Top US lawyer warns of deaths at Guantánamo

[IndianaGreen]

Source: The Guardian

Top US lawyer warns of deaths at Guantánamo

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris
The Observer, Sunday 8 February 2009

Lieutenant-Colonel Yvonne Bradley, an American military lawyer, will step through the grand entrance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London tomorrow and demand the release of her client - a British resident who claims he was repeatedly tortured at the behest of US intelligence officials - from Guantánamo Bay. Bradley will also request the disclosure of 42 secret documents that allegedly chronicle not only how Binyam Mohamed was tortured, but may also corroborate claims that Britain was complicit in his treatment.

But first, Bradley, a US military attorney for 20 years, will reveal that Mohamed, 31, is dying in his Guantánamo cell and that conditions inside the Cuban prison camp have deteriorated badly since Barack Obama took office. Fifty of its 260 detainees are on hunger strike and, say witnesses, are being strapped to chairs and force-fed, with those who resist being beaten. At least 20 are described as being so unhealthy they are on a "critical list", according to Bradley.

Mohamed, who is suffering dramatic weight loss after a month-long hunger strike, has told Bradley, 45, that he is "very scared" of being attacked by guards, after witnessing a savage beating for a detainee who refused to be strapped down and have a feeding tube forced into his mouth. It is the first account Bradley has personally received of a detainee being physically assaulted in Guantánamo.

Bradley recently met Mohamed in Camp Delta's sparse visiting room and was shaken by his account of the state of affairs inside the notorious prison.

She said: "At least 50 people are on hunger strike, with 20 on the critical list, according to Binyam. The JTF are not commenting because they do not want the public to know what is going on.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/binyam-mohamed-torture-guantanamo-bay

---

There is only one President at a time. Hello, President Obama!

[MasonJar]

1. Someone smarter than I on the computer needs to forward this to Obama

in case he is unaware. Then it becomes his responsibility.

[glinda]

2. RACHEL!!!!!!!! TWEETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bluesmail]

3. Death does silence one forever. Saddam Hussein pops into my mind.

(among many others)

[pmorlan1]

4. Wow

I wonder if Panetta backed off in his testimony about prosecutions because they suspect that these people, who have been involved in torture, figure that if the prisoners are dead they can't testify? Could that happen? Could we have rogue personnel who are so afraid that they would defy a president or does Obama already know about this? Either way it's pretty scary.

[Titonwan]

6. We have to spread the word

We all need to broadcast this news far and wide. We can't let this die (with him?).

[Titonwan]

5. My god, the women are TWICE as tough as the men.

I'm proud of what this brave woman is doing. Spread the word to all the blogs, your friends and neighbors. We HAVE to hold Bush accountable. My lord, how far we've sank. Let Yvonne be an inspiration to us all!

[defendandprotect]

32. Me, too --

[EFerrari]

7. Kick

[bertman]

8. This is a cluster-fuck beyond belief. First, President Obama orders the place closed,

which is a GREAT thing. Then the prisoners go on a hunger strike--WTF!! So, why are these prisoners going on a hunger strike? To make them close Guantanamo faster? To embarrass the President or the U.S.?

So, the guards try to force-feed the prisoners so they won't die and make things worse all the way around. The prisoners resist. The guards beat the fuck out of them. The prisoners protest being beaten.

Holy fucking Shit.

This sounds like something out of a Twilight Zone episode.

[SalviaBlue]

11. Why would the prisoners know it has been order closed?

[bertman]

14. An assumption on my part. They have contact with guards, medical staff, military

attorneys. It's not hard to imagine that they would know by now.

[bitchkitty]

16. Somehow I doubt if the prisoners at Guantanamo have

access to the Internet, television or radio. Their world has been very small for years now, and even if they are aware that Obama was elected, I'm sure that they have other, more pressing concerns. I don't think their guards would have informed them that Guantanamo is closing. From the sound of the article, and of course previous reports, they're a bunch of freaking sadists!

[ohio2007]

53. The prisoners DO have access to television

One of their favorite programs to watch is the Discovery Channels "Most Deadliest Catch" about living and working conditions of the Alaskan fishing grounds. ( I have posted a link to the story on a thread somewhere here in the past,complete with video )
LOL
everybody likes to ASSUME these lawyers are telling the truth.
But when they do get clients released and their clients blow themselves up killing women and children....All they say is "It was a tragic,unfortunate and unforeseeable incident."

right

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1109&p=local&a=6


Who knew suicidal tendencies is an accepted way of life ( er, death ) in places where they come from

:sarcasm:

let them go
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-24-voa9.cfm

[cannabis_flower]

85. All of them

Or just some of them. They may have people in solitary or segregated from the others.

[ronnie624]

102. And apparently you ASSUME that VOA is telling the truth.

Your first link doesn't work, by the way. I can only ASSUME the information is about as reliable as that of your second one.

[CoffeeCat]

17. You know what I am bettting...

...that these prisoners aren't on a hunger strike, and never were.

I bet that we are being fed this false information---so our government has a story to back up the
current terrible shape of these soon-to-be-released prisoners. Maybe we damaged them psychologically or physically, and
they haven't eaten, due to trauma.

Possibly, we deprived them of many things, including food.

I don't buy this hunger strike story. I think it's a cover-up, because they know the doors are
about to open on that place, and they know it's not going to be pretty.

They need excuses about why these men will look the way they do. They know Obama will close Guantanamo,
and they are trying to blame the prisoners themselves--for what the world is about to see.

:(

[inna]

69. damn, i think CoffeeCat has a good point!

this hasn't occurred to me until i read your post, but i'm afraid you're right.

there's something very fishy about 50 of them suddenly going on hunger strike after Obama took office.


"I think it's a cover-up, because they know the doors are
about to open on that place, and they know it's not going to be pretty.

They need excuses about why these men will look the way they do. They know Obama will close Guantanamo,
and they are trying to blame the prisoners themselves--for what the world is about to see."

very scary and very sad.
:(

[crikkett]

73. I've heard guests on Democracy Now describe the force-feedings

and I've read articles about special chairs being sent to Gitmo for force-feedings.

I don't think it's untrue at all. I think this is being printed simply because Obama is President: in that the news isn't as suppressed as it was before January 20.

[iconicgnom]

19. It's to put the proper international spotlight on it.

[stillcool]

24. Prisoners have been on hunger strikes..

at Gitmo for years. They were being force-fed at one point. I do not understand this shit! You'd think it just started on January 20, 2009, when they've been there since 2002! WTF!

[jkappy]

87. so true. and they sd be focus, not Obama. n/t

[Demeter]

36. the Hunger Strike Predates the Election, I Believe

And Obama hasn't closed it yet.

[G_j]

37. I think that is right, the hunger strike was going on before the election. nt

[crikkett]

56. The force-feeding has been going on for years

and it's gross and torturous.

