July 12, 2006
CCR Publishes Torture Report
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has released the first report citing declassified primary accounts from current detainees and their American attorneys to detail torture and inhumane treatment by U.S. officials at Guantánamo Bay prison.
According to the CCR, The "Report on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba" details systematic physical, psychological, sexual, medical and religious abuse of detainees.
A copy of the report can be downloaded here
June 22, 2006
ACLU Releases New Guantanamo Documents
The American Civil Liberties Union has released more than 1,000 pages of documents obtained from the Department of Defense, including reports of suicide attempts by detainees held at Guantánamo. Most of the documents are dated between 2002-2004.
According to the ACLU, a medical report dated April 29, 2003 details an attempt by a detainee to commit suicide by hanging himself with a towel. The detainee fell into a “vegetative state” due to brain injury sustained during the hanging, according to the report. Medical staff at Guantánamo “most strongly advocate[d]” for the detainee’s “earliest return to his home country,” noting that the detainee had a “history of depression” and “his rehabilitation will be long.” The documents do not indicate whether officials followed the recommendations of the medical staff.
Another document details a detainee’s request to write a will. The detainee claimed he did not want to commit suicide, but that “death had been entering his mind lately.” The detainee was allowed to rewrite his will. The document was among several previously undisclosed attachments to a June 2005 Army report by Lt. Gen. Mark Schmidt and Brig. Gen. John Furlow on detainee treatment at Guantánamo.
June 08, 2006
Psychiatrists Out, Psychologist In At Gitmo
According to a news brief by Neil Lewis in the New York Times, Pentagon officials said Tuesday they would try to use only psychologists, not psychiatrists, in Guantanmo interrogations. The move follows differing positions taken by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association reagarding members of the respective organizations working for interrogators. In late May, a overwhelming vote by the American Psychiatric Association discouraged its members from participating in those efforts. However, the American Psychological Association has decided that helping military interrogators made a valuable contribution because it was part of an effort to prevent terrorism.
February 17, 2006
U.N. Report: Close GITMO
In a statement posted to its website, the United Nations announced the release of a joint report on the treatment of foreign terror suspects held at the United States naval facility in Cuba, calling on the United States “to close immediately the detention centre in Guantánamo Bay and bring all detainees before an independent and competent tribunal or release them.”
The result of an 18 month investigation, the report’s findings were based upon interviews with former detainees, public documents, media reports, attorney interviews and a government questionnaire, the Washington Post reports. The U.N.'s five member panel concluded that detainees are entitled to (1) challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body, and (2) obtain release if detention is found to lack a proper legal basis. Finding some of the interrogation techniques employed "meet four of the five elements in the Convention definition of torture," the report calls for the closure of the prison facility "without further delay."
While U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan did not agree with everything contained within the report, he did nevertheless echo the report’s conclusion that detainees could not be held in perpetuity without charge or the opportunity to defend themselves, CNN reports.
Annan likewise agreed that the prison’s closure should occur as soon as possible.
The White House summarily rejected the U.N. report's claims as “largely without merit.” While the human rights experts who authored the 54-page report were invited to Guantanamo, they declined after U.S. authorities said they would not be permitted to interview the detainees.
Responding to inquiries about the report during his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan offered, “I think that what we are seeing is a rehash of allegations that have been made by lawyers representing some of these detainees," maintaining "The military treats detainees humanely, as directed by the President of the United States.”
Also weighing in on the report, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said at the Council on Foreign Relations meeting, "There is no torture, there is no abuse...It’s being handled honorably.”
The U.N. report in its entirety may be viewed here.
December 13, 2005
Pentagon Invites Human Rights Specialist to Guantanamo
The Pentagon announced it has extended an invitation to a representative for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to visit the detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba.
As the DoD release explains, "Although department policy does not provide for such visits to military detention facilities, the department has determined on an exceptional basis to extend this invitation. The department strives for transparency in our operations to the extent possible in light of security and operational requirements and the need to ensure the safety of our forces."
According to the American Forces Press Service, Belgian politician and OSCE representative Anne-Marie Lizin accepted the DoD's invitation, and will be permitted to observe operations at the facilities at Guantanamo and ask questions of the command, staff and U.S. officials who would accompany her.
A DoD spokesman said he did not yet know when Lizin's visit would take place.
November 01, 2005
500 Detainees Released from Abu Ghraib Prison
As Reuters reports, in a goodwill gesture marking Eid al-Fitr - the Muslim holiday ending the Holy Month of Ramadan - Coalition Forces have released 500 detainees from the Abu Ghraib prison facility west of Baghdad. The men were given $25 and a Koran upon their release.
In an American Forces Press Service article posted to the Department of Defense website, a spokesman explains,
"These detainees were selected for release following a careful and thorough review of their files by a special Iraqi-led review board, which determined they had not committed serious crimes against Iraqi forces, the citizens of Iraq or coalition forces."
He continued, "It was decided to release the detainees to allow them to be with families and loved ones on this day to help in the process of building a new Iraq."
October 06, 2005
Senate Votes to Regulate Detention & Interrogation Policy
In an attempt to codify what many consider to be the military's conflicting policies and procedures for the interrogation and treatment of those under the detention, custody, or control of the U.S. Government, the Republican-controlled Senate yesterday overwhelmingly approved a measure that would ban the use of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment of foreign enemies, The New York Times reports.
Contained within a $440 billion Defense Department spending bill, the measure was approved by a 90-9 vote. According to the Washington Times, the nine Republican senators who voted against the proposal were Wayne Allard of Colorado, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, John Cornyn of Texas, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and Ted Stevens of Alaska. New Jersey Democrat Jon Corzine was the only senator not to vote.
As quoted by the Associated Press, Senator Stevens of Alaska opined, "This is a different war now... We're in a war against terrorists, and I don't think they're entitled to the same type of treatment that we give to prisoners of war."
Despite such sentiment, the anti-torture legislation has attracted broad, non-partisan support. Vietnam War P.O.W. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) - himself the victim of torture - is the bill's primary sponsor. As the International Herald Tribune reports, over two dozen retired senior military officers - including John Shalikashvili and Colin Powell, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - have also endorsed measures that ensure detainees are treated humanely.
In a letter read by Senator McCain on the Senate floor, former Bush White House Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed, "The world will note that America is making a clear statement with respect to the expected future behavior of our soldiers... Such a reaction will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib," the Associated Press reports.
The following - taken from a press release posted to his website - is an excerpt of Senator McCain's statement to the Senate:
"This amendment would (1) establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and (2) prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government.
Mr. President, to fight terrorism we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently would not only offend our values as Americans, but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms -- not helps --us in the war on terror.
First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop.
Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy -- if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.
And yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part, I believe, because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. The amendment I am proposing will go a long way toward clearing up this confusion."
As the Washington Post reported back in July, the Bush Administration has tried to quell what it views to be an incipient Republican rebellion. Lobbying to block such legislation, the White House maintains it would restrict the President's authority "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."
The Senate is expected to vote on the overall spending bill by the end of the week.
In his daily press briefing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the President will most likely veto the defense budget if the amendment remains part of the spending bill.
"We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisors would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language."
September 28, 2005
Female Face of Abu Ghraib Scandal Sentenced to 3 Years
Following Monday's conviction of Pfc. Lynndie R. England - who was found guilty on six out of seven counts of conspiracy and maltreatment of prisoners - the Army reservist was sentenced to three years in prison for her role in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and was given a dishonorable discharge, The Washington Post reports.
Pvt. England became the so-called "face of the Abu Ghraib scandal," posing alongside naked and shackled prisoners, and smirking in the now infamous "leash photograph."
As The Post reports, England apologized to the court.
"After the photos were released, I've heard that attacks were made on U.S. armed forces because of them. I apologize to coalition forces and all the families."
England also apologized to "detainees, the families, America and all the soldiers."
While the Pentagon has remained steadfast in its position that the abuses carried out in the U.S.-run prison facility in Iraq were an aberration - attributed to a few bad apples - England's defense averred their client was made a scapegoat for the Army's broader policies of abuse for intelligence-gathering purposes. England's attorneys characterized her as young and impressionable, as the 22 year-old claimed she was used by her former lover, reputed ringleader of the abuse scandal, Corp. Charles A. Graner.
Back in January, Graner - the father of England's infant son - received a 10 year sentence for his role.
England�s trial was the last of 9 courts-martial or plea-deals of reservists charged in the prisoner abuse scandal that broke in 2003.
September 21, 2005
Pentagon: Hicks Trial to Resume at Gitmo
As Reuters reports, two months after a federal appeals court reversed a ruling in the case of detained Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan, finding military commission trials to be lawful, the Defense Department announced it was essentially starting from scratch on the long-delayed military trial of Australian detainee David Hicks. Officials say preliminary hearings are scheduled to begin within the next 30 days.
Accused of fighting alongside al Qaeda, Hicks was captured in Afghanistan and has been detained since late 2001. He pleaded not guilty to conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy.
Last month, responding to widespread criticism that the trials were unfair, DoD instituted a series of changes to the trial process. The changes were intended to promote more efficient trials, making the process resemble a traditional judge and jury model. As Reuters explains, "the presiding officer will now act more like a judge, deciding legal issues, while other panel members will act more like a jury, deciding on a verdict and sentence."
