under the Obama administration, which barred the Central Intelligence Agency from using its secret prisons for long-term detention.”

This, to put it bluntly, is terrifying, as it seems to confirm, in one short sentence, that, although the CIA’s secret prisons have been closed down, as ordered by President Obama, a shadowy “rendition” project is still taking place, with an unknown number of prisoners being transferred to Bagram instead.

The upshot of all this is disastrous for those who hoped that President Obama would not only accept but would positively embrace the opportunity to return to the laws that existed regarding the capture and detention of prisoners, before they were so comprehensively dismissed by the Bush administration. Far from reassuring the world that there are only two acceptable methods for holding people in detention — either as criminal suspects, to be put forward for trials in federal court, or as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions — Obama has chosen instead to continue to operate outside the law, implementing Guantánamo-style tribunals at Bagram and acknowledging that he wants the U.S. courts to remain excluded because he is using Bagram as a prison for terror suspects “rendered” from around the world.

To gauge quite how disastrous this news is, imagine how former Vice President Dick Cheney is responding to it. Yes, that is indeed a smile playing over the lips of the architect of America’s wholesale flight from the law in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. “I told you so,” he mutters contentedly.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press) and serves as policy advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation. Visit his website at: www.andyworthington.co.uk.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Ivan Eland: Blowing Smoke on Gitmo

It would be nice if the mainstream media published more critical and analytical material such as this but it remains for struggling outlets such as antiwar.com to do so. They are having a fund drive right at the moment. THis post comes from their site.