I won't repeat what I've heard - search Amy Goodman's Democracy Now site.

[bertman]

64. So, are you saying that allowing the prisoners to starve themselves to death is the answer?

Somehow I find that to be as bad as killing them outright. So, if you're going to keep them alive you have to do something to get food into them. I am not a medical person so I have no idea how else to do it other than through IV fluids, but that may not work either. Please offer a suggestion as to how this might be dealt with under the circumstances at hand.

Many of these prisoners have contact with someone other than the military types who guard them. It's inconceivable to me that they have not yet gotten the word through the grapevine that the President has ordered Guantanamo closed.

[crikkett]

72. No, I'm saying that freeing them is the answer. They're striking for freedom.

And they have no idea as to whether what they're hearing is true. They've been lied to for years on end.

They are in a hell of our making, one that I wouldn't wish on the most heinous monster. It's our fault they're still imprisoned, and I have no idea how we're going to make it up to them, short of freeing them and supporting them, and their families, for life.

As an aside, I will bet you one dollar that you haven't read or heard the descriptions of Gitmo force-feedings, or you'd agree with me.

[bertman]

81. I have not read the descriptions of the force feedings but I can imagine based on prior

military experience.

Of course their freedom is the answer here but it is not going to happen overnight. So what is the answer to the question of feeding them or allowing them to starve to death? I don't know. I thought you might be able to help provide an answer, but you are talking about the impossible at this point.

[crikkett]

86. Ah so you're a vet too - then you'd understand being lied to as well.

The guards at Gitmo could perhaps improve the prisoners' condition and perhaps start thinking about conditioning them for release.

Perhaps.

What are your ideas, bert?

[bertman]

93. A massive email, letter-writing, phone-in campaign generated by threads like this one

is a good start.

As always, the word needs to go down from the top--military style--and I mean from the Commander-in-Chief.

Probably just informing the prisoners that the prison is going to be closed would help to some degree. But some of them are bound to wonder if they will ever be released, so they may continue to use their hunger strike tactic.

I'm going to send one more email to whitehouse.gov asking our President to stop this horror.

[ohio2007]

82. Official: Yemen releases 170 al-Qaida suspects ( They are being released )

With todays technology, it should be easy enough to release them and follow up on how life will treat them after the gitmo years.

I] SAN'A, Yemen (AP) — Yemen released 170 men it had arrested on suspicion of having ties to al-Qaida, security officials said Sunday, two weeks after the terror group announced that Yemen had become the base of its activities for the whole Arabian peninsula.



snip
Yemen has said it expects most of the 100 remaining Yemenis at Guantanamo to be sent home after President Barack Obama ordered the prison shut within a year.

Elements of al-Qaida have long found a haven in Yemen's remote hinterland. Last month, Saudi al-Qaida fugitives in Yemen and their Yemeni associates announced in an Internet video that they were joining forces to form a single group.

On Saturday, Saudi Arabia issued a list of 85 most wanted living abroad that included two Yemenis. Many of the Saudis on the list are suspected of hiding out in Yemen as well.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iKcqKZHczzNt8oGtOcTzTZsBTEsQD967FIQG0

Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief
By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: January 23, 2009
The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch underscores the potential complications of closing the site.


http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26hp&OP=2e726f3fQ2FDiQ7B_DzTZgaTTQ3AQ24DQ24SSQ

They are smart enough

and they are good enough


and darn it

people really like them !!




http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLy-7Qsm2KeE15rL6Is9p56BcWhwD965TDOO0

2BDSxDQ24HDiTaGzDQ5BszzGQ7BQ7BQ3BgQ3ADQ24HwQ7BQ5BQ7BE3cQ3AQ5BG

[stillcool]

91. Hey...It's great that people are outraged

and demanding..on the internet..that Obama do something about this one detainee. What about the hundreds that have participated in hunger strikes, and been force-fed through-out the last 7 years? Did they not deserve your outrage? Perhaps I should not question that, and just be pleased that there is now concern for this one man. You never know...people might even wonder why it is that at least 800 detainee's have been released, and yet Dick Cheney and his posse have come out so fast and furious, vehemently against the closing of Gitmo, and the release of those that are left. What about these people is he so afraid of? What about their presence on American soil, or their release to their homelands is so disconcerting for him? And what about this one man?

[tekisui]

68. They have been on hunger strikes for years down there.

There have been coordinated suicide attempts as well. It's a living hell.

[Solly Mack]

9. K&R

Tick tock

[BunkerHill24]

10. Rec'd & Kicked in the name of humanity

[berni_mccoy]

12. "have deteriorated badly since Barack Obama took office." Um, that's contradicted by

"month-long hunger strike" - Obama hasn't been in office for a month.

[frogcycle]

15. yeah

There have been hunger strikes and prisoners on feeding tubes there for years. Sounds like someone with an agenda. Next they will say Dick Cheney was protecting the poor things, and without him they are being abused.

[iconicgnom]

21. You had better believe that the world is watching, and recording.

There is no "easy out" for war crimes on the scale we've seen.

There may be "outs" for some things, e.g. an opinion I just read that the US can't handle Rove internally, except after a decade or more of legal infighting. Maybe. But that's a different kind of thing than that the US is accountable to the world, when the US initiates wars and so on.

Things of the latter sort accord to judgement of a world court, and even if the US scorns it, it is still the court of world opinion.

[stillcool]

30. unbelieveable isn't it?

things were honky-dory from 2002-2009! All those other hunger strikes? They were different. Obviously not important. Force-feedings? That was different. Not important. NOW..it's "outrageous"!!

[Titonwan]

47. JUST WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING?

That's either sarcasm (with no notice) or something a bitter rethug would utter. It's been outrageous THE WHOLE TIME. Now we're finally able to do something about it.

[stillcool]

49. Better late than never!

[Piewhacket]

13. WTF? Only 16 Recs? "Close Gitmo" doesn't mean "kill all the prisoners"!

A US Lieutenant-Colonel and military lawyer for a detainee is
ringing an alarm bell, and DU is ASLEEP????

We don't know what the facts are, but a military officer
of this stature should be enough get SOME attention.

In any event,
Something serious seems to be happening here,
why are prisoners on a hunger strike, just for starters???

Lets get some bleeping sunshine on this festering puss-hole.

[stillcool]

26. Just for some perspective...

Gitmo Hunger Strike Escalates
128 Detainees Now On Strike In Prison Camp, 13 Being Tube Fed

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico, Sept. 13, 2005 | by Sean Alfano

AP) Nearly 40 more detainees have joined a hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terror suspects, bringing the total to 128, an official said Tuesday.

Eighteen prisoners have been hospitalized, including 13 who are being tube fed, said Capt. John Adams, a spokesman for the detention center. The other five are receiving intravenous fluids.

