NationStates Jolt Archive

The FBI has released to the public censored documents of interviews with prisoners at Guantanamo. I've been reading some of these are here are some notes...

Prisoners have beaten unconscious.
Prisoners have been kicked in head.
Prisoner kicked in mouth, lost a filling.

The FBI documents themselves refer to the treatment of detainees as torture.

Several prisoners lied to interviewers out of fear of torture. They were later instructed not to lie, and also not to fear torture. Lie detectors were used on them.

Spelling of "hear" as "here" and "their" as "there".

Kurans were kicked, flushed in toilets. One prisoner had their prayer cap removed and thrown in the trash without provocation.

Guards "mocked" them as they prayed, you may hear on the newspapers, but specifically, they were said to dance.

Some reports say that the prisoner "provided the following information", while others say that the prisoners "voluntarily provided the following information"- and it is entirely possible that documented torture methods are being censored from reports.

Some documents are a lot more revealing than others. They were possibly edited by different people.

Some reports that males were required to join the Taliban for a one month tour or pay a fine.

Some were proud of the Taliban and proud to be a part of it, and of its successes.

Allegations of horrible mistreatment while held captive by Northern Alliance. Including beatings, getting pushed to the ground for no reason, being left out in the cold with only pants and a ragged shirt and going unconsious.

In 2002 there was an uprising at Camp Delta.

Some prisoners state that they were never mistreated by Americans.

Some were pushing/shoving prisoners, sitting on them, stepping on their heads, using harsh language/harsh tones of voice.

Items blocked out seem to be names of all subjects mentioned, from american investigators to detainees and people they recognized. Also, when subjects have real information regarding terrorist operations, they are censored from the publicly released report. And, there is a realistic possibility that harsh/torturous treatment by American investigators is censored from the reports. Also, details of American operations in and around the Mid-East are censored, and often specific locations are towns are censored. Prisoners are asked if they witness war crimes, and those are apparently censored when the prisoners have seen them and go into detail about them. The only uncensored mentionings of war crimes come when prisoners state that they have not witnesses war crimes. The only un-censored names seem to be George W. Bush, Usama Bin Laden, (some other) and Richard Reid.

One said that killing is only justified in
1. Self Defense
2. Infidelity
3. If one abandons the Islamic Religion

Same prisoner also does not beleive in freedom of religion, because Islam is the only true religion. The Holy Bible is modified and has errors in it.

Claim to be beaten because they are Muslim and the Americans are Christian.

Cold water thrown on prisoners.

Prisoners apparently held without charges.

Instances occur where prisoners unknowlingly contradict previous statements.

Several feel great stress to the point of seriously considering committing suicide.

Some prisoners give one another tatoos, because they are bored. They burn an elastic (??) apply ash to skin, and then use a needle to design the tatoo.

Prisoners admit to having met Usama Bin Laden (they alway spell his name with a U in the reports.)

Special notes are made when prisoners are cooperative, suggesting that some behave in uncooperative ways.

Some prisoners, in retaliation to being "mistreated", or for abusing and kicking the Kuran, refuse to cooperate. This prisoner was punished by having his sheets taken away, not receiving hot meals (I guess cold ones were ok??), and also not receiving drinking cups. He was unable to answer questions due to severe fatigue from not having sheets.

Northern Alliance said to randomly remove prisoners from their holdings, then beat them with sticks, kick them to the ground. One prisoner was beaten to death.

One prisoner said that the guard dogs were treated better than detainees. (mentioned several times)

At one point a hunger strike occured at Camp Delta, because of how detainees were treated, and the fact that many were not charged with any crimes, and that they are being arrested just because they are Muslim. They refused to eat food and water beyond what is absolutely necessary, and refused to change clothes.

Source?

Maan. Is it an epydemic or what? Where's the source?

Source?
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/

I have seen mention of documents by the news agencies. But specifics are not much.