Antiwar.com Original - http://original.antiwar.com -
Blowing Smoke on Gitmo
Posted By Ivan Eland On May 22, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Unfortunately, politicians claim they don’t read opinion polls, while scrutinizing them even more closely than options for their next junket. This has been most evident recently in the civil liberties arena. On the same day he was inaugurated, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that would close Guantanamo prison in Cuba – a largely symbolic and overrated act to show his break with flagrant Bush administration abuses of civil liberties.
But Obama is not the only person in the Washington public relations circus who is perpetrating demagoguery on the issue. The Republicans, and now the Democrats, in Congress are fearmongering over the possibility that some of the Guantanamo inmates may come to the United States. In both cases, the politicians read the opinion polls and acted accordingly.
One might say that this is laudable behavior in a democracy and that the politicians are just reflecting what the people want. However, in the United States, we have never had direct democracy. We have a system of indirect democracy in which periodic elections are held to elect governmental representatives who are supposed to lead. One of the strengths of representative government is the realization that each citizen doesn’t have the time, energy, or knowledge to be an expert on every issue. Of course, over time, if politicians get far off the track in too many instances on what the people regard as important and correct, they can be voted out in those elections. But in general, the public will give politicians some leeway on such matters. For example, Ronald Reagan was and Barack Obama has been more popular with the public than their stands on the issues. The same is true with popular congressional leaders who take principled stands – for example, Ron Paul.
After the travesty of the Bush abuses of civil liberties, we need bipartisan courage to reverse the damage instead of empty symbolism or the stoking of irrational public fears.
First, although Obama has pledged to close Guantanamo, the act would be only symbolic if he retains all of the abuses that have gone on there. Torture and mistreatment happened at other U.S. prisons around the world, and Leon Panetta, Obama’s CIA director, has not ruled out allowing the CIA to use torture in extraordinary circumstances. In addition, Obama has refused to release photos of past prisoner abuse because he deemed them to be devoid of new illuminative value and claimed, without hard evidence, that U.S. troops overseas would be endangered by their release. But in a republic, should the government deny citizens the right to see what it has done – even if it is grisly or shameful?
Obama is retaining military commissions, which he vehemently criticized during the presidential campaign for their lack of due legal process. Despite his pledge to limit hearsay evidence and ban evidence obtained through torture, the tribunals are still kangaroo courts that do not meet constitutional standards of due process. Also, before he became president, Obama was one of many congressional Democrats in Congress to wail about warrantless wiretapping on people in the United States, only to eventually strengthen the law that allows such unconstitutional spying.
Despite all of the hubbub about the possibility of bringing Guantanamo prisoners to the United States, most scary are Obama’s recent musings about changing laws to allow preventive detention. When a president can yank people off the streets merely because he alleges that they are "dangerous," throw them in jail, and hold them indefinitely without charge, we are on the road to dictatorship. Although Bush violated such habeas corpus rights, which have been one of the cornerstones of the rule of law in both Britain and the United States for centuries, Obama is talking about enshrining the violations into permanency. All of this shows that Obama is not restoring the republic, but has adopted a policy of Bush Lite, which retains some of the unneeded and un-American Bush policies. (I do not accuse people of "un-American" activities lightly, but this erosion of unique American freedoms does seem to fit the bill.)
And what of Congress? Democrats now control it and should be keeping Obama honest in rolling back the horrendous Bush practices. Instead, Republicans are squealing about having Guantanamo’s terrorists in our midst, and the scared Democrats are caving in to them. Yet American prisons seem to have been able to hold the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 without being attacked or having them escape. The same has been true for domestic terrorists, such as snipers John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols of Oklahoma City bombing fame. The town of Hardin, Mont., with a vacant correctional facility, didn’t think it that dangerous to hold Gitmo detainees and has offered to take them. Moreover, if U.S. prisons are off-limits to terrorists, where will any of those convicted be held?
Members of Congress also point to the 14 percent of released Guantanamo inmates who have allegedly gone back to terrorism. Most of the U.S. government’s allegations of the released prisoners’ supposed transgressions are either secret or vague – such as associating or training with terrorists.
Moreover, if the U.S. prison system had a recidivism rate of only 14 percent, correctional and law enforcement officials would be jumping for joy. Recidivism in this system can be as much as 68 percent three years after release. Undoubtedly, this low rate is not because Guantanamo has had fabulous rehabilitation programs for terrorists, but probably indicates that people who weren’t guilty of anything were swept off the battlefield in Afghanistan because of the rewards offered to snitches in a dirt-poor country. The likelihood that innocent people were jailed indefinitely also illustrates why preventive detention is bad and genuine legal due process is so vital.
Finally, the arrogance of the U.S. Congress is unbelievable. It expects foreign countries to bail the United States out from its self-made civil liberties quagmire. The U.S. preventively detained people indefinitely without legal due process, proposed to try them in kangaroo military tribunals, and tortured them. Now the United States wants other nations to take released Guantanamo prisoners or ones who need to remain incarcerated.
Instead, let me suggest a "radical" solution to the entire civil liberties quagmire. Why don’t we treat alleged terrorists as criminals rather than warriors (as they should have been handled from the start), charge them if possible with a punishable offense, and try them in U.S. civilian courts. If the evidence is not good enough to do so or it was obtained by torture, then we need to bite the bullet as a society and free them. In the worst case, if they commit another terrorist act, it would be bad, but not more horrible than trashing the constitutional freedoms that are the bedrock of the American republic.
Article printed from Antiwar.com Original: http://original.antiwar.com
URL to article: http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2009/05/22/blowing-smoke-on-gitmo/

Copyright © 2009 Antiwar.com Original. All rights reserved.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Guantanamo to Close?

I am always a bit skeptical of anonymous sources. Perhaps it is a trial balloon. I think it is a good idea to close it so maybe that will ensure it stays open. I understand quite a bit of money was spent upgrading parts of the camp but perhaps that is of no significance. The US government spares nothing in arming their contractors with the best profits available.
The Khadr family for the most part were Al Qaeda sympathisers. The father was good friends with Bin Laden and died in a firefight. However another son who was also at Guantanamo for some time was a spy for the CIA. He is back in Canada now. He worked for the CIA in Bosnia as well as Guantanamo.
I always wonder about some bills that I see before congress. They ultimately seem to disappear into limbo in many cases.


U.S. considering closing Guantanamo Bay prison: sources
Last Updated: Thursday, June 21, 2007 | 10:00 PM ET
CBC News
The American government is nearing a decision to close the controversial U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and move the detainees to other jails, the Associated Press reports.

President George W. Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday, senior administration officials told the Associated Press on Thursday. They said it appears a consensus is developing for the first time.

The advisers will consider a proposal to transfer detainees, who are suspected of having ties to terrorist activities, to other Defense Department facilities in the United States, the Associated Press reported.

The administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the prisoners would face trials after the transfers.

