Guantanomo Bay

[CollegeTillIDie]

The Patriot Act is the greatest marketing of a piece of legislation since.....ever? What politicians could vote against a Patriot Act? Wouldn't that be unpatriotic?

I think Patriot Act 2 contains the dropping of warrant requirement? What could the police services need to do that they can't get judge to approve a warrant? I'm sure in cases of national security judges are already approving warrnats anyway...

One of the problems with the Patriot Act was most of those who voted for it never even read it!

Guantanamo Bay Prison will be closed down and then the bay will be famous only for that song about a woman from there.
" Guantanamera......"

[liam88]

Noam Chomsky explains it far more eloquently than I ever could - I suggest you look him up over the summer before you head for University.

I looked up Noam Chomsky a long time ago....ironically I first heard of him in the lyrics of a left-wing anti-Bush song (which since my younger teenage years I have discovered serious flaws in )

And you know that how? Who's to say that they weren't out protesting when Hu Jintao was driven down the Mall? Or that they haven't been writing letters continuously to TDs/MPs/world figures/prisoners of conscience like all good Amnesty International members should?

I'm just saying the none of the anti-war protesters I have spoken to were down the Mall with us that day. I think it's naivee to believe that the "human rights" abuses in Guantanomo have recieved the same level of media coverage or support as the far worse human rights abuses across the world.....they have recieved far more.

Liam, it's not just individuals but the Western governments and corporations you should be questioning for kow-towing to the Chinese government in the way that they have recently, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in the process.

I know, and that's why I proest outside Total (re. Burma), House of Commons etc. I just think it's bizzare and unfair how so many people who-in all fairness-never cared about the human rights abuses comitted under the Taliban, Saddam, Jianto or Shwe are now out going blue in the face of supposed abuses in Guantanomo bay. I could guarantee you if I took the names of every person on the next anti-Guantanomo Bay ralley in London less than 1 or two percent would be at the next ralley against the genocides in Sudan or the Karen region.

That's a value judgement although I'm inclined to agree with you. But how many states in those three continents/regions have to bear some degree of US state-sponsored meddling in their domestic affairs? I'd struggle to name you a country in Latin/central America where they haven't interfered. Empire-building by another name.

I don't think that you can credibly blame the US government for human rights abuses in Latin America....in the past they have actually tried to topple LAtin American rulers! Africa has even less US influence and the USA is openly critical of human rights abuses in Burma, china and North Korea.

No but if he was an Iraqi man held by US forces in Abu Ghraib, for example, he could well have been brutalised with a bottle or forced to perform sexual acts on other male prisoners. Again, for example. And who knows what's really going on in Gitmo?

Yes but the people performing such acts were a minority who were tried and, in fact found guilty. The behaedings and torture of homosexuals under the Taliban was an enforced opressive law.

EDIT - Did I mention that the CIA provided funding and training to the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupiers all those years ago, helping to kickstart the Taliban in the process?

That they did-indisputable fact of past actions of the US that were a total disgrace. Similar to the protecting of patents on HIV/AIDS durgs and, further back, the barbaric treatment of black people. Even now the USA bares serious, serious flaws even on it's own territory, I was in Texas a couple of summers back and we drove past a group of men chained together breaking rocks on the side of a road....I thought 21st Century America should be past that.

This is not a beauty pageant for despots so that won't be necessary. In any case, none of the others threaten world peace the way that Bush does, which is why he attracts such opprobrium from so many quarters.

But surely complaints against Guantanomo BAy are of human rights abuses and not a threat to world peace?
This aside:

-Although he may pose a threat Bush has not comitted any acts of genocide...which are already plaguing the 21st century just 6 years in! Surely genocide is a more pressing concern.
-I believe the biggest threat to world peace involves Bush but will be initiated by Jianto's agression (Agaisnt Taiwan). The Israeli's and IRanians pointing missiles at each other isn't comfertable either....maybe you can blame the US for their relationship with Israel? At the end of the day the USA will be involved in any major world conflict because it is the worlds only superpower-similarly Palau is likely not to play any part because it is one of the worlds smallest powers. But this is all for another thread......

