Camp Delta Serious Abuse:UN

apotropoxy · #1 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

U.N.: U.S. tortures Guantanamo detainees
U.S. takes issue with preliminary report; document urges closing prison
Updated: 6:13 p.m. ET Feb. 13, 2006
UNITED NATIONS - A U.N. investigation has concluded that the United States committed acts amounting to torture at Guantanamo Bay, including force-feeding detainees and subjecting them to prolonged solitary confinement, according to a draft report obtained Monday.
U.S. officials rejected the report, saying it was riddled with errors and treated statements from detainees’ lawyers as fact.
The report from five U.N. human rights experts also recommended the United States close Guantanamo Bay and revoke all special interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense.
It accused the United States of violating the detainees’ rights to a fair trial, to freedom of religion and to health.
“The apparent attempts by the U.S. administration to reinterpret certain interrogation techniques as not reaching the threshold of torture in the framework of the struggle against terrorism are of utmost concern,” the draft report said.
(...)
“In the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees the U.S. executive operates as judge, as prosecutor, and as defense counsel,” the report said. “This constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent trial.”
Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture and one of the five experts, said the report was a draft and had not incorporated U.S. comments. It was expected to be made public later in the week.
“It is a preliminary version,” Nowak said, refusing to comment on its substance. “This is an unauthorized preliminary report which might be changed.”
U.S. officials faulted the experts for rejecting an invitation to visit Guantanamo Bay, saying it fundamentally undermined the accuracy of their findings.
“The U.N. rapporteurs were invited to visit Guantanamo Bay and they chose not to,” said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York. “Had they visited, they would have found that there is no torture going on.”
The five experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo Bay since 2002 and accepted the offer in December. But they reversed that decision when they were told they would not be allowed to interview detainees.
“Fact-finding on the spot has to include interviews with detainees,” Nowak said. “What’s the sense of going to a detention facility and doing fact-finding when you can’t speak to the detainees? It’s just nonsense.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11333496/
Just as Bush the Lame is above Constitutional Law, so the United States of America is above international law and common morality.

You may fire when ready, Mr. Vice-President

ForceoftheTruth · #2 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 04:17 PM

This isn't surprising. These prisoners should be dealt with as enemy soldiers (and that is what "enemy combatants" are) and as such their treatment must stay within the confines of the Geneva Convention, or they must be treated as extradited accused criminals, in which case they are protected by the Constitution because they are accused criminals rather than convicted criminals. Torture, moreover, is unpardonable. Of course, we probably don't have long to wait until someone extols torture as a patriotic duty and declares that anyone who opposes it supports Osama bin Laden. We're waiting, barney.

The12thMan · #3 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

“The U.N. rapporteurs were invited to visit Guantanamo Bay and they chose not to," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York. “Had they visited, they would have found that there is no torture going on."
The five experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo Bay since 2002 and accepted the offer in December. But they reversed that decision when they were told they would not be allowed to interview detainees.

Why wouldn't they go anyway? Their decision not to go is incomprehensible.

Joker · #4 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The12thMan";p=&quot

Quote:

“The U.N. rapporteurs were invited to visit Guantanamo Bay and they chose not to," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York. “Had they visited, they would have found that there is no torture going on."
The five experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo Bay since 2002 and accepted the offer in December. But they reversed that decision when they were told they would not be allowed to interview detainees.

Why wouldn't they go anyway? Their decision not to go is incomprehensible.

There. Are ya happy? I'm sticking up for our guys!

? eh? eh? <nudges 12th's shoulder with elbow>

The12thMan · #5 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 06:19 PM

And my faith in Joker is magically restored.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

apotropoxy · #6 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Why wouldn't they go anyway? Their decision not to go is incomprehensible.

Because, had they gone they would have been lending weight to a dog and pony show. Without the ability to talk to prisoners, the UN evaluators would be participating in a charade.

ForceoftheTruth · #7 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

Quote:

Why wouldn't they go anyway? Their decision not to go is incomprehensible.

Because, had they gone they would have been lending weight to a dog and pony show. Without the ability to talk to prisoners, the UN evaluators would be participating in a charade.

Be careful, apotropoxy. Telling the truth borders on treason.

The12thMan · #8 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 08:05 PM

Ridiculous. If they couldn't satisfy themselves that the prisoners weren't being tortured, they could have said so. Surely, they would be able to see if the prisoners seemed unhealthy, scared, tired, or whatever. They lose credibility by not going at all, IMO.

Now that I look at the allegations, I find it strange that they have changed. The US has been accused of all manner of hideous things. Now they're being accused of force-feeding and prolonged solitary confinement.

Maybe they had to come up with a plausible explanation as to why so many of them have gained weight. I would imagine it's quite hard to prove you're being tortured when you are fat and healthy sans injuries and broken bones.

Interviews don't make a lot of difference, IMO. No doubt many of them will say they were tortured. People who want to believe them will and people who don't want to believe it won't.

apotropoxy · #9 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

Quote:

Why wouldn't they go anyway? Their decision not to go is incomprehensible.

Because, had they gone they would have been lending weight to a dog and pony show. Without the ability to talk to prisoners, the UN evaluators would be participating in a charade.

Be careful, apotropoxy. Telling the truth borders on treason.

Duly noted.

sputterman · #10 (**permalink**) 02-16-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by The12thMan";p=&quot

Quote:

“The U.N. rapporteurs were invited to visit Guantanamo Bay and they chose not to," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York. “Had they visited, they would have found that there is no torture going on."
The five experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo Bay since 2002 and accepted the offer in December. But they reversed that decision when they were told they would not be allowed to interview detainees.

Why wouldn't they go anyway? Their decision not to go is incomprehensible.

There. Are ya happy? I'm sticking up for our guys!

? eh? eh? <nudges 12th's shoulder with elbow>

if they aren't allowed to talk with the inmates!