Senator Patrick Leahy call for a truth and reconciliation commission:
We have just emerged from a time when White House officials
often acted as if they were above the law. That was wrong and
must be fully exposed so it never happens again.
That is why Senator Patrick Leahy has proposed the idea of a
truth and reconciliation commission to investigate abuses during
the Bush-Cheney Administration. These abuses may include the use
of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition,
and executive override of laws.
Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what
actually happened. The best way to move forward is getting to
the truth, finding out what happened, so we can make sure it
does not happen again.
Please join me by signing Senator Leahy's online petition at
here -- urging Congress to consider establishing a truth and reconciliation commission to
investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration's abuses.
Or, click the link below:
here
______
Do You Want the Truth on Torture?
Join our Facebook group in support of creating a truth commission to investigate torture: here
Last night, in his first White House primetime press conference, President Obama was asked about establishing a truth commission on torture. In responding, President Obama affirmed his commitment to end torture but he said that the best way to do so was only by "looking forward."
Though I have a great deal of respect for the actions the President took to close Guantanamo Bay and secret CIA detention facilities, I believe we need to fully investigate what went wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in order to ensure that these sorts of abuses do not take place again.
With Human Rights First, I have started a group on Facebook to show support for creating a truth commission to investigate torture. If you have a Facebook account, please join.
A truth commission can get to the bottom of questions that linger in the public debate such as:
* How useful have so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques been to U.S. forces?
* What have the costs been in strategic terms to the U.S. due to the use of these techniques?
* What policies and procedures were changed to allow for the use of torture?
To date, the United States has not conducted a full investigation into the use of torture by U.S. forces and security agencies. No one has stepped back to try and see the full picture, and to calculate the losses — in moral authority and American lives — of our national detour to the dark side.
Investigations have been conducted within agencies, rather than across them. Many have been hampered by a lack of authority and a lack of credibility. If we are truly going to fix this problem, we first need to have a full understanding of what went wrong.
If the commission were able to do its work effectively, and present its findings publicly, it could effectively end the debate over the use of torture in this country.
We established a Facebook group to provide a place where people can show support for a truth commission on torture. We also believe that the page will provide a chance for individuals to post their views on why this commission will — or might not — be in the best interests of the country. Please join the group and feel free to post a comment.
Right now the country is divided over the use of abusive interrogation techniques. Support for torture lingers. And some believe, as former Vice President Dick Cheney recently warned, that a future terror attack on America will be President Obama's "responsibility" because he took action to end some of President Bush's detention and interrogation policies.
In determining how "effective" torture may have been, the commission will have to also consider the strategic consequences of employing techniques that are, to quote Senator John McCain, "un-American." It ought to be possible to conduct a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis that examines the unintended consequences related to our actions. We know, for example, that Abu Ghraib was a boon to Al Qaeda recruiting. How much does the use of these "tools" undermine our efforts?
In order for this commission to be successful it must be made up of members with unimpeachable integrity who do not have a point to prove. It also must be armed with subpoena power. This commission must have the power — and the political will — to follow this story wherever it goes.
This is too important to leave half-finished. Though the President has taken action that will make us safer, questions linger that need to be answered.
Our country's greatness is supported by our willingness to take a serious and thorough look at our mistakes. While it may be unpleasant, not doing so would compound the error, and increase the chances that it will be repeated. If we do not take action the public debate over the use of these techniques will continue to surface. Our allies and our enemies will see us as a hypocritical nation that only lives up to its ideals when it is convenient. And future generations will look back and wonder why we looked the mistakes of the past square in the eye and blinked.
Torin Nelson is the President of the Society for Professional Human Intelligence. He is a sixteen-year veteran interrogator and Human Intelligence specialist. Among other locations he has served at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
A Call to End ALL Renditions By Marjorie Cohn
Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian residing in Britain, said he was tortured after being sent to Morocco and Afghanistan in 2002 by the U.S. government. Mohamed was transferred to Guantánamo in 2004 and all terrorism charges against him were dismissed last year. Mohamed was a victim of extraordinary rendition, in which a person is abducted without any legal proceedings and transferred to a foreign country for detention and interrogation, often tortured.
Mohamed and four other plaintiffs are accusing Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. of flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured. In Mohamed’s case, two British justices accused the Bush administration of pressuring the British government to block the release of evidence that was “relevant to allegations of torture” of Mohamed.
Twenty-five lines edited out of the court documents included details about how Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel as well as other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding “is very far down the list of things they did,” according to a British official quoted by the Telegraph (UK).
The plaintiffs’ complaint quotes a former Jeppesen employee as saying, “We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights – you know, the torture flights.” A senior company official also apparently admitted the company transported people to countries where they would be tortured.
Obama’s Justice Department appeared before a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday in the Jeppesen lawsuit. But instead of making a clean break with the dark policies of the Bush years, the Obama administration claimed the same “state secrets” privilege that Bush used to block inquiry into his policies of torture and illegal surveillance. Claiming that the extraordinary rendition program is a state secret is disingenuous since it is has been extensively documented in the media.
“This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course,” said the ACLU’s Ben Wizner, counsel for the five men.
If the judges accept Obama's state secrets claim, these men will be denied their day in court and precluded from any recovery for the damages they suffered as a result of extraordinary rendition.
Two and a half weeks before Obama’s representative appeared in the Jeppesen case, the new President had signed Executive Order 13491. It established a special task force “to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control.”
This order prohibits extraordinary rendition. It also ensures humane treatment of persons in U.S. custody or control. But it doesn’t specifically guarantee that prisoners the United States renders to other countries will be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that doesn’t amount to torture. It does, however, aim to ensure that our government’s practices of transferring people to other countries complies with U.S. laws and policies, including our obligations under international law.
One of those laws is the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty the United States ratified in 1992. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits the States Parties from subjecting persons “to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Human Rights Committee, which is the body that monitors the ICCPR, has interpreted that prohibition to forbid States Parties from exposing “individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.”
Order 13491 also mandates, “The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.” The order does not define “expeditiously” and the definitional section of the order says that the terms ‘detention facilities’ and ‘detention facility’ “do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.” Once again, “short term” and “transitory” are not defined.
In his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder categorically stated that the United States should not turn over an individual to a country where we have reason to believe he will be tortured. Leon Panetta, nominee for CIA director, went further and interpreted Order 13491 as forbidding “that kind of extraordinary rendition, where we send someone for the purposes of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values.”
But alarmingly, Panetta appeared to champion the same standard used by the Bush administration, which reportedly engaged in extraordinary rendition 100 to 150 times as of March 2005. After September 11, 2001, President Bush issued a classified directive that expanded the CIA’s authority to render terrorist suspects to other States. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the CIA and the State Department received assurances that prisoners will be treated humanely. “I will seek the same kinds of assurances that they will not be treated inhumanely,” Panetta told the senators.
Gonzales had admitted, however, “We can’t fully control what that country might do. We obviously expect a country to whom we have rendered a detainee to comply with their representations to us . . . If you’re asking me, ‘Does a country always comply?’ I don’t have an answer to that.”
The answer is no. Binyam Mohamed’s case is apparently the tip of the iceberg. Maher Arar, a Canadian born in Syria, was apprehended by U.S. authorities in New York on September 26, 2002, and transported to Syria, where he was brutally tortured for months. Arar used an Arabic expression to describe the pain he experienced: “you forget the milk that you have been fed from the breast of your mother.” The Canadian government later exonerated Arar of any terrorist ties. Thirteen CIA operatives were arrested in Italy for kidnapping an Egyptian, Abu Omar, in Milan and transporting him to Cairo where he was tortured.