Notwithstanding these changes, human rights activists and military defense lawyers continue to criticize the commission process, contending it favors prosecutors, allows evidence obtained through torture and hearsay and permits no independent judicial review.
"Clearly they've decided to use Mr. Hicks as the guinea pig and the test case for the commission system," commented Marine Corps Major Michael Mori, Hicks' Pentagon-appointed attorney. He continued, "The military commission system will not provide a full and fair trial, whether it starts today, in a month or in three months. The rules are constantly changing. The system is controlled by those who have already condemned Mr. Hicks."
Nevertheless, Pentagon spokesman Major Michael Shavers maintains, "I'm very confident that David Hicks will receive a full and fair trial under the military commissions process."
Of approximately 505 men held at Guantanamo, only four have been charged. Initial trial proceedings for Australia's Hicks, Yemenis Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul and Sudanese Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi began last August, and were halted three months later when a federal judge ruled that the trials were unfair and unlawful, and violated prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions. Of the four halted, the Hicks case is the only one scheduled to resume.
September 01, 2005
Critics Respond: Revisions to Commission Procedures Cosmetic; Fundamental Flaws Remain
Despite the Pentagon's latest announcement that it is changing military commission procedures, extending additional rights to terror suspects, some of the commission's earliest and staunchest critics maintain the changes are trivial, submitting the process to try Guantanamo detainees remains unfair and inherently flawed.
In a press release posted to its website, Human Rights Watch expressed concern that military commissions will continue to function entirely within the military and executive branch, in the absence of independent judicial review.
"The new rules are aimed to deflect criticism of the commissions, but fail to address their most fundamental problems. Without review by civilian courts, there is no means of ensuring that any fair trial rules are in fact respected," said Jamie Fellner, the organization's U.S. program director.
Fellner continued, "Those responsible for war crimes should be tried by real courts using real rules, not commissions created from scratch."
Amnesty International reiterated HRW's contention that many of the commission's problems remained, specifically, allowing the admission of evidence obtained through torture or hearsay, a violation of Article 15 of the Convention Against Torture.
"If the U.S. government really wanted to provide full and fair trials, the defendants would be tried in an established system of justice such as U.S. federal court or in a court martial. By insisting on going forward with these ill-conceived commissions, the administration is confirming its desire to apply sub-standard justice to foreign nationals. The announced rule changes to the military commissions amount to little more than hanging curtains on a condemned house and marketing it as renovated," said Jumana Musa, Amnesty International's observer to the military commissions.
Also weighing in on the Pentagon's announcement was the U.S. military-appointed counsel for Australian terror suspect David Hicks, who told Australia's The Age the changes were "meaningless" and a "publicity stunt."
"There are no changes at all," said Major Michael Mori.
"This is totally cosmetic. It's totally for show. It's because they realise that no one in the world accepts it as a fair system and are desperate to convince somebody.
"You can slap a new coat of paint on the outside of a house with broken foundations, but it doesn't fix the problem."
August 31, 2005
DoD Makes Procedural Changes to Commissions, Expands Trial Rights for Detainees
Criticized by legal and human rights groups - as well as military defense lawyers - for procedures that subject terror suspects to unfair disadvantages, the Defense Department announced today that it is instituting procedural changes to the controversial Military Commissions established to try terror suspects picked up in the War on Terror and detained at Guantanamo.
Following a Special Defense Department Briefing on Military Commissions, the Pentagon issued a press release explaining the changes - effective immediately - intended to promote more efficient trials, including �making the process more like a judge and jury model.�
Among the procedural changes, defendants will now be given additional rights to attend their trials and will be granted access to classified evidence against them.
While initial trial proceedings began last August at Guantanamo, the process was halted three months later, when a federal judge ruled that the trials were unfair and unlawful, and violated prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions.
For the Department of Defense Fact Sheet, "Changes to Military Commission Procedures," click here.
For the Department of Defense Fact Sheet, "Military Commission Procedures," click here.
August 30, 2005
Judge Requires Detainee Approval Before Identities Made Public
Yesterday in federal court, a judge ruled that Guantanamo detainees must provide consent prior to the disclosure of their identities.
As the Associated Press reports, District Judge Jed S. Rakoff instructed the government to draft a one-page document asking detainees at the U.S. run prison facility in Cuba if they want their personal information released to the news media. Back in April, a FOIA request granted the AP access to 2,000 pages of information related to the tribunals. In those documents, prisoner's names were blacked out, and other identifying information was altered. As a result, the AP contends it was only able to report anecdotally on the proceedings, which it maintains are "unquestionably of great interest to the public." The AP then filed a federal lawsuit against the DoD, asking the court for the release of all transcripts and documents related to the military hearings, as well as written statements and other documentation submitted by detainees.
Citing privacy concerns, DoD maintains that identities should be kept secret to ensure not only the safety of detainees, but the safety of their families as well, who they argue are at risk should terrorist groups become displeased by something a detainee reveals during his tribunal.
July 16, 2005
Fed. Appeals Court Upholds Use of Military Tribunals at Guantanamo
Ruling unanimously that military commissions established to try enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo do not violate the Constitution, international law or American military law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has allowed war crime trials to resume at the U.S. run prison facility in Cuba, The New York Times reports.
Back in November, a federal judge in Washington ruled unfair and unlawful - and immediately halted - the military commission of Osama bin Ladens former driver and alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan. The 34-year old Yemeni was to be the first detainee to be tried as a war criminal by the newly constituted military commissions at Guantanamo. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-CV-1519, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals."
According to the 45-page memorandum opinion, Judge Robertson found that the administration contravened Geneva Convention guidelines, disregarding a basic provision which requires the United States to treat Hamdan as a prisoner of war (P.O.W.), unless he appears before a special tribunal described in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is otherwise.
Yesterdays decision, handed down by a three-judge panel, is a victory for the White House. The Bush administration contends that Hamdan and other suspected terrorists designated as enemy combatants are not entitled to P.O.W status and as such, do not merit protections conferred by the Geneva Conventions - which governs the treatment of civilians and soldiers in wartime - because al Qaeda did not sign the treaty.
Responding to the ruling Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales commented, "The president's authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror...and today's decision reaffirms this critical authority."
Hamdan's attorney, Georgetown University law professor Neal K. Katyal said he would consider an appeal.
July 03, 2005
Pentagon Reaffirms Medical Policies for Detainees
Amid a storm of criticism against U.S. medical ethics at Guantanamo, the Department of Defense posted to its website a reaffirmation of its medical policies for detainees:
"The Department of Defense posted today recently issued guidance to the military services and commands reiterating policies regarding the care and handling of enemy prisoners of war, detainees, retained persons, and civilian internees.
Healthcare personnel have a duty to protect the physical and mental health of such individuals and to provide appropriate treatment for disease and injury, according to a policy memorandum released by Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr., the assistant secretary of defense for Health Affairs.
The policy memorandum, available here details a set of principles and procedures that address the scope of healthcare personnel responsibilities and activities in which they may not participate. In all cases, healthcare personnel will be guided by applicable law and are expected to act humanely and with professionalism.
'Our policy is meant to make clear for our medical care providers that if a detainee provides information that directly bears upon a national security issue --for example, plans to commit a terrorist act that kills or harms Americans --the medical provider should, with proper documentation and approval, pass along the information to responsible security and intelligence authorities,' Winkenwerder said.
Specific guidance in the overall policy includes: direction to accurately and completely create and maintain medical records on all detainees; to ensure clear separation of duties between personnel providing healthcare to detainees and behavioral science personnel consulting with interrogators; to carefully record disclosure of all patient-specific information for lawful purposes other than treatment; to report possible violations of applicable standards for the protection of detainees; and to ensure healthcare personnel have appropriate training regarding the care and treatment of detainees.
Although detainees do not have an absolute right of confidentiality with respect to information they share with medical care providers, the general guidance is to maintain such information confidentially, except for approved and documented specific reasons. This is the same standard that would apply in U.S. federal prisons.
'Any detainee related information provided by healthcare personnel for reasons other than treatment must be for a specific purpose, documented and approved by a medical commander before it is released, Winkenwerder said. This process creates a strict set of guidelines to ensure the information is used only for appropriate purposes and is not misused.'
'To the best of my knowledge we have no credible evidence that a military physician participated in detainee abuse,' said Winkenwerder. 'The department investigates credible allegations and if substantiated, holds accountable those who are responsible. We expect military medical personnel, and all other service members, to abide by policies that require detainees be treated humanely and to report any suspected detainee mistreatment.'"
July 02, 2005
Pentagon Disputes Medical Journal Findings
During a news briefing conducted by Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, questions were raised regarding the use of medical information during interrogations at Guantanamo, and specifically, what departmental policy is for sharing a detainee's medical information for purposes of devising interrogation strategies specific to that detainee. A partial transcript of that briefing is as follows:
Q: Larry, with regard to the controversy over the use of medical information in interrogations in Guantanamo, can you clarify, is it department policy that information provided by detainees to their medical care givers can be routinely shared with interrogators in devising strategies and tactics for those specific detainees?