I wonder what George Washington would say about our actions today?

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/
Most are detainees claims. It would be nice if there was some independent verification.

Most are detainees claims. It would be nice if there was some independent verification.
theres more evidence of abuses to believe these claims are credible then to believe those who have a special interest in covering up the abuses

Human Rights Watch is accusing the FBI of interrogating and threatening two U.S. citizens while they being unlawfully detained and tortured by the Pakistani security services. According to Human Rights Watch, the men -- who are brothers -- were abducted from their home in Karachi in August, 2004. They were held until last month without ever been charged. During their eight months of detention, FBI agents repeatedly questioned them and threatened to send them to Guantanamo Bay. In addition, Human Rights Watch alleges that the FBI did not intervene to end the torture of the men or provide consular facilities normally offered to detained U.S. citizens. One of the brothers said "We were beaten severely, kept awake all night or hung upside down by Pakistani agents before each of about 10 interrogation sessions by FBI agents."

theres more evidence of abuses to believe these claims are credible then to believe those who have a special interest in covering up the abuses
That's pretty much what one means by "sources?"

Most are detainees claims. It would be nice if there was some independent verification.

Well several things, including the Koran incidents, and several documentations of beatings, are independently vouched for by the FBI and are not specific claims of the prisoners.

Outside of that, it sounds like you are trying to spin and downplay in this any suggestions that the U.S. is doing anything bad. What about the possibility that the detainees are actually telling the truth? The government is interviewing them for info in the first place, and use lie detectors and the like, and look for contradictions in the statements. They could have left the torture claims out of the report if they thought they were irrelevant.

Outside of that, it sounds like you are trying to spin and downplay in this any suggestions that the U.S. is doing anything bad. What about the possibility that the detainees are actually telling the truth? The government is interviewing them for info in the first place, and use lie detectors and the like, and look for contradictions in the statements. They could have left the torture claims out of the report if they thought they were irrelevant.
I know they may be telling the truth, and precisely because those are serious accusations is why they have to be independently verified and looked into seriously. It's too bad that the way Guantanamo is being run it's difficult to carry out this sort of investigation.

Why are they complaining? They are just being treated as they would if their original governments were in power. Under the geneva convention the US as an occupying power had the option to continue to enforce the laws of the occupied territory, so they should be happy.

Whiny bitches, they can dish it but they can't take it. Frankly i think we should behead a few of them on the internet.

Why are they complaining? They are just being treated as they would if their original governments were in power. Under the geneva convention the US as an occupying power had the option to continue to enforce the laws of the occupied territory, so they should be happy.

Whiny bitches, they can dish it but they can't take it. Frankly i think we should behead a few of them on the internet.

'Cause that's the American Way(tm)!

Why are they complaining? They are just being treated as they would if their original governments were in power. Under the geneva convention the US as an occupying power had the option to continue to enforce the laws of the occupied territory, so they should be happy.


The US has no right to occupy their land. They lied about the WMD's, proceeded in the face of international opinion, vilified the UN to justify their cause and now hold it against the will of the Iraqi people.

America is where Japan was before WW2. About to awake a sleeping giant.

Good luck,
Cathenia

God, these are really lame tortures.

You want to torture some muslims? Glue their genitals together. :)

The US has no right to occupy their land. They lied about the WMD's, proceeded in the face of international opinion, vilified the UN to justify their cause and now hold it against the will of the Iraqi people.

America is where Japan was before WW2. About to awake a sleeping giant.

Good luck,
Cathenia

No nation has a "right" not to be occupied by another. Now you are just being silly. We had no non-agression pacts in place with either Iraq or Afganistan, thus our actions were perfectly legal.

No nation has a "right" not to be occupied by another. Now you are just being silly. We had no non-agression pacts in place with either Iraq or Afganistan, thus our actions were perfectly legal.
but in the case of Iraq also immoral

but in the case of Iraq also immoral

Morallity has no place in this argument.