Most of the 380 prisoners at Guantanamo have never been charged. Omar Khadr, 20, the only Canadian held at the facility, was charged with murder and terrorism, but those charges were dropped for technical reasons on June 4.

Pressure to close Guantanamo
Previous plans to close Guantanamo have run into resistance from Vice-President Dick Cheney, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.



Cheney's office and the U.S. Justice Department have argued that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.

They could block any proposal to close Guantanamo, but pressure to do so has been building since a Supreme Court decision last year that found the system for prosecuting enemy combatants at the facility illegal.

The government promptly set up a new military tribunal system, but that system was called into question when military judges threw out charges against Khadr and another suspect, Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen.

Congress bill calls for closure
Legislation recently introduced in the U.S. Congress would require Guantanamo's closure. Another bill would grant new rights to those held at Guantanamo Bay, including access to lawyers regardless of whether the prisoners are put on trial. Still another bill would allow detainees to protest their detentions in a U.S. federal court, something they are now denied.

Guantanamo Bay was set up in 2002 to house suspected terrorists captured in military operations, mostly in Afghanistan.

Because the facility is in Cuba, the U.S. government has argued that detainees there are not covered by rights and protections afforded to those in U.S. prisons.

Human rights advocates and foreign leaders have repeatedly called for the prison's closure.

Officials say Bush, who has said he wants to close the facility as soon as possible, is keenly aware of its shortcomings. Bush has said the United States has to determine what to do with the detainees before closing the detention centre.

Khadr was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and has been imprisoned in Guantanamo since. He was accused of throwing a grenade that killed American medic Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer.

Khadr, who was born in the Toronto area, spent several years of his childhood in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His family is reputed to be al-Qaeda sympathizers.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Man Who Has been to America! A Guantanamo detainee.

According to the US going to Guantanamo is not going to America, that is the whole idea. Muhibillo Umarov seems to be an innocent person who was sold to the US by Pakistani's after they found he was no use to them.


The complete article is at Mother Jones.

A Detainee's Story: The Man Who Has Been to America.News: Why should Geneva Convention protections be applied to Guantanamo detainees? One innocent man's journey through the legal black hole of the War on Terror—four prisons, three countries, two years—may be the best argument yet.

By McKenzie Funk



IN THE ENEMY COMBATANT’S HOUSE, in the room where he eats and prays and sleeps, a single window casts its light on a single adornment: an enormous Soviet-era map of the world. It is the first thing I notice after I arrive unannounced one cold fall morning and am ushered into the warmth of the room. We sit on the floor below an elongated Africa, a tiny America, and a colossal, pink-shaded U.S.S.R. A brother with a prosthetic leg appears and lays out a brightly patterned sheet still covered with past meals’ bread crumbs. Non ham non, nonreza ham non, the Tajik proverb goes: “Bread is bread, crumbs are also bread.”

The enemy combatant serves the tea. He pours it before it’s properly steeped, dumps the watery cups back into the pot, and repeats. If he’s unhappy to see an American after Guantanamo, he doesn’t show it. He smiles, and two wrinkles appear on his left cheek. I ask him his full name. Muhibullo Abdulkarim Umarov, he tells me. He says he is 24 years old. He asks, “You want to know the story of my capture, yes?”

The village of Alisurkhon, where Umarov was born and eventually returned, is a collection of mud-walled homes and apple orchards beneath the 14,000-foot peaks of Tajikistan’s Pamir Mountains. Physically, it’s closer to Afghanistan than to the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, 12 hours and 150 miles of dusty, nauseatingly potholed road to the west. Along with post-communist detritus that litters the roadside—smokestacks, rusting tractors, half-finished cities of concrete and rebar—are occasional burned-out tanks, leftovers from the 1992-97 civil war that killed at least 150,000 Tajiks after the breakup of the U.S.S.R. The crumbling infrastructure disappears as you climb higher into the Pamirs; the frequency of gutted tanks increases. This valley along the Obihingou River was once home to the Islamist opposition, and nearly a decade after the peace accords, the ex-Soviets who control Dushanbe still believe they have enemies lurking here. It is a suspicious place to be from.