So what are you going to do about it...?

Raise it till I get a decent answer:

-How many of you campaigning against Guantanomo campaigned for Dyna Curry's release?
-Why?

Also just to remind you that some Iraqi people have acted as barbarians since the war: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4809228.stm

[pete]

I don't think that you can credibly blame the US government for human rights abuses in Latin America....in the past they have actually tried to topple LAtin American rulers!

Yes they do have a good track record of toppling democratically elected governments (Chiles), assassinating Presidents (Chile) & supporting coups (Chile, Venuzuala)...

[Plastic Paddy]

I looked up Noam Chomsky a long time ago....ironically I first heard of him in the lyrics of a left-wing anti-Bush song (which since my younger teenage years I have discovered serious flaws in )

I'm not convinced you stopped long enough to read and learn anything though. I suggest Chomsky as I'm not sure that you quite grasp the subtlety of the arguments I put forward and his clearer rationale might do the trick. You've certainly not attempted to address them in any way if you have got my gist, so to speak.

I'm just saying the none of the anti-war protesters I have spoken to were down the Mall with us that day.

So what? Their cause is no less legitimate for the lesser amount of time that they have ascribed to it. Your attitude suggests you believe otherwise, but then that's the kind of superiority complex I expect from the moral minority.

I think it's naivee to believe that the "human rights" abuses in Guantanomo have recieved the same level of media coverage or support as the far worse human rights abuses across the world.....they have recieved far more.

And so it should. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who shall keep watch over the guardians? In Western liberal democracies it falls to the media to scrutinise the actions of governments and we should place this first if we should expect to be taken seriously. End of story.

I just think it's bizzare and unfair how so many people who-in all fairness-never cared about the human rights abuses comitted under the Taliban, Saddam, Jianto or Shwe are now out going blue in the face of supposed abuses in Guantanomo bay.

I could guarantee you if I took the names of every person on the next anti-Guantanomo Bay ralley in London less than 1 or two percent would be at the next ralley against the genocides in Sudan or the Karen region.

Granted but then those causes don't concern them in the way that this article from today's UK Independent should:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle351561.ece

I don't think I need add any more here.

I don't think that you can credibly blame the US government for human rights abuses in Latin America....in the past they have actually tried to topple LAtin American rulers!

That's right. Even democratically elected ones (cf. Chile, Nicaragua) in order to instal their own military puppets. They're also nice to Parvez Musharraf in Pakistan for much the same reason - in fairness, he's one junta overlord I'd quite like to see stay as the alternatives are too awful to contemplate.

Africa has even less US influence and the USA is openly critical of human rights abuses in Burma, china and North Korea.

Such moral certitude from Bush and co. is laughable when they operate Guantanamo. It's the duplicity underpinning their message and their methods that I can't stomach. I thought I'd made that clear.

But surely complaints against Guantanomo BAy are of human rights abuses and not a threat to world peace?

Perpetrated by an administration whose actions directly influence the course of peace in the Middle East, the wider Arab world, central Asia and that's just for starters. How many more times do I have to spell out why the US government faces such opposition?

On another note, you can't out-pedant a pedant.

I believe the biggest threat to world peace involves Bush but will be initiated by Jianto's agression (Agaisnt Taiwan). The Israeli's and IRanians pointing missiles at each other isn't comfertable either....maybe you can blame the US for their relationship with Israel?

Well, successive US administrations certainly could have played a more balanced role in shaping relations between Israel, Palestine and the wider Arab world policy but then that is to overlook the prominent and influential role enjoyed by the Jewish lobby in US politics and the brave attempts by Clinton and others to bring the parties together.

Being anti-this American administration doesn't make us anti-American bigots, y'know.

At the end of the day the USA will be involved in any major world conflict because it is the worlds only superpower

...and because its government insists on having an expansionist and irredentist foreign policy. See this and other threads.

Also just to remind you that some Iraqi people have acted as barbarians since the war: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4809228.stm

Thanks for that Liam. Once again you seem confused; still, you're not the only one as George and his cronies seem equally blinded. Don't mistake those who are against the war for Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish apologists or al-Qaeda propagandists. These murders and all other barbaric actions in this regrettable conflict cannot be condoned in any form; a point that the vast majority of anti-war protesters will make only too clearly given the chance. But don't let that dissuade you from your own prejudices.