Panetta made clear that the CIA will continue to engage in rendition to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects and transfer them to other countries. “If we capture a high-value prisoner,” he said, “I believe we have the right to hold that individual temporarily to be able to debrief that individual and make sure that individual is properly incarcerated.” No clarification of how long is “temporarily” or what “debrief” would mean.
When Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) asked about the Clinton administration’s use of the CIA to transfer prisoners to countries where they were later executed, Panetta replied, “I think that is an appropriate use of rendition.” Jane Mayer, columnist for the New Yorker, has documented numerous instances of extraordinary rendition during the Clinton administration, including cases in which suspects were executed in the country to which the United States had rendered them. Once when Richard Clarke, President Clinton’s chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council, “proposed a snatch,” Vice-President Al Gore said, “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.”
There is a slippery slope between ordinary rendition and extraordinary rendition. “Rendition has to end,” Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! “Rendition is a violation of sovereignty. It’s a kidnapping. It’s force and violence.” Ratner queried whether Cuba could enter the United States and take Luis Posada, the man responsible for blowing up a commercial Cuban airline in 1976 and killing 73 people. Or whether the United States could go down to Cuba and kidnap Assata Shakur, who escaped a murder charge in New Jersey.
Moreover, “renditions for the most part weren’t very productive,” a former CIA official told the Los Angeles Times. After a prisoner was turned over to authorities in Egypt, Jordan or another country, the CIA had very little influence over how prisoners were treated and whether they were ultimately released.
The U.S. government should disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001. Those who ordered renditions should be prosecuted. And the special task force should recommend, and Obama should agree to, an end to all renditions.
Labels: Barack Obama, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Torture, War on Terror
posted by Marjorie Cohn @ 4:00 PM See much more from Marjorie, who is President of the National Lawyers' Guild, USA, A professor of Law and written extensively. Her recent -Cowboy Republic- is a MUST READ! See here
Mohamed and four other plaintiffs are accusing Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. of flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured. In Mohamed’s case, two British justices accused the Bush administration of pressuring the British government to block the release of evidence that was “relevant to allegations of torture” of Mohamed.
Twenty-five lines edited out of the court documents included details about how Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel as well as other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding “is very far down the list of things they did,” according to a British official quoted by the Telegraph (UK).
The plaintiffs’ complaint quotes a former Jeppesen employee as saying, “We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights – you know, the torture flights.” A senior company official also apparently admitted the company transported people to countries where they would be tortured.
Obama’s Justice Department appeared before a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday in the Jeppesen lawsuit. But instead of making a clean break with the dark policies of the Bush years, the Obama administration claimed the same “state secrets” privilege that Bush used to block inquiry into his policies of torture and illegal surveillance. Claiming that the extraordinary rendition program is a state secret is disingenuous since it is has been extensively documented in the media.
“This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course,” said the ACLU’s Ben Wizner, counsel for the five men.
If the judges accept Obama's state secrets claim, these men will be denied their day in court and precluded from any recovery for the damages they suffered as a result of extraordinary rendition.
Two and a half weeks before Obama’s representative appeared in the Jeppesen case, the new President had signed Executive Order 13491. It established a special task force “to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control.”
This order prohibits extraordinary rendition. It also ensures humane treatment of persons in U.S. custody or control. But it doesn’t specifically guarantee that prisoners the United States renders to other countries will be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that doesn’t amount to torture. It does, however, aim to ensure that our government’s practices of transferring people to other countries complies with U.S. laws and policies, including our obligations under international law.
One of those laws is the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty the United States ratified in 1992. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits the States Parties from subjecting persons “to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Human Rights Committee, which is the body that monitors the ICCPR, has interpreted that prohibition to forbid States Parties from exposing “individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.”
Order 13491 also mandates, “The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.” The order does not define “expeditiously” and the definitional section of the order says that the terms ‘detention facilities’ and ‘detention facility’ “do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.” Once again, “short term” and “transitory” are not defined.
In his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder categorically stated that the United States should not turn over an individual to a country where we have reason to believe he will be tortured. Leon Panetta, nominee for CIA director, went further and interpreted Order 13491 as forbidding “that kind of extraordinary rendition, where we send someone for the purposes of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values.”
But alarmingly, Panetta appeared to champion the same standard used by the Bush administration, which reportedly engaged in extraordinary rendition 100 to 150 times as of March 2005. After September 11, 2001, President Bush issued a classified directive that expanded the CIA’s authority to render terrorist suspects to other States. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the CIA and the State Department received assurances that prisoners will be treated humanely. “I will seek the same kinds of assurances that they will not be treated inhumanely,” Panetta told the senators.
Gonzales had admitted, however, “We can’t fully control what that country might do. We obviously expect a country to whom we have rendered a detainee to comply with their representations to us . . . If you’re asking me, ‘Does a country always comply?’ I don’t have an answer to that.”
The answer is no. Binyam Mohamed’s case is apparently the tip of the iceberg. Maher Arar, a Canadian born in Syria, was apprehended by U.S. authorities in New York on September 26, 2002, and transported to Syria, where he was brutally tortured for months. Arar used an Arabic expression to describe the pain he experienced: “you forget the milk that you have been fed from the breast of your mother.” The Canadian government later exonerated Arar of any terrorist ties. Thirteen CIA operatives were arrested in Italy for kidnapping an Egyptian, Abu Omar, in Milan and transporting him to Cairo where he was tortured.
Panetta made clear that the CIA will continue to engage in rendition to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects and transfer them to other countries. “If we capture a high-value prisoner,” he said, “I believe we have the right to hold that individual temporarily to be able to debrief that individual and make sure that individual is properly incarcerated.” No clarification of how long is “temporarily” or what “debrief” would mean.
When Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) asked about the Clinton administration’s use of the CIA to transfer prisoners to countries where they were later executed, Panetta replied, “I think that is an appropriate use of rendition.” Jane Mayer, columnist for the New Yorker, has documented numerous instances of extraordinary rendition during the Clinton administration, including cases in which suspects were executed in the country to which the United States had rendered them. Once when Richard Clarke, President Clinton’s chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council, “proposed a snatch,” Vice-President Al Gore said, “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.”
There is a slippery slope between ordinary rendition and extraordinary rendition. “Rendition has to end,” Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! “Rendition is a violation of sovereignty. It’s a kidnapping. It’s force and violence.” Ratner queried whether Cuba could enter the United States and take Luis Posada, the man responsible for blowing up a commercial Cuban airline in 1976 and killing 73 people. Or whether the United States could go down to Cuba and kidnap Assata Shakur, who escaped a murder charge in New Jersey.
Moreover, “renditions for the most part weren’t very productive,” a former CIA official told the Los Angeles Times. After a prisoner was turned over to authorities in Egypt, Jordan or another country, the CIA had very little influence over how prisoners were treated and whether they were ultimately released.
The U.S. government should disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001. Those who ordered renditions should be prosecuted. And the special task force should recommend, and Obama should agree to, an end to all renditions.
Labels: Barack Obama, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Torture, War on Terror
posted by Marjorie Cohn @ 4:00 PM See much more from Marjorie, who is President of the National Lawyers' Guild, USA, A professor of Law and written extensively. Her recent -Cowboy Republic- is a MUST READ! See here
RESTORING: The Rule of Law (mostly US-related)
Welcome to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Are you concerned that the government's warrantless surveillance, detainee policies, and other post-9/11 laws and policies undermine our basic civil rights and liberties and make our country less safe? Join the Bill of Rights Defense Committee's national network of people who are taking meaningful action to restore protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.
