PDA

View Full Version : Dubya responsible for Detainee Psyhosis - Ohh the Horror


FishForLunch
02-05-2005, 02:34 PM
U.N.: Detainees May Develop Psychosis

Fri Feb 4,11:20 AM ET World - AP Latin America


By SAM CAGE, Associated Press Writer

GENEVA - U.N. human rights experts Friday expressed concern about possible "irreversible psychiatric symptoms" developing among suspected terrorists entering a fourth year of virtual solitary confinement at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.



The experts on arbitrary detention noted allegations that detainees at Guantanamo may be subject to "inhuman and degrading treatment."


Human rights officials have expressed concern about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo.


A secret report obtained by The Associated Press found that guards punched some detainees, tied one to a gurney for questioning and forced a dozen to strip from the waist down. One squad was all-female, traumatizing some Muslim prisoners, according to the report that summarized what investigators saw when they viewed 20 hours of videotapes of the squads.


"The conditions of detention, especially of those in solitary confinement, place the detainees at significant risk of psychiatric deterioration, possibly including the development of irreversible psychiatric symptoms," the U.N. experts said in a statement. "Many of the inmates are completing their third year of virtually incommunicado detention, without legal assistance or information as to the expected duration of their detention."


The experts noted some positive developments at Guantanamo in 2004, including the release of a number of inmates. "These developments are, however, insufficient to dispel the serious concerns," they said.


U.S. authorities said they were treating the Guantanamo prisoners consistent with the Geneva Conventions, though they say the accords do not apply to the detainees, claiming they are "enemy combatants" as opposed to prisoners of war.


The experts noted that the conflicts in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites) both ended more than 18 months ago, yet prisoners are still being detained in violation of the Third Geneva Convention, which states that prisoners of war must be released "without delay after the end of hostilities."


"The legal basis for the continued detention of the Guantanamo Bay inmates is therefore unclear," they said. "In any event, many of them were arrested in countries which were not parties to any armed conflict involving the United States."


No immediate comment was available from the U.S. Mission to U.N. offices in Geneva, but American officials have previously said the detainees were being held because they are combatants against the United States in the global war on terrorism and not limited to any national conflict.


The number of the detainees and their names are still unknown, which "is extremely disconcerting and is conducive to the unacknowledged transfer of inmates to other, often secret, detention facilities," the experts noted.


They also said the lack of legal clarity over the prisoners' status left uncertainty as to how long they would be kept in detention.


The human rights officials have twice sought an invitation from the U.S. government to visit Guantanamo to examine the legal aspects of the detention. The United States has not yet agreed to the request, but "has indicated an interest in establishing a dialogue with the experts to consider the possibility of a visit," they said.

vinnieponte
02-05-2005, 03:44 PM
wow, even fish is against human rights. I guess it is either a republican thing, or a dubya thing. I'm to blaming bush for this one. Its the united states military's fault to let something like this go on. And most of the prisoners haven't ever been charged with any crime and have been there 2+ years!

FishForLunch
02-05-2005, 04:12 PM
Vinne must be really sad that the terrorists are being inconvienced. Here is a story about how the Iraqi police are tormenting the beheaders and kidnappers, this news must really upset the liberals. This is a fight for survival against those islamists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqi Police Use Kidnappers' Videos to Fight Crime
By CHRISTINE HAUSER

Published: February 5, 2005


MOSUL, Iraq, Feb. 4 - In one scene, the videotape shows three kidnappers with guns and a knife, preparing to behead a helpless man who is gagged and kneeling at their feet.

In the next, it is one of the kidnappers who is in detention, his eyes wide with fear, his lips trembling, as he speaks to his interrogators.


"How do I say this?" says the kidnapper, identified as an Egyptian named Abdel-Qadir Mahmoud, holding back tears. "I am sorry for everything I have done."