Thirty-nine prisoners have joined the strike since Friday, Adams said. He said the number of hospitalized detainees had reached 22, but four were returned to their cells after their conditions improved. All are being monitored by doctors at the camp in eastern Cuba, he said.

"Everyone is stable at this time," Adams said. "If their condition appears to weaken, they will be brought to the hospital and either fed intravenously or nose fed."

The prison at Guantanamo holds about 500 prisoners from 40 countries. More than 230 other have been released or transferred to the custody of their home governments. The detainees are accused of ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime. Most have been held for more than three years without charge.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/13/terror/main841552.shtml


Gitmo's Hunger Strikers
By Clive Stafford Smith

This article appeared in the October 17, 2005 edition of The Nation.
September 29, 2005
From its inception, Guantánamo has relied on a soldier-speak that is replete with half-truths and distortions. In 2002 there was a ripple of concern at the number of Guantánamo detainees trying to take their own lives. The military then announced that suicide attempts had radically declined. It took a foreign journalist to expose the truth: The very word "suicide" had been replaced by the authorities with the term Manipulative Self-Injurious Behavior (SIB)--and there were still plenty of SIBs. The military was lying by semantics.

Similar dissimulation is taking place around the Guantánamo hunger strike, which began June 28. It was suspended July 28, when the military promised various concessions, terrified at the public relations prospect of having six prisoners in the hospital within forty-eight hours of death. The strike started again on August 11, because the detainees concluded that the military had broken its promises.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051017/smith/print?rel=nofollow



75 inmates at Guantanamo on hunger strike
Navy commander says effort is aimed at pressuring release of detainees


msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 5:01 p.m. ET, Mon., May. 29, 2006

MIAMI - Seventy-five prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo were on a hunger strike on Monday, joining a few who have refused food and been force-fed since August, a military official said.

Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a spokesman for the Guantanamo detention operation, called the hunger strike an attempt by the prisoners to gain media attention and pressure the United States to release about 460 men held there as enemy combatants.

Detainees are counted as hunger strikers if they miss nine consecutive meals, and most of the 75 hit that mark on Sunday, Durand said. Most are refusing food but continuing to drink liquids, he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13036611/




Gitmo Prisoners Go On Hunger Strike
Posted Apr 9, 07 11:41 AM CDT in US, World

(Newser) – Thirteen detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention center are on hunger strike, protesting conditions at a maximum-security block known as Camp Six, where 160 inmates are locked in their 8-by-10-foot cells for at least 22 hours a day. It's the first major strike since early 2006, when Gitmo commanders started placing protesting detainees in restraint chairs to force feed them.
This latest strike is viewed as a sign of growing desperation among the 385 prisoners, only ten of whom have been charged with crimes. Sabin Willett, a lawyer representing detainees, tells the Times: “They’re just sitting on a powder keg down there. You’re going to have an insane asylum.”
http://www.newser.com/story/1209/gitmo-prisoners-go-on-hunger-strike.html

[Piewhacket]

34. n/t. Thanks. But I'm still unclear about why...

the prisoners are on a hunger strike.

Not that they don't have plenty of good reasons.
It just doesn't make present sense. Something's amiss.
I smell a stinking rat and I hate being lied to by my government.
That's what the bleeping change was supposed to be about.

So we have the following two ugly messes in immediate view,
the recent suppression of court evidence of torture resulting
in an apparent miscarriage of justice in the UK, and this
Gitmo prisoner hunger strike fiasco.

The prisoners are being held until they can be transferred or released.
There is no BLEEPING REASON not to treat them humanely.

We knew the hole was deep, but for christ sake shouldn't we
damn well stop digging now????

[stillcool]

52. You would think...

it's been 7 years. I'm sure there is a library of data regarding the inhumane treatment of these detainee's. It's wonderful that people are paying attention now, and perhaps the only way to get that attention is by tying the abuse to Obama.

[Piewhacket]

67. Torture was the Bush doctrine, what the F* is the Obama doctrine???

OBAMA NEEDS TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, STAT!

Gitmo needs to be immediately revised to humane conditions
of confinement, and steps taken to ameliorate or reverse
the effects of abusive past conditions of confinement.

Health crisis and hunger strikes by prisoners to the point
of death give strong indications that the opposite is still
the present case. Bush brought it to meltdown.

I'll happily call for Bush/Cheney to be arrested, tied, convicted,
and executed for all this in another thread. In the meantime,

If team Obama doesn't know what the F^%$ changing course
on this means, then I will be happy to accept 3 stars
and go to Gitmo with an entrourage of my selection** to explain
CHANGE to any recalcitrant half-wits who are still having
difficulty understanding what CHANGE COURSE!! means.


** Which would probably include 50 psychologists who have not
participated in torture but understand its consequence.

[stillcool]

80. Executive Orders?..

Please read more about these here....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/PresidentialActions/

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009 at 12:00 am
Ensuring Lawful Interrogations

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

ENSURING LAWFUL INTERROGATIONS


By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to improve the effectiveness of human intelligence-gathering, to promote the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in United States custody and of United States personnel who are detained in armed conflicts, to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Geneva Conventions, and to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order. Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order. Upon request, the Attorney General shall provide guidance about which directives, orders, and regulations are inconsistent with this order.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) "Army Field Manual 2-22.3" means FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, issued by the Department of the Army on September 6, 2006.

(b) "Army Field Manual 34-52" means FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, issued by the Department of the Army on May 8, 1987.

(c) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.

(d) "Convention Against Torture" means the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, December 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988).

(e) "Geneva Conventions" means:

(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(f) "Treated humanely," "violence to life and person," "murder of all kinds," "mutilation," "cruel treatment," "torture," "outrages upon personal dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment" refer to, and have the same meaning as, those same terms in Common Article 3.

(g) The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.

Sec. 3. Standards and Practices for Interrogation of Individuals in the Custody or Control of the United States in Armed Conflicts.

(a) Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

(b) Interrogation Techniques and Interrogation-Related Treatment. Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes. Where processes required by the Manual, such as a requirement of approval by specified Department of Defense officials, are inapposite to a department or an agency other than the Department of Defense, such a department or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agencies, from continuing to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.

(c) Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual. From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2-22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2-22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34-52 -- issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.

.

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009 at 12:00 am
Closure Of Guantanamo Detention Facilities

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.

(b) "Geneva Conventions" means:

(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(c) "Individuals currently detained at Guantánamo" and "individuals covered by this order" mean individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants.

[Piewhacket]

89. Top US lawyer warns of deaths at Guantánamo....

Closing the circle.

Hey, stillcool, traveling in big rhetorical circles is
no way to be getting ahead, my friend.