The valley has a wild-boar problem. The hogs are everywhere lately, trampling crops, tearing through fields of potatoes and wheat. Local hunters, increasingly orthodox since the fall of the Soviet Union and no longer interested in eating pork, have stopped controlling their numbers—and Russian hunters have stopped coming here altogether. Aid groups, wary of the valley’s growing conservatism, have largely steered clear. When a friend and I visited on a mountaineering trip in the summer of 2003, villagers said we were the first Westerners they’d seen in 12 years.

I’m back in the Obihingou Valley a year and a half later when one of these villagers, a bearded farmer with a toothy grin and two missing fingers, tells me about Umarov. We’re having fried potatoes and soup in the farmer’s guest room, a converted shed with whitewashed walls and plastic bags for windows. “There’s a man in the valley who has been to America,” he mentions casually. I find this unlikely. “Really. He was in a prison. They made a mistake.” He begins to chuckle—that America could make such a mistake amuses him. I ask where the prison was. “Koba...kaba?” It takes me a moment to realize he’s trying to say “Cuba,” and a few days to cancel trekking plans and find an ancient Uaz jeep to transport me down to Alisurkhon.



WE SIT CROSS-LEGGED in Umarov’s room, circled around the teapot, me staring at the wall and running a tape recorder, Umarov staring out the door. The brother with the prosthesis—Ahliddin—keeps shuffling in and out, and my friend Kubad (he asked that his name be changed for the purposes of this story), a Tajik mountain guide playing the role of translator, sits with us as well. Umarov looks mostly at Kubad when he answers questions, keeping his hands in his lap, speaking so softly that it sometimes seems he’s whispering.

“As you know, 1994 was a year of continual war in Tajikistan,” he begins, “and the planes came to bombard our village. I was 14. Ahliddin was 10.” The boys were in the field outside their grandparents’ home when one of the bombs fell, and day turned to night, so thick was the dust in the air. “My brother’s right leg was amputated from the knee down,” Umarov says.

In this same house, under the same Soviet map, he and his father readied a stretcher that would carry Ahliddin through the Pamirs to Afghanistan, where they would spend the winter in a camp along with thousands of other Tajik refugees. His youngest brother, Rahmiddin, then six, also came. Umarov does not know which pass they took. He only remembers the snow.

By springtime, Ahliddin had a new leg from the Red Cross, but the boys needed a new home. “The Taliban were not in Afghanistan at that time,” Umarov says, “but the country was not peaceful either.” Their father took them south to Pakistan, then returned to his wife and daughter in Alisurkhon. “We attended religious schools in Peshawar,” Umarov says. “Our studies were paid for by wealthy Pakistanis and the government.”

I ask what these schools taught about America, and he smiles knowingly. “Maybe there were schools with the primary goal of preparing fighters,” he says, turning to face me, “but where I was, we never thought of these things. We were very young.” He gestures to the wall. “I heard about America when I saw it on this map. But I didn’t know anything about it.”

He stayed for six years, moving through three schools. He learned Urdu, Pashto, and Arabic. He was a good student, and a good soccer player. In May 2001, soon after his graduation, the Tajik Embassy gave him a passport and documents for a trip home to newly stable Tajikistan. He returned proudly to Alisurkhon—the eldest son, diploma in hand—and helped his parents with the harvest, collecting apples and potatoes and walnuts. “But then America started bombing Afghanistan,” he says, “and the whole world went crazy.”



THAT FALL, Umarov was dispatched by his parents back to Pakistan, to raise enough money to bring his brothers home. With direct flights nonexistent, and the land route via Afghanistan treacherous, he flew via Iran. Once in Pakistan he worked selling clothing, food, and pencils—whatever was in demand—in the Peshawar bazaar, and on May 13, 2002, he decided to visit Karachi in search of a steadier job. A Tajik friend, Abdughaffor, had a place for him to stay.

Abdughaffor lived in a room in the University of Karachi library, where he worked. Also staying there was another Tajik, Mazharuddin, whose name means “place for the miraculous appearance of the faith.” All four walls in the library were filled with books, and on the floor were thin carpets. The three Tajiks slept on the carpets. They hung up their T-shirts. It was early in the morning of May 19 when Pakistani secret service agents came. The agents woke them up, took the T-shirts down, and used them to tie the men’s hands and cover their eyes.

