Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Guantanamo Double Talk

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Guantanamo double talk By PAUL BALLES 11th August 2007 The New York Times book reviewer recalled that the day after the 9/11 attacks, US President George W
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Guantanamo double talk
      11th August 2007

      The New York Times book reviewer recalled that the day after the 9/11
      attacks, US President George W Bush declared the strikes by Al Qaeda
      "more than acts of terror. They were acts of war".

      Bush's "war on terror" was "not a figure of speech," he said. It was a
      defining framework.

      At the same time, the US government has classified detainees at
      Guantanamo as "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war. They
      have claimed the Geneva Convention (article 4) allows them to do so.

      If, as Bush asserted, the strikes by Al Qaeda were "acts of war", why
      have Guantanamo prisoners been labelled enemy combatants rather than
      prisoners of war?

      The answer is immoral and illegal: The US says "such a definition,
      which allows indefinite incarceration, is justified because detainees
      do not have the status of either regular soldiers or guerillas and
      they are not part of a regular army or militia".

      What sort of twisted reasoning allows the US administration to call Al
      Qaeda's strikes acts of war while disallowing their classification as
      men of war? What sort of double talk refuses to allow them even
      "guerilla" status?

      The answer to that is simple: the double talk definitions self-justify
      the illegal holding of prisoners indefinitely while torturing them for

      If the government admitted that, they would have to also admit that
      they believed the detainees to be a part of a "regular" army or
      guerilla group.

      Self-justification is almost always a contradiction.

      What about the detainees? Between 2002 and 2006, only 10 detainees
      were actually charged with terrorist offences.

      Yet, the US government continues to claim that it has justification
      for holding the detainees indefinitely. If only 10 have been charged
      with offences, it is safe to assume that there isn't enough evidence
      to charge or convict the remaining prisoners.

      According to Frontlines: "There is growing evidence that detainees at
      Guantanamo have suffered torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
      treatment. Reports by FBI agents who witnessed detainee abuse have
      recently emerged, adding to the statements of former detainees
      describing the use of painful stress positions, extended solitary
      confinement, use of military dogs to threaten detainees and prolonged
      exposure to extremes of heat, cold and noise."

      Experience suggests that when the US government has no evidence
      implicating detainees of any crime or an Al Qaeda connection, even
      after months and years of cruel treatment and interrogation, they send
      the detainee back to his home country, assuming that the home country
      accepts him.

      When the released detainees arrive home, they don't want to talk about
      their experiences at Guantanamo.

      They say that they are so happy to be reunited with their families
      that they don't want to be reminded of their imprisonment.

      Four or five years of internment at Guantanamo have been enough to
      completely silence its victims. Should anyone doubt this, try to
      arrange an interview with an ex-resident of the camp to discuss what
      it was like.

      According to an earlier report in the GDN, one of the detainee's
      lawyers said: "The US government had no desire to hold people who are
      not considered to be a danger."

      Does anyone believe the incredulous illogic of that statement? Why
      would a lawyer make a statement that assumes it might take five years
      to determine whether or not a detainee might be dangerous?

      Evidence suggests that the released detainees have been instructed,
      under threat, not to discuss their experiences in Guantanamo. Clearly,
      many of the detainees were wrongly held in the first place.

      Fleeing from US attacks on Afghanistan, many were wrongly captured,
      tortured and finally released with sealed lips.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.