U.N. report: U.S. committed acts 'amounting to torture' at Gitmo

flavio

Banned
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A U.N. investigation has concluded that the United States committed acts amounting to torture at Guantanamo Bay, including force-feeding detainees and subjecting them to prolonged solitary confinement, according to a draft report obtained Monday.
U.S. officials rejected the report, saying it was riddled with errors and treated statements from detainees' lawyers as fact.

The report from five U.N. human rights experts also recommended the United States close Guantanamo Bay and revoke all special interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense.

It accused the United States of violating the detainees' rights to a fair trial, to freedom of religion and to health.

"The apparent attempts by the U.S. administration to reinterpret certain interrogation techniques as not reaching the threshold of torture in the framework of the struggle against terrorism are of utmost concern," the draft report said.

The draft report, which follows repeated claims by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that they have been mistreated or denied their rights, was delivered to the United States on Jan. 16. It was first disclosed Sunday by the Los Angeles Times.

American officials said the most significant flaw of the report was that it judged U.S. treatment of detainees according to peacetime human rights laws. The United States contends it is in a state of conflict and should be judged according to the laws of war.

"Once you fail to even acknowledge that as the legal basis for what we're doing, much of the legal analysis that follows just doesn't hold," a State Department official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the United States has not formulated an official public response to the draft.

The five U.N. experts have mandates that cover torture, freedom of religion, health, independent judiciary and arbitrary detention. They started working together in June 2004 to monitor conditions at Guantanamo Bay.

They were appointed to their three-year terms by the 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission, the global body's top rights watchdog.

About 500 people are being held in Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban government and charges have been filed against 10 detainees.

The draft report, which will be presented to the next session of the human rights commission, dismissed the U.S. claim that the war on terror constitutes an armed conflict. It also said that the detainees at Guantanamo had a right to challenge their detention, and that right was being violated.

"In the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees the U.S. executive operates as judge, as prosecutor, and as defense counsel," the report said. "This constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent trial."

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture and one of the five experts, said the report was a draft and had not incorporated U.S. comments. It was expected to be made public later in the week.

"It is a preliminary version," Nowak said, refusing to comment on its substance. "This is an unauthorized preliminary report which might be changed."

U.S. officials faulted the experts for rejecting an invitation to visit Guantanamo Bay, saying it fundamentally undermined the accuracy of their findings.

"The U.N. rapporteurs were invited to visit Guantanamo Bay and they chose not to," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York. "Had they visited, they would have found that there is no torture going on."

The five experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo Bay since 2002 and accepted the offer in December. But they reversed that decision when they were told they would not be allowed to interview detainees.

"Fact-finding on the spot has to include interviews with detainees," Nowak said. "What's the sense of going to a detention facility and doing fact-finding when you can't speak to the detainees? It's just nonsense."

MB00546.jpg

 

catocom

Well-Known Member
"The U.N. rapporteurs were invited to visit Guantanamo Bay and they chose not to," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York. "Had they visited, they would have found that there is no torture going on."

The five experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo Bay since 2002 and accepted the offer in December. But they reversed that decision when they were told they would not be allowed to interview detainees.

"Fact-finding on the spot has to include interviews with detainees," Nowak said. "What's the sense of going to a detention facility and doing fact-finding when you can't speak to the detainees? It's just nonsense."
And things like this are why the UN is "still" null, and void.

They don't want to see for themselves, they just want to talk to the people
they think will support their predispositions.
I wonder....how many prisoners, in ANY previous "conflict/war", would say
they've been mistreated.
 

mondomondo

New Member
catocom said:
And things like this are why the UN is "still" null, and void.

So you're saying that because the rest of the world insists on holding the most powerful nation on the planet accountable for its actions, that the rest of the world is irrelevant? And it's not exactly like we don't have prisons in which we refuse to give the Red Cross unfettered access. And it's not exactly like we don't have color photos of torture and death at the hands of Americans in at least one Iraqi prison, taken by the same people responsible for it. I think the world has a reason or two to be suspicious about the treatment of foreign prisoners in American custody. If the kind of photos that surfaced in Abu Ghraib had surfaced years ago from a Soviet Gulag, America would have been pounding its fist with righteous indignation - and it would have been right to do so.

catocom said:
They don't want to see for themselves, they just want to talk to the people they think will support their predispositions.

You mean like the Bush Administration did in its' rush to war against Iraq? I recall that all of the people who said that it would be exactly like it is now were fired, and all of the people who said it would be a "cakewalk" got Medals of Freedom.

catocom said:
I wonder....how many prisoners, in ANY previous "conflict/war", would say they've been mistreated.

I can recall about six million of them in a not-too-distant war ... unfortunately, they were killed before they could speak in their defense.

Anyhow, isn't America supposed to be the "shining beacon on the hill"? Aren't we supposed to be the example that the rest of the world wants to follow? Since when did we start emulating the governments we used to decry for their abuses?

What America is becoming, and has become, is precisely why the world needs a strong United Nations. (IMNSHO.)