When his blindfold was removed, Umarov was in a jail cell, his friends at his side. “I was not afraid,” he says. “I knew I’d done nothing wrong.” The Pakistanis took them one at a time for interrogations, quizzing them in rapid-fire Pashto about their names, birthplaces, and histories—and about a bombing that had just occurred. “Somewhere in Karachi,” Umarov says, “there was an attack. A bomb exploded.”

It had been Pakistan’s first suicide bombing: Eleven days earlier, a red Toyota Corolla had pulled alongside a minibus outside the Karachi Sheraton, its tires screeching. An explosion ripped the bus apart, shattered nearby windows, and left a smoking crater in the ground. Three passersby and 11 passengers—French engineers working for the Pakistani navy—were killed. At least 22 others were injured. Pakistani authorities immediately suspected outsiders; newspapers ran ads asking the public to report any suspicious foreign nationals. (The investigation would, in fact, lead to a homegrown mastermind, Sohail Akhtar, alias Mustafa, who was eventually arrested in April 2004.)



AFTER 10 DAYS OF INTERROGATIONS, Umarov was handcuffed, taken from his friends, and driven across the city. He thought he would be freed; the Pakistanis had said as much. But the drive ended at a building that looked like a luggage factory—a secret jail where leather briefcases were stacked high against the walls.

Two Americans were running the jail, both blond, one with long hair, one short. One was a “strong man,” big and muscular; the other had an average build. Neither wore a military uniform. “The reason I knew they were Americans,” Umarov says, “is that they told me so.” Later, he would hear that America paid bounties for suspected terrorists, and he would wonder if he, too, had been purchased.

No longer was he questioned about the Karachi bombing. The Americans interrogated him about Al Qaeda. “They asked me what I knew about the terrorists,” he says. “Did I know where they were?” They asked if his passport was fake, and if he’d seen or met Osama bin Laden. “Of course, I’d heard about him on the radio and TV,” Umarov says. “But how would I, a student, know much about him if people who came from a powerful country like America did not know anything about him?” He pauses and looks at Kubad and me, inviting us to question his logic.

“I was not afraid,” he repeats. “I am not a thief—not someone who should be afraid of them or anything. I told them what I knew.” If he lied, the men said, they would send him to Cuba. Umarov remembers turning to the translator. “What is Cuba?” he asked.

When the questions were over, they locked him in a concrete room for 10 days. The room was three feet long and one and a half feet wide and insufferably hot. He wore iron handcuffs. It was impossible to stand up or move about. “All my thoughts were about how my life was going to end,” he says. He worried about his brother Ahliddin, about an unpaid debt to his neighbors, and about the times in his life when he had made people angry or upset. “When I wanted to go to the toilet,” he says, “I would knock on the door and three guards—one with the gun and two with the stick—took me there.” Three times a day, he was given a bowl of rice, one chapati, and one glass of tea.

“I was angry at these men for putting me in that room without any reason,” he says. “But if you read the history of Islam, you will know there are stories similar to mine—when people are taken or sentenced to death without any reason. It taught us to keep our emotions together.” What confused him was that there seemed to be no purpose to his treatment; it was not a tactic to get him to talk. The blond Americans did not interrogate him again. He was returned, bleary-eyed and unwashed, to the Pakistani jail, where his friends were still being held. “From my appearance,” he says, “they knew I had not been in a good place.”



AT 2 A.M. THE NEXT DAY, the Pakistanis handcuffed Umarov, Abdughaffor, and Mazharuddin and put black bags over their heads. There was a bus, where American soldiers took their photographs, and then an airplane, where they were tied together on the floor. They wore metal belts around their waists and chains over their shoulders. They could not move, Umarov tells us. They did not know where they were going.

When the plane landed, two soldiers lifted them and counted, in English, “One, two, three,” and threw them into a truck. “As a sack of potatoes,” Umarov says. He landed on the metal truck bed. His friends landed on top of him. “When we cried out,” he says, “we were kicked.”



UMAROV BREAKS FROM the storytelling and stands up, and Kubad and I follow him outside into the blinding daylight. Walnuts are spread out on a canvas tarp, drying in the sun. He plucks a handful of tiny red apples from a tree, presents them to us, and disappears through a door. When he returns, he’s carrying a stack of papers: documents, in English and in Russian, from the Red Cross and the U.S. Department of Defense.