MR. DI RITA: Well, I think we've briefed on this extensively. And there's a transcript available -- you haven't had a chance to look at it. But we have medical professionals down there that are there for the purposes of treating the detainees. And, you know, they've described what they do, which is medical care as you would understand it.
It is not uncommon to use behavioral science specialists, people that are known to have sort of an expertise in -- the kinds of things -- I wouldn't want to use this term to make the direct comparison, but others have -- profiling, so that as you understand what an individual is like, you might be able to affect the approaches that the interrogators would take on him. It's quite a different thing from saying we're using information out of his medical record. That's not really what, as I understand it -- and as I said, we've briefed this, so if there's -- we can maybe provide you some additional information. But it's more of a generic use of the specialty than it is specific knowledge of an individual's medical records.
Q: Actually, it's both. But the New England Journal article and its author specifically alleged that that sort of normally private medical information is funneled into that process. And my question was whether that is allowable under DOD policy.
MR. DI RITA: Well, I don't want to speak to it in terms of what DOD policy is. What it is is a matter of what the medical professionals at Guantanamo assisting the interrogators might determine might be necessary. Remember, we are talking about people who are known or suspected terrorists. So, there is a well respected and well regarded -- and it's been observed by a lot of people -- care that's being provided to these terrorists. And they are terrorists, by our assessment. On the other hand, there may be information that can be gleaned from the knowledge of who these people are that can help -- or, the knowledge of how these people are behaving that can help the interrogators. And we're -- and we try and walk that line, and we try and be careful about it. But we are talking about people like UBL's bodyguards, like somebody who would have been on an airplane on 9/11, and the balance that we strike will be toward getting more intelligence and stopping future attacks on the United States. And that's the balance that we're challenged -- that we're working on.
There is no handbook on how to do this. It's never been done before. So we're trying to be very careful about it. I think we've now had over 200 members of Congress who have observed what's going on in Guantanamo. They're observed interrogations. They've observed the medical facilities. We, as a matter of routine, try and provide exposure to the way that the medical treatments are being conducted down in Guantanamo when members of Congress go down there. There's an awful lot of oversight. But there is not a textbook on how to do this, and we're being very careful -- with the objective of gaining intelligence to stop Americans from being killed. And that's the balance we need to strike.
June 27, 2005
APA Releases Statement on Psychiatric Practices at GITMO
Weighing in on recent reports of alleged medical ethics violations at the prison facility in Cuba, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has posted to its website a Statement on Psychiatric Practices at Guantanamo Bay.
Announcing its intentions to review psychiatry and interrogation procedure - and develop a specific policy statement in the near future - the organization released the following statement:
APA is not neutral on physician practices and clearly recommends that psychiatric physicians practice in accordance with the APA ethics guidelines, which are also in accordance with the medical code of ethics set forth in the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association (AMA).
APA's Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry states the following:
* A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care with compassion
and respect for human dignity and rights.
* A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek change
in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patients.
* Ethical considerations in medical practice preclude the psychiatric evaluation of any
person charged with criminal acts prior to access to, or availability of, legal counsel.
The only exception is the rendering of care to the person for the sole purpose of
medical treatment.
* A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health
professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the
constraints of the law.
To view The Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, click here.
June 25, 2005
New England Journal of Medicine: Medical Personnel Inappropriately Involved in Interrogations
In an article posted to its website and scheduled for inclusion into the July 7 issue, The New England Journal of Medicine maintains that mounting evidence - including the Pentagon's own "Church Report" - illustrates that the medical program at Guantanamo was in violation of international medical law, and that military medical personnel were complicit in interrogation tactics the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) deems 'cruel and inhuman treatment.'
The article's authors, Dr. M. Gregg Bloche of the Brookings Institution and a law professor at Georgetown and Dr. Jonathan H. Marks, a bioethics fellow at Georgetown contend stress-inducing tactics such as 'sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation, painful body positions, feigned suffocation, and beatings,' as well as alleged 'sexual provocation and displays of contempt for Islamic symbols' breach medical ethics.
"Since late 2003, psychiatrists and psychologists (at Guantanamo) have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behavior-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence from resistant captives," the article states.
Also addressed is the rejection of (a presumption of) clinical confidentiality, as Drs. Bloche and Marks question to what extent military intelligence personnel routinely drew upon and exploited detainee's confidential health records to tailor their interrogation approach - a concern raised last year by the ICRC.
The laws of war, the article explains, "defer to medical ethics," citing,
"Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides that medical personnel 'shall not be compelled to perform acts or to carry out work contrary to the rules of medical ethics.'
Although the protocol has not been ratified by the United States, the principle has attained the status of customary international law.
Last August, another respected medical journal - Britain's The Lancet - reported that U.S. military doctors misused detainee medical records as part of the interrogation routine at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, contending,
"The complicity of US military medical personnel during abuses of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay is of great importance to human rights, medical ethics, and military medicine. Government documents show that the US military medical system failed to protect detainees' human rights, sometimes collaborated with interrogators or abusive guards, and failed to properly report injuries or deaths caused by beatings."
June 20, 2005
On Extended Detentions, Clinton Admits He Was "Not Blameless"
In a transcript of the interview Bill Clinton gave to the U.K.'s Financial Times, the former President argued against holding terror suspects in perpetuity and without due process, despite an admission that his administration was "not blameless" when it came to detaining terror suspects for an extended period of time and without trial.
"We had a law on the books when I was President, that was enforced from time to time, which permitted the Justice department to hold suspected terrorists beyond the normal length of time they could them without trial, if, bringing the indictment and the trial would require the presentation of evidence which would reveal the identity of the intelligence source, compromise the life of the intelligence source, maybe risk the life of the intelligence source, but more importantly dry up what we thought we were finding out about terror networks.
"It sounds so reasonable but if you're the guy who's in prison and you're not guilty, you could be held there three, four, five years and there has to be come limit to that.
"But the more important thing and I want to make some explicit statement here because I think people in the West who feel threatened by terror may be tempted to become more tolerant of the need to be tougher with suspected terrorists."
Later in the interview, President Clinton added,
"But I still don't think you can just hold these people forever. I think sooner or later you've got to move or let them go, you can't say, 'we know' because its all secret. It is just inimical to a free society."
Former President Clinton on GITMO: Close it or Clean it Up
As did former President Jimmy Carter last week, former President Bill Clinton added his voice to the debate mounting in the U.S. and abroad over the future of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, calling for the U.S.-run facility in Cuba to "be closed down or cleaned up."
During an interview with the U.K.'s Financial Times, in addition to ethical concerns President Clinton cited practical reasons for the irreproachable treatment of detainees opining,
�If we get a reputation for abusing people it puts our own soldiers much more at risk and second, if you rough up somebody bad enough, they'll eventually tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to stop doing it."
Amid the public relations nightmare fomented by alleged and confirmed instances of detainee abuse, the White House appears to be divided over the issue of Guantanamo's future, with President George Bush hinting at the facility's possible scale-down or closure. Nevertheless, senior officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretatary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remain steadfast in their position that the prison facility is essential, no practical alternative to Guantanamo exists, and "enemy combatants" detained at the camp continue to provide valuable intelligence, crucial to winning the ;'War on Terror.'
June 17, 2005
Pentagon Releases New Guidelines for Military Medical Personnel
Responding to allegations that military doctors and medics were complicit in committing and/or concealing detainee abuses, the Pentagon has issued a new set of guidelines for military medical personnel. According to a press release posted to the Department of Defense website, the new rules are specifically aimed at defining medical personnel's role with prisoners, addressing - but not limited to - issues such as patient care, interrogations and medical-record confidentiality.
Likewise, the new guidelines require all medical personnel to report suspected cases of abuse.
As the Associated Press reports, the guidelines were issued by Dr. William Winkenwerder, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, and make clear the only role of medical personnel involved in treating detainees is to ''evaluate, protect or improve their physical and mental health.'' As the AP article notes, while ancillary medical staff and experts such as the psychologists, profilers and forensic pathologists who advise interrogators are not to be involved in the treatment of detainees, they too are obligated to adhere to the principles of humane treatment, despite the dual and often competing loyalties presented in a war-time environment.
While Dr. Winkenwerder did not say whether the guidelines depart from existing medical policy for dealing with detainees, he did say their intent is to prevent future instances of abuse.
Red Cross: U.S. is Improving Treatment of Terror Suspects
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) stated today that despite accusations raised by its critics, the U.S. government is in fact cooperating to improve the treatment of terror suspects detained at Guantanamo and elsewhere, the Associated Press reports.
"The US government and the ICRC have good and trustful relations," assured Jakob Kellenberger, ICRC president.
Referring to past meetings with President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Kellenberger explained, "The quality of the dialogue up the highest level enables both sides to discuss openly all issues, including those where there are differences of view, and there are."
As Reuters reports, President Kellenberger dismissed a report critical of the ICRC by the Republican Policy Committee in the Senate, which alleged the ICRC leaked confidential reports on U.S. detainees and that a delegate from the Swiss-based humanitarian agency visiting a prison in Iraq compared it to a Nazi concentration camp.