5 Reasons Why We Must Keep Fighting
1. The damage done to constitutional protections, civil liberties, and human rights is extensive. Repairing the damage will be a long slow process, especially with the new administration focusing on the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. Historically, executive powers are often expanded but rarely reduced. It takes enormous pressure from the people to convince Congress and the President to reinstate the checks and balances required by the Constitution.
3. Congress has been complicit in the constitutional violations committed over the past seven years. To reverse these policies, implemented in the name of the “war on terror,” we must educate our congressional representatives and hold them accountable to their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.
4. President Obama has issued an executive order to close Guantánamo Bay detention center, but creating a process for trying and releasing the nearly 250 remaining prisoners that is constitutional, timely, and safe will be complicated and difficult after years of fear-mongering. We must provide vocal support for such efforts to counteract this culture of fear.
5. If we don’t fight to undo the damage to civil liberties, human rights, and other constitutional protections now, it will only get worse in the future.
Recent Threats to Liberties
President Obama Issues Executive Orders on Open Government, Guantánamo, Torture
In his first days in office, President Obama has given us reason to be hopeful about his intentions for civil liberties and constitutional protections: on his first day he instructed prosecutors to suspend trials at Guantánamo Bay, and on his second day he issued executive orders instructing his administration to “work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration,” and to “adopt a presumption in favor” of Freedom of Information Act requests. He also issued executive orders to shut down the Guantánamo Bay detention center within one year, to direct all U.S. personnel to follow U.S. Army Field Manual guidelines on the interrogation of suspects, and to end secret CIA imprisonment of terrorism suspects.
Unfortunately, these actions, which are discretionary and could be easily reversed in a time of perceived crisis, are not nearly enough. Obama’s actions on Guantánamo are an important first step, but they leave the door open for the creation or continuation of many problematic policies, such as the possibility of detaining so-called “enemy combatants” within the United States. Read more in BORDC's January newsletter.
FISA Ruling Approves Specific Use of Warrantless Wiretapping
On January 15, the FISA Court of Review made public an opinion approving a particular instance of warrantless wiretapping. An unnamed telecommunications company had sued the government to prevent it from violating the company's customers' privacy, but the court rejected the company's argument, and declared constitutional the specific application of the now-expired Protect America Act used in the case. Read more from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
BORDC (has MANY) Resources
UPDATED: The PATRIOT Act and American Business
BORDC has just updated our booklet detailing the ways that the PATRIOT Act and other laws and policies harm American business and how businesses can protect themselves and their clients' privacy from government intrusion. The latest version includes information on regulations going into effect in January 2009. Download The PATRIOT Act and American Business.
People's Campaign for the Constitution Toolkit
BORDC's initiative for the new Congress is the People's Campaign for the Constitution, a nationwide, nonpartisan, grassroots effort to hold Congressional representatives accountable to their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Our newly revised and streamlined toolkit for the People's Campaign is now available in printable form and, as always, online. For all of the above and more, please go to BORDC dot ORG
here
Subscribe to receive BORDC Action Alerts and e-newsletter. Newsletters and Action Alert Archives at above link and remember bordc dot org
Find news items in the post just below...
Are you concerned that the government's warrantless surveillance, detainee policies, and other post-9/11 laws and policies undermine our basic civil rights and liberties and make our country less safe? Join the Bill of Rights Defense Committee's national network of people who are taking meaningful action to restore protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.
5 Reasons Why We Must Keep Fighting
1. The damage done to constitutional protections, civil liberties, and human rights is extensive. Repairing the damage will be a long slow process, especially with the new administration focusing on the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. Historically, executive powers are often expanded but rarely reduced. It takes enormous pressure from the people to convince Congress and the President to reinstate the checks and balances required by the Constitution.
3. Congress has been complicit in the constitutional violations committed over the past seven years. To reverse these policies, implemented in the name of the “war on terror,” we must educate our congressional representatives and hold them accountable to their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.
4. President Obama has issued an executive order to close Guantánamo Bay detention center, but creating a process for trying and releasing the nearly 250 remaining prisoners that is constitutional, timely, and safe will be complicated and difficult after years of fear-mongering. We must provide vocal support for such efforts to counteract this culture of fear.
5. If we don’t fight to undo the damage to civil liberties, human rights, and other constitutional protections now, it will only get worse in the future.
Recent Threats to Liberties
President Obama Issues Executive Orders on Open Government, Guantánamo, Torture
In his first days in office, President Obama has given us reason to be hopeful about his intentions for civil liberties and constitutional protections: on his first day he instructed prosecutors to suspend trials at Guantánamo Bay, and on his second day he issued executive orders instructing his administration to “work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration,” and to “adopt a presumption in favor” of Freedom of Information Act requests. He also issued executive orders to shut down the Guantánamo Bay detention center within one year, to direct all U.S. personnel to follow U.S. Army Field Manual guidelines on the interrogation of suspects, and to end secret CIA imprisonment of terrorism suspects.
Unfortunately, these actions, which are discretionary and could be easily reversed in a time of perceived crisis, are not nearly enough. Obama’s actions on Guantánamo are an important first step, but they leave the door open for the creation or continuation of many problematic policies, such as the possibility of detaining so-called “enemy combatants” within the United States. Read more in BORDC's January newsletter.
FISA Ruling Approves Specific Use of Warrantless Wiretapping
On January 15, the FISA Court of Review made public an opinion approving a particular instance of warrantless wiretapping. An unnamed telecommunications company had sued the government to prevent it from violating the company's customers' privacy, but the court rejected the company's argument, and declared constitutional the specific application of the now-expired Protect America Act used in the case. Read more from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
BORDC (has MANY) Resources
UPDATED: The PATRIOT Act and American Business
BORDC has just updated our booklet detailing the ways that the PATRIOT Act and other laws and policies harm American business and how businesses can protect themselves and their clients' privacy from government intrusion. The latest version includes information on regulations going into effect in January 2009. Download The PATRIOT Act and American Business.
People's Campaign for the Constitution Toolkit
BORDC's initiative for the new Congress is the People's Campaign for the Constitution, a nationwide, nonpartisan, grassroots effort to hold Congressional representatives accountable to their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Our newly revised and streamlined toolkit for the People's Campaign is now available in printable form and, as always, online. For all of the above and more, please go to BORDC dot ORG
here
Subscribe to receive BORDC Action Alerts and e-newsletter. Newsletters and Action Alert Archives at above link and remember bordc dot org
Find news items in the post just below...
CURRENT items related to Rights & The Rule of Law (mostly US, Canada & Britain)
Most of the following items are from The Bill of Rights Defense Committee which is way on top as far as sites which look daily at what's going down up or staying the same with the US Bill of Rights/Constitution and related...I have added several more from other sources right after Marjorie Cohn's urgent article in the post above and after the following from The BORDC - unless otherwise indicated, find the following by going:
here
Any older items which may not still be in the bordc dot org archives can be easily looked-up on a search engine...