Senior US lawyer warns her client is ill or near death.
I call that a serious alarm bell, not a sign 'all is well'.
Actually, I'm sure all is not well.

Obama and immediate staff is caught up in the stimulus. fine,
is no one else on the job? what happened to all that
'walk and chew gum' talent?

[stillcool]

90. All has never been well...for 7 years...

I'm glad people are 'concerned', but I wonder why now? There must be what..at least 800 detainee's that have been released. The fast and furious outrage Dick Cheney has had about the release of those that are left leave me wondering what about these particular people he is afraid of. Perhaps if the outrage is directed towards Obama, the issue will gain momentum, and there will be a better chance people will question what is/has really going on there. But I doubt that.

[Piewhacket]

92. Circles again.So what? Its not about 7 years, this is about NOW.

Bush showed callous disregard for human rights and the value of human life
and is by rights a war criminal. So let him face a court in the Hague.

This thread is not about that, instead it is about what is being
done NOW, under the Obama administration. Perhaps you don't see that.
Perhaps you want to point back, to excuse further abuses with the
"everybody did it for the last 7 years" defense.
That is what your "why now?" argument is, a "Bush did it too" defense.
With all respect, its Lame. Your argument is Lame. Beyond lame.

Of course, you also impugn the motives of those raising a cry.
The "why now" argument snidely suggest hypocrisy, that the matter is
political, anti-obama. Lame.

Now perhaps you yourself see human rights as a political issue, but for me
it is a human rights issue, one that we just held an election to
decide, or so we hoped. Sorry if we don't agree on that.

But here is the test for Obama. He wrote his executive orders and
as the world watched he gave a speech, a impressive talk, but
now i want to see him

WALK THAT TALK, BARACK!

[stillcool]

94. I am thrilled that you now see ...

what has been going on at Gitmo for 7 years as a human rights issue, rather than a political one..or perhaps you did not consider it an issue at all? I am sure you are doing everything you can, writing letters to the editor, calling your representatives to insist that this detainee's demands be met post haste. Congratulations! Welcome to humanity!

[Piewhacket]

95. Are you stillcool? Or not stillcool? That is the question.

You're out of your depth, and have apparently upset yourself.
But no problem, you ain't so heavy, sis. Here is how you can
extricate yourself. (you are welcome).

In answer, we do what we do including standing up for what is
right in our heart and mind, we elect our representatives and
hold them accountable for inaction or misuse of the power we
give them. That is what we do, we who guard the guardians.
I'm talking about you. And me. And DU. And many others.

Here we agree that what has been going on at Gitmo, the very concept
of Gitmo, is an abomination in the eyes of all humanity and a
bloody and putrid stain on American's honor and values.
Got that so far? We AGREE on that, don't we?

But that it has gone one 7 years is not a reason to continue
with it, as you seem to have been arguing. Don't you see that?
So don't you here agree that Gitmo and mistreatment of prisoners,
should cease immediately? Isn't that one reason we elected Obama??
So don't we agree on that too, or not?

So NOW are you standing up with those here who call for Obama to
address these problems at Gitmo that a senior military lawyer
has raised about the PRESENT condition of prisoners at Gitmo?
Then stand up and be heard.

WELL? I see you are willing to denounce the humanity of others,
for no cause at all, yet are you prepared to step up to humanity
yourself, to call on Obama to address these Gitmo problems NOW?

Now I see you have heart, yet such a powerful force must also be
properly aimed. So decide which is it stillcool, are you opposed
to continuing the mistreatment of prisoners, or not?
THEN JOIN ME AND SAY SO!

[stillcool]

96. I don't have to join you....

you're late to the party, not me.

[Piewhacket]

97. You're having a party? If your party is celebrating torture...

then I'm gladly absent from that party.

Time for you to start denouncing torture, stillcool,
before you wedge yourself into a corner you can't
escape from.

I have given you your escape route, take it.

[stillcool]

98. You've been absent for 7 years...

why join now? Did you get a reply from your Congressman yet?

[Piewhacket]

99. You STILL refuse to denounce torture?

Yet you accuse others of being absent for 7 years?

What manner of hypocrite are you, that falsely
accuses others of your own sin of omission?

There is only one moral place to stand on this issue.
The moral high ground, firmly in opposition to the abuse
of human rights. Yet when I asked you to join me I was
gently chiding you that you were not standing on that ground.

instead there you stand, so notcool. on the low ground.

why?

your main clue you are in difficulty is that you are so
feebly swinging at me with such lame personal attack.

don't you see, you have let your pride block you from
taking the high ground denouncing human right abuses.
you have boxed yourself into an untenable and immoral position,
for pride sake.

yet I am not your enemy, just the opposite. But if a friend
can so manuver you into such serious disability, think of
what your enemies can do against you.

I tell you, and I speak only truth, there is only one place of
strength you may stand to oppose such enemies of humanity.
So come, join me, erase the ambiguity you have created. Make
your position clear that you oppose mistreatment of prisoners.

So I will say it again, my fellow DUer, stubborn ambiguity does not
cut it here, so if you would be "present" then let everyone
see where you stand. Make it clear that you insist that the obama
administration goes beyond flowery rhetoric to vigorously attend
to accumulated human rights abuses at Gitmo.

[stillcool]

100. Pathetic..Do you "denounce" and "reject"..

what are you a Republican? I've been reading and writing about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib for years. Where were you? Do you denounce and reject your lack of attention?

[Piewhacket]

101. writing about? what about standing against? eh?

can't you do that?

I looked. you post extended quotes from books you've encountered without
offering your comment or analysis..
copyright concerns notwithstanding, thats fine, and perhaps
pertinent and interesting, and worthwhile, and all that..
but it isn't "writing about".

what about you, your thoughts, your view, your statement of
principle, your stand. where is that? where where where?
nowhere in this discussion. nowhere in this thread.

instead you entered a "why now" defense, which I have already debunked
as defending prisoner abuse, not opposing it. That's where you "stand"
so far in this thread. You got yourself crosswise in error, then did not
correct your error. So there you are, standing on the low ground with
egg on your face. Stubborn pride... preceding a fall.

there was, of course a simple way out, I even handed it to you on a silver platter,
yet instead of correcting the record, of stating that you stand in opposition
to torture you accuse others of "absence" for 7 years.
Thats hilarious. You are the one "absent" from the barricades NOW, because
you will not admit to and correct your earlier error.
Not only that but you've only been in DUe 4 years! lol. wtf have you been
for "7 years" ? fishing?
oh, ye hypocrite. huh?

so there you are, below. why not step up, the ground is good here.

[stillcool]

104. You don't 'write' Letters to the Editor?

You don't 'write' emails? How is it that you 'stand up' against anything? I think you should avail yourself of more of the cited material written by knowledgeable, credible sources that is found here. It's a shame you are so uninformed about the current events of the last 8 years..but it's never too late! Go away and play by yourself now, Piewhacket.