"The ICRC has never leaked to the public or the media any of the confidential reports submitted to the US authorities," Kellenberger averred, maintaining the leak was attributed to a source outside the agency.
He then added, "ICRC staff has never compared U.S. soldiers to the Nazis."
June 08, 2005
President Carter Calls for GITMO Closure
In order to demonstrate its historic commitment to promoting freedom and democracy around the world, Jimmy Carter says the United States should close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, The New York Times reports.
At his Atlanta-based human rights center, the former president joined human rights defenders from 14 nations, and together with representatives from major U.S. human rights organizations participated in a conference entitled "Human Rights Defenders on the Frontlines of Freedom: Advancing Security and the Rule of Law." According to a press release posted to The Carter Center website, the two-day conference proposed several recommendations:
Close down Guantanamo and the two dozen secret detention facilities run by the United States as soon as practicable;
Reaffirm the United States' commitment to fundamental principles of due process and to international law and give unequivocal assurances that all provisions of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners and the Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment, including during interrogations, will be strictly enforced;
Assure that no detainees will be held incommunicado and that all will know the charges against them and be insured of international standards for fair trials;
Terminate the policy of "extraordinary rendition" (the transfer of detainees to foreign countries where torture has been reported);
Establish an independent, blue ribbon commission with authority to investigate places where terrorism suspects are held in U.S. custody and make a full report to the world, as called for by bipartisan congressional leaders, and
In its policies towards other nations, the United States should look to multilateral mechanisms when seeking to advance freedom and democracy, especially the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is a willing partner in this endeavor.
Despite his criticism of U.S.-run prison facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and allegations of prisoner mistreatment that have caused the U.S. to suffer a "terrible embarrassment and a blow to our reputation," President Carter was careful not to confine his critique to the United States, acknowledging the existence of serious human rights violations in other nations as well, CNN reports.
"All free nations should unite in condemnation of those countries guilty of such abuses, with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the standard," he urged.
President Carter likewise denounced Amnesty International's recent portrayal of the prison facility at Guantanamo as "the gulag of our time," contending the alleged abuses at the U.S.-run prison in no way compare to the forced labor camps administered by the former Soviet Union.
April 07, 2005
White House Wants Ruling on Detainee Rights Reversed
In federal appeals court today, the Justice Department defended the Bush Administrations prosecution of foreign terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, and sought to overturn a federal ruling that deems unlawful military commission trials that do not afford foreign terror suspects the same legal protections as Americans, The New York Times reports.
Representing the government, assistant attorney general Peter D. Keisler said the trials that were halted send a message that if you commit terrible crimes, we will capture you, we will give you a fair trial, and if you're convicted, we will impose a just sentence, reports the Chicago Tribune.
Back in November, a U.S. District Judge ruled unfair and unlawful - and immediately halted - the military commission of Osama bin Ladens former driver and alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan. The Yemeni was to be the first detainee to be tried by a special military commission. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-CV-1519, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.
According to the 45-page memorandum opinion, Judge Robertson found that the administration contravened Geneva Convention guidelines, disregarding a basic provision which requires the United States to treat Hamdan as a prisoner of war (P.O.W.), unless he appears before a special tribunal described in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is otherwise.
The Bush administration contends that Hamdan and other suspected terrorists designated as enemy combatants are not entitled to P.O.W status and do not merit protections conferred by the Geneva Conventions - which governs the treatment of civilians and soldiers in wartime - because al Qaeda did not sign the treaty.
Among the points of contention: in military commission cases, the government cites national security concerns for classifying evidence. While legal counsel has access to this information, it may nevertheless be withheld from the defendant. Also, a defendant need not be present for all parts of the military commission trial.
It makes no sense to say that we adhere to international law and the first thing we do at the beginning of a trial is violate a canon of international law, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, Hamdans Pentagon-appointed attorney.
This is the law in Rwanda, but not in the United States, Swift retorted.
Out of approximately 550 detainees at Guantanamo, 15 have been designated for military commission trials. Only four have been charged.
March 31, 2005
ACLU: Declassified Memo Suggests Abuse Sanctioned by Top Brass
In a statement posted to its website, the American Civil Liberties Union contends that a recently declassified 2003 Army memo signed by Lt. Gen. Ricardo A. Sanchez - commander of U.S. ground forces from June 2003 to July 2004 - raises concerns that Sanchez perjured himself during his May 19th testimony to Congress on Iraq prison abuse, during which he denied authorizing highly coercive interrogation methods in violation of both the Geneva Conventions and Army standards.
An excerpt from the ACLU statement:
"The memorandum, dated September 14, 2003, was signed by Lt. Gen. Sanchez and laid out specific interrogation techniques, modeled on those used against detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for use by coalition forces in Iraq. These include sleep "management," the inducement of fear at two levels of severity, loud music and sensory agitation, and the use of canine units to "exploit [the] Arab fear of dogs."
During sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lt. Gen. Sanchez flatly denied approving any such techniques in Iraq, and said that a news article reporting otherwise was false.
Specifically, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) asked Sanchez, "today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison." To which Sanchez replied, using the acronym for Coalition Joint Task Force-7, "Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year."
"We deserve to know if our military commanders are being honest when reporting to Congress and the American people what's been done in our country's name," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "The attorney general clearly has to bring us those answers by appointing an independent investigator, and possible perjury is a good place to start."
As such, the ACLU submitted a request to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking him to open an investigation into Sanchez's possible perjury.
As Stars and Stripes reports, Pentagon officials defend the general, as Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. John Skinner offered, "There have now been 10 major lines of inquiry, to include one done by an independent panel, that have found there was no policy that condoned or encouraged abuse of any type."
March 20, 2005
C.I.A.: Approved Interrogation Techniques - Past & Present - Are Lawful
In response to The New York Times March 18th article on testimony given by C.I.A. director Porter J. Goss - which the C.I.A. contends "creates the false impression that U.S. intelligence may have had a policy in the past of using torture against terrorists captured in the war on terror" - the agency released a statement assuring, "All approved interrogation techniques, both past and present, are lawful and do not constitute torture."
In a written statement, the agency's director of public affairs Jennifer Millerwise maintained, "C.I.A. policies on interrogation have always followed legal guidance from the Department of Justice."
Millerwise continued, "If an individual violates the policy, then he or she will be held accountable."
March 18, 2005
CIA Director Testifies: "We don't do torture."
Central Intelligence director Porter J. Goss defended the military's interrogation practices "at this time," remaining steadfast on the value of interrogation as a legitimate intelligence tool, essential to protecting civilians and military alike, The New York Times reports.
Testifying yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Goss offered, "I can assure you that I know of no instances where the intelligence community is outside the law on this."
"And I know for a fact that torture is not productive. That's not professional interrogation. We don't do torture."
Goss later acknowledged however, that the line between what was and was not acceptable interrogation techniques had not always been obvious to C.I.A. officers. His responses to questions from Senator Carl Levin (D- MI.) suggest the possibility that some of the "coercive" interrogation techniques employed by the C.I.A. since September 11th were now considered inappropriate and possibly unlawful.
In response to the Times article, Special Counsel for Human Rights Watch takes Goss to task for his opinion that "waterboarding" - the practice of submerging the detainee's head in water until he believes he will drown - is in fact, a form of "professional interrogation." In a letter to the editor Reed Brody asserts, "Mr. Goss, by justifying the practice as a form of professional interrogation, renders dubious his broader claim that the C.I.A. is not practicing torture today."
March 12, 2005
Abu Ghraib Commander Given Letter of Reprimand
Quoting Army and congressional sources, Stars and Stripes reports Janis Karpinski - the Army Reserve Brigadier General in charge of the U.S. run prison - was "quietly handed a letter of reprimand."
Karpinski was suspended from her duties as Commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade following the 60 Minutes broadcast that alerted the world to the prisoner abuse scandal. She denied involvement in, and prior knowledge of the abuses, telling the BBC she was a 'convenient scapegoat' for abuse ordered by others.
Officials say a decision has not yet been made as to whether Karpinski would receive additional punishment.
March 11, 2005
Latest Pentagon Report: Detainee Abuses Not Sanctioned by Civilian or Military Policy
Echoing the findings of previous DoD-commissioned investigations, the Pentagon's latest probe into detention operations concluded that neither civilian defense officials nor military leadership sanctioned or encouraged prisoner abuse, finding "no single overarching explanation" for the numerous cases of prisoner mistreatment that have come to light since the notorious Abu Ghraib scandal.
As the Washington Post reports, unlike previous inquiries, the latest investigation did not focus solely on interrogation practices at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison facility in Iraq but rather, extended its scope to include the treatment of detained suspects dispersed throughout the various theaters of the War on Terrorism.
Ordered by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and headed by former Navy Inspector General Vice Admiral Albert T. Church III, the latest investigation traced the evolution of U.S. military interrogation policies between 2002 and 2004. During this period, the Bush administration determined the Geneva Conventions were neither applicable to the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan nor to the U.S.-run detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - but that they were in fact, applicable to the war in Iraq. According to the Post, while the Church investigation found no linkage between sanctioned interrogation techniques and detainee abuse - and that "for the most part" military personnel complied with U.S. and international standards for treating detainees humanely - interrogators that transferred from one battlefield setting to another carried with them procedures from previous assignments. When directives were vague the article explains, interrogators improvised, often resulting in confusion insofar as what was - and was not - permissible conduct when dealing with detainees.