Feb 11, 2009, Globe and Mail (Canada), Opposition urges Khadr's return
Feb 11, 2009, The Independent (UK), Inside Guantanamo: the diary of Binyam Mohamed
Feb 11, 2009, Wayne Madsen, Online Journal, NSA's meta-data email surveillance program exposed
Feb 11, 2009, Jordan Weissmann, BLT: Blog of Legal Times, Federal Judge Says Courts Cannot Rule On Detainee Treatment
Feb 10, 2009, Peter Finn, Washington Post, Justice Dept. Uses 'State Secrets' Defense
Feb 10, 2009, Safiya Boucaud, Jurist, DOJ urges court not to define 'enemy combatant'
Feb 10, 2009, Marjorie Cohn, Jurist, A Call to End All Renditions
2/10, Robert Mackey, New York Times, Hunger Strikes Continue at Guantánamo
2/10, The Atlantic, The Binyam Mohamed Case
2/10, United Press International, ACLU: Obama now accountable for rendition
2/10, Julian E. Barnes and David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times, Miranda rule may hamper detainee trials
2/10, Julie Farby, All Headline News, Leahy Proposes "Truth Commission" To Investigate Bush Administration
2/10, Daphne Eviatar, Washington Independent, Time Is Running Out
2/9, Jonathan Horowitz, Jurist, Gumshoeing in Kabul: Lessons for US Detention Policy
2/9, Peter Goldsmith, Jurist, Europe must help US close Guantanamo: UK ex-AG Goldsmith
Unless otherwise indicated, find the items above by going:
here or by search engine
here
Any older items which may not still be in the bordc dot org archives can be easily looked-up on a search engine...
Feb 11, 2009, Globe and Mail (Canada), Opposition urges Khadr's return
Feb 11, 2009, The Independent (UK), Inside Guantanamo: the diary of Binyam Mohamed
Feb 11, 2009, Wayne Madsen, Online Journal, NSA's meta-data email surveillance program exposed
Feb 11, 2009, Jordan Weissmann, BLT: Blog of Legal Times, Federal Judge Says Courts Cannot Rule On Detainee Treatment
Feb 10, 2009, Peter Finn, Washington Post, Justice Dept. Uses 'State Secrets' Defense
Feb 10, 2009, Safiya Boucaud, Jurist, DOJ urges court not to define 'enemy combatant'
Feb 10, 2009, Marjorie Cohn, Jurist, A Call to End All Renditions
2/10, Robert Mackey, New York Times, Hunger Strikes Continue at Guantánamo
2/10, The Atlantic, The Binyam Mohamed Case
2/10, United Press International, ACLU: Obama now accountable for rendition
2/10, Julian E. Barnes and David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times, Miranda rule may hamper detainee trials
2/10, Julie Farby, All Headline News, Leahy Proposes "Truth Commission" To Investigate Bush Administration
2/10, Daphne Eviatar, Washington Independent, Time Is Running Out
2/9, Jonathan Horowitz, Jurist, Gumshoeing in Kabul: Lessons for US Detention Policy
2/9, Peter Goldsmith, Jurist, Europe must help US close Guantanamo: UK ex-AG Goldsmith
Unless otherwise indicated, find the items above by going:
here or by search engine
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
BREAKING: A Call to Return Khadr to Canada (with 691 + comments)
For the article at The Globe and Mail, please Go:
here
here
Binyam Mohamed's Diary with Reader's Comments
This is from The Independent UK published on Wednesday February 09, 2009
Binyam Mohamed claims the US (originally) took him to Morocco to be tortured
No breakfast or lunch from 10 Dec to 29 Dec 2008.
Mon 29 Dec Informed corpsman (US Navy medic) about my full hunger strike.
Tue 30 Dec Took dinner as hunger strike was pushed to 5th Jan. Blue pens were changed to black, new SOP [Standard Operating Procedures].
Mon 5 Jan Told by corpsman nurse my ideal weight was 168lbs.
Thu 8 Jan About 15:30 FCE [Force Cell Extraction] of brother, and his beating up and move to hospital for facial injury and broken wrist. [Prisoner was Ahmed Abdul Aziz from other unclassified source.]
Fri 9 Jan After days of request for medical to take interest in the hunger strikes since 5 Jan, a physician Capt came and asked why we were on hunger strike.
Cell and locker search – two papers taken, my Nov & Dec pray schedules.
Shower rule changed.
Mon 12 Jan Habeas envelopes or papers are being taken away for a period of 5 days cause they are being used to cover the strong lights and the AC vent due to the cold.
Tue 13 Jan At about 10:00, woke up from sleep and shortly after fell. Was taken to the med room and after a vital test given 2 bags of IV (saline solution), the physician came and said to me that I would be tube-fed if I continue missing meals, after taking more vitals she said that I was dizzy and dehydrated and my sugar level was low (68) so she said could not await the SJA [Staff Judge Advocate – a government lawyer] to resolve my issue and may have to tube-feed me for today and she was putting me on the list of those to be tube-fed. She was going to tell her higher-ups to start tube-feeding. I was given another bag of IV total (3 bags) then I was ready to get back to my cell but as I got up I felt faint so I was left for another 10 min and another vital was taken. My temp was 94 and when it got to 95 I was returned back to my cell.
Wed 14 Jan Weighed at 13:30 and weight was 127 without shackles I had weighed 124 with shackles on.
At about 14:45, the physician Capt was on the block talking to the brother whose food was sorted so I asked to speak to her so she came and I told her about my swelling knees and that the IV went to my body and it was a sign of trouble. She told me that I was on the list for tube-feeding and it wasn't long before they did it... I told her to delay the tube for as long as she could but she said once the decision is taken to tube-feed me - she would.
At about 16:15 I was taken to tube-feeding without warning I was strapped to a chair and moved from block to block and tube-fed there for about 20 min. They weighed me at 129 with shackles after tube-feeding...
Fri 16 Jan Tube at 08:00 to 10:00. One of the brothers on tube was FCE'd because of the tea issue. The nurse said that no cafine [sic] so they are talking to the SMO (senior medical officer) who's talking to the admin to allow us to get coffee and tea.
SMO still refuse to give me lactalose [sic] though I am constipated. Weighed at about 14:00 – 127 without shackles – feeding from 16:10-16:45 about 25 min feeding very quick today.
Sat 17 Jan 06:00 according to norm calculations I should be between – 168 to 186 pounds. I was below my norm weight by at least 40 pounds, 121 pounds, before they considered me for tube feeding. I am at zero fat at 130 pounds let alone 121. At 6.0294 feet = 1.87 metres the ideal weight should be between 168-188 pounds depending on bone structure. I am considered light bone build.
09:00 went for tube feeding. weighed in at 128.5 with shackles (2.8) = 125.7 without shackles...
16:30 feeding and given another lactalose [sic], blood withdrawn & told I had to sit on the chair until 18:30 (2 hrs). After a heated argument I was taken back to my cell at 17:43 prayer time 17:42 they had refused me the right to pray but I told them if I don't get to pray then they can get the FCE team.
Sun 18 Jan 01:00 woke up in the middle of the night with pain in my stomach constipated ... my stomach was bloated and had difficulty sleeping.
06:00 Took an apple to help me with my stomach problem. was given coffee and I asked the AOIC (Administrative Officer In Charge) to talk with him about prayer issue.
Weight 127.9lbs with shackles
Mon 19 Jan 05:30 another sleepless night. At 09:00 taken to feed. spoke to AOIC about why I had to stay strapped for 2 hours after feeding and why 6-point strap if I am coming out compliant. I had to use the toilet and was almost urinating on myself because I had to stay until 11:00
Wed 21 Jan 10:00: I took shower and was refused soap. When I asked why I was told I was on a soap loss.