PP

[Student Mullet]

Yes but the people performing such acts were a minority who were tried and, in fact found guilty.

I never bought that argument myself. The abuse took place in corridors and other public areas and was extensively photographed. This says to me that the people doing it weren't afraid of their superior finding them and punishing them because if they were, they'd have done it in a quiet room and not posed for photos. They were clearly acting with the permission of their superior officers.

[liam88]

Ok PP I was considering goin for another post quoting and replying to each of your arguments....and I may well do if this one doesn't make my point clearly enough-but I really need to get something clear.

I'm not condoning every aspect of this US administration (including Camp Delta) nor am I denying the arguably unjust use of language in today's politics. My issue is with the fact that Hu Jianto can horse-and-cart it down the mall and people will sit half a mile away in a pub, or walk past going "cor look at all those flags!" and then as soon as Camp Delta makes the front pages they leg it round going "Human rights! Bush is the second (/third depending on religious persuasion) ati-christ! Look at the poor innocent people being tortured!!".
Now I'm not saying that human rights in China/Tibet matter above all else-that would be like saying we should never raise money for fighting Cancer because AIDS costs more lives. But my point is-that these people never cared about Dyna Curry, the Taliban etc. and are now so opposed to Bush mabye...just maybe the whole anti-Camp Delta movement is about something a little more than human rights. I am not saying that nobody campaigning against Camp Delta and what may or may not go on there cares a jot about the human rights or the people in there but the whole thing to me smacks of bandwagon jumping. It's like schools/6th form colleges all around the UK (I can't talk for Ireland)-there were so many sit-ins and walk-outs when the war started and so many people scribbling "stop the war" on the walls-but how many really cared and how many just wanted to get out of lessons or cause a bit of damage?
I wouldn't say I'm cynical because all the anti-camp Delta pople I've met (and let's be hinest we can only base our opinions on our own experience) didn't seem that bothered about any of the human rights abuses until it was Bush doing it.

Summary -how can you expect me to believe all these pople are campaigning against Camp Delta on a human rights basis when they were more than happy to let Jianto (one of the worst human rights abusers of our time) to pass by just down the road and when they didn't lift a finger when Dyna Curry was imprisoned by the Taliban on the basis of being a Christian?

[liam88]

I never bought that argument myself. The abuse took place in corridors and other public areas and was extensively photographed. This says to me that the people doing it weren't afraid of their superior finding them and punishing them because if they were, they'd have done it in a quiet room and not posed for photos. They were clearly acting with the permission of their superior officers.

Very interesting thought-but surely England and the rest of them would have come out and said that either when it was obvious they were going to be found guilt or when they were found guilty. Surely if they were going down for it they'd want to bring down the people who organised/condoned it. That none of them (to my knowledge, mentioned anything about senior involvment in the court case or afterwards implies that ideas of superior officers running the show is little more than a conspiracy theory.

[Student Mullet]

Very interesting thought-but surely England and the rest of them would have come out and said that either when it was obvious they were going to be found guilt or when they were found guilty. Surely if they were going down for it they'd want to bring down the people who organised/condoned it. That none of them (to my knowledge, mentioned anything about senior involvment in the court case or afterwards implies that ideas of superior officers running the show is little more than a conspiracy theory.

I know and I agree to a certain extent with what you're saying but my basic impression of the situation is that everything doesn't add up. The soilders cannot possibly have been as stupid as the official line makes them out to be.

[liam88]

I don't know SM-firstly it was a minority; the few of them could have been very stupid. Secondly they are out there in the desert seeing their friends killed and having morters lobbed at them-now I'm not saying this justifies what they did but i'm saying it could well have messed them up enough to do it. It wouldn't be the worst things soldiers have been known to do. I don't know if anybody could ref. the incident i'm reffering to but I read in a book on the troubles about a childrens home in a loyalist area that allowed British troops to itnerfere with the children then used it as blackmail to hold a whole regiment to account. As I said I can't ref. that and I'll happily remove the example and find another one if I can't find the reference but I distinctly remember reading about it and it just shows how troops in conflict zones can do/ be driven to do the bost barbaric depraved acts without thinking of the consequences.