[Piewhacket]

105. You're the only one who cares, eh?

You're the only one "informed"?
The only one who has done anything?
Only you. You wrote all the emails. All.
You you you.
oh, please, isn't that soooo uncool?

But no one says you can't do emails.
No one criticizes you for doing that.
That's great. Carry on.

Just don't be suggesting that others have been
absent when you know nothing of them, and especially
when you yourself just arrived.

And don't be smugly suggesting that others
have not taken action when you have NO CLUE what you are
talking about and particularly when you refuse to even
stand up yourself?

Because that's just that's the kind of hypocrisy and chutzpah we
expect to see in republicans. And no one should ever want
to be mistaken for one of them, right?

So just don't do it. It detracts from the work
that needs to be done, and we need ALL hands on deck to
help solve this mess.

So run along now, and do some good stuff.
Just don't do the bad stuff.

[Politicalboi]

18. Maybe Obama needs to go to Gitmo

And see for himself and maybe talk to these guys. Secret fly over.

[stillcool]

28. I think Obama knows...and the rest of the world..

and I would think most Americans...although I guess not.

Gitmo Hunger Strike Escalates
128 Detainees Now On Strike In Prison Camp, 13 Being Tube Fed

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico, Sept. 13, 2005 | by Sean Alfano

AP) Nearly 40 more detainees have joined a hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terror suspects, bringing the total to 128, an official said Tuesday.

Eighteen prisoners have been hospitalized, including 13 who are being tube fed, said Capt. John Adams, a spokesman for the detention center. The other five are receiving intravenous fluids.

Thirty-nine prisoners have joined the strike since Friday, Adams said. He said the number of hospitalized detainees had reached 22, but four were returned to their cells after their conditions improved. All are being monitored by doctors at the camp in eastern Cuba, he said.

"Everyone is stable at this time," Adams said. "If their condition appears to weaken, they will be brought to the hospital and either fed intravenously or nose fed."

The prison at Guantanamo holds about 500 prisoners from 40 countries. More than 230 other have been released or transferred to the custody of their home governments. The detainees are accused of ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime. Most have been held for more than three years without charge.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/13/terror/main841552.shtml

Gitmo's Hunger Strikers
By Clive Stafford Smith

This article appeared in the October 17, 2005 edition of The Nation.
September 29, 2005
From its inception, Guantánamo has relied on a soldier-speak that is replete with half-truths and distortions. In 2002 there was a ripple of concern at the number of Guantánamo detainees trying to take their own lives. The military then announced that suicide attempts had radically declined. It took a foreign journalist to expose the truth: The very word "suicide" had been replaced by the authorities with the term Manipulative Self-Injurious Behavior (SIB)--and there were still plenty of SIBs. The military was lying by semantics.

Similar dissimulation is taking place around the Guantánamo hunger strike, which began June 28. It was suspended July 28, when the military promised various concessions, terrified at the public relations prospect of having six prisoners in the hospital within forty-eight hours of death. The strike started again on August 11, because the detainees concluded that the military had broken its promises.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051017/smith/print?rel=nofollow

75 inmates at Guantanamo on hunger strike
Navy commander says effort is aimed at pressuring release of detainees

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 5:01 p.m. ET, Mon., May. 29, 2006

MIAMI - Seventy-five prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo were on a hunger strike on Monday, joining a few who have refused food and been force-fed since August, a military official said.

Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a spokesman for the Guantanamo detention operation, called the hunger strike an attempt by the prisoners to gain media attention and pressure the United States to release about 460 men held there as enemy combatants.

Detainees are counted as hunger strikers if they miss nine consecutive meals, and most of the 75 hit that mark on Sunday, Durand said. Most are refusing food but continuing to drink liquids, he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13036611/

Gitmo Prisoners Go On Hunger Strike
Posted Apr 9, 07 11:41 AM CDT in US, World

(Newser) – Thirteen detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention center are on hunger strike, protesting conditions at a maximum-security block known as Camp Six, where 160 inmates are locked in their 8-by-10-foot cells for at least 22 hours a day. It's the first major strike since early 2006, when Gitmo commanders started placing protesting detainees in restraint chairs to force feed them.
This latest strike is viewed as a sign of growing desperation among the 385 prisoners, only ten of whom have been charged with crimes. Sabin Willett, a lawyer representing detainees, tells the Times: “They’re just sitting on a powder keg down there. You’re going to have an insane asylum.”
http://www.newser.com/story/1209/gitmo-prisoners-go-on-hunger-strike.html

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. And Americans don't think our Military are out of Control?

Actually the Military Industrial Complex are in Control.

Shameful, we know this comes from "A Few Good Men" and
the Commanding officer.

[The abyss]

22. I am so proud!

Doesn’t it make you proud to be an American?

I once truly believed we, as a nation, stood for better than this. Obviously we did not. Nor do we now.

[stillcool]

23. These prisoners have been on hunger strikes..

on and off for a long time. They were getting force-fed at one time. Damn it! Why do people think this shit just started happening on January 20, 2009???

[EFerrari]

25. All of the stories related to torture are reported this way every time --

as if for the first time. That's been happening for years. :(

[stillcool]

27. I don't understand...do people forget that easily?

or did they not know?

[EFerrari]

29. Both? The hunger strikes have been going on for years, off and on.

So have the forced feedings and so have the beatings. But, these people are probably in worse shape than they were even six months ago.

But I have noticed that these stories seem to produce some kind of amnesia. The same story told in Congressional hearings produces a surprised response from the same damn committee that heard it last time. It's like Ground Hog Day.

[stillcool]

31. Oh wow... I didn't recognize you!

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

33. Forced feeding with bloodied tubes from one prisoner to another --- !!!

This has been going on for years --- and lawyers have been reporting it ---

over and again --

I really don't know what to think about the further "deterioration" at Guanatanamo --

except I bet it has something to do with Bush/Cheney and maybe morale among guards, etc.

who understand they might be held accountable for abetting torture....???

If they had wanted to NOT have attention drawn to the continuing hunger strikes then the

beatings and brutality over the forced feedings was the wrong way to go--!!!

The prisoners probably know from their lawyers --- I presume? -- that there is a change in

administration and they may be hoping that THIS TIME, someone may be paying attention to

their suffering . . . ???

Let's make sure we get this story into the White House --- I'll e-mail tonight --

and to Pelosi/Reid. Unfortunately "medical" personnel/doctors have been helping with some

of this torture!

This is also interesting . . .


"Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a little-publicised court case into the treatment of Mohamed will open. American civil liberties lawyers are hoping to shine a light on the defence firm that allegedly carried out the practice of "rendition" on behalf of the CIA. Jeppesen Dataplan, a Boeing subsidiary, helped to arrange rendition flights for several terror suspects, including Mohamed, to nations where they claim they were tortured.