Thu 22 Jan on Tue 20th a brother told me that in the British media it was reported that I was expected home soon. Another brother told the same news about me on Wed.
At about 12:00 I was put on dis (discipline or disciplinary) one. I don't know why and I haven't asked. There is about 5-6 brothers on soap loss.
Fri 23 Jan At 08:35 I was taken for feeding weight lb = 127.1 with shackles, 124.3 without. One of the brothers was FCE'd to the chair and they could not feed him as they could not stick the tube down his nose. Reason was because they disciplined the hunger strikers for peaceful hunger strike. I saw C7 & told him that the OIC [officer in command] said no more discipline except if you did something. After checking he came back and said I was correct. I was returned back to my cell and I found my stuff being taken then returned and they brought me orange linen.
At 16:00 taken for feeding, there was a Capt Navy watching us tube-fed. The watch commander of dayshift said to me that FCE means we beat you up because you are not complying. The brother who was FCE'd in the morning was complaining about being hit in his chest and knees. We waited until night shift w/c came and we told him to write a report... 13:00 Moved cells. The room I was put in had spots of feces [sic] on the light and the walls... At 19:35 we was moved back from as they had finished extermination.
Sun 25 Jan at 08:25 taken for feeding. Vitals = 86/52, heart 62 told that the doctors says my blood pressure is fine through low. Weighed 129.4 with shackles...
Mon 26 Jan I told the AOIC about the shower issue and explained to him about the privacy we needed while taking showers he said he would talk to his people to stop harassing us while we were in the showers as long as they could see our heads and necks... The brother FCE'd a few day[s] ago showed me the scar on his chest.
At 18:35 dinner, I took dessert, salad, apple, dates, the guard were now passing extras.
Wed 28 Jan This morning at feeding the nurse put the tube in my lungs and after an air check she had to pull the tube out & try again. When the second time worked I told her she had stuck the tube in my lungs she said it usually happens and that['s] why they do an air check. I told the AOIC who was watching the incident about it and all he could say was everything was fine now.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
How do humans do it?
ejh16 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 01:17 am (UTC)
When I read about inhuman treatment like this or Israel's terrorism against the Palestinians or My Lai or Nanjing or Rwanda, etc., etc. I am amazed with the strength of the victims. How do people withstand such abuse? How do the survive? Obviously, they are scarred for life, but I do not believe that I, in the same situation, would have the strength to make it out at all.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 03:10 am (UTC)
This mans treatment, along with many others in Guantanamo, is definately barbaric and we must learn that we cannot defeat the terrorists and extremists by sinking down to their level. If we abdicate and derogate from our core values then the terrorists are winning because they are forcing us to give up those freedoms we value most.
To EHJ16:
Equating the Israeli/Palestininian conflict with Rwanda is disingenious in the extreme. In Rwanda there were up to a million people killed in up to 100 days of fighting. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict hasnt had even 1% of that in the last 10 years. The two tragedies are on a completely different scale.
There is a huge amount of wrong commited by both sides in the conflict between Israelis/Palestinians and both sides need to stop the violence and begin genuine and substantial negotiations.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 03:37 am (UTC)
Scale is not the point. My point is simply that...when humans are cruel to others (undeniably the case in Israel/Palestine), I find it amazing what the surviving victims are able to overcome. The numbers are irrelevant in this case. I am thinking of it on an individual level.
As for the issue of "wrong committed by both sides in the conflict between Israelis/Palestinians", this is of course true but that does not mean it is a balanced situation or that both sides have the power to fix it. The Israelis are the oppressors and the Palestinians are the oppressed. Some of the oppressed react in ways that are unacceptable, but before a person condemns the Palestinians, even the "terrorists", they should ask themselves, honestly, what would they do in the same situation.
The Israeli hold all the cards and can end the conflict whenever it suits them. If I throw you on the ground and put my boot on your neck, it would not make the situation balanced if you reach up and pull some hairs out of my leg. Yes, it would be a sort of conflict, but I, like the Israelis, would be in complete control even if my leg hurt a little.
http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
Re: Disgusting
asonberg wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 05:19 am (UTC)
I am sorry but we really must get away from the fallacy that oppression/poverty cause or legitimise terrorism. Many people around the world are brutally oppressed by various regimes without turning to terrorism. Many countries around the world are subject to severe poverty without people turning to violence and terrorism.
The root causes of terrorism nearly always boil down to 2 things; geograhical disputes over land and/or ideological differences which are most often religious in nature. Sometimes, as in the case of Israel/Palestine, its both.
You do the palestinians no favours by abdicating their power and responsibility for their own situation. They elected a terrorist organisation into government. A government which refuses to recognise the right of Israel to exist. Israel pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago and did the palestinians respond in kind? No. They used Gaza to fire even more rockets. Hamas has sought to pick a fight it cannot win with a more powerful neighbour. The palestinians have been the recipients of huge amounts of aid money. That money could have been put to better use than smuggling weapons and rockets. The palestinians have a great deal more power over their own destiny than you are acknowledging.
Similarly, Israel has made huge mistakes. The inhumanity and daily humiliation of palestinians by the excessive use of checkpoints, even in the west bank, is outrageous. The continued expansion of the illegal settlements. Even the use of cluster bombs in the Lebanon war of 2006. They also bear a huge amount of responsibility for the stalling of the peace talks before Hamas came to power.
That said, however, Israel cannot unilaterally end the conclict whenever it suits them as you claim. Until Hamas either accept Israels right to exist, or the palestinian people decide to remove them, this conflict with continue. You can't negotiate with an organisation sworn to your annihilation and destruction.
The only workable solution is to have a prosperious, viable Palestinian state and an Israel safe and secure in her borders.
Re: Disgusting
yuchuse wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 10:55 pm (UTC)
Berg,
The fact is, the creation of Israel was and continues to be an ongoing act of terrorism. How can Israeli security be guaranteed when the basic rights of self-determination were and continue to be forcibly stolen from the palestinians? The reality is that when the basic human rights of palestinians are restored and secured can then Israel ensure its own legitimacy. Poverty does not legitimise terrorism when it is a form of terrorism; the creation or infliction of it on population to serve the interests of its rulers is simply terrorism in itself. Yes the Palestinians have done no favours by allowing the process of a corrupt 'divide and rule' to be sown amongst themselves in which Israel 'by way of deception' may well have had an instrumental role if not a predominant one. The world has come to understand the Israeli agenda to have the palestinians 'serve' the Israeli 'master state' and as a democratically elected Hamas(according to UN monitors) 'will not come to heel' it must be 'protrayed' as a terrorist organisation. For those who understand the Palestinian identity of a 'state of injustice being worse than a state of war' will advise that the they seem to be increasingly a people who are prepared to live by that principle. It seems Israel finds it quite acceptable to exsist on the graveyard of Palestine.
How do humans do it?
nled63 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 03:20 am (UTC)
ejh16, it's possible that Binyam Mohamed might have expressed sentiments similar to your own before he actually found himself in the situation he describes in his diary. Human beings are remarkable mammals; exactly what the potential for survival is in any one case is extremely difficult to determine until situations become critical enough to prompt authentic action. Human beings often crumple under such circumstances, but many, like Mohamed, do not. It is hardly helpful for any tormentor to see his or her victim emerge, not as a hapless, easily-disposable victim, but as a hero. Torture & inhuman treatment never works if only for this reason - That torture always contains the potential for creating unlikely & unexpected heroes.