Released yesterday, the resulting 368-page report concludes that there was never a deliberate policy that allowed interrogators to torture detained suspects and that when required, the military investigated allegations of mistreatment, and subsequently punished offending soldiers when appropriate.
Briefing congressional leaders, Admiral Church told the Senate Armed Services Committee that a lack of guidelines and oversight, bad planning and a slow response to Red Cross warnings of abuse contributed to the mistreatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.
An executive summary of the results of the Department of Defense review of detention operations and interrogation techniques can be found here.
February 16, 2005
Armed Forces Press Service on Current Conditions at GITMO
Reporter Kathleen T. Rhem of the American Forces Press Service provides a glimpse into the conditions under which terror suspects are currently being held. In an article posted to the Department of Defense website, the tarnished image of a scandalized Guantanamo is replaced by a detention facility in compliance with correctional, legal and humanitarian standards; a detention facility that embodies the mission of the Joint Task Force, ensuring "the safe, secure, humane custody of the detainees."
As Rhem reports, at the base's detention camps prisoners are divided into 4 levels. The levels are unrelated to detainee's intelligence value but rather, they are based on how well detainees comply with camp rules and cooperate with guards instructions.
Typically, level 1 detainees are obedient, and are inclined to follow camp rules. They occupy communal living quarters, and wear uniforms that are white - a culturally respected color that serves as an incentive to detainees in other camps.
In contrast, level 4 detainees often have a history of offenses, ranging from threatening guards and other detainees, to hurling bodily fluids, to refusing to exit their cell when ordered. Level 4 detainees wear orange, hospital type uniforms, and are granted fewer privileges than level 1 detainees.
For detainees who cooperate, privileges may include extended access (7-9 hours per day) to an outside exercise area, which features picnic and ping-pong tables, a soccer area and volleyball court. Games, books and other reading material, as well as electric fans and ice water may also be made available.
With regard to the camp's physical structure, the article illustrates how the concrete and open-air chain-link enclosures of the crude and hastily built Camp X-Ray have been replaced by more modern and permanent structures. Construction of Camp Delta began in 2002, eventually replacing the make-shift Camp X-Ray, which had never been intended for long-term detentions. Then in spring of 2004, a state-of-the-art $16 million detention facility was completed. Camp 5 was composed of four wings consisting of 12 to 14 individual cells each.
Last month, plans for a new prison - Camp 6 - were announced. The $25 million, 200 bed, medium-security facility will be restructured with an improved medical facility, including a $1.7 million psychiatric wing.
Together Camps 5 and 6 are said to represent 'the future of Guantanamo Bay,' which is being revamped to house those prisoners found to pose a continuing security threat.
Despite official pronouncements of its intentions to reduce prisoner population - as well as the contention held by many that GITMO will probably not become a fully-functional detention facility - the millions spent and earmarked for the construction of state of the art facilities suggests that the Department of Defense does in fact, have long-term plans for the U.S.- run prison in Cuba.
February 15, 2005
CSRTs: 6 More GITMO Detainees to Be Sent Home
The Pentagon has announced that a military review panel at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has found six more detainees should no longer be classified as enemy combatants. While a spokesperson declined to identify the prisoners or their nationalities, they said the State Department was arranging their repatriations.
The Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) consider whether detainees belonged to - or were associated with - the Taliban or al Qaeda, and whether they fought against or pose a threat to the United States and its allies. The target of myriad criticisms, the much-maligned CSRTs have also been deemed overly vague.
When asked if the panels findings did not suggest the men - some captured and held without charge for in excess of 3 years - were detained in error, Navy spokesperson Captain Beci Brenton explained, The finding of the (tribunals) is that they no longer meet the criteria," Reuters reports.
While the panels have thus far ruled that 410 Guantanamo prisoners were "enemy combatants," only four have been charged with crimes since the U.S. began sending suspected terrorists to the U.S. naval facility in Cuba more than three years ago.
As of the latest announcement, 12 Guantanamo detainees have been designated for release.
January 31, 2005
District Judge: Pentagon Fails to Provide Due Process for GITMO Detainees
Rejecting the Bush administrations request to dismiss lawsuits filed on behalf of 54 foreign-born terror suspects protesting their detentions at Guantanamo, a district judge ruled today that the U.S. government has improperly prevented non-U.S. citizens picked up during the "War on Terror" from contesting their imprisonments, deeming the Pentagon's procedure to determine whether they are in fact enemy combatants fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional.
By failing to satisfy several due process requirements, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens-Green found the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in some cases, the Geneva Convention treaties on treatment of prisoners of war.
Judge Hens-Green noted that because the men distinguished as enemy combatants are not provided legal counsel, and because the government withholds some evidence as classified, detainees at Guantanamo do not have access to all the pertinent material that might buttress their cases.
As The New York Times and Washington Times report, Judge Hens-Green ruled that under June's Supreme Court decision, the detainees were entitled to challenge the basis for their detentions, despite the executive branchs entrenched arguments to the contrary.
Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years, Judge Hens-Green noted.
Judge Hens-Green found the military greatly depended on detainee confessions in their determination of whether they are correctly identified as enemy combatants. As the Washington Post explains, the judge called into question the efficacy of such confessions because of allegations and evidence of abusive conditions during the interrogation process.
Despite the latest ruling, the Bush Administration remains steadfast in its position that the CSRTs are in fact, constitutional. During todays White House press briefing, spokesman Scott McClellan stated, we respectfully disagree with the decision. The Department of Justice will be looking at what the appropriate next steps are to take in this matter, so they'll be reviewing the matter.
To be sure, Judge Hens-Green said nothing in her opinion should be interpreted to require the immediate release of any detainee. Nevertheless, she said the present system - deemed by many of its critics to have been hastily set up by the Pentagon - and in which a detainee who has not yet been charged with a specific crime could in fact be held in captivity longer than a criminal defendant who has been tried and convicted - can not continue without substantial changes.
As could be expected, civil liberties groups celebrated the latest ruling. In a statement posted to its website, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) President Michael Ratner commented,
Judge Greens decision is extraordinary. It reaffirms that the Guantnamo detainees cannot be imprisoned outside the law, that they have a constitutional right to a fair hearing and that evidence resulting from torture and coercion cannot be used to continue their imprisonments. The judge also found that it was illegal for the President to unilaterally determine that an entire group of the Guantnamo prisoners were not POWs protected by the Geneva conventions. This ruling has the potential to bring the U.S. back into the fold of nations under law. It is about time.
Judge Hens-Greens decision conflicts with an earlier ruling. On January 19th, Judge Richard J. Leon - a Bush appointee - threw out 7 suspected terrorists requests for court review of their detention. Judge Leon said he found no viable legal theory exists' for a court to order the detainees release.
Legal experts expect the issue to be resolved either by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or possibly, the Supreme Court.
January 24, 2005
Mass Suicide Attempt at Guantanamo Revealed
The AP reports that during August 2003, 23 terror suspects detained at Guantanamo attempted a mass suicide.
The military has confirmed that nearly two dozen detainees tried to simultaneously hang or strangle themselves during a mass protest. In a statement posted to the NPR website, U.S. Southern Command describes the attempt as a coordinated effort to disrupt camp operations and challenge a new group of security guards from the just-completed unit rotation.
An excerpt:
Of the 23 detainees involved, two required treatment in the Detention Hospital. Each of these detainees was treated for minor injuries, remained in the Detention Hospital for less than 48 hours for observation, and subsequently were transferred to the Behavioral Health Services Unit.
The JTF medical staff evaluated the other 21 detainees at the Detention Hospital and then sent them to the Behavioral Health Services Unit for evaluation and monitoring.
The JTF chain of command was notified of these incidents and reported them as required to SOUTHCOM.
Of the 23 detainees who participated in this incident, 16 remain in the camps. Seven detainees have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay.
The Joint Detention Operations Group continually assesses the camp's population for whom the informal leaders are, the mood of the detainees, and their ability to communicate with each other.
That assessment has enabled the leadership to take numerous measures to reduce the opportunity for detainees to communicate a coordinated self-harm incident, or strike out at another detainee or the guard force.
There have been no successful suicide attempts at GTMO. This is because of a vigilant, well-trained guard force, charged with the safe, humane custody of the detainees and because of that force's ability to rapidly and properly respond.
As reported by the AP, Alistair Hodgett of Amnesty International was critical of the delay in reporting the incident.
When you have suicide attempts or so-called self-harm incidents, it shows the type of impact indefinite detention can have, but it also points to the extreme measures the Pentagon is taking to cover up things that have happened in Guantanamo, he said.
Mission commander of Guantanamo Army General Jay Hood said that since the military set up a psychiatric ward at the facility, the number of incidents has decreased.
January 16, 2005
Abu Ghraibs Graner Sentenced to 10 Years for Prisoner Abuses
In addition to a dishonorable discharge from the army, Reuters reports Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. was sentenced yesterday to 10 years behind bars for his involvement in the detainee abuse scandal at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison facility in Iraq.
