Guantanamo prisoner documents leaked

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Wikileaks is at it again, releasing the complete assessments of all prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, including many which have been released. The assessments cover how the prisoners were captured, what information incriminated them, and all sorts of routine information like their medical notes and behavior problems.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-lift-lid-prison

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/wikileaks-discloses-new-details-on-whereabouts-of-al-qaeda-leaders-on-911/2011/04/24/AFvvzIeE_story.html?hpid=z1

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-lives-in-an-american-limbo.html?hp

 

Some unpleasant details:

 

The secret documents, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, reveal that most of the 172 remaining prisoners have been rated as a “high risk” of posing a threat to the United States and its allies if released without adequate rehabilitation and supervision. But they also show that an even larger number of the prisoners who have left Cuba — about a third of the 600 already transferred to other countries — were also designated “high risk” before they were freed or passed to the custody of other governments.

 

The dossiers also show the seat-of-the-pants intelligence gathering in war zones that led to the incarcerations of innocent men for years in cases of mistaken identity or simple misfortune. In May 2003, for example, Afghan forces captured Prisoner 1051, an Afghan named Sharbat, near the scene of a roadside bomb explosion, the documents show. He denied any involvement, saying he was a shepherd. Guantánamo debriefers and analysts agreed, citing his consistent story, his knowledge of herding animals and his ignorance of “simple military and political concepts,” according to his assessment. Yet a military tribunal declared him an “enemy combatant” anyway, and he was not sent home until 2006.

(from the NYT)

 

With Obama's failure to convince Congress to close Guantanamo and try the remaining detainees in civilian court, these documents could easily fuel the public debate on the subject. I'm certainly disappointed to see that potential terrorists have been mistreated such that trying many of them in civilian court would be impossible, and that innocent people were held for years on little evidence.

 

Think this will change the direction of the current proceedings at Guantanamo?

[lemur]

I'm still surprised terror suspects were captured and held publicly instead of keeping it a secret the whole time, just as I'm still baffled that torture issues were brought to public attention through "leaked memos" etc. Part of me is glad democracy is strong enough to overcome secrecy, but another part sees the effects of media messages regarding the use of force as having an intimidating effect. I do think there's something to be said for the fact the force being applied is/was non-lethal and not permanently damaging to the suspects' bodies. Certainly you hear a lot about assassinations and maiming in global warfare. On the other hand, you can't really relativize the effects of torture and incarceration without charge or limit so there will always be some question whether the individual prisoners were personally deserving of what they went through or not. Without a constitutional trial, I suppose they will never be exonerated just as the people who feared "their kind" enough to support them being held without trial will never be held accountable - but then they can't be because there are too many holier-than-thous ready to torture and crucify anyone who takes responsibility when in reality public xenophobia is the ultimate cause.

[CaptainPanic]

I still think it's outrageous that the USA has created a 3rd category of people. Next to military and civilians, there are now 'enemy combatants' for which the USA made up completely new rules, thereby avoiding existing treaties which were put in place to protect the rights of all people.

 

And we all (including Europe) accepted it.

[zapatos]

During World War II prisoners of war were held until the surrender of the belligerents. Is it possible the US could reclassify the prisoners as POWs and continue to hold them due to the fact that there has been no surrender? I suspect not as it hasn't been done but I am unsure why.

[lemur]

During World War II prisoners of war were held until the surrender of the belligerents. Is it possible the US could reclassify the prisoners as POWs and continue to hold them due to the fact that there has been no surrender? I suspect not as it hasn't been done but I am unsure why.

As I recall there was talk about reclassifying the suspects/prisoners to handle them in the regular justice system institutions but there was a public outcry against "letting them into the system." There is a strong public will to "keep foreigners foreign" in both the US and Europe that has a strong effect on politics of this kind, imo. E.g. National governments have an interest in organizing anyone and everyone into autonomous nation-states because it allows them global levels of power without incorporating people into their own national institutions. I think this also reflects why there was an interest in creating a Jewish state and now a Palestinian state. It is all part of a contain-and-conquer approach toward global governance, imo, otherwise known as "statism."

Edited April 26, 2011 by lemur

[Marat]

In terms of international law, the entire response to prisoners taken in the invasions of the Middle East is absurd. That someone like Omar Khadr, defending his homeland against a foreign invader, can be treated as a criminal for this action, while the imperialists conducting a neo-colonial invasion of Khadr's country are treated as heroes, is more than ridiculous.

 

The problem is that if people taken prisoner in these invasions are treated as prisoners of war, they then come under the protections of the Geneva Convention which prohibit them being tortured or mistreated, which require that they be released when hostilities cease, and which forbid their being tried as criminals for their 'military' actions, unless these can somehow be demonstrated by recognized principles of international law to have been war crimes.

 

To think that the nation of Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln, the first country in world history seriously to stake its reputation to the defense of human rights, should now be twisting and turning to contrive some feeble excuse why repeatedly waterboarding prisoners 'is not actually torture because it does not cause pain equivalent to organ failure,' is beyond belief.

