Guantánamo man's family release 'torture' dossier
Omar Deghayes, 37, is one of Guantanamo Brits that the British government have recently asked the US to release.
He was arrested in Pakistan, his family say by bounty hunters, after the US attacked Afghanistan. He says he was in Pakistan to open a business exporting dried fruit to a leading supermarket.
He was taken to Guantanamo Bay where he has remained for four years. He is now about to be released without having any charges brought against him. His family are releasing a dossier that he dictated to a lawyer who was allowed to visit him. Deghayes claims that his captors repeatedly tortured him and subjected him to beatings, sexual abuse and threats of execution.
The US have claimed that al Qaeda asks it's operatives to claim that they have been tortured, which puts the US in a bind. If these men really are al Qaeda, why are they being released?
And why is the story told by so many of them, in so many different locations around the world, all appearing to describe incidents which are so eerily similar?
The allegations challenge President George Bush's repeated claims that the US does not use torture.
He says that in Lahore prison he was subjected to electric shocks: "The more I scream they will laugh and do it again ... my screams all in vain."
The stories of beatings and killings follow patterns we have already heard elsewhere:
He says he also witnessed a prisoner shot dead after he had gone to the aid of an inmate who was being beaten and kicked by the guards: "The American said he tried to take the gun."
Another inmate was beaten to death: "One by the name of Abdaulmalik, Moroccan and Italian, was beaten until I heard no sound of him after the screaming.
"There was afterwards panic in prison and the guards running about in fear saying to each other the Arab has died. I have not seen this young man again."
Another inmate, Mr Deghayes claims, was beaten until blood dripped on the cell floor and he was left "paralysed and mentally damaged".
The use of extreme temperatures that we have already heard of:
In Bagram he says he was chained in a cage "with hands stretched above [my] head ...causing suffocation".
In Bagram he says he went without food for 45 days and was subjected to water torture: "They hold me naked in the night, freezing cold, and throw buckets of water and fill the bucket and throw [it] again. I shiver and shake badly and try to sit down to gain warmth. They kick and punch and say stand up until I fall to the ground in weakness."
And then the story of mysterious injections and death threats:
Prisoners were also given mystery injections. He says an FBI interrogator called Craig said he would face execution, and that he would not get a proper trial.
He says: "Many times one FBI interrogator by the name of Craig said, 'Omar, it is nothing like the law you studied in the UK. There will never be a proper court and lawyers etc, it would be only a military tribunal to determine your future and your life. Your best choice is to cooperate with me."
There are some who will read these allegations and say that they do not constitute proof and this is undoubtedly true. However, the allegations do fit in to a disturbing pattern of similar accusations coming from people held by US forces all over the world.
Indeed, the US have gone as far as to notify the United Nations that they have engaged in torture in Guantanamo, Iraq and in Afghanistan. What we don't know yet is the details of what this torture comprised of, but even the US are not denying that torture took place. Although they are claiming that it is not systematic, something which is hard to believe when one considers how similar so many tales from released prisoners turn out to be. When this is coupled with Bush's refusal to define what he considers torture to be, then we are left wondering if Bush's definition of torture is anywhere near the international standard which his nation has signed up to.
For instance, Tom Delay is already on record stating that he does not believe that water boarding is torture:
“I don’t think water boarding is torture. My definition of torture is you physically harm someone by cutting them, by cutting their fingers, sticking things in their eyes, sticking their fingers in electric sockets. Water boarding is a frightening experience. But the person does not have physical damage.”
Speaking with a talk show host at Tuesday's "open day" on the White House lawn, Mr Cheney - long an advocate of unfettered interrogation techniques by the CIA - agreed that "a dunk in water" for terrorist suspects was a "no-brainer" if it could save lives.So here we have Cheney admitting that water boarding is a "no brainer", yet simultaneously stressing that the US "don't torture". We also note that Delay's definition of torture excludes mental torture. He only considers it torture if the person is physically harmed.