Another point of clarity on my ealier argument-let me emphasise I am a human rights campaigner-I spend most of my free time campaigning with Amnesty Internation, the Burma Campaign, the Free Tibet Campaign or CAFOD-i'm also off to work with the burma Campaign UK in Summer. I fully respect human rights concerns about Camp Delta and if this was the genuine reasoning behind all the lobbying then fair play....but lets be honest-it's not. It's become trendy and left-wing; jsut take a look on the poster in the anti-war thread (which has a picture of a Camp Delta Internee on it) and look at the organisations supporting it:

Sinn Feing (left wing party)
Green Party (left wing party)
Socialist workers party (left wing party)
Labour Party (left wing party)
Federation of student Islamic societies (Islamic)
Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (Palestine (/Left wing?) )

I ahven't had time to look up the others but from those ones-Left wing groups, Islamic groups and Palestine solidarity groups.

No Amnesty International, no Human Rights Watch, no Medical Foundation.

Now I know Amnesty have criticised Camp Delta but they also criticse Jianto/the Burmese regime etc. The reason Camp Delta gets so much publicity and criticism is the left wing movement (including students going with the trend-after all left wing is 'cool' ) and it's this left wing bandwagon that is detracting from the worse, more widespread, more in-need of attention human rights abuses in the world.

And that's my criticism.

[Plastic Paddy]

Ok PP I was considering goin for another post quoting and replying to each of your arguments....and I may well do if this one doesn't make my point clearly enough-but I really need to get something clear... how can you expect me to believe all these pople are campaigning against Camp Delta on a human rights basis when they were more than happy to let Jianto (one of the worst human rights abusers of our time) to pass by just down the road and when they didn't lift a finger when Dyna Curry was imprisoned by the Taliban on the basis of being a Christian?

You make your point well and I accept it (it is only fair to admit this fact to you as if the rest of your critical reasoning is this good it will see you to 3 or 4 As this summer ) but I don't think anyone concerned with drawing attention to human rights abuses can afford to be selective or snooty about the motives of others doing the same. This is where I stand on Michael Moore - I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it but the fact that he's making at all is something that I consider to be a good thing. For your part, you have the ear of these people that you accuse of having less worthy motives - why aren't you convincing them to campaign for Dayna Curry's release instead of wasting your energy throwing brickbats at them? You may win over a few more voices to what are undoubtedly vital and worthy causes.

PP

[liam88]

You make your point well and I accept it (it is only fair to admit this fact to you ) but I don't think anyone concerned with drawing attention to human rights abuses can afford to be selective or snooty about the motives of others doing the same. This is where I stand on Michael Moore - I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it but the fact that he's making at all is something that I consider to be a good thing. For your part, you have the ear of these people that you accuse of having less worthy motives - why aren't you convincing them to campaign for Dayna Curry's release instead of wasting your energy throwing brickbats?

PP

Fair play-same to you; you make your point well and I accept it. Re. Dayna Crry-she's already out; I do however push for other campaigns I spend my time working on; against Total Oil's Investment in Burma being the most recent. I've got to say I was pretty dissapointed at the anti-war guys in our college-they go on anti-war, anti-Camp Delta protests but when I exaplianed to them about and invited them on a protest we organised for the International Day of Action Agaist Total (outisde the local Total station) not one of them turned up....(still made enough noise without them and had a big sucess).

As a final point I was surfing and, purley by accident came across this very interesting discussion on political parties becomming involved in portests (particularly in Ireland). You might fancy a read.

[Plastic Paddy]

Fair play-same to you; you make your point well and I accept it.

Very noble of you. Now back to the debate.

Re. Dayna Crry-she's already out

Then why did you make all that noise about her?

I've got to say I was pretty dissapointed at the anti-war guys in our college-they go on anti-war, anti-Camp Delta protests but when I exaplianed to them about and invited them on a protest we organised for the International Day of Action Agaist Total (outisde the local Total station) not one of them turned up....(still made enough noise without them and had a big sucess).