[zapatos]

The problem is that if people taken prisoner in these invasions are treated as prisoners of war, they then come under the protections of the Geneva Convention which prohibit them being tortured or mistreated, which require that they be released when hostilities cease, and which forbid their being tried as criminals for their 'military' actions, unless these can somehow be demonstrated by recognized principles of international law to have been war crimes.

And this is where my question comes in. Why not classify them as prisoners of war? If the US is fearful of releasing them, they could simply claim that since Al Qaeda and the US are still at odds, then they are justified in the continued holding of them.

[rigney]

Lepton Marat, on 26 April 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

 

The problem is that if people taken prisoner in these invasions are treated as prisoners of war, they then come under the protections of the Geneva Convention which prohibit them being tortured or mistreated, which require that they be released when hostilities cease, and which forbid their being tried as criminals for their 'military' actions, unless these can somehow be demonstrated by recognized principles of international law to have been war crimes.

 

zapatos: And this is where my question comes in. Why not classify them as prisoners of war? If the US is fearful of releasing them, they could simply claim that since Al Qaeda and the US are still at odds, then they are justified in the continued holding of them.

 

This is not aimed at you zapatos, but to your friend who could at least a look at some history that may give him some rational thought.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre

Edited April 26, 2011 by rigney

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And this is where my question comes in. Why not classify them as prisoners of war? If the US is fearful of releasing them, they could simply claim that since Al Qaeda and the US are still at odds, then they are justified in the continued holding of them.

To quote Wikipedia:

 

To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#Qualifications

[lemur]

In terms of international law, the entire response to prisoners taken in the invasions of the Middle East is absurd. That someone like Omar Khadr, defending his homeland against a foreign invader, can be treated as a criminal for this action, while the imperialists conducting a neo-colonial invasion of Khadr's country are treated as heroes, is more than ridiculous.

Regarding people as "foreign invaders," "imperialists" or "neo-colonial invaders" reflects xenophobic culture, imo.

 

To think that the nation of Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln, the first country in world history seriously to stake its reputation to the defense of human rights, should now be twisting and turning to contrive some feeble excuse why repeatedly waterboarding prisoners 'is not actually torture because it does not cause pain equivalent to organ failure,' is beyond belief.

Is what people go through due to xenophobia any less torture? Yet, everyday in the EU and elsewhere people are subject to oppressive levels of social-cultural alienation. How can the same people who treat others as aliens complain about enhanced interrogation techniques?

 

 

[Marat]

I don't think you can make much of an argument that resisting the invasion of your own home by foreign invaders amounts to xenophobia! What would the people of Afghanistan have to do then not to be xenophobic? Welcome every invader with open arms? Xenophobia is an irrational hatred of foreigners just because they are foreign; hating people for invading your homeland, who also just contingently happen to be foreigners, doesn't meet the dictionary definition of xenophobia.

 

The rules for recognizing those entitled to the protected status of enemy combatents were developed from the war conventions instituted at the very beginning of the 20th century, when it was either not anticipated that non-militarily designated people defending their homelands would be a significant concern in warfare, since the model was state-to-state combat with organized armies, or when the European imperialists did not want the contemptible African and Asian peoples they were colonizing to have any legal protection when firing back at them in self-defense. That imperialism should not be continued to this day by denying combatent legal status to the people exercising the rights of self-defense and of necessity -- recognized in the domestic legal code of every country -- to resist the armed aggression of a foreign invader.

[rigney]

Regarding people as "foreign invaders," "imperialists" or "neo-colonial invaders" reflects xenophobic culture, imo.

 

 

Is what people go through due to xenophobia any less torture? Yet, everyday in the EU and elsewhere people are subject to oppressive levels of social-cultural alienation. How can the same people who treat others as aliens complain about enhanced interrogation techniques?

 

lemur, I hate politics more than most, yet have lived my entire lifetime as a proud American. And why am I so proud? Can you quote me a for instance where America has ever gone to war or invaded another country other than to free the oppressed of that nation? Not to dig back to the Pilgrims or the Alamo, but where has America gone so wrong in your opinion? We have never confiscated a pint of oil, a string of pearls or an ounce of gold from anyone. How many nations can make that statement? Edited April 27, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

I don't think you can make much of an argument that resisting the invasion of your own home by foreign invaders amounts to xenophobia! What would the people of Afghanistan have to do then not to be xenophobic? Welcome every invader with open arms? Xenophobia is an irrational hatred of foreigners just because they are foreign; hating people for invading your homeland, who also just contingently happen to be foreigners, doesn't meet the dictionary definition of xenophobia.

I suppose it could be debated, but it depends how you define "invasion," I think. If you set up criteria for invasion that basically deems all foreignness a threat, that seems xenophobic to me. If you mean that people who define you as ethnically different are committing acts of violence and force to subjugate or eliminate you because of their view of you as ethnically different and therefore a threat, that would also be xenophobia. I think you could say that xenophobia is absent when people are able to assess others based on other factors than ethnic identity and/or locational status.