“This individual has been determined to pose no threat to the United States Armed Forces or its interests in Afghanistan,” one reads. “There are no charges from the United States pending [sic] this individual at this time.” It goes on: “The United States government intends that this person be fully rejoined with his family.”

These papers are now the only form of identification Umarov has, he says—a red flag that causes shakedowns at Tajik checkpoints and occasional arrests. The U.S., which offered no compensation upon his release, never returned his passport either. Attempts to get a new one have been blocked by a local official—part of the “KGB,” as Tajiks still call it—who also blocked Ahliddin’s passport application and demands periodic bribes from the now vulnerable family.



AN AIRPLANE HANGAR, vast and bright with artificial lights, was Umarov’s third prison: Bagram, Afghanistan. “Our cages were in a two-story building inside the bigger building,” he tells us. “They had high fences and were surrounded by sharp wires.” All the windows were covered. “The whole place,” he says, “was blocked from daylight and man’s sight.”

Each cell held as many as 15 men; each man was issued blue prison dungarees, a wooden platform to serve as a bed, and two blankets. Umarov used one of the blankets as a mattress, the other to cover himself—though it wasn’t enough. The nights were cold, and the guards would not let him put his head under the covers. Inmates wore shackles on their wrists as well as their ankles, even when sleeping, and each was assigned a number. Umarov’s was 75. “Seventy-five,” he whispers in halting English. “Seventy-five, come here.”

Powerful lights flooded the cages 24 hours a day, and the guards made loud noises to keep the prisoners awake. They hit their billy clubs against the metal fences. They pounded on barrels. They threw cans and empty water bottles. “We lost count of days, let alone dawn and dusk,” he says. “We never saw daylight. We were never outside.” Groups of four guards worked eight-hour shifts; black tape covered the names on their uniforms. One American looked just like Rambo: no uniform, a scarf on his head, a cut on his hand. “I know him,” Umarov says, smiling. “He was the guy who made the film about Afghanistan.”

If the prisoners talked to each other, the soldiers forced them to stand and hold their shackles above their heads until the pain made them not want to talk again. If they talked again, Umarov says, the soldiers would take them upstairs and beat them. He was never beaten. But once he dared to talk to Abdughaffor and Mazharuddin, and the soldiers forced him to stand for hours, holding his shackles up while his arms shook. He did not talk again. Umarov knew the other men in his cage as faces. He grew bored of looking at them. They were Arabs and Afghans and Pakistanis and men who spoke French and English. These, he assumed, must be the terrorists—the ones to be blamed for the world going crazy, the ones who should be punished. Sometimes, when a cellmate was taken upstairs, screams would ring out across the prison. “This did not happen every day,” he says, “but it happened.”

I ask for details, and he’s reluctant to say more. “I did not see anything with my own eyes,” he says, “and my friends and I did not experience this torture.” He pauses. There were stories he later heard in Cuba, he says—stories that he believed—about “beatings with the wooden stick” and electrocutions. “American soldiers used electrical cables to shock them in their eyes, hands, and feet. Three men told me this. And some, mostly Arabs, were forced to remove their clothes in front of women. There were other things, too.” He will not go on.

I wonder if I should put any faith in rumors passed from detainee to detainee to me, then realize I’m missing the point. Umarov’s story is best understood as what happens when an everyman is imprisoned without trial, moving through a system built for the worst of the worst. It’s not a story about the cruelest cases of torture—those that America may someday expose and bemoan and ban—but about something that may be scarier: what has become normal in the war on terror.



IN TWO MONTHS AT BAGRAM, Umarov says, he had only one interrogation—with an American woman who questioned him in Farsi and seemed confused as to why he was there. “We were alone in the room,” he says. “She checked my documents and listened to my answers, then told me I wasn’t guilty.” Life became a haze. He would stand and sit and try to sleep in his cage, and every fifth day a soldier loosened his handcuffs and let him walk around the prison grounds. Every seventh day, he was brought to the showers, which often had female guards and shut off after two minutes, even if he was still covered in soap.

One day early in August, while Umarov and his friends were eating lunch, the soldiers came to take them to Cuba. They walked into their cell and started shouting, “Stand up, stand up!” and everybody did, leaving plastic containers of pasta and meat half-eaten.