The proposition was put to him by Scott Hennen, who hosts a show in Fargo, North Dakota. "Well, it's a no-brainer for me," Mr Cheney replied. "But for a while, there I was being criticized as being the Vice-President for torture. We don't torture, that's not what we're involved in."
It's no wonder that this administration refuse to define what they consider to be torture, for what they have already stated that they consider not to be torture would certainly be considered torture by most people. The UN Convention Against Torture states: "Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession."
Attempting to make a person think they are about to drown would certainly qualify as a form of mental torture. And that's only what they have admitted to, the other allegations are far more serious. And numerous.
Click title for full article.
17 comments:
Kel,
There is a very good reason why all these people's tales of their treatment is the same. Because the treatment is the same. Exactly the same. If you have not yet read Jane Mayer's The Black Sites, do so.
The C.I.A.’s interrogation program is remarkable for its mechanistic aura. “It’s one of the most sophisticated, refined programs of torture ever,” an outside expert familiar with the protocol said. “At every stage, there was a rigid attention to detail. Procedure was adhered to almost to the letter. There was top-down quality control, and such a set routine that you get to the point where you know what each detainee is going to say, because you’ve heard it before. It was almost automated. People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling.”
And what bothers you more? That terrorists wouldn't be given the Club Med treatment, or that it's the big bad US being mean to those poor terrorists?
Much of what this administration has done has made me angry, but the torture just makes me sick. It is so antithetical to everything I learned growing up, both in social studies class and in sunday school, that I am boggled everytime someone attempts to paint it as some sort of "moral" or "american" action (okay, granted, it could be a central-american action, circa 1985, perhaps).
And Jason, I dont know about Kel, but what bothers me is the lack of outrage from Americans themselves. Nobody suggests the Club Med except torture apologists like yourself. Terrorists deserve to be jailed, perhaps even death. But it needs to be done in a manner consistent with laws, and the constitution, and simple human decency. I dont give a good goddamn what they may have done to "deserve it", it doesnt give us the right to behave in the same mind-set. Arrest them, try them with uncoerced evidence, and if found guilty, punish them. Or is simple police work too much to ask? And if it is too much to ask for terror suspects, how long until it's too much to ask for other types of criminals?
We live in a nation where, from time to time, the wrong person is accused; what happens when rule of law goes out the door and Americans are subjected to "alternative interrogation techniques", especially under an administration that has been more secretive than even ones from the Cold War?
That's what bothers me.
the torture just makes me sick
Exactly what torture are you talking about, who was tortured, and who committed the torture?
It is so antithetical to everything I learned growing up, both in social studies class and in sunday school,
I'm not talking torture here, just life in general... Theory, such as that taught in social studies class and sunday school, is nice and all, but the real world is far more brutal then you probably could imagine. I've played peacekeeper after one brutal conflict, and trust me when I say that you have no idea what people do to each other or what torture really is. If making these thugs less-than-comfortable produces actionable intel or saves lives, and it's legal by US law, I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it, and could honestly care less if they were ever tried for anything (the purpose of military action isn't to hold trials). But then maybe that's the difference when it's not all theory.
Nobody suggests the Club Med except torture apologists like yourself.
Don't recall ever making apologies for torture, so I'm thinking your accusation is off base. What I have said, and will reiterate, is that I am for doing whatever we need to to these individuals, to the very limit of US law.
Or is simple police work too much to ask?
I don't understand how so many fail to grasp the difference between military action and law enforcement.
If making these thugs less-than-comfortable produces actionable intel or saves lives, and it's legal by US law...
First of all we don't know if these "thugs" are even terrorists. More than half the people detained at Guantanamo are eventually released.
Also I notice that what concerns you is the legality of any action under US law rather than international law. Is your country not part of the planet any more? Or does the same international law that you demand that Saddam complies with, not apply to the US?
First of all we don't know if these "thugs" are even terrorists. More than half the people detained at Guantanamo are eventually released.
One has nothing to do with the other. Knowing that many of the prisoners have been released at the request of their governments, it is demonstrably false to assume that detainees are released simply because they are not terrorists or unlawful combatants.