The case was originally dismissed after the Bush administration asserted "state secrets privilege", indicating that it would endanger national security - the same argument used by Miliband. However, Obama has repeatedly stressed his willingness to be less secretive than his predecessor and a similar decision would lead to claims that the current administration is bent on suppressing evidence of torture.

Closer to home, the Observer has found evidence suggesting a broader unwillingness by Britain to confront the US over its war on terror programme. The Attorney General says it is "actively considering" possible criminal wrongdoings against MI5 and the CIA, but sources claim the government's senior lawyer has failed, after almost four months of looking into the issue, to request material from the US that may substantiate allegations of MI5 complicity in Mohamed's torture.

Suspicion is also growing that some sections of the US intelligence community would prefer Binyam did die inside Guantánamo. Silenced forever, only the sparse language of his diary would be left to recount his torture claims and interviewees with an MI5 officer, known only as Witness B. Such a scenario would also deny Mohamed the chance to personally sue the US, and possibly British authorities, over his treatment.

But if Mohamed survives to come back to London, his experiences of the past six years promise a harrowing journey through the dark underbelly of the war on terror. For Miliband, the questions concerning Britain's role may have only just begun."

[Barrett808]

76. Yes, the force-feeding is a form of torture, with "doctors" repeatedly shoving the tubes in and out

All need to be prosecuted for war crimes.

[Mithreal]

35. President Obama could have already closed this despicable gulag.

Any deaths that occur there are now clearly at the hands of the Democrats and President Obama.

No excuses.

[Speed8098]

40. No excuses...................my ass.

Any deaths that occur there are now clearly at the hands of the Democrats and President Obama.

That's pure bullshit. Let's not forget who started this whole thing and who is resisting the closure of this embarrassment to the American people.

The only hands that have blood on them are the bushies and their minions.

Obama is doing every thing he can to clean up the mess that the asshole bush administration left behind and for you to say otherwise is just more right wing propaganda.

[Mithreal]

43. Who started it is to a degree irrelevant at this point.

The Democrats have enabled this mess. I realize they have a fight with some radical conservatives on closing this farce but another year delayed justice for these people is beyond reason, it is inhumane.

I heard that Madeleine Albright said President Obama could close Guantanamo in one day if he wanted. He does not want to do that obviously.

The Democrats are in charge. When they continue policies that were wrong when Bush did them, then they are still wrong. I know a number of groups have praised the President for signing a statement to close Guantanamo, but that is just not good enough. Justice delayed is not justice. The torture and illegal detention warrants a swifter reconciliation for those inmates but the President wants to take his time.

President Obama is wrong on this one. For anyone in the the Progressive community to remain ignorant or silent is shameful. Disagree with me all you want and it will not change the facts. Democrats are in charge. I know it is still early and I am not griping, I am calling them out as wrong.

Again, there is no excuse for what Bush did. For the democrats to close this place, it just isn't the right time? It isn't politically expedient, right? And we wouldn't want to waste political capitol for those people, right? And another year really won't hurt them, right?

No excuses.

[Speed8098]

44. When you start your point with.........

The Democrats have enabled this mess.

Your credibility goes right out the window. That sentence has been a wrongheaded talking point of the righties ever since this quagmire started.

I heard that Madeleine Albright said President Obama could close Guantanamo in one day if he wanted.
Please share your source.

The Democrats are in charge. When they continue policies that were wrong when Bush did them, then they are still wrong.

You clearly have contradicted yourself here.

I know a number of groups have praised the President for signing a statement to close Guantanamo,

Signing a statement to close Gitmo is NOT what could be called "continuing policies when bush did them". As a matter of fact it is the opposite of "continuing policies that were wrong when Bush did them"

President Obama is wrong on this one. For anyone in the the Progressive community to remain ignorant or silent is shameful.

Please identify whom you are referring to that is "remaining ignorant or silent" and please remember to back up your statement with links to collaborative credible sources.

Try as you might, you cannot lay the blame of this embarrassment on President Obama.

[EFerrari]

54. The Democrats did enable this mess. Democrats were briefed

right along with Republicans when this program started and to pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.

[Mithreal]

71. I do not blame President Obama for creating this mess.

I appreciate that you took the time to respond, however, I have some problems with your statements as well.

"The Democrats have enabled this mess."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13629914/
"Within hours of the high court's ruling that the military tribunals were illegal under U.S. and international law, President Bush said he would work with Congress to fix the problem. Still, Bush vowed that the result "won't cause killers to be put out on the street."
Congress' options include everything from legalizing the administration's proposed military tribunals to using the U.S. court system or enacting laws that, as Justice John Paul Stevens recommended, use military courts-martial as a template."

When Democrats too over the last Congress they could have done something to ensure that detainees were treated humanely, not tortured, that there was actual evidence and documentation of criminality. Instead the Congress did what to ensure justice? The House and Senate were under Democratic control. Who else has the responsibility? But the collusion of Democrats in enabling torture, illegal spying, and illegal detentions has been talked about exhaustively. Your argument later asks who is remaining ignorant or silent would be anyone who ignores that Democrats controlled the Congress in the last Congress or rationalizes their impotence or silence.

There have been so many stories discussing this I will just google the first one.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/09/democrats/

"The Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration, beginning in 2002, repeatedly briefed leading Congressional Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees -- including, at various times, Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and Jane Harman -- regarding the CIA's "enhanced interrogation methods," including details about waterboarding and other torture measures. With one exception (Harman, who vaguely claims to have sent a letter to the CIA), these lawmakers not only failed to object to these policies, but affirmatively supported them."

I am no rightwinger and neither do I get anywhere near their message. I enjoy hearing their talking points skewered, but I tell you that this is no mere RW talking point.

[Mithreal]

74. See #70, I concede, I heard it spoken on radio, I cannot recall the source

So, citing Albright's statement should be taken with a grain of salt since I could not recall the source even with the help of a a quick google search.

[Mithreal]

75. Clearly contradicted myself? How so? nt

[Mithreal]

77. Signing statement versus continuing policy?

Signing a document that you intend to close the facility a year from now is absolutely a continuation of policy for another year. Ok, I will concede that there is a difference. President Obama will continue to keep it open for another year and then close it. Former POS Bush said that everyone wants to close Guantanamo. Ok, so President Obama signed a statement. For the detainees that have only another year to wait for some form of justice it must have been quite the relief.

It is NOT the opposite of the Bush policy, instead it might be considered a CENTRIST approach. State that you are going to close it down so that you can appease those who wanted it closed without actually closing it now which is something rightwingers would not tolerate. So, a year from now gives a lot of time for the President to change his mind. Perhaps a year from now we will hear there are still problems and their detention at that facility needs to be extended, isn't that possible? Imagine being a detainee, what a relief, justice finally, in just another year. Justice delayed for these detainees is anti-American.