[Goddamn it. I didn't want to start ranting about politics again. I didn't, I didn't, I didn't. I did that for five years, and all it gave me was high blood pressure.]
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
mondomondo said:
So you're saying that because the rest of the world insists on holding the most powerful nation on the planet accountable for its actions, that the rest of the world is irrelevant?
Nope, not what I'm saying. Besides, the UN "isn't" the rest of the world.


mondomondo said:
You mean like the Bush Administration did in its' rush to war against Iraq? I recall that all of the people who said that it would be exactly like it is now were fired, and all of the people who said it would be a "cakewalk" got Medals of Freedom.
Um, there was hard evidence besides just what people said.
and
I think your recollection is flawed. Who all got Fired?


mondomondo said:
I can recall about six million of them in a not-too-distant war ... unfortunately, they were killed before they could speak in their defense.
One point made.....

mondomondo said:
Anyhow, isn't America supposed to be the "shining beacon on the hill"? Aren't we supposed to be the example that the rest of the world wants to follow? Since when did we start emulating the governments we used to decry for their abuses?
I dunno about the shinning beacon thing. It wouldn't matter to some counties, they'd still hate us.
I don't think we are emulating any country.

mondomondo said:
What America is becoming, and has become, is precisely why the world needs a strong United Nations. (IMNSHO.)
And what would that be that we've become?
We definitely need a UN, but my reasons for saying it are different from yours.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
first off, I don't see any mention of actual torture ..... anywhere. I see the phrase "amounting to torture". Anyone have a definition of that? Didn't think so. Hell, that could mean they were forced to listen to Barbara Strisand.
 

flavio

Banned
Look, there's been evidence of torture before and now the UN feels it's a serious enough problem that the place needs to be shut down. Making excuses to try to explain it away is just closing your eyes to the problem.

Bush obviously feels strongly about being able to torture people. There's no checks and balances anymore. We have a fascist who considers himself above the law. All he has to do is say "there's still terrorists out there"...

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.


After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.....

......''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
So if the UN says we should close all the prisons, turn everybody loose, disband
or armed forces, open all our ports and borders, we should do so, huh?
So we should just let the UN run our country period , huh?
 

HomeLAN

New Member
Now you're getting there. The "Blame America First" crowd would be hunky-dory with that, seeing as how they so firmly believe we've mishandled our sovereignty.
 

Starya

New Member
mondomondo said:
[Goddamn it. I didn't want to start ranting about politics again. I didn't, I didn't, I didn't. I did that for five years, and all it gave me was high blood pressure.]

Here. Have a stressball.

stresspal.jpg
 

flavio

Banned
catocom said:
So if the UN says we should close all the prisons, turn everybody loose, disband
or armed forces, open all our ports and borders, we should do so, huh?
So we should just let the UN run our country period , huh?
Hey, what about if we just follow the Charter? I think there's something about "Self Determination" in there and yet there's still something which allows them to act on human rights abuses. Amazing.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
flavio said:
Hey, what about if we just follow the Charter? I think there's something about "Self Determination" in there and yet there's still something which allows them to act on humn rights abuses. Amazing.
So you can't answer yes, or no questions, huh?
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
mondomondo said:
So you're saying that because the rest of the world insists on holding the most powerful nation on the planet accountable for its actions,


By a group that places SYRIA, SYRIA, on its security council? Please, let them eat cake.
 

flavio

Banned
No, anyone who is a member of the UN should follow it...even Israel. Then we have a basis for enforcing it.

It's a like a policeman saying "You want me to follow the law, but criminals need not to?".
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
flavio said:
No, anyone who is a member of the UN should follow it...even Israel. Then we have a basis for enforcing it.

It's a like a policeman saying "You want me to follow the law, but criminals need not to?".
Um, it's also a known fact that some undercover police operate outside the law periodically to catch criminals.
So, do you have a different analogy to use? That one doesn't work for me.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
cat said:
flavio said:
No, anyone who is a member of the UN should follow it...even Israel. Then we have a basis for enforcing it.

The method for enforrcement is the US military. When the US bypasses the beauracracy you get bent. Pick one.
 

flavio

Banned
catocom said:
Um, it's also a known fact that some undercover police operate outside the law periodically to catch criminals.
So, do you have a different analogy to use? That one doesn't work for me.
No, shopuld still work well. If police use torture they should be arrested.

This is the second thread in a couple days where you are defending the administration by saying it's ok to break the law. People didn't act like this when Clinton got a blowjob.... maybe that was just a bigger deal than torture, UN Charters, and leaking clssified intelligence.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
flavio said:
No, should still work well. If police use torture they should be arrested.
So if the police can't catch the criminals without using torture, they should
let the criminals continue on then?

flavio said:
This is the second thread in a couple days where you are defending the administration by saying it's ok to break the law. People didn't act like this when Clinton got a blowjob.... maybe that was just a bigger deal than torture, UN Charters, and leaking classified intelligence.
Um, lives didn't depend of the blowjob thing.
When many lives, or the security of this country, me, my family, you, my nieghbor...
is at stake, I say piss on laws, rules, .... if that is what it takes to accomplish it.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Police are civil employees & must follow existing laws & regulations. The job of the military is to KILL & BREAK. Hardly constitutional.

The President, under guise of war, haqs more leeway in matters related to the war. If he, or those under his control, are listening to your phone calls after determining you are not a threat, then you have a case. If you're talking to Muhammed, known terrorist master lock picker & escape artist extraordinairre, about muslim prisoners, he has a right to follow your conversation.

If the administration has your tax records, based upon your liklihood to vote a certain way, you have a case.
 
Top