While Graner claimed he was carrying out orders, and that he complained to superiors about the treatment he claims he was forced to mete out to detainees, he nevertheless admitted, I didnt enjoy anything I did there. A lot of it was wrong, a lot of it was criminal.
January 15, 2005
Abu Ghraib Ringleader Convicted of Prisoner Abuses
Following a 4 day trial in Fort Hood, Texas, the reputed ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal was found guilty on all charges.
Within 5 hours of deliberation, the 10-member military jury convicted Army Reserve Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. on charges including conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of prisoners, aggravated assault and indecent acts at the U.S.-run prison west of Baghdad, the Los Angeles Times reports.
For his actions Graner - a former corrections officer - faces a possible 15-year prison sentence.
It was the first court-martial resulting from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal that embarrassed the nation, incited international outrage and drew the ire of the Arab world. As The New York Times points out, the verdict was returned a year to the day after the Pentagon began its investigation into the scandal. Thousands of damning photographs captured on a CD-ROM documenting the abuses prompted the military investigations, subsequently alerting the world last spring of the abuse.
As the LA Times explains, the abuses occurred from October to December 2003, as U.S.-led forces in Iraq were gathering intelligence in hope of averting the rising insurgency and finding Saddam Hussein. Against this backdrop, Graners attorneys argued that their client and his fellow military police were subject to extreme pressure from intelligence agents to employ physical violence to prepare detainees for questioning.
His civilian lawyer rationalized, And the more aggressive you are, the better intelligence results you get.
Despite arguments that Graner and his fellow MPs were the proverbial fall guys for their superior officers - with culpability ostensibly ascending the Defense Departments chain of command - witnesses for the defense testified there had in fact, been no orders for the behavior depicted in the photographs. Such admission buttresses both the Bush Administrations and the Pentagons contention that prisoner abuse was neither ordered nor condoned; rather than being endemic prisoner abuses were attributable to the actions of a handful of rogue soldiers, a few bad apples.
As the Washington Post reports, Graner had been a corporal but has since been demoted to the rank of specialist. To date, no officer at Abu Ghraib faces criminal charges.
Among the evidence introduced by the prosecution were previously unreleased emails sent to friends and family in which Graner appeared to pride himself on his brutal treatment of inmates.
The prosecution averred Graners actions were unjustified, that they were for sport, for laughs.
In total, seven soldiers have been charged in the scandal - three have pleaded guilty, three face court-martial. Sergeant Ivan Frederick was given a dishonorable discharge and sentenced to 8 years in prison. Private Lynndie R. England, who is also pictured in the sadistic photographs, infamously smiling and giving a thumbs-up in front of naked, hooded prisoners, is said to be Graners girlfriend.
While he chose not to testify on his behalf, Graner plans to address the jury during the sentencing phase, scheduled to begin later today.
January 10, 2005
Long-Term Prison Planned for Guantanamo
On the eve of the prison's third year in operation, The Washington Times reports that in an effort to allow for the construction of a larger, more permanent facility, the United States is planning to release or transfer many of the 549 terror suspects detained at Guantanamo.
According to Britains Financial Times, the new prison - which will be called Camp Six - will be able to accommodate the 200 detainees that the United States considers of intelligence value and as such, does not yet want released. As CNN reports, the $25 million facility will be restructured with an improved medical facility, including a $1.7 million psychiatric wing, and a permanent guard force.
December 23, 2004
Rights Group Submits FOIA Request on Behalf of Ghost Detainees
In a press release posted to its website, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) announces it has submitted a FOIA request on behalf of ghost detainees.
Dedicated to "protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," the rights group says the request was made in response to recent media reports suggesting the CIA has been secretly operating a holding and interrogation center at Guantanamo, as well as at various undisclosed locations around the world.
As the press release explains, the CCR seeks records relating to the identity, location, authority over, and treatment of all Unregistered, CIA, and Ghost Detainees and all other individuals interdicted, interrogated, and detained by any agency or department of the United States.
CCR deputy legal director Barbara Olshansky avers, The use of secret detentions centers not only violates international and U.S. lawit undermines the critical pillars of our Democracy justice and liberty -- and tosses aside the Framers concerns about the dangers of an overreaching executive.
Olshansky continues, How can we hold ourselves up as an example as the worlds preeminent democracy when we are violating the founding principles of our own?
December 18, 2004
C.I.A.'s "Prison w/in a Prison," Reports Washington Post
The Washington Post reports that the C.I.A. operated a covert holding and interrogation facility for suspected senior al Qaeda operatives within the larger American military-run prison facility at Guantanamo.
As the article explains, the buildings used by the C.I.A. were off-limits to most personnel on the base, shrouded by high fences covered with thick green mesh plastic and ringed with floodlights within the larger Camp Echo complex, which was constructed to house the DoDs high-value detainees, as well as those awaiting military trials.
Those picked up during the U.S.-led War on Terrorism and detained at Guantanamo are technically held not by the C.I.A. but by the Defense Department. They are guaranteed access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and, as a result of Junes landmark Supreme Court ruling, may challenge their detentions through the U.S. courts.
C.I.A. detainees - by contrast - are governed by distinct rules, and with far greater secrecy.
Under a presidential directive and authorities approved by administration lawyers, the article explains, the CIA is allowed to capture and hold certain classes of suspects without accounting for them in any public way and without revealing the rules for their treatment. The roster of CIA prisoners is not public, but current and former U.S. intelligence officials say the agency holds the most valuable al Qaeda leaders and many mid-level members with knowledge of the group's logistics, financing and regional operations.
Officials from neither the C.I.A. nor the DoD were willing to discuss any aspect of the operation. When questioned about the arrangement between the C.I.A. and the U.S. military at Guantanamo, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he was not at liberty to comment on operations of other agencies.
As we have stated since the beginning of detention operations at Guantanamo, the ICRC has access to detainees at Guantanamo and is permitted to meet with them, consistent with military necessity.
Whitman added, all [Defense] detainees, including those at Guantanamo, are treated humanely, and in accordance with applicable law.
While ICRC officials declined to divulge where - or with whom - they had been permitted to visit, a spokesman submitted We have been granted broad access to the camp.
He continued, We are confident we have visited all of the people detained at Guantanamo, in all of the places they are being detained.
Yet the Post article points out that the ICRC has not, in fact, been granted access to high-value detainees held at secret locations around the world.
It is unclear whether the facility is still in operation today.
December 02, 2004
Detainee Status Debated in Federal Court
In what is expected to be a protracted second phase of the legal battle over the governments efforts to assign the fate of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. military rather than the federal courts, the Defense Department continued to defend its Guantanamo prison policy before a federal court in Washington on Wednesday, The New York Times reports.
In the landmark June 29th ruling, the Supreme Court entered the first phase of the battle, issuing a blow to the Bush administration when it ruled that foreign terror suspects held at Guantanamo could in fact use the American legal system to challenge their detentions.
Arguments heard yesterday concerned the governments motion to dismiss Habeas Corpus petitions filed on behalf of 54 Guantanamo detainees who have asked the courts to require government justification of its detentions. Lawyers for the detainees argue their clients have the right to a fair trial and should be given the proper opportunity to defend themselves.
Government lawyers however, remain steadfast in their position that the U.S. military can hold foreign terror suspects picked up in the War on Terror as enemy combatants - a broadly defined classification that suggests they are not entitled to protections generally given to prisoners of war and as such, do not possess the constitutional rights to contest their detentions in court.
Of the Pentagons decision to detain suspected Taliban and al Qaeda fighters - some for 3 years - deputy associate attorney general Brian Boyle explained, The military has an interest in holding people who pose a risk.
We're not detaining these people just because there's some enjoyment in it.
Addressing the hotly debated and broadly defined description of enemy combatants, Judge Joyce Hens Green presented a series of hypothetical scenarios, one of which questioned whether the president could imprison a little old lady from Switzerland as an enemy combatant if she unintentionally made a donation to a terrorist organization that was fronted as an Afghan orphanage.
Possibly, Boyle replied.
It would be up to the military to decide as to what to believe, he said.
As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, Boyle explained that the military can detain any foreigner who provides support to terrorists or might have knowledge of their plans.
Boyle argued that the foreigners detained at Guantanamo have no constitutional rights enforceable in U.S. courts. He averred that they have nevertheless been provided a process, contending that was all they were entitled to under the June 28th ruling.
Following the hearing, attorney for 12 Kuwaiti detainees Thomas B. Wilner told reporters, Thats really shocking.
People throughout the world will fear the United States is asserting the power to pick up little old ladies and men who made a mistake.
Attorney Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) offered, The government showed its true colors today.
She continued, If under this definition of enemy combatant a Swiss granny who gave money to charity can be detained indefinitely at Guantanamo, then anyone who unintentionally acts in a way the government finds suspicious is in danger of losing their freedom.
November 30, 2004
NYT: Red Cross Memo Cites Psychological & Physical Coercion at Guantanamo
Acknowledging it has obtained a detailed memorandum of a confidential report, The New York Times claims that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has accused the U.S. military of employing psychological and sometimes physical coercion tantamount to torture on detainees at Guantanamo.