In the first week after the elections, the Iraqi Interior Ministry and the Mosul police chief are turning the tables on the insurgency here in the north by using a tactic - videotaped messages - that the insurgents have used time and again as they have terrorized the region with kidnappings and executions.

But this time the videos, which are being broadcast on a local station, carry an altogether different message, juxtaposing images of the masked killers with the cowed men they become once captured.

The broadcast of such videos raises questions about whether they violate legal or treaty obligations about the way opposing fighters are interrogated and how their confessions are made public.

Since thousands of Iraqi police officers fled their stations here in November under insurgent attacks, the American military has been working with the Iraqis to reconstitute the police force in Mosul. But it was not clear if American advisers had any influence on the decision to use the videos. American military officials did not have any immediate comment on the practice.

But officials in Mosul, short on manpower, apparently hope the psychological force of the broadcasts will help undermine the insurgency, making its fighters appear weak and encouraging citizens to call up with their reactions or information about those still at large. A program loosely based on "most wanted" crime shows in the United States is also being developed, a Mosul television official said.

"Because of their confessions and the disgusting things they did, we have reached our limit," said the Mosul police chief, Ahmed al-Jaburi. "There is no more patience."

If nothing more, the confessions, as they are called in the videos, offer a rare glimpse into how the gangs operate and plot their killings. The videos also try to divest the terrorists and criminals of their religious platform by challenging them with questions about Islam.

"These are men who do not fear God," an Interior Ministry official said at the beginning of one of the segments this week. He described the men as Iraqi and other Arab terrorists. "Our special forces will crush their filthy heads!"

"We are going to show you some men who have the blood of innocent people on their hands," the official said. "We are going to show you their confessions, say their names and those of their leaders, and we expect you to help us find them."

Some people said they found the practice of showing the insurgents on television troubling.

Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch said such tactics raised the issue of whether the people were tortured or otherwise coerced into making the statements.

Last week the organization issued a report based on interviews in Iraq that "found the abuse, torture and mistreatment of detainees by Iraqi security forces to be routine and commonplace," said Ms. Whitson, the executive director of the group's Middle Eastern division. For example, she said, the police often described detainees as guilty before any trial had occurred and made them available to journalists to be photographed.

It is not immediately clear what the officials intend to do with the detainees. Security officials said the men had been detained around Mosul during patrols based on leads.

Mr. Mahmoud's segment is especially dramatic. At one point it shows three masked kidnappers dressed in black, standing over their victim. The two on the sides point weapons at the victim's head as the man in the middle reads a statement.

When he is finished, he hands the paper to someone off camera and, without hesitation, draws a knife and grasps the victim's chin, pulling it to the side to expose his neck. The other two lean forward to help.

Then the video pauses. The voice of an Iraqi security official comes on. "That is Abdel-Qadir Mahmoud on the left," said the official, referring to one of the masked men. "And that is Mohammad Hikmat on the right."

The man identified as Mr. Mahmoud had been shown earlier in the video in a very different way than when he was displayed masked, armed and acting with bravado as he helped to kill a man on his knees.

"The coalition forces arrested me last April as one of Saddam's special forces," he said, sporting a scraggly beard, his eyes wide and a crease furrowing his brow. He was shown from the neck up, a plastic sheet forming a backdrop behind him.

"I met a man named Sheik Mahdi in jail," Mr. Mahmoud said. "When I was released, we met again. He was organizing four groups. They hung out at a pool hall."

He coughed a few times, then leaned his head on his right hand and put a finger to his temple as if trying to appear sincere or thoughtful.

"The operations were in the Mahmudiya area," he said, referring to a town south of Baghdad where guerrilla attacks are frequent. "They killed someone named Metwalli al-Masri, along with four engineers."

In another scene, a man who gave his name as Muataz Jawba sat in front of a tiled wall. The camera was fixed on him from the shoulders up. He was heavyset and had a thick moustache.

The commentator said he was part of a gang led by the "prince" of terrorists, Khaled Zakia, who was a colleague of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate of Al Qaeda.