Also I notice that what concerns you is the legality of any action under US law rather than international law.
Applicable international treaties have been enacted into US law, so yes, that is what concerns me.
Knowing that many of the prisoners have been released at the request of their governments, it is demonstrably false to assume that detainees are released simply because they are not terrorists or unlawful combatants.
Are you seriously arguing that the Bush administration are knowingly allowing terrorists to walk free?
I can tell you for a fact that terrorists and unlawful combatants have been released from Guantanamo. In some cases it was at the behest of their government, in other cases it was because they didn't realize who they had.
So you ARE arguing that Bush has knowingly released terrorists!
Okay, explain how you know "for a fact" that terrorists have been released?
So you ARE arguing that Bush has knowingly released terrorists!
I am not arguing anything. I'm citing well-known facts. The facts are that unlawful combatants have been released at their countries request (David Hicks for example), and that others have been released without the US realizing who they were (see below).
Okay, explain how you know "for a fact" that terrorists have been released?
Because I pay attention to the news.
Well, I'll give team Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that those were mistakes and that releasing terrorists is not official policy, which would lead any reasonable person to assume that the majority of prisoners are released because they are not considered to be terrorists.
which would lead any reasonable person to assume that the majority of prisoners are released because they are not considered to be terrorists.
No, that would not lead a reasonable person to assume that the majority of prisoners are released because they are not terrorists. Which part of "terrorists OR unlawful combatants" aren't you understanding? In any case, most are being released because either a deal has been worked out with an allied government of a country the detainee is a citizen of, OR because a combatant status review board has determined that the detainee no longer poses a threat. Obviously the CSR boards have been mistaken in some cases when they determined that some detainees no longer pose a threat.
No, that would not lead a reasonable person to assume that the majority of prisoners are released because they are not terrorists. Which part of "terrorists OR unlawful combatants" aren't you understanding?
The "unlawful combatants" part! There's no such thing under international law. It's an American reading of international law that the rest of the world does not agree with. It was Rumsfeld making up tosh...
In any case, most are being released because either a deal has been worked out with an allied government of a country the detainee is a citizen of,
In the case of Britain, no citizen released has ever been detained once they arrived in the UK. Strange.....
OR because a combatant status review board has determined that the detainee no longer poses a threat.
Why do these people "no longer pose a threat"?
The "unlawful combatants" part! There's no such thing under international law.
I'm not sure how you're link is supposed to support your statement. In any case, I would have hoped by now that you would have at least somewhat familiarized yourself with LOAC. The concepts of lawful and unlawful combatants are firmly grounded in international law, regardless of where the exact term comes from.
The Geneva Conventions are law. With that in mind, they discuss quite explicitly who is bound by these conventions. Combatants to whom the conventions apply (again, crystal clear if you read the conventions), are recognized under international law and given specific status and protections (as enumerated in the 4th GC). In other words, these are combatants who meet certain criteria under law - they are lawful. Those that do not meet the criteria, and as a consequence not afforded status and protection under the 4th GC, are therefore not lawful. Again, this is unbelievably crystal clear if you actually read the conventions.
It's an American reading of international law that the rest of the world does not agree with. It was Rumsfeld making up tosh...
So you are saying that nobody in the world agrees with this? I guess your knowledge of international LOAC was much broader than I thought if you're able to determine that.
In the case of Britain, no citizen released has ever been detained once they arrived in the UK. Strange.....
Not particularly.
Why do these people "no longer pose a threat"?
You'd have to ask the military.
Why do these people "no longer pose a threat"?
You'd have to ask the military.
And there we have it. Your gut instinct is always to defend the status quo, even when you have no idea what it is that you are defending.
I will take it then that you can no longer support your argument that there is no such thing as an unlawful combatant.
You can take no such thing.
The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that: Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.
The US are seeking to make "unlawful combatents" a category that exists outside of international law. The rest of the world are not buyng it...
Post a Comment