The US has no right to occupy their land. They lied about the WMD's, proceeded in the face of international opinion, vilified the UN to justify their cause and now hold it against the will of the Iraqi people.

America is where Japan was before WW2. About to awake a sleeping giant.

Good luck,
Cathenia

Can't really say I care much about the right and wrong arguments, these have been done to death and will never be agreed upon. But. . .heh ehe, sleeping giant? Sleeping giant? :D That was quite funny.

God, these are really lame tortures.

You want to torture some muslims? Glue their genitals together. :)

Hmmm. Workable.

How about gluing bacon strips all over their bodies?

No nation has a "right" not to be occupied by another. Now you are just being silly. We had no non-agression pacts in place with either Iraq or Afganistan, thus our actions were perfectly legal.
It was perfectly legal for Hitler to murder 7 million Jews in Nazi Germeny, that certainly wasn't right or moral was it?

No nation has a "right" not to be occupied by another. Now you are just being silly. We had no non-agression pacts in place with either Iraq or Afganistan, thus our actions were perfectly legal.

What the...?

What the...?
Lacadaemon apparently went to the "might makes right" school.

And Lacadaemon, the actions of the US in Iraq were clearly in violation of the UN charter, to which the US is a signatory. That's considered a treaty, which, according to the US constitution, makes it the law of the land, and therefore, the US is in violation of its own law. We are in Iraq illegally.

Afghanistan is another story. We're there legally, but we're doing a crappy job.

Note, the camp in Gitmo is not a federal prison. Whatever the FBI has to say about it, who cares? It's military run, so it doesn't really matter. Technically the people inprisoned aren't even regular POWs.

And sleeping giant? Excuse me, but do you realize that the US could technically obliterate the whole Middle East if they really wanted to? If they'd roll out their whole nuclear arsenal... good night Iran, good night every other country down there. (And honestly, sometimes I think it would be the best solution. Wipe them out, no more troubles. If you have rats or roaches in your house, you terminate them too.)

The only sleeping giant is China (and that dragon will continue to sleep for a while I'd say) and they couldn't care less about what the US is doing with some muslims. Technically the US is even doign a favor to China, keep the muslims under control. I just hope those religious fanatics never try to get a foot into China, and if... I hope China wipes them out.

Also, comparing pre-WW2 Japan with the current US is not really logic. You can't compare those two.

And well, I say sometimes moral is overrated. I mean, if I was a guard in Gitmo and if I would hear how my fellow soliders get blown up by roadside bombs in Iraq because of those fanatcis, well... I wouldn't be too nice to the prisoners either. It's always easy to point at someone when you're not personally involved.

Note, the camp in Gitmo is not a federal prison. Whatever the FBI has to say about it, who cares? It's military run, so it doesn't really matter. Technically the people inprisoned aren't even regular POWs.

And sleeping giant? Excuse me, but do you realize that the US could technically obliterate the whole Middle East if they really wanted to? If they'd roll out their whole nuclear arsenal... good night Iran, good night every other country down there. (And honestly, sometimes I think it would be the best solution. Wipe them out, no more troubles. If you have rats or roaches in your house, you terminate them too.)

The only sleeping giant is China (and that dragon will continue to sleep for a while I'd say) and they couldn't care less about what the US is doing with some muslims. Technically the US is even doign a favor to China, keep the muslims under control. I just hope those religious fanatics never try to get a foot into China, and if... I hope China wipes them out.

Also, comparing pre-WW2 Japan with the current US is not really logic. You can't compare those two.

And well, I say sometimes moral is overrated. I mean, if I was a guard in Gitmo and if I would hear how my fellow soliders get blown up by roadside bombs in Iraq because of those fanatcis, well... I wouldn't be too nice to the prisoners either. It's always easy to point at someone when you're not personally involved.


well said. Whoever said that we are wrong to be in Iraq is an idiot and probably