 

The rules for recognizing those entitled to the protected status of enemy combatents were developed from the war conventions instituted at the very beginning of the 20th century, when it was either not anticipated that non-militarily designated people defending their homelands would be a significant concern in warfare, since the model was state-to-state combat with organized armies, or when the European imperialists did not want the contemptible African and Asian peoples they were colonizing to have any legal protection when firing back at them in self-defense. That imperialism should not be continued to this day by denying combatent legal status to the people exercising the rights of self-defense and of necessity -- recognized in the domestic legal code of every country -- to resist the armed aggression of a foreign invader.

But who has the right to decide who is foreign and invading or not? If aboriginal australians decided that descendants of European settlers were invaders, would it be oppressive to police violence because that would be suppressing the right of self-defense? Doesn't territorialism always rely on claims-making about who is rightfully belonging and who is not? So when is it legitimate to attack a "foreign invader" and when is it violent discrimination against an ethnic minority to do so? If you define the ethnic minority as "foreign invaders," it would be legitimate to make war again them, according to your logic. But if Nazism claimed to be deporting Jews because they were foreign invaders, you would recognize that as an excuse for discrimination and genocide. This all gets into what I consider the modern approach to national-socialism, which is to say that if people have their own country, they should go there. It is not as harsh as Hitler's view that Jews shouldn't even be allowed a homeland, but there is still an element of viewing "foreigners" as pollutants to be cleansed.

Edited April 28, 2011 by lemur

[Marat]

Modern international law generally defines all war as illegal, except for a few very specific exceptions, one of which is the right of every nation to exercise self-defense until the UN can intervene to eject the invader. So it seems evident that pushing out foreigners who attempt to intervene militarily in your own homeland is legitimate, whether civilians or military forces eject the foreign invaders.

 

Hitler, incidentally, had nothing against the Jews having a homeland, as long as it wasn't inside Europe. Under the Nazis' 'Madagasgar Plan, the Jews were to be resetlled peacefully in Magagascar, and the notion of doing anything worse to them only first arose when the prospect of shipping the Jewish population of Europe to Madagascar began to seem unrealistic because the Free French took control of the island in 1941-2.

[lemur]

Modern international law generally defines all war as illegal, except for a few very specific exceptions, one of which is the right of every nation to exercise self-defense until the UN can intervene to eject the invader. So it seems evident that pushing out foreigners who attempt to intervene militarily in your own homeland is legitimate, whether civilians or military forces eject the foreign invaders.

Why would you assume that modern international law isn't just biased in favor of dominant regimes? Isn't it arbitrary to assume that someone who remains on the same parcel of land for generations is legitimate and someone who moves from place to place is an illegal invader?

 

Hitler, incidentally, had nothing against the Jews having a homeland, as long as it wasn't inside Europe. Under the Nazis' 'Madagasgar Plan, the Jews were to be resetlled peacefully in Magagascar, and the notion of doing anything worse to them only first arose when the prospect of shipping the Jewish population of Europe to Madagascar began to seem unrealistic because the Free French took control of the island in 1941-2.

It's been a while since I read Hitler, but as I recall he thought that Jews would not keep to a homeland if they had one. He thought that they would use it as a home base from which to travel the world and swindle people. I think this is why he was in favor of total extermination. Either way, the point is that anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism, whether the 'solution' is eviction or extermination - the problem is treating people as if they're a problem by nature. That's what xenophobia does on the basis of people being 'foreign.' Why should any government use violence to maintain ethnic exclusivity?

 

 

[padren]

Just on the topic of the "invaders" of Afghanistan:

 

Lack of knowledge of 9/11 attacks and reason for NATO-ISAF presence

Previous ICOS field research identified a wide “relationship gap” between the Afghan people and the international community. The research revealed high levels of hostility towards the foreign presence in southern Afghanistan. It also showed that, after being read a description of the 9/11 attacks that brought the US and its allies to Afghanistan, only 8% of the men interviewed in Kandahar and Helmand stated that they knew about them.

 

“We need to explain to the Afghan people why we are here, and both show and convince them that their future is better with us than with the Taliban,” said MacDonald.

http://www.icosgroup.net/2011/report/drawing-down-will-jeopardise-security/

 

Granted, 92% of people who try to return an item to a store will state emphatically no one told them they had to bring the receipt... but it really brings attention to the issue of how much we take for granted that common knowledge is common. When people live in an information vacuum they act on what they know - and if people they don't know are securing a position of control in their community under the threat of lethal force the only information they have to go on will probably lead to violence or at least resistance.

Edited April 29, 2011 by padren

[CharonY]

Can you quote me a for instance where America has ever gone to war or invaded another country other than to free the oppressed of that nation?

 

Depends on how narrow you define invasion and how broad you want to define oppressed, but there are quite a number of known instances where US interventions toppled or destabilized (more or less) democratically elected governments which were not US- (or US-ally for that matter) friendly. This includes Iran 1953, for instance. There are in addition a number of strategic invasions during the cold war. The goal tended to be more weaken communist threat as freeing people, of course. And before that the US also dabbled in imperialism which was very en vogue throughout the 19th to early 20th century, though to my knowledge not on the scale as the European big shots as e.g. Great Britain. An example would be the US-Phillipine war.

 

Bottom line is that high-powered politics and power games are never a clean issue.