Mr. Jawba's heavy-lidded eyes darted nervously from side to side. Whispering into a little microphone held to his lips, he said he had pointed out to the gang a Christian man who worked for the Americans.

"They chose a day to kill him," Mr. Jawba said.

The gang went to the man's restaurant and shot him. But they found out he survived after they sent a scout to the hospital pretending he wanted to donate blood. They then demanded a $10,000 ransom from the family, which the family paid, Mr. Jawba said.

"As a group, did you fast and pray?" the questioner said, referring to two requirements of practicing Muslims.

"Khaled came and fooled us," said Mr. Jawba. "He said it's jihad, it's occupation, come help us."

"Do you call this jihad?" the interrogator said.

"No," Mr. Jawba replied meekly.

"Is Khaled Zakia a religious man?" the questioner asked.

"He brainwashed us," Mr. Jawba said.

Another man was identified as one who pumped bullets into the head of a prone man with his hands bound behind his back. The commentator said insurgents thought the victim worked for Americans because a mineral-water bottle was found in his car.

In another segment, after mentioning that Iraqi security forces had engaged in a gun battle, an Iraqi official says, as if making a grim public service announcement: "This is how we will treat the people beheading you." The video then showed what appeared to be a body covered by a sheet.

Iraqis are invited to call with their reactions and information during the programs, of which there have been at least three this week. On one broadcast, emotional citizens called the number imposed over the image of Mr. Jawba on the screen.

"My nephew was killed a while back," said a caller from Dohuk, a Kurdish city north of Mosul. "His name was Hassan Ibrahim. Are they the guys who did it? Please ask them if they killed someone in Sanaa Street in Mosul."

A woman called up, sobbing. "Someone murdered my son, Abdel-Salam Hamoodi," she said. "He was murdered near our house. Just ask them if they killed him. I want you to give me the answer, to ease my heart."

dude1394
02-05-2005, 04:21 PM
eek...

vinnieponte
02-05-2005, 05:28 PM
Ok people lets talk about this for a moment. I believe that yes, we should hold & interview suspected terrorists and if we have proof & eveidence that they a) have commited a act of terrorism and b) were planning a attack, then yes we can and should hold them, I dont disagree with any republican or right wing person about that. But what we can't do is hold people without charging them for over 2 years along with no proof or eveidence that can sustain why their being held. It is injust, inhuman, and dead wrong to lock people up with no proof other than "we believe he poses a threat". How we get away with it is crazy to me, but it happens. And then on top of being locked up on a island for over 2 years without being charged, without being guilty, you have american soldiers beating you, violating you, and down stripping your dignity away by taking pictures of being pissed on, beaten on, and sexually harrased. I bet anyone here that if this was they other way around, every single one of you would be protesting across america, day & night news coverage and a all out war just on this. But since we do it, you call codone it. Think if your son or daughter was taken away, then never chargedm denied basic legal rights, and treated beyond your worst nightmares, and when you try everything to get that loved one back, you're told there is nothing you can do.

FishForLunch
02-06-2005, 01:37 AM
You mean those people in Guantanamo should all be given Trials at Tax payers expense like O.J Simpson, you must be kidding right!

vinnieponte
02-06-2005, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by: FishForLunch
You mean those people in Guantanamo should all be given Trials at Tax payers expense like O.J Simpson, you must be kidding right!

How can you have a trial when you haven't even been charged?

#1MavsFan
02-08-2005, 06:13 PM
Why not lock up all the republicans in office and let them rot in their jail cell's without ever being charged?

its the same thing.