NLED63
Re: How do humans do it?
eltesoroag wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 05:31 am (UTC)
You Europeans are spineless! All these tears you shed over muslim terrorists who helped murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9-11, not to mention the degredation and inhumane cruelty they inflicted on the Afghanistan people, is repulsive. There really is something wrong with your priorites, or lack there of.
Have any of you fools heard of 9-11, Bali, 7-7, Beslan, and Mumbai? All mass murders committed by charming muslims not unlike this Binyam Mohamed. You are all Dhimmis (second class citizens) to the vary people who are terrorizing you.
Live Free or Die!
Re: How do humans do it?
jochebed2 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 07:13 am (UTC)
Binyam Mohamed has never been tried for anything or convicted of anything. He HAS been tortured both by the Americans and their proxies. And there is no such thing as "collective guilt" (of ALL Muslims for 9/11, Bali...is that what you are implying?) At worst he is a SUSPECT sold to the US in Pakistan, and if Cheney suspects you that doesn't automatically mean you are guilty of anything, nor does it justify torture and false imprisonment. Just because Dick Cheney consciously "went to the dark side" and ordered arbitrariness and sadism against every Muslim male he and his goons could grab, that doesn't make it right, on the contrary as the Bush/Cheney administration profited financially from the torture/rendition/false imprisonment and the two invasions on a false prospectus. Binyam Mohamed must be returned to Britain, his country of asylum, immediately.
Illegal"resident"
gymratone wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 07:58 am (UTC)
Whatever the accuracy of this diary maybe this man attempted to enter the UK illegally in 2000. He was,for some unknown reason given leave to stay. He then eventually decided he needed to sort out his personal problems(inc,apparently a drug habit)so went walkabout in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obviously a first rate man.I am a bit puzzled as to why he is our problem and obviously costing tax payers money. We really have turned into a very bizarre country.
doug_piranha wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 08:08 am (UTC)
Maybe I am being unkind - but when people like this are accused by the authorities - the word "alleged" is inserted before any crime or action.
Have you any proof that this man is telling the truth ?
Hunger Strike
abudarab wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 08:25 am (UTC)
Would it have been more huumane to let him starve himself to death? He would then at least have gone to Paradise as a Shaheed.
Acce of evil
dkayedon wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 09:47 am (UTC)
We are the "good guys" and the heads, our heads voted in democratically.
how do humans do it?
retox_bob wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 01:23 pm (UTC)
i cant quite see the torture in binyam mohammed`s diary. apart from the unpleasant description of the treatment of his decision to hunger strike there appears to be no other ill treament of this bloke other than what we do to people that suffer with anorexia when all treatments have failed.
Treatment
gerryj wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 05:47 pm (UTC)
Binyam Mohamed was captured in a war zone. He wasn't forced to go there against his will and he was therefore actively engaged as an enemy combatant against the United States. Therefore he is NOT INNOCENT.
All the abuse he writes about and your headline chronicles is self inflicted due to his self imposed hunger strike, even if it's all true which is questionable.
How do you find sympathy for that person? He's able to eat better, keep cleaner and live healthier at our expense than he ever was capable of on the battle field or, apparently, in London which he left.
You Europeans complain about GITMO yet you won't take your own citizens back. We wish you'd take them back. If you do please be advised that you'll have to jail him or give him housing and food on your welfare/social assistance program if you let him run free and place a 24 hour 7 day per week guard on him to prevent him from leaving the country or blowing up or poisoning your busses and subways.
Until you do that, along with all the other nations who's terrorist citizens are now living in clean, safe conditions and being well fed at our expense, please just say thank you for keeping you safe from these terrorists then sit down and shut up.
An American Citizen
There are so many more stories like this
beth_100 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 10:41 pm (UTC)
This is but a small part of one man's Guantanamo story - there are so many more men reduced to mere numbers by the American Military being detained without trial. Year and years of torture, interrogation and abuse.
Mahvish Khan details so many of their stories in her book:
My Guantanamo Diary: the detainees and the stories they told me
I saw her on a panel at the Brisbane Writer's Festival in 2008 and was overwhelmed by the stories she shared and the fact that something so vile and inhumane could happen in my lifetime.
For me this book has been such an eye-opener. I won't pretend I wasn't aware these things were going on, but the scale and extent of them I simply could never have imagined.
And like others posting comments, I am astounded by the strngth of spirit these men possess and their ability to divorce the American people from the actions of their government.
Obama has a huge and complex task ahead of him with Guantanamo, but I do so hope that the Afgan men I read about in Mahvish Khan's book are able to go home to their families - relocating them somewhere else is not what they've been dreaming about during all their years of imprisonment. Real freedom is the freedom to return home.
Binyam Mohamed claims the US (originally) took him to Morocco to be tortured
No breakfast or lunch from 10 Dec to 29 Dec 2008.
Mon 29 Dec Informed corpsman (US Navy medic) about my full hunger strike.
Tue 30 Dec Took dinner as hunger strike was pushed to 5th Jan. Blue pens were changed to black, new SOP [Standard Operating Procedures].
Mon 5 Jan Told by corpsman nurse my ideal weight was 168lbs.
Thu 8 Jan About 15:30 FCE [Force Cell Extraction] of brother, and his beating up and move to hospital for facial injury and broken wrist. [Prisoner was Ahmed Abdul Aziz from other unclassified source.]
Fri 9 Jan After days of request for medical to take interest in the hunger strikes since 5 Jan, a physician Capt came and asked why we were on hunger strike.
Cell and locker search – two papers taken, my Nov & Dec pray schedules.
Shower rule changed.
Mon 12 Jan Habeas envelopes or papers are being taken away for a period of 5 days cause they are being used to cover the strong lights and the AC vent due to the cold.
Tue 13 Jan At about 10:00, woke up from sleep and shortly after fell. Was taken to the med room and after a vital test given 2 bags of IV (saline solution), the physician came and said to me that I would be tube-fed if I continue missing meals, after taking more vitals she said that I was dizzy and dehydrated and my sugar level was low (68) so she said could not await the SJA [Staff Judge Advocate – a government lawyer] to resolve my issue and may have to tube-feed me for today and she was putting me on the list of those to be tube-fed. She was going to tell her higher-ups to start tube-feeding. I was given another bag of IV total (3 bags) then I was ready to get back to my cell but as I got up I felt faint so I was left for another 10 min and another vital was taken. My temp was 94 and when it got to 95 I was returned back to my cell.
Wed 14 Jan Weighed at 13:30 and weight was 127 without shackles I had weighed 124 with shackles on.
At about 14:45, the physician Capt was on the block talking to the brother whose food was sorted so I asked to speak to her so she came and I told her about my swelling knees and that the IV went to my body and it was a sign of trouble. She told me that I was on the list for tube-feeding and it wasn't long before they did it... I told her to delay the tube for as long as she could but she said once the decision is taken to tube-feed me - she would.
At about 16:15 I was taken to tube-feeding without warning I was strapped to a chair and moved from block to block and tube-fed there for about 20 min. They weighed me at 129 with shackles after tube-feeding...
Fri 16 Jan Tube at 08:00 to 10:00. One of the brothers on tube was FCE'd because of the tea issue. The nurse said that no cafine [sic] so they are talking to the SMO (senior medical officer) who's talking to the admin to allow us to get coffee and tea.
SMO still refuse to give me lactalose [sic] though I am constipated. Weighed at about 14:00 – 127 without shackles – feeding from 16:10-16:45 about 25 min feeding very quick today.