Your argument about the distinction may give some comfort but it doesn't make it true to those who have been tortured and illegally detained. I don't expect to win you over, but figured I should try and convey more of my thinking even if you see it as wrong headed.

Edited for spelling and readability.

[BunkerHill24]

88. " It is NOT the opposite of the Bush policy, instead it might be considered a CENTRIST approach"

Indeed Mr. Obama and Democrats are complicit with Bush admin keeping Guantanamo open for another year. They know it, he knows it, and that's why they will cower as the cowards that they have become.

[Mithreal]

78. Continuing to delay justice I do place blame on our Democrats

Placing blame on this embarrassment on President Obama is a over-stretching my comments. Lay the blame on continuing or delaying this embarrassment, the responsibility I do place solidly on Democrats and President Obama. DU praised President Obama for taking responsibility for the Daschle unintended message that a message was sent that there were different rules for prominent people and ordinary folks when it comes to paying taxes. So fine praise him for taking that respectability which seems a lil silly to me. But when it comes to delaying closing Guantanamo, that is clearly not the President's responsibility, right? And no need for the Congress to do much about Guanatanamo now because the president said he is going to close it later.

If keeping the gulag open another year and not accelerating justice at an epic pace is ok with you, then fine, be happy that he signed a statement. I wish I could ignore the injustice done by Bush and Cheney and our Congress, and maybe wanting things to be immediately remedied is just too impractical. Afterall President Obama has an economy and wars that are taking so much of his attention. It just seems that Guantanamo was seen as something that was a priority to make a statement about and not much more at this time.

I am not a rightwinger, I respected your comments and am attempting to have a discussion. I am open to argument but simple statements to the contrary are not reasoned arguments. I have tried to make reasoned arguments, but tell me where I failed.

[stillcool]

65. Madeline Albright? I think not...

I've been searching for an example of where she said such a thing. Other than the guiltiest of the right wing, I know of no one who is displeased that Obama has ordered the closing of Gitmo, nor anyone who thinks there should not be some process in releasing them. Advocating for better living conditions, humane treatment, and speed in determining any charges for these detainee's is one thing, but kicking them to the curb with no review of their cases, and no destination is highly irresponsible.

MADDOW: The ACLU has put out essentially, a guide for the next president, for the first day, the first hundred days and the first year of the next presidency. They are suggesting that the next president issue an executive order unequivocally banning torture as well as extraordinary rendition, and ordering the closure of Gitmo essentially immediately. What are your thoughts on the feasibility of those proposals?

ALBRIGHT: I think they're all very important. I have said and by the way, Rachel, all former secretaries of state when we assembled about three weeks ago said that we should close Gitmo. I think that is absolutely an essential thing to do. I think it's very important to ban torture and to have policies that reflect America's values and get back to who we really are. So I hope that this is very clear. Senator Obama has spoken on all these issues about closing Guantanamo and about the issue of banning torture and renditions and I think that it's very important to move that direction. What I think is difficult-and I have made this point-I don't think we should do the kind of the hundred day thing on the next president because there's so much that has to happen. I think it's going to take more than a hundred days or a thousand days to undo some of the issues that have brought us such problems in the last eight years. So what I think is important is to really support the president. I hope very much that it's Barack Obama. And to be able to move ahead to restore America's authority and our standing in the world so that we can fulfill what is important for the American people.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27439402/

[Mithreal]

70. I did not advocate what you accuse me of saying.

"kicking them to the curb with no review of their cases, and no destination is highly irresponsible."

That is a Straw Man. I said no such thing.

I tried to find a written source, I listen to am1090 in Seattle which is Progressive radio. There are a couple shows that are a lil less than progressive but my favorites are Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, Rhandi Rhodes, Mike Malloy and several others that are not on daily. I heard the statement about Albright within the last month. If I could find the source I would have included it. And I am not trying to appeal to authority of Albright unnecessarily, because either Obama could close it with a signature or he could not. I am not going to read everything on that link either. I googled Albright before I wrote my original statement as well and reviewed her position. Of course people are willing to be patient with the new President including Albright. I concede that people have more patience than me.

[stillcool]

79. I find it very hard to believe that a hawk ..

like Albright would say such a thing. Perhaps it would only take one day to release all these people once they know where they're going, and whether any face any real charges, with real evidence, that will stand up in a real court of law. There is a very real fear on the part of the Bush/Cheney brigade about closing Gitmo, but it doesn't seem to be shared by even James Baker III. I wonder if there is something about the law that takes effect when these people are no longer in U.S. custody regarding lawsuits and war crimes.

[Mithreal]

83. Your last statement is interesting.

If I try and recall the context of her comment, it was in response to a question. I absolutely do not suggest in any way that she advocated that, just that is was possible.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ima_sinnic]

38. let the reaction to this be as it was toward Daschle: swift & sharp & not be ignored

I have started a letter to Obama that will be cc'd to my senators and to the people in the media, to be sent by snail mail, along with a copy of this article.

I encourage everyone to go beyond simple e-mail, to do every form of communication at once, and bombard Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Thom Hartmann, people at The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive, as well as the NYTimes, Washington Post, and any other place/person you can think of with a demand that these prisoners be released immediately. There is no "evidence" against them that is not tainted, and they haven't even been charged with anything. You can believe that if there had been real evidence against even one of them, that person would have been showcased.

In addition, Obama needs to sharply address the propaganda of "return to the battlefield" that the RW noise machine pumps up any time the subject of releasing Guantanamo prisoners. He needs to rebuke the propagandists and spell out the truth about these prisoners. He needs to shut down the prison and return the navy base property to Cuba. Anything less is a war crime in light of the history of abuse and lack of habeas corpus.

He also needs to get over the myth that U.S. military personnel are immune from charges of war crimes. What makes the U.S. so special that it needn't follow international law?

[Window]

39. K/R. Alright effin media, do your damned jobs. We have work to do

people. This is ridiculous.


:kick:

[democrank]

41. I ask you....

How the hell much longer are we going to sit back and let this barbarism go on?

[Kindigger]

42. But a couple of the Republic senators

stood on the floor of the Senate this past week, and told us once again what a great place Gitmo is. The prisoners eat better than we do, and live better than they did back home. Also, the Red Cross is there all the time, and this kind of stuff cannot be true. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

55. Inhofe? It sounds like his talking points. Maybe he should go stay there

a few years.

[Dystopian]

45. KandR. God help us all.

If there is a God. I never thought I'd write that. IF.

peace~

[leftchick]

46. that is noe way to get rid of the gitmo problem

I am cynical enough to believe this is intentional.