“They handcuffed our hands with metal,” he says, “and covered our eyes with something like sunglasses, only it was impossible to see through them. They covered our ears with something like headphones, only it was impossible to hear anything.” His mouth and nose were covered with tape, then with what seemed like a surgical mask. They placed a dark hood over his head, and it became difficult to breathe. They tied his legs and feet with a chain and attached this chain to another chain around his waist. Finally they marched him onto an airplane and chained him to the floor. “After that,” he says, “I do not remember anything.”

“I was sleepwalking when we came to Guantanamo,” he tells us. “I did not understand where I was.” He was unloaded from the airplane, but he does not recall how. “When my consciousness appeared,” he says, “I found myself in the sandy desert. And I thought I would be executed there, in the desert.” His wrists, legs, and face were bleeding from the shackles and mask. Soldiers loosened the cuffs and straps, changed the tape on his mouth, and removed the thing that blocked his ears. They took him to the showers and gave him a clean uniform—this time in orange—and a new number. Then Prisoner 729 went for an immediate medical checkup and interrogation. At first, he was interrogated every week. “There were new investigators every time,” he says. “There was a new room every time. But the questions were always the same”—an endless repetition of the conversation about Pakistan and Tajikistan and his life in both. Occasionally, he became so angry that he wouldn’t answer their questions, preferring to sit in silence. Other times, he challenged his interrogators: “Why was I taken here if I have not committed any crimes?”

They told him they were suspicious because he had traveled many places, many times, by many routes. He had been to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. “I answered that they could find many people like me,” he says. “Why was it that it had to be me?” They said that the routes he’d taken were famous, and used mostly by terrorists; he might have seen the terrorists on the roads. They asked if he’d known any of his fellow passengers on his flight to Iran. “The people on the plane were mostly American journalists,” he responded. “Why not arrest them?”

At Guantanamo, the showers lasted five minutes. At first he had three showers a week, then he had four, and soon he had showers almost daily. The frequency of showers went up and the frequency of interrogations went down. They began calling him in only once a month, then once every two months. Eventually, they stopped interrogating him altogether.

“The hygiene was good in Cuba,” he admits, “and we were allowed to pray and fast.” Each cell had a Koran and a real bed, and, through a mesh fence, Umarov could talk freely with his neighbors. (Like other detainees, Umarov believes that staring through the mesh has permanently affected his vision.) He did not wear handcuffs in his cell. Those were used only during biweekly exercise sessions, when the guards chained his hands to his feet and led him shuffling around a fenced yard. After his walks, they always returned him to a different cell, and to different neighbors. He ended up near Mazharuddin once. He met his formerly silent cellmates from Bagram and a principal from Pakistan and a farmer from Afghanistan and an English-speaking Kuwaiti who liked to talk to the soldiers.

“Some men were moved constantly,” he says. “They would wake them up, put them in chains, and take them to a new cell or to an interrogation room.” Prisoners were left shackled in a standing position until the investigators arrived. “They sometimes had to stand for 24 hours, moving only when they were brought to the toilet,” he says. “How could anyone be normal after that?” Yet Umarov never heard Bagram-like yells at Guantanamo, and few of his neighbors told him they had been tortured. What they talked about was injustice. “We did not know why we were there or when we would leave,” he says. “At Guantanamo, the torture wasn’t physical—it was psychological.” Some prisoners went insane. Abdughaffor was one of them. He would throw himself against the door and scream. He tried to hang himself. He wouldn’t eat. He became somebody Umarov did not know. Others took off their clothes and sat naked in their cells. “These people became like children,” he says. “They did not understand their reality.”

“During the first five or six months,” Umarov says, “I believed they would find the terrorists among us, take them away, and let the rest of us go home.” But his detention continued. He lost hope. “I started to believe that America was against Islam,” he says.

He did not see the soldier write slurs in the prisoner’s Koran, but he believes that it happened—an Arab told him about it. “People did not mind when translators or those who believed in God touched the holy book,” he says, “but they were angry with the faithless and godless soldiers who wrote ugly words inside it. Kafirs—godless people—are not allowed to touch the Koran.” Rumors of a desecration swept through the prison. The next day, 10 prisoners attempted suicide; by week’s end, there were 23 “hanging or strangulation attempts,” according to the U.S. Army’s Southern Command, which oversees Guantanamo.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Turning a deaf ear to suffering

It isn't really a question of turning a deaf ear to suffering. It is turning a deaf ear to wrongdoing by one's own government or thinking that torture was justified somehow by the war on terror, or that it would be wrong to "tie the hands" of those doing dirty work to supposedly keep us safe. It is turning a blind eye to the fact that terror suspects are denied legal protections that are supposed to be part of basic human rights in democracies.