Sat 17 Jan 06:00 according to norm calculations I should be between – 168 to 186 pounds. I was below my norm weight by at least 40 pounds, 121 pounds, before they considered me for tube feeding. I am at zero fat at 130 pounds let alone 121. At 6.0294 feet = 1.87 metres the ideal weight should be between 168-188 pounds depending on bone structure. I am considered light bone build.
09:00 went for tube feeding. weighed in at 128.5 with shackles (2.8) = 125.7 without shackles...
16:30 feeding and given another lactalose [sic], blood withdrawn & told I had to sit on the chair until 18:30 (2 hrs). After a heated argument I was taken back to my cell at 17:43 prayer time 17:42 they had refused me the right to pray but I told them if I don't get to pray then they can get the FCE team.
Sun 18 Jan 01:00 woke up in the middle of the night with pain in my stomach constipated ... my stomach was bloated and had difficulty sleeping.
06:00 Took an apple to help me with my stomach problem. was given coffee and I asked the AOIC (Administrative Officer In Charge) to talk with him about prayer issue.
Weight 127.9lbs with shackles
Mon 19 Jan 05:30 another sleepless night. At 09:00 taken to feed. spoke to AOIC about why I had to stay strapped for 2 hours after feeding and why 6-point strap if I am coming out compliant. I had to use the toilet and was almost urinating on myself because I had to stay until 11:00
Wed 21 Jan 10:00: I took shower and was refused soap. When I asked why I was told I was on a soap loss.
Thu 22 Jan on Tue 20th a brother told me that in the British media it was reported that I was expected home soon. Another brother told the same news about me on Wed.
At about 12:00 I was put on dis (discipline or disciplinary) one. I don't know why and I haven't asked. There is about 5-6 brothers on soap loss.
Fri 23 Jan At 08:35 I was taken for feeding weight lb = 127.1 with shackles, 124.3 without. One of the brothers was FCE'd to the chair and they could not feed him as they could not stick the tube down his nose. Reason was because they disciplined the hunger strikers for peaceful hunger strike. I saw C7 & told him that the OIC [officer in command] said no more discipline except if you did something. After checking he came back and said I was correct. I was returned back to my cell and I found my stuff being taken then returned and they brought me orange linen.
At 16:00 taken for feeding, there was a Capt Navy watching us tube-fed. The watch commander of dayshift said to me that FCE means we beat you up because you are not complying. The brother who was FCE'd in the morning was complaining about being hit in his chest and knees. We waited until night shift w/c came and we told him to write a report... 13:00 Moved cells. The room I was put in had spots of feces [sic] on the light and the walls... At 19:35 we was moved back from as they had finished extermination.
Sun 25 Jan at 08:25 taken for feeding. Vitals = 86/52, heart 62 told that the doctors says my blood pressure is fine through low. Weighed 129.4 with shackles...
Mon 26 Jan I told the AOIC about the shower issue and explained to him about the privacy we needed while taking showers he said he would talk to his people to stop harassing us while we were in the showers as long as they could see our heads and necks... The brother FCE'd a few day[s] ago showed me the scar on his chest.
At 18:35 dinner, I took dessert, salad, apple, dates, the guard were now passing extras.
Wed 28 Jan This morning at feeding the nurse put the tube in my lungs and after an air check she had to pull the tube out & try again. When the second time worked I told her she had stuck the tube in my lungs she said it usually happens and that['s] why they do an air check. I told the AOIC who was watching the incident about it and all he could say was everything was fine now.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
How do humans do it?
ejh16 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 01:17 am (UTC)
When I read about inhuman treatment like this or Israel's terrorism against the Palestinians or My Lai or Nanjing or Rwanda, etc., etc. I am amazed with the strength of the victims. How do people withstand such abuse? How do the survive? Obviously, they are scarred for life, but I do not believe that I, in the same situation, would have the strength to make it out at all.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 03:10 am (UTC)
This mans treatment, along with many others in Guantanamo, is definately barbaric and we must learn that we cannot defeat the terrorists and extremists by sinking down to their level. If we abdicate and derogate from our core values then the terrorists are winning because they are forcing us to give up those freedoms we value most.
To EHJ16:
Equating the Israeli/Palestininian conflict with Rwanda is disingenious in the extreme. In Rwanda there were up to a million people killed in up to 100 days of fighting. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict hasnt had even 1% of that in the last 10 years. The two tragedies are on a completely different scale.
There is a huge amount of wrong commited by both sides in the conflict between Israelis/Palestinians and both sides need to stop the violence and begin genuine and substantial negotiations.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 03:37 am (UTC)
Scale is not the point. My point is simply that...when humans are cruel to others (undeniably the case in Israel/Palestine), I find it amazing what the surviving victims are able to overcome. The numbers are irrelevant in this case. I am thinking of it on an individual level.
As for the issue of "wrong committed by both sides in the conflict between Israelis/Palestinians", this is of course true but that does not mean it is a balanced situation or that both sides have the power to fix it. The Israelis are the oppressors and the Palestinians are the oppressed. Some of the oppressed react in ways that are unacceptable, but before a person condemns the Palestinians, even the "terrorists", they should ask themselves, honestly, what would they do in the same situation.
The Israeli hold all the cards and can end the conflict whenever it suits them. If I throw you on the ground and put my boot on your neck, it would not make the situation balanced if you reach up and pull some hairs out of my leg. Yes, it would be a sort of conflict, but I, like the Israelis, would be in complete control even if my leg hurt a little.
http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
Re: Disgusting
asonberg wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 05:19 am (UTC)
I am sorry but we really must get away from the fallacy that oppression/poverty cause or legitimise terrorism. Many people around the world are brutally oppressed by various regimes without turning to terrorism. Many countries around the world are subject to severe poverty without people turning to violence and terrorism.
The root causes of terrorism nearly always boil down to 2 things; geograhical disputes over land and/or ideological differences which are most often religious in nature. Sometimes, as in the case of Israel/Palestine, its both.
You do the palestinians no favours by abdicating their power and responsibility for their own situation. They elected a terrorist organisation into government. A government which refuses to recognise the right of Israel to exist. Israel pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago and did the palestinians respond in kind? No. They used Gaza to fire even more rockets. Hamas has sought to pick a fight it cannot win with a more powerful neighbour. The palestinians have been the recipients of huge amounts of aid money. That money could have been put to better use than smuggling weapons and rockets. The palestinians have a great deal more power over their own destiny than you are acknowledging.
Similarly, Israel has made huge mistakes. The inhumanity and daily humiliation of palestinians by the excessive use of checkpoints, even in the west bank, is outrageous. The continued expansion of the illegal settlements. Even the use of cluster bombs in the Lebanon war of 2006. They also bear a huge amount of responsibility for the stalling of the peace talks before Hamas came to power.
That said, however, Israel cannot unilaterally end the conclict whenever it suits them as you claim. Until Hamas either accept Israels right to exist, or the palestinian people decide to remove them, this conflict with continue. You can't negotiate with an organisation sworn to your annihilation and destruction.
The only workable solution is to have a prosperious, viable Palestinian state and an Israel safe and secure in her borders.