[ohio2007]

50. I wonder what the murder/suicide rate is in the average max security prison in the US?

Are those figures kept secret?

[ronnie624]

103. I don't believe guards do this in maximum security prisons in the U.S.:

Gitmo Detainee’s ‘Genitals Were Sliced With A Scalpel,’ Waterboarding ‘Far Down The List Of Things They Did’

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3730171>

Will you be posting any gibberish on that thread as well?

[izzybeans]

51. It's time for anyone involved in this concentration camp to go to jail.

[chill_wind]

57. Key Bush Gitmo advisers still on job at Pentagon - to say nothing of Gates.

Key Bush Gitmo advisers still on job at Pentagon
By LARA JAKES
Associated Press Writer
02/05/2009

WASHINGTON — Three senior Pentagon officials tapped by the Bush administration to oversee detainee policy at Guantanamo Bay remain on the job despite President Barack Obama's order to reverse course at the Navy prison in Cuba.

The Bush appointees' ongoing influence over one of Obama's first and most sensitive national security decisions raises questions by critics — within and outside the Pentagon —

Until Thursday, the senior judge in charge of terrorist trials at Guantanamo had stalled in enforcing Obama's demand to halt all court proceedings for the estimated 245 terror suspects held there. The judge, Susan J. Crawford, is a Bush political appointee.

Two other officials, working in the Pentagon's detainee policy office, have been shunted into civil service jobs. As a result, they cannot be summarily fired because of the change in presidential administrations.

In a letter released Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein demanded that Defense Secretary Robert Gates review whether Bush holdovers in the policy office had improperly kept their jobs.t

"I ask that you immediately review the circumstances behind the conversion of these positions and the hiring of any former Bush administration appointees as career or temporary appointments in that office," Feinstein, D-Calif., wrote in the letter dated Feb. 4. "This is especially disconcerting within the Office of Detainee Affairs due to the nature of the policy recommendations that office provides regarding Guantanamo."

(...)

The Pentagon has reviewed the cases of all three appointees, whom President George W. Bush's White House vetted and approved for political posts in 2007. A spokesman said defense officials concluded that none "burrowed" into the system — or improperly transferred from political to career jobs.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment Thur

more about Susan Crawford: http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/shared-gen/ap/US_Presidential_Cabinet/Guantanamo_Pentagon_Holdovers.html?cxntlid=inform_sr

[libodem]

58. This kind of 'news' surfaces

and then slips back under the radar as soon as some thing flashier catches our attention. I imagine many have been tortured to death and beaten to death. These weak and dying men must be the 'worst of the worst' Cheney is foaming at the mouth about. Asymmetrical warfare. The past administration practically spat those words in utter disgust. When cluster bombs, Bradley's, blackhawks, aircraft carriers are trumped by enough will power to starve yourself to death in protest of punitive incarceration. The nerve of the past administration to be so angry at the men who hung themselves. They were beaten at their own game. They didn't care about the loss of a possibly innocent life, a farmer sold ,for a bounty, they care that the act might make them look incompetent to hold a little, naked, primitive, brown, man, against his will. Death can be a blessing.

[lostnotforgotten]

59. Obama Better Get This Shit Straightened Out Or He Is Toast In 2012

eom

[chill_wind]

60. My hope is that he will ditch Gates, and not wait too long.

His push-back at the Pentagon is encouraging here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8178462

I hope he will lose his patience altogether. The whole world is watching, as never before.

[lostnotforgotten]

61. Yes - I Don't Think He Realizes That While Playing "Rope A Dope" Is Fun It Wastes Time

eom

[lebkuchen]

62. adding a recent Stars/Stripes Letter to Editor opposing torture, written by a LTC

...Smerconish imagines we can just dabble in torture, but not really be "for torture." Nonsense. If you murder once, you are a murderer. If you rape once, you are a rapist. So what do we turn our men and women into when we instruct them to torture? What do we become?

Torture is illegal, no matter what anybody says. The U.S. signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions forbidding torture. According to Article 6 of our Constitution, any treaty so signed and ratified "is the supreme Law of the Land." No one is above the law — not the president, not the Congress, no one.

Those whose principles only apply when it is expedient truly have no principles at all. It is hypocrisy indeed to preach the rule of law to the world, and yet exempt ourselves. We are supposed to be better than that.


http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=60475

[Jefferson23]

63. God Almighty when is this going to end. I will e-mail my Senators

and the White House etc, I hope this gets a lot more attention, this is sickening.

[Wizard777]

66. If they die it's capital murder.

[Solly Mack]

84. Hunger strikes have been going on for years at GTMO (links included)

In response to conditions (among other reasons) at GTMO...the strikes have been going on since shortly after people were brought to GTMO.

I just read over the thread and thought I'd post these links.

From 2002:

There is an underlying tension associated with the uncertainty of their future

Guantanamo hunger strike escalates

"Two-thirds of the terror suspects being held at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay have now joined a hunger strike that began on Wednesday.

A US military spokesman said 194 inmates refused to eat lunch on Thursday and began chanting "God is great" in Arabic, as part of a protest which started when two guards removed an inmate's turban while he was praying.

Prisoners have also been pushing sheets, blankets, sleeping mats and other items through the chain-link walls of their cells, Marine Major Stephen Cox said.

The protest is the first at the camp since inmates began arriving at the remote US naval base in Cuba in January."



From 2005:

Hunger strike at Guantanamo grows

"Since August 8, the number of detainees refusing food has slowly increased from several dozen to 128, according to the Pentagon.

Eighteen prisoners are in medical facilities forcibly receiving nutrition intravenously or through nasal tubes, Pentagon officials said.

Last month officials said 89 detainees were refusing to eat and 12 were receiving forced nutrition in the medical facility.

Since the prison camp at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, opened in January 2002, there have been numerous hunger strikes by detainees. No prisoner has died from starvation, according to Pentagon officials."

From 2006:

Guantanamo commander Rear Adm. Harry Harris, Jr. has called (hunger strikes) "asymmetric warfare"

"Civil-liberties advocates point out that Guantanamo's 460 inmates have few other means to make their voices heard, given that most have been detained for more than four years without even being charged with a crime. Indeed, though the U.S. has condemned the hunger strikers at Gitmo, just last year the White House hailed a hunger-striking Iranian dissident for showing 'that he is willing to die for his right to express his opinion.'"


More links

Guantanamo suicides 'acts of war' ("asymmetric warfare")


"Rear Adm Harris said he did not believe the men had killed themselves out of despair.

"They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said.

"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."


All three men had previously taken part in some of the mass on-and-off hunger strikes undertaken by detainees since last August, and all three had been force-fed by camp authorities.

They had left suicide notes, but no details have been made available.


This is just to illustrate how long the detainees being held at GTMO have protested (hunger strike is a form of protest) their treatment by the US government at GTMO.