FishForLunch
02-08-2005, 08:21 PM
Sure I understand Republicans and terrorists are the same. Liberal Morons

#1MavsFan
02-08-2005, 09:25 PM
wow. They're not proven terrorists, they're just in jail basically b/c of the color of their skin. They are not charged with anything and probably never will be since the goverment doesn't know what to charge them with or they already would have done so. They're just there as suspected terrorists with no evidence except the color of their skin. Racism?

mavsman55
02-09-2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by: #1MavsFan
wow. They're not proven terrorists, they're just in jail basically b/c of the color of their skin. They are not charged with anything and probably never will be since the goverment doesn't know what to charge them with or they already would have done so. They're just there as suspected terrorists with no evidence except the color of their skin. Racism?

Would you rather the risk of another 9-11 happening? Would that make you and your liberal friends happy?

Mavdog
02-09-2005, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by: mavsman55

Originally posted by: #1MavsFan
wow. They're not proven terrorists, they're just in jail basically b/c of the color of their skin. They are not charged with anything and probably never will be since the goverment doesn't know what to charge them with or they already would have done so. They're just there as suspected terrorists with no evidence except the color of their skin. Racism?

Would you rather the risk of another 9-11 happening? Would that make you and your liberal friends happy?

The principles of American justice should not be trampled on under the guise of "protecting" us. The slippery slope will ultimately leave all of us with fewer constitutional protections if actions such as this are allowed to continue. The SCOUS said as much when they ordered the Bush Administration to either charge the individuals being held or release them.

u2sarajevo
02-09-2005, 10:32 AM
It cracks me up how some here are dismissing the detainees as innocent bystanders. The reason they are there is because of their corroboration with known Terrorists....

If you deal with Terrorists, you are our enemy.


Get over it.

Mavdog
02-09-2005, 11:07 AM
The problem U2 is nobody really knows if many of these detainees were active with any terrorists. That is the point.

We should require that the case against them be presented to an independent court, not a scenario where no proof or evidence is required for these people to be held for years without being charged.

vinnieponte
02-11-2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
It cracks me up how some here are dismissing the detainees as innocent bystanders. The reason they are there is because of their corroboration with known Terrorists....

If you deal with Terrorists, you are our enemy.


Get over it.

U2, you're right, if you're "proven" to be associated with known terrorists, than yes there is room to be detained. But, we can't hold/detain people for years without charging them. Furthermore we subject them to the hell by our soilders by degrading them, denying them of their basic rights to a lawyer. This whole thing is a mess. We all wonder why "they" hate us so much, but dont even to think twice that it has something to do with the way we treat them. Charge them or release them, its basic law.

EricaLubarsky
02-11-2005, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
The problem U2 is nobody really knows if many of these detainees were active with any terrorists. That is the point.

We should require that the case against them be presented to an independent court, not a scenario where no proof or evidence is required for these people to be held for years without being charged.

That is something that we have to grapple with, and something that is more complex than the knee-jerk responses, whether they are "screw the terrorists. They have no rights" or "We have to release all prisoners"

We have to look at the new war, whether it is a self-fulfilling prophecy or not, and see whether the guys imprisoned could save lives, but we also need to keep our humanity and our eyes on the moral. Torture and improper imprisonment are never moral.

to tell you the truth, Im just as disgusted with those that are saying "who cares?" as I am with those that are spouting the obvious moral fact. It ain't that simple.

dude1394
02-11-2005, 08:39 PM
How do you handle people who were fighting with al queda, planning suicide missions, fighting without uniform, without country. Who do you "release" them to? They aren't soldiers of a country that you can pressure to control them? They aren't soldiers of a defeated country that is under your control?

As erica says, you can't just say that people who flought all accepted mores, legalities can be handled as a common criminal is.

You CAN make a case that these people should be tried in a military court and summarily executed, without that thought that you are somehow being an animal. However with the politics today, they would be helf up as victims of the evil US government.

What WILL happen however if this kind of legal challenges continue, is the us will nto accept control of any combatants. They will immediately be shipped off to another third-party that doesn't have the amount of hand-wringers we do here. There are worse consequences for these "detainees".