Of all the people I shouldn't have thought it necessary to say this to you; keep the faith. You'll meet the right people to make a noise with soon enough. Not everyone has your conviction or sense of purpose after all. And anyway, us old gits need people to take over the protest-marching on cold March Saturday afternoons when we'd rather be indoors.

PP

[liam88]

Very noble of you. Now back to the debate.

There I was thinking it was at it's conclusion

Then why did you make all that noise about her?

The point was:

-Dayna Curry was imprisoned by the Taliban for being a Christian-although there was a campaign for her release it did not have a huge following/support

-Inmates at Camp Delta are imprisoned and there is huge support-the vast majority of those campaigning against Camp Delta (Again going on personal experience and taking this to it's logical conclusion) did not campaign for Dayna Curry's release

-Surely the case one person being (arguably) wrongly imprisoned, held without fair trial (although Dayna Curry had a trial it was a forgone conclusion), and being ptentially a victim of torture is the same as another (worth remembering Dayna Curry wasn't the only person imprisoned under the Taliban for her beliefs)

-So why are so many people campaiging for Muslim inmates in Camp Delta and who did not campaign for Dayna Curry or her fellow Christian inmates it whichever hell-held in Afghanistan she was locked in?

-My answer: Anti-camp Delta stance is left-wing and trendy, Free Dayna Curry stance was not

Of all the people I shouldn't have thought it necessary to say this to you; keep the faith. You'll meet the right people to make a noise with soon enough. Not everyone has your conviction or sense of purpose after all. And anyway, us old gits need people to take over the protest-marching on cold March Saturday afternoons when we'd rather be indoors.

Aye I'm keeping it alright! Nah it didn't matter that they didn't come-we had a good dedicated turnout and it was a great sucess (in several ways I could tell you about sometime ) I was just surprised that out of the people who were preapred to go up to London to protest for human rights in Afghanistan/Iraq not one of them was prepared to take a short bus ride with us to protest for human rights in Burma.

Interesting scenario....say in 5 years time US troops got into Burma, topple the regime and are acussed of torturing members of the Tatmadaw and there was a huge outcry and protests from people who never raised a finger to help us campaign for human rights in Burma now, then I would be sickened.....I know that Burma and Taliban Afghanistan are certainly different situations but I'd guess that's how Dayna Curry and her supporters are probably feeling right now-if not a little bemused!

[Roverstillidie]

-So why are so many people campaiging for Muslim inmates in Camp Delta and who did not campaign for Dayna Curry or her fellow Christian inmates it whichever hell-held in Afghanistan she was locked in?

-My answer: Anti-camp Delta stance is left-wing and trendy, Free Dayna Curry stance was not

3 simple reasons
1: the us profess to be the 'home of the free' and have a rigidly fair legal system they have bypassed here.
2:we dont have the same cultural and historical link to the afghans that we have to the us.
and 3: our government didnt get caught helping the taliban in their sharp practices.

are you saying the moral equivalence of the taliban and us govt is the same?

and need i point out the left were rallying against the taliban (and saddam for that matter) while the us were still arming them, so this right sided argument is a nonsense. ditto burma. its the amnesty and swp types who are making all the noise on this case, not your the americans.

[liam88]

3 simple reasons
1: the us profess to be the 'home of the free' and have a rigidly fair legal system they have bypassed here.

So it's only wrong if they claim to be good people and if they admit their a totalitarian regime it's fair play? That's like saying China's human rights abuse are fien because they don't claim to be the nicest government int he world or that Ian Huntle's actions were fine because he didn't claim to treat kids well [I'm arguing against the logic you use here-obviously I'm not in anyway claiming that you agree with human rights abuses in China/Huntley's actions ]

2:we dont have the same cultural and historical link to the afghans that we have to the us.