An inspection team of ICRC delegates visited the prison in June and issued a report of its findings to the administration in July. Upon its receipt, the article explains, government and military officials summarily rejected its findings.
As per the recently obtained memo, The Times says ICRC investigators found a system devised to break the will of prisoners through humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions.
Responding to the article, the Pentagon reiterated its position that The United States operates a safe, humane and professional detention operation at Guantanamo that is providing valuable information in the war on terrorism.
Of the ICRCs longstanding contention that indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo is analogous to torture, Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld continued to reject such claims. Its their point of view, he offered, one that is not shared by the Bush administration. He submitted that the administration believes it has the legal right to detain terror suspects until the end of the War on Terror because they are unlawful combatants and as such, are not subject to the protections conferred by the Geneva conventions.
Di Rita said he could not comment on specific Red Cross reports because they are provided to the U.S. government on condition they are kept confidential.
In a press release posted to its website, the ICRC maintains that in accordance with its policy the organization will not publicly confirm or deny the findings reported by The Times. Nevertheless, the Geneva-based group has always maintained that those detainees picked up in the War on Terror and detained at Guantanamo should either be charged and tried, released, or be placed within a legal framework that governs their continued detention.
The ICRC is the only independent monitor permitted to visit the U.S. detention facility in Cuba. Since early 2002, delegates have made regular visits to the base, monitoring detainees to ensure they are treated in accordance with applicable international humanitarian laws and standards.
For many of the detainees at Guantanamo, visits by ICRC delegates constitute their only contact with the outside world. Currently, in excess of 500 detainees from approximately 40 countries are being held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Identified as enemy combatants, most have been held without charge or access to their attorneys - for over three years. Just recently have detainees been granted individual hearings in an attempt to formally decide their status.
Only four have since been charged.
November 13, 2004
White House Appeals Ruling on Hamdan Case
In a 2-page notice filed by the Justice Department, the White House presented its intention to appeal U.S. District Judge James Robertsons November 8th ruling, which deemed unlawful the military tribunal trial of a Guantanamo detainee alleged to be an al Qaeda terrorist. No hearing date has been set, the Associated Press reports.
The case of 34 year-old Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan - who was scheduled to be tried as a war criminal by the newly constituted Military Commissions at Guantanamo - was declared by Judge Robertson to be unlawful, and ordered not to continue until special hearings are held to determine whether the detainee should be afforded prisoner of war (P.O.W.) protection under the Geneva Conventions.
While Mondays ruling contends the Bush Administration exceeded its constitutional authority and contravened the Geneva Conventions, the White House maintains its legal position that suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members picked up during the War on Terror were not acting on behalf of a legitimate government and as such, are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
In Judge Robertson's Memorandum Opinion the former Navy officer cited "procedural problems with the Commission's rules," and ruled the Combatant Status Review Tribunals - comprised of a panel of military officers - were not equipped to decide whether detainees should be held or released. The ruling underscores how the legal position maintained by the Bush Administration is unprecedented, submitting
"The Government has asserted a position starkly different from the positions and behavior of the United States in previous conflicts, one that can only weaken the United States' own ability to demand application of the Geneva Conventions to Americans captured during armed conflicts abroad."
As The New York Times reports, departing Attorney General John Ashcroft decried Judge Robertsons ruling.
These encroachments include some of the most fundamental aspects of the president's conduct of the war on terrorism.
Ashcroft continued, The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war.
November 09, 2004
U.S. Judge Halts Guantanamo Tribunal, Ruled Unlawful
Five months after the Supreme Court ruled that foreign enemy combatants held at Guantanamo may challenge their detentions in civilian courts - rejecting the Bush administrations contention that the military possessed sole authority over their legal fate - the pre-trial motion hearing for a terror suspect has been halted indefinitely by a federal judge, declaring invalid the military commission proceedings convened at Guantanamo to try suspected al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured during the U.S.-led War on Terror.
As The New York Times reports, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the landmark decision yesterday. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-CV-1519, the judge ruled President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.
According to the 45-page memorandum opinion, the judge ruled that the Bush administration contravened Geneva Convention guidelines, ignoring a basic provision which requires the U.S. to treat Osama bin Ladens former driver and alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan, as a prisoner of war (P.O.W.), unless he appears before a special tribunal described in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is not.
At the end of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the U.S. military did not conduct Article 5 tribunals, deeming them unnecessary. Government lawyers contended the president had already used his authority to label members of al Qaeda unlawful combatants who would be deprived of P.O.W. status and as such, would be out of reach of Geneva Conventions.
Picked up in Afghanistan in 2001 and detained ever since, Hamdan - a 34 year-old Yemeni - is one of approximately 63 Guantanamo detainees on whose behalf lawsuits have been filed in federal court, challenging their detentions. The lawsuits consist of habeas corpus petitions demanding that the government provide some explanation as to why they are imprisoned.
According to The Washington Post, yesterdays ruling suggests detainees are to be viewed as P.O.W.s and should thus be entitled to the protections of international law, as well as be allowed a hearing on whether they qualify for those protections. Those arrested in or around Afghanistan in 2001, according to the ruling, must be treated as P.O.W.s should there exist any doubt as to their status.
The federal judges ruling coincided with and abruptly halted - yesterdays proceeding at Guantanamo. When presiding officer Col. Peter S. Brownback III received a note from a Marine sergeant, he immediately called a recess and rushed from the room. Upon his return he announced that the proceeding was in recess indefinitely.
Georgetown law professor and Hamdens lead attorney Neal K. Katyal who earlier this year in Slate characterized the ad hoc tribunals at Guantanamo as a rush to create the fig leaf of justice - told the confused courtroom audience We won.
The ruling is a major setback for the Bush Administration, which as the Boston Globe reports, vows to seek an emergency stay and a quick appeal. By conferring protected legal status under the Geneva Conventions on members of Al Qaeda, the judge has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war, said Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo.
The process struck down by the district court today was carefully crafted to protect America from terrorists while affording those charged with violations of the laws of war with fair process, and the department will make every effort to have this process restored through appeal.
By conferring protected legal status under the Geneva Conventions on members of Al Qaeda, the judge has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war, he said.
In contrast, Mondays ruling comes as a victory to those human and military rights advocates who have long assailed the arbitrary proceedings as a moral and legal outrage, and who have dismissed the commissions - perceived as unconstitutional and inconsistent with military law - as fatally flawed.
In a statement posted to its website, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero expressed, Todays decision sends a clear message that the fight against terrorism does not give the government license to disregard domestic and international law.
As we have said all along, our own soldiers will have to suffer the consequences if the United States denies prisoner-of-war protection under the Geneva Conventions. We are gratified that the court has recognized this important legal and moral principle.
November 05, 2004
New Pentagon Report Details Abuses at Guantanamo
In an 800-word response to a query made two months ago by The Associated Press, the Department of Defense released details of eight confirmed acts of prisoner abuse - previously cited in the Schlesinger Commission Report - that took place at Guantanamo. As The Associated Press and Knight Ridder report, it is the most detailed accounting of prisoner abuses at Guantanamo to date.
Without releasing the names of those responsible - who have since received reductions in rank, reprimands, or additional training - the behavior revealed reportedly ranges from the petty to the bizarre. While in stark contrast to the severity of abuse confirmed at Abu Ghraib, the acts detailed nevertheless reflect an abuse of power by the guards in charge.
Among those acts detailed:
A female interrogator exposed her T-shirt to a detainee, ran her fingers through his hair and climbed on his lap in April 2003. A supervisor monitoring the session terminated it, and the woman was reprimanded and sent for more training;
A prison barber gave two inmates "unusual haircuts," described as reverse Mohawks, in February, in an apparent attempt to humiliate them. The barber and his company were reprimanded;
An interrogator in April 2003 told military police to repeatedly bring a detainee from a standing to kneeling position, so much that his knees were bruised. The interrogator received a written reprimand;
In reprisal for a prisoner throwing toilet water at his guard, the guard "attempted to spray the detainee with a hose" in September 2002. The guard was reduced in rank and reassigned;
A guard punched a prisoner while holding a walkie-talkie in his fist after the prisoner was subdued in a struggle for biting his guard in April 2003. The guard was demoted;
An interrogator stained a prisoner's shirt with a red magic marker and told him it was blood in early 2003. The interrogator received a verbal reprimand;
A guard squirted water from a bottle on a prisoner in February, engaging in "inappropriate casual conversation; and
A guard used pepper spray on a prisoner who was poised to throw unidentified liquid on an officer in March 2003. The guard was acquitted by a court-martial.
Brigadier General Jay Hood - commander of the taskforce that runs Guantanamo - says lessons have been learned from past abuses cases and detainees are being treated humanely.
Theyve not been mistreated, theyve not been tortured in any respect, he said.
November 04, 2004
U.S. Soldier - Dressed as Detainee - Beaten at Guantanamo
Wednesdays broadcast of CBS 60 Minutes featured former Kentucky national guardsman Specialist Sean Baker, 37, who while dressed as a detainee during a military training exercise at Guantanamo, was brutally beaten.