They deserve no geneva convention guarantees as they don't abide by them.

mavsman55
02-11-2005, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: mavsman55

Originally posted by: #1MavsFan
wow. They're not proven terrorists, they're just in jail basically b/c of the color of their skin. They are not charged with anything and probably never will be since the goverment doesn't know what to charge them with or they already would have done so. They're just there as suspected terrorists with no evidence except the color of their skin. Racism?

Would you rather the risk of another 9-11 happening? Would that make you and your liberal friends happy?

The principles of American justice should not be trampled on under the guise of "protecting" us. The slippery slope will ultimately leave all of us with fewer constitutional protections if actions such as this are allowed to continue. The SCOUS said as much when they ordered the Bush Administration to either charge the individuals being held or release them.


Sugar coat this all you want Mavdog, but this is simply a security measure that keeps us all safer. And there's no way you can disprove that human lives are more important than human feelings.

Mavdog
02-12-2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by: mavsman55

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: mavsman55

Originally posted by: #1MavsFan
wow. They're not proven terrorists, they're just in jail basically b/c of the color of their skin. They are not charged with anything and probably never will be since the goverment doesn't know what to charge them with or they already would have done so. They're just there as suspected terrorists with no evidence except the color of their skin. Racism?

Would you rather the risk of another 9-11 happening? Would that make you and your liberal friends happy?

The principles of American justice should not be trampled on under the guise of "protecting" us. The slippery slope will ultimately leave all of us with fewer constitutional protections if actions such as this are allowed to continue. The SCOUS said as much when they ordered the Bush Administration to either charge the individuals being held or release them.


Sugar coat this all you want Mavdog, but this is simply a security measure that keeps us all safer. And there's no way you can disprove that human lives are more important than human feelings.

"sugar coat"? you missed the point!

Your response is similar to what the German population expressed as the Nazis rounded up those who were labeled as dangerous...the jews, the gypsys, those who the government wished to remove from their society.

Our government MUST follow the basic rules of justice. Indefinite confinement without a hearing before a court is illegal, is dangerous, and should NEVER be condoned.

If the person being held is a danger, the government must show why. If they don't have the info on why they are presumed dangerous, why are they being held? Pretty simple concept really.

dude1394
02-12-2005, 08:18 AM
Okay...so what do you do with a terrorist captured in afghanistan or iraq on a battlefield? Who do you turn them over to? How will YOU prevent them from going right back there and killing more innocent people.

Since the guantanomo or iraqi terrorists didn't break any of the US laws who tries 'em?

mavsman55
02-12-2005, 10:25 AM
I didn't miss any points... I'm just not understanding the point you made claiming that letting potential terrorists run free at the stake of all of us becuase they haven't broken any American laws since they've been here. If a precaution needs to be taken to secure the safety of over 250 million people in the United States, there's no logical reason why we shouldn't take that precaution.

Which is worse... hurting people's feelings or ending people's lives?

Mavdog
02-12-2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Okay...so what do you do with a terrorist captured in afghanistan or iraq on a battlefield? Who do you turn them over to? How will YOU prevent them from going right back there and killing more innocent people.

Since the guantanomo or iraqi terrorists didn't break any of the US laws who tries 'em?

If a "terrorist [is] captured in Iraq or Afganistan on a battlefield" they'd easily be charged. That's all we're tslking about here- the obligation of the state to show why it is imprisioning someone.

dude1394
02-13-2005, 07:01 PM
From the great Mark Steyn talking about the algerian terrorist who is now so "depressed" that he's been released. LOL

On Culture front, we're losing war (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn13.html)

-----

But this surely illustrates the impossibility of fighting terror as a law enforcement operation. By Western standards, every Islamic terrorist is ''depressive'' -- for a start, as suicide bombers, they're suicidal. Sen. Kerry, you'll recall, thought terrorism should be like prostitution: a nuisance. But, if these court judgments are any indication, it seems to be more like German prostitution: They're free to do what they want, and with the full backing of the legal system.