Re: Disgusting
yuchuse wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 10:55 pm (UTC)
Berg,
The fact is, the creation of Israel was and continues to be an ongoing act of terrorism. How can Israeli security be guaranteed when the basic rights of self-determination were and continue to be forcibly stolen from the palestinians? The reality is that when the basic human rights of palestinians are restored and secured can then Israel ensure its own legitimacy. Poverty does not legitimise terrorism when it is a form of terrorism; the creation or infliction of it on population to serve the interests of its rulers is simply terrorism in itself. Yes the Palestinians have done no favours by allowing the process of a corrupt 'divide and rule' to be sown amongst themselves in which Israel 'by way of deception' may well have had an instrumental role if not a predominant one. The world has come to understand the Israeli agenda to have the palestinians 'serve' the Israeli 'master state' and as a democratically elected Hamas(according to UN monitors) 'will not come to heel' it must be 'protrayed' as a terrorist organisation. For those who understand the Palestinian identity of a 'state of injustice being worse than a state of war' will advise that the they seem to be increasingly a people who are prepared to live by that principle. It seems Israel finds it quite acceptable to exsist on the graveyard of Palestine.
How do humans do it?
nled63 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 03:20 am (UTC)
ejh16, it's possible that Binyam Mohamed might have expressed sentiments similar to your own before he actually found himself in the situation he describes in his diary. Human beings are remarkable mammals; exactly what the potential for survival is in any one case is extremely difficult to determine until situations become critical enough to prompt authentic action. Human beings often crumple under such circumstances, but many, like Mohamed, do not. It is hardly helpful for any tormentor to see his or her victim emerge, not as a hapless, easily-disposable victim, but as a hero. Torture & inhuman treatment never works if only for this reason - That torture always contains the potential for creating unlikely & unexpected heroes.
NLED63
Re: How do humans do it?
eltesoroag wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 05:31 am (UTC)
You Europeans are spineless! All these tears you shed over muslim terrorists who helped murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9-11, not to mention the degredation and inhumane cruelty they inflicted on the Afghanistan people, is repulsive. There really is something wrong with your priorites, or lack there of.
Have any of you fools heard of 9-11, Bali, 7-7, Beslan, and Mumbai? All mass murders committed by charming muslims not unlike this Binyam Mohamed. You are all Dhimmis (second class citizens) to the vary people who are terrorizing you.
Live Free or Die!
Re: How do humans do it?
jochebed2 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 07:13 am (UTC)
Binyam Mohamed has never been tried for anything or convicted of anything. He HAS been tortured both by the Americans and their proxies. And there is no such thing as "collective guilt" (of ALL Muslims for 9/11, Bali...is that what you are implying?) At worst he is a SUSPECT sold to the US in Pakistan, and if Cheney suspects you that doesn't automatically mean you are guilty of anything, nor does it justify torture and false imprisonment. Just because Dick Cheney consciously "went to the dark side" and ordered arbitrariness and sadism against every Muslim male he and his goons could grab, that doesn't make it right, on the contrary as the Bush/Cheney administration profited financially from the torture/rendition/false imprisonment and the two invasions on a false prospectus. Binyam Mohamed must be returned to Britain, his country of asylum, immediately.
Illegal"resident"
gymratone wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 07:58 am (UTC)
Whatever the accuracy of this diary maybe this man attempted to enter the UK illegally in 2000. He was,for some unknown reason given leave to stay. He then eventually decided he needed to sort out his personal problems(inc,apparently a drug habit)so went walkabout in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obviously a first rate man.I am a bit puzzled as to why he is our problem and obviously costing tax payers money. We really have turned into a very bizarre country.
doug_piranha wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 08:08 am (UTC)
Maybe I am being unkind - but when people like this are accused by the authorities - the word "alleged" is inserted before any crime or action.
Have you any proof that this man is telling the truth ?
Hunger Strike
abudarab wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 08:25 am (UTC)
Would it have been more huumane to let him starve himself to death? He would then at least have gone to Paradise as a Shaheed.
Acce of evil
dkayedon wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 09:47 am (UTC)
We are the "good guys" and the heads, our heads voted in democratically.
how do humans do it?
retox_bob wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 01:23 pm (UTC)
i cant quite see the torture in binyam mohammed`s diary. apart from the unpleasant description of the treatment of his decision to hunger strike there appears to be no other ill treament of this bloke other than what we do to people that suffer with anorexia when all treatments have failed.
Treatment
gerryj wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 05:47 pm (UTC)
Binyam Mohamed was captured in a war zone. He wasn't forced to go there against his will and he was therefore actively engaged as an enemy combatant against the United States. Therefore he is NOT INNOCENT.
All the abuse he writes about and your headline chronicles is self inflicted due to his self imposed hunger strike, even if it's all true which is questionable.
How do you find sympathy for that person? He's able to eat better, keep cleaner and live healthier at our expense than he ever was capable of on the battle field or, apparently, in London which he left.
You Europeans complain about GITMO yet you won't take your own citizens back. We wish you'd take them back. If you do please be advised that you'll have to jail him or give him housing and food on your welfare/social assistance program if you let him run free and place a 24 hour 7 day per week guard on him to prevent him from leaving the country or blowing up or poisoning your busses and subways.
Until you do that, along with all the other nations who's terrorist citizens are now living in clean, safe conditions and being well fed at our expense, please just say thank you for keeping you safe from these terrorists then sit down and shut up.
An American Citizen
There are so many more stories like this
beth_100 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 10:41 pm (UTC)
This is but a small part of one man's Guantanamo story - there are so many more men reduced to mere numbers by the American Military being detained without trial. Year and years of torture, interrogation and abuse.
Mahvish Khan details so many of their stories in her book:
My Guantanamo Diary: the detainees and the stories they told me
I saw her on a panel at the Brisbane Writer's Festival in 2008 and was overwhelmed by the stories she shared and the fact that something so vile and inhumane could happen in my lifetime.
For me this book has been such an eye-opener. I won't pretend I wasn't aware these things were going on, but the scale and extent of them I simply could never have imagined.
And like others posting comments, I am astounded by the strngth of spirit these men possess and their ability to divorce the American people from the actions of their government.
Obama has a huge and complex task ahead of him with Guantanamo, but I do so hope that the Afgan men I read about in Mahvish Khan's book are able to go home to their families - relocating them somewhere else is not what they've been dreaming about during all their years of imprisonment. Real freedom is the freedom to return home.
JUST IN: Senate panel gives Panetta OK for CIA post
This story is taken from Sacbee / Capitol and California / Wire Politics News / Wire Politics - The Associated Press -Published Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2009
WASHINGTON -- A congressional aide says the Senate Intelligence Committee has given Leon Panetta the thumbs up to head the CIA.
Intelligence Committee spokesman Philip LaVelle says approval came Wednesday during a closed meeting of the committee. Panetta was President Barack Obama's surprise pick to head the intelligence, but the Senate panel approved him without opposition.
Panetta has no direct intelligence-gathering or analysis experience. Obama said he was selected because of his managerial skills and ability to repair the agency's relationship with Congress after the two tumultuous terms of former President George W. Bush.
The full Senate is expected confirm Panetta, possibly as early as later Wednesday.
WASHINGTON -- A congressional aide says the Senate Intelligence Committee has given Leon Panetta the thumbs up to head the CIA.
Intelligence Committee spokesman Philip LaVelle says approval came Wednesday during a closed meeting of the committee. Panetta was President Barack Obama's surprise pick to head the intelligence, but the Senate panel approved him without opposition.
Panetta has no direct intelligence-gathering or analysis experience. Obama said he was selected because of his managerial skills and ability to repair the agency's relationship with Congress after the two tumultuous terms of former President George W. Bush.
The full Senate is expected confirm Panetta, possibly as early as later Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)