The attack occurred while Baker - unbeknownst to his fellow soldiers/assailants - participated in a drill to practice extracting uncooperative prisoners. According to CBS, while such drills were routine - with a U.S. soldier assuming the role of a detainee - they generally did not wear the orange jumpsuit, nor were extractions carried out at full force.
Chronicling the attack that occurred on January 24, 2003, Baker told 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon how upon volunteering for the exercise, he was instructed to wear an orange jumpsuit similar to those worn by foreign detainees. Acting as a prisoner, he was told to crawl beneath a bunk on a steel floor in a dark cell, and wait.
An extraction team consisting of four soldiers were assigned to remove what was presumed to be a resistant terrorist from his cell. As none of the four soldiers were informed the situation was a drill, Baker was given the code word red as a distress signal, and his safety was assured by his superior.
Id never questioned an order before. But, at first I said, my only remark was, Sir? Just in the form of a question. And he said, Youll be fine, Baker told Simon. I said, Well, you know whats gonna happen when they come in there on me? And he said, Trust me, Spc. Baker. You will be fine.
As Baker recalled, My face was down. And of course, theyre pushing it down against the steel floor, you know, my right temple, pushing it down against the floorAnd someones holding me by the throat, using a pressure point on me and holding my throat. And I used the word, red. At that point I, you know, I became afraid.
Despite giving the code word, Baker said he was badly beaten.
And when I said the word Red, he forced my head down against the steel floor and was sort of just grinding it into the floor. The individual then, when I picked up my head and said, Red, slammed my head down against the floor.
I was so afraid, I groaned out, Im a U.S. soldier. And when I said that, he slammed my head again, one more time against the floor. And I groaned out one more time, I said, Im a U.S. soldier. And I heard them say, Whoa, whoa, whoa, you know, like he wanted to, he was telling the other guy to stop.
When the incident was over, a bloodied and disoriented Baker returned to his unit. Aware that the drill was videotaped, he sent his squad leader to locate the tape.
That was the only time that I heard that a tape had gone missing, said Bakers platoon sergeant, Michael Riley.
According to an affidavit given by Baker in June, he was told the camera malfunctioned.
That morning, Baker began having seizures, and was sent to the hospital at Guantanamo.
[He looked like] hed had the crap beat out of him. He had a concussion. I mean, it was textbook," says Riley. "[His face] was blank. You know, a dead stare, like he was seeing you, but really looking through you, said Riley.
Baker was later airlifted to a Medical Center in Virginia, where doctors determined he had suffered an injury to the right side of his brain. Released after four days, he requested a return to Cuba.
Back at Guantanamo, Baker was no longer able to conceal his seizures. He was sent to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, put in a psychiatric ward, and diagnosed with traumatic brain injury.
When asked what he thought would have happened if he had been a real detainee, Baker responded I think they would have busted him upI've seen detainees come outta there with blood on 'em. If there wasn't someone to say, 'I'm a U.S. soldier,' if you were speaking Arabic or Pashto or Urdu or some other language in the camp, we may never know what would have happened to that individual."
The four soldiers involved in the incident said in sworn statements to Army investigators that they thought they were engaged with an actual detainee, according to CBS.
Baker was medically discharged from the military earlier this year.
While the criminal investigation into the incident continues, CBS said the Army declined to comment on the incident.
In a statement, the Army said training procedures have changed and no U.S. soldiers have been injured since Baker.
November 03, 2004
3rd US Soldier Pleads Guilty in Abu Ghraib Abuse Scandal
At a summary court-martial in Iraq to reduced charges of dereliction of duty for failing to prevent or report the maltreatment, Army Specialist Megan Ambuhl, 30, pleaded guilty to one count of dereliction of duty in connection with the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, Reuters reports. The deal with prosecutors spared the reservist prison time.
As The New York Times reports, Ambuhl maintained she was primarily a bystander, and that the notorious prisoner abuses were carried out by other military guards in her unit.
Ambuhl - who is not pictured in the disturbing photos that alerted the world to the prisoner abuses at the U.S. run detention facility in Iraq - is one of two females charged in the abuses, and the third of seven Army reservists from the Maryland-based 372nd Military Police Company to plead guilty to prisoner abuse charges. Two other soldiers from Ambuhls reserve unit - Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick and Spec. Jeremy Sivits - previously plead guilty. Frederick was sentenced to eight years in prison after he pleaded guilty to five charges that included assault, committing an indecent act and dereliction of duty. Sivits was sentenced to a year in prison after pleading guilty to maltreating a detainee, conspiracy to maltreat and dereliction of duty.
As The Times reports, Ambuhl was convicted of having willfully failed to protect Iraqi detainees from abuse, cruelty and maltreatment, for which she received a reduction in rank to private, and was ordered to forfeit half a months pay. Under an agreement with prosecutors, initial charges of conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees and indecent acts were dropped. Ambuhl had faced up to 7-1/2 years in prison if convicted.
Hicks: GITMO Ordeal Pushing Him to Brink of Madness
In a letter sent to his family and released to Reuters, Australian terrorist suspect David Hicks expresses that as a result of his isolation and treatment, he is on the brink of madness.
Following widespread reports of prisoner abuses at U.S. detention facilities at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo - and earlier conversations with his father that he was in fact, mistreated by both Northern Alliance and U.S. soldiers Hicks reveals I feel as though Im teetering on the edge of losing my sanity after such a long ordeal, the last year of it being in isolation.
Ive reached the point where Im highly confused and lost, overwhelmed if you like. I suffer extreme mood swings every half hour, going from one extreme to another, he writes.
The decisions Im making, which are no doubt important, are often done without thought or sometimes care. All decisions are made in chains, including being chained to the floor.
Pressure, stress and bewilderment is a result of having a day or two visit after weeks of isolation.
While Hicks has been detained as an unlawful combatant for almost 3 years, he was only formally charged this past August. His father Terry Hicks said he witnessed his sons deteriorating mental state when he visited him in August, when he first appeared before the U.S. tribunal.
You could tell talking to him that he had lost that light in his eyes, that sparkle was definitely gone, and he was getting quiet distressed telling us about his mental side and the physical treatment, Terry Hicks said.
While he acknowledged his son looked physically fit, his mental state was nevertheless so fragile that he was concerned he might have said things in interrogations that could be used against him.
The elder Hicks averred, He is telling them what they want to hear.
Hicks father said he was surprised to receive the uncensored letter - dated August yet received only three weeks ago - because previous correspondence from his son had been censored by U.S. forces.
November 01, 2004
Military Commissions to Begin Today at Guantanamo
For the first time since the end of World War II, when they were used to try and execute Nazi saboteurs, military trials are scheduled to begin today for two al Qaeda suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
The first defendant is 29 year-old Australian David Hicks, a former cowboy and Muslim convert who fought alongside Islamic groups in Europe and Asia. Hicks is accused of conspiring with al Qaeda to attack civilians, attempting to murder American and coalition soldiers and aiding the enemy; he pleaded not guilty to all charges. The second defendant is 34 year-old Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Ladens driver. Hamden is charged with conspiring with the terror network to attack civilians. Hamdan denies he was a member of al Qaeda, and that he was ever engaged in terrorist activities.
If convicted, each man faces up to life in prison.
The tribunals - called military commissions by the Pentagon - historically have been used to prosecute enemy combatants who violate the laws of war. Following the September 11th attacks President Bush reinstated the commissions, and in accordance with Military Order of November 13, 2001, foreign enemy combatants - defined by the Pentagon as individuals who were part of, or supported the Taliban or al Qaeda, or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces - picked up in the War on Terror and in the interest of protecting national security, are subject to the commissions.
Endowed with extraordinary prosecutorial privileges - including but not limited to the power to bring hearsay evidence and to shield from the men the identities of their accusers - the tribunal system has become the subject of controversy. Having faced a barrage of legal challenges, its critics claim the system ignores advances and boundaries of military and international law respectively.
Comprised of a three-member Review Panel of Military Officers, only one - the tribunals presiding officer Army Colonel Peter Brownback - has prior experience as an attorney and judge, and will review the case for errors of law. The three will hear defense counsels arguments, and respond as both judge and jury.
While legal counsel for Hicks and Hamdan are also military appointees, they nevertheless dispute allegations that their clients were members of al Qaeda. It is expected that they will move to dismiss charges their clients were involved in terrorist activities against Americans and coalition forces. Likewise, the lawyers have filed 50 or so motions challenging virtually all aspects of the commission framework, from whether the court itself is legitimate, to whether membership in al Qaeda constitutes a war crime, Knight-Ridder reports.
As the Washington Times reports, the tribunals will move the defendants - who have been in U.S. custody for almost three years - closer to the trial phase, despite a possibility that on the eve of the presidential elections the entire tribunal system may be dismantled if President Bush does not win re-election.
Senator John Edwards has been quoted saying that if Senator John Kerry is elected, his administration would do away with the tribunals. While Senator Kerry has yet to delineate his policy for dealing with enemy combatants, his running mate Edwards has said it would be based on the military court-martial system rather than special commissions.
Regardless of tomorrows outcome, commanders at Guantanamo say they are following the orders of their commander in chief. Quite frankly, the commissions are going to proceed, detention and interrogations are going to proceed, said Army