Again-is this really a justified reason or is this 'white man complex' i.e. It's ok if Asian/African governments are doing it ubt not if a white government does. Similar to reason the West did more to stop genocide in Serbia than it did in Rwanda. It's time we in 'the West' grew out of the "they're black let them get on with it but I can't stand seeing white people slaughter each other" attitude-countries governements should be treated the same whether they are black, white, Asian etc. Nobody has that close historical ties with East Timor as a state simply because it has only existed as a state for a relativly small space of time-that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on what goes on there and condem, campaign if they ever violate human rights.

and 3: our government didnt get caught helping the taliban in their sharp practices.

The same Taliban that was put in power and armed by the West?

are you saying the moral equivalence of the taliban and us govt is the same?

No I'm saying that people should-when campaiging for human rights should treat human rights as human rights no matter who is commiting the abuses be it Shwe, Jianto, Saddam, Bush or the Tabliban

and need i point out the left were rallying against the taliban (and saddam for that matter) while the us were still arming them, so this right sided argument is a nonsense.

I wouldn't say I or my argument is rightwing, simply that the involvement of left wing politics in the anti-war, anti-Camp Delta movement is clouding what it should be all about and giving the alleged human rights abuses in camp Delta disproportionate amoutns of publicity leading to the neglect of "what are undoubtedly vital and worthy causes" (quoting PP there!)

ditto burma. its the amnesty and swp types who are making all the noise on this case, not your the americans.

Ok firstly Amnesty and SWP types? Since when have Amnesty had any link to the SWP. Many members of Amnesty are Christian and would not touch the SWP with a bargepole, others stay right out of oliticis and similarly would not touch the SWP with a bargepole. Conclusion-one is a non-religious, non-political human rights group, the other is a left-wing political party; how can you class them together?

Secondly in all my years of campaiging for Burma I have never once come across SWP sympathisers or activists. The nearest I've seen is supprot from UNISON and a lad who i subscribed to Red Pepper signed a postcard in college. I'll check with my relatives and other campaigners for you though.

Finally "your the Americans"?? Either you meant "your Americans"-which they are msot certainly not mine-I'm half Burmese half Irish, or you meant "you or the americans" which is even more wrong considering the amount of time I spend campaiging for Burma. They key point, I believe, however is the Americans involvement. The USA is one of only two countries to impose unilateral (and highly sucessful and enforced) sanction on Burma and is, along with Norway, the most outspoken critic of the regime. The USA along with Norway (and the Burmese governemnt in exile) has done more for Burmese democracy than any other government in the world.

To claim that the SWP has done more for Burma than the US government (particularly the Bush administration) is frankly absurd.


(It is also worth noting that the US Campaign for Burma is one of the most sucessful Burmese democracy movements in the world, as was the Free Burma Coalition before their leadership went anti-sanction against the wishes of the NLD)

[Roverstillidie]

ill concede the burma thing, you obviously have superior knowledge on the ins and outs. i meant activist groups like amnesty and swp types, who are far mre consistant on these issues than the US govt.

the phrase was meant to read 'the americans', or more accuratley their government.

as for the rest, you asked WHY people are more upset by western states abusing human rights than developing states (for want of a better expression) and i offered some brief explainations. hey might not read well, but the reality is we have more contact socially, culturally, economically and geographically with the US than dictatorships in the east and quite frankly expect better and are able to focus opposition easier. it is most certainly not white mans burden. again, when was the last dictatorship caught using shannon for renditions and to transport daisy cutters? our government have put us right in the firing line here and pwople need to stand up to a: them, b the american govt and c: the islamic world that we dont agree with this abuse of irish state property.

also i never said the irish 'left' are right, merely far more consistent in their criticisms than the american right, who as you said, armed the taliban when the left were still, opposed to their extremism. see the fawning over china by western business interests who now seem to have no problem with maosim in action.

[hamish]

More updates on this situation

Guantanamo war-crimes trials questioned

March 29, 2006

BY GINA HOLLAND - Chicago Sun Times

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court justices appeared troubled Tuesday by President Bush's plans to hold war-crimes trials for foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And several seemed outraged by the government's claim that a new law had stripped the high court of authority to hear a case brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who once worked as a driver for Osama bin Laden.

Hamdan has spent nearly four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, and the Supreme Court has been asked to decide if he can be put on trial with fewer legal protections before a type of military tribunal last used in the World War II era.