Turning a deaf ear to suffering
Email Print Normal font Large font Nina Philadelphoff-Puren
June 16, 2007

The Australian Government is in denial about its role in the torture of one of its citizens, writes Nina Philadephoff-Puren.

PRIMO Levi, the great witness to the Holocaust, was plagued by a recurring nightmare while in Auschwitz. It would begin as an innocent dream. In it, he is sitting at a table with people who know him. With intense relief, he tells them of all that

had happened during his imprisonment: beatings, hunger, unspeakable suffering. But as his tale unfolds, he notices something dreadful — his audience is no longer paying attention. Unbearably, they have turned away from him, indifferent to his story. And at this point, Levi's nightmare begins: the nightmare of finally uttering his testimony, only to find that his listeners refuse to hear it.

This story highlights the moral responsibility of political communities to listen to those who allege that they have suffered terrible crimes. In the so-called war on terror, some communities have shown they can do this better than others. Consider the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen. He was tortured for a year in Syria after being taken into United States custody in New York. He was beaten, interrogated and made to sign false confessions, after a long confinement in a tiny cell that he described as "a grave". On his return to Canada without charge, he provided detailed testimony to Amnesty International about his deportation and incarceration. This led to a public inquiry into his allegations only four months later, which resulted in Arar receiving compensation and an apology from the Canadian Government.

In providing a public examination of his claims, the Canadians fulfilled their responsibility as ethical listeners. The Arar case begs comparison with Mamdouh Habib, detained in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere for more than three years without charge, before his release to Australia in January 2005.

Consider the following attempts to make Habib fall silent. Former Opposition Leader Kim Beazley opposed his request to address a Senate committee about his experiences in Guantanamo Bay. Former Education Minister Brendan Nelson condemned a university for permitting

him to speak to students about what had happened to him. Three men in Sydney stabbed him outside his home, saying only that "you better keep quiet".

This is a man possessed of dangerous words. Our democratic instincts should be aroused by these efforts to stop us hearing them. As the ABC's Four Corners program Ghost Prisoners revealed this week, the story he has to tell goes to the heart of our democratic society and its integrity.

Habib was arrested as a terrorist suspect in October 2001 and interrogated in Pakistan before being rendered to Egypt. He reports that he was then tortured for months: beaten, threatened with dogs and electric cattle-prods, locked in a tiny box and kept for hours in a room that was filled with water up to his chin. By the time he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay the following May, he was diagnosed with

post-traumatic stress disorder.

What is chilling about this story is that Habib says that an Australian official was present during at least one of his interrogation sessions, a claim the Government denies. Habib insists his Egyptian interrogators relied on information ASIO officers had taken from his house in Sydney.

As the Four Corners program indicated, this all raises disturbing and frankly disorienting questions. The Australian Government repeatedly said it could not confirm that Habib was in Egypt. Documents revealed on the Four Corners program suggest otherwise. It is clear that officers of both the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade knew exactly where he was. If the Government knew that an Australian citizen was there, it should have rung alarm bells. It sends a chill down the spine to think that they did nothing.

Habib is currently suing the Commonwealth in the Federal Court, claiming that the Government was complicit in his kidnap, false imprisonment and torture. The Government has tried to have his case struck out. Beyond the serious legal ramifications of this situation, the cruelty of the official obfuscations in this matter cannot be overstated. It is well known that torture attacks the voice as well as the body. A key aspect in any torture survivor's recovery is the ability to tell their story and have it acknowledged. Years of government denials have deprived Habib of that recognition.

Against enormous odds, Mamdouh Habib continues to speak out about his ordeal. His testimony is troubling, disruptive and no doubt inconvenient. His claims strike at the heart of the integrity of our institutions, our relationship with the US and our conduct in the "war on terror".

Dr Nina Philadelphoff-Puren is a lecturer in the school of English, communications and performance studies at Monash University.

US will bank Tik Tok unless it sells off its US operations

  US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...