The appeal could set the stage for a landmark ruling, and the courtroom atmosphere was tense.

'Blank check' on foreigners?



''The use of military commissions to try enemy combatants has been part and parcel of the war power for 200 years,'' Solicitor General Paul Clement told justices.

Two years ago the Supreme Court ruled that ''a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.''

Hamdan's lawyer, Neal Katyal, told justices that the Bush administration acts like it has a ''blank check'' to do what it wants with foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Hundreds of people suspected of ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban have been swept up by the U.S. military and secretly shipped to the prison since 2002.

At first, the Bush administration would not let detainees see lawyers or notify family where they were, and interrogators used aggressive strategies to get information.

Justice Stephen Breyer said that lawyers for Hamdan, who faces a single conspiracy count, argue there is no emergency to justify the special trial.

''If the president can do this, well then he can set up commissions to go to Toledo, and in Toledo pick up an alien and not have any trial at all except before that special commission,'' Breyer said.

Without Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative Bush nominated last year, the argument seemed lopsided against the government. Roberts supported the Bush administration as a lower court judge and had to withdraw from participating.

Kennedy may be key



Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito gave hints that they support the administration, both suggesting that the high court should delay a decision until after the trial is over.

The outcome of the case will likely turn on moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who questioned Clement several times about the legal safeguards for the trials. It was unclear whether Clement resolved Kennedy's concerns.

The Bush administration has tried the scuttle the case on grounds that a law passed late last year bars Guantanamo prisoners from filing petitions to fight their detentions. The administration claims this law retroactively voided hundreds of lawsuits.

Justice David H. Souter said it would be ''stupendously significant'' for Congress to retroactively close courts to constitutional challenges.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said ''it's an extraordinary act, I think, to withdraw jurisdiction from this court in a pending case.''

Hamdan, who was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001, is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, murder and terrorism. He claims he worked as a driver for bin Laden only to eke out a living for his family.

Hamdan is among about 490 foreigners held as ''enemy combatants'' at Guantanamo Bay. AP

[hamish]

US Army Report accuses Rumsfeld

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12746.htm

Excerpt

the defence secretary of specifically prescribing "creative" techniques, but they said he regularly monitored the progress of the al-Kahtani interrogation by telephone, and they argued he had helped create the conditions that allowed abuse to take place.

Reuters report on this
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/news...b1dc0dafa1.htm

[hamish]

More updates on the above post
Rumsfeld Linked to Guantanamo Torture
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/131172/1/4536

Extracts
"A six-week regime of sleep deprivation, forced exercises, stress positions, white noise, and sexual humiliation amounts to acts that were specifically intended to cause severe physical pain and suffering and mental pain," said Joanne Mariner, HRW's director of terrorism and counter terrorism.
"That's the legal definition of torture," she added.

Human Rights Watch's Mariner says a special prosecutor is needed because Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was himself "deeply involved" in the policies leading to the abuse of prisoners, a conflict of interest that is likely to prevent a proper investigation
"The question at this point is not whether Rumsfeld should resign," said Joanne Mariner, "it's whether he should be indicted. A special prosecutor should look carefully at what abuses Rumsfeld either knew of or condoned."


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_4450142.htm
Everywhere General Miller goes - torture seems to be ramped up.

[hamish]

Article by a US army chaplain with the unfortunate first name of Kermit.

Inhuman behavior

A chaplain's view of torture

By Kermit D. Johnson

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12833.htm

Extract
Nor should we take comfort that we do not chop off heads or field suicide bombers. What we must face squarely is this: whenever we torture or mistreat prisoners, we are capitulating morally to the enemy—in fact, adopting the terrorist ethic that the end justifies the means. And let us not deceive ourselves: torture is a form of terrorism. Never mind the never-ending debate about the distinctions between "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" and "torture." The object of all such physical and mental torment is singularly clear: to terrify prisoners so they will yield information. Whenever this happens to prisoners in U.S. control, we are handing terrorists and insurgents a priceless ideological gift, known in wartime as aid and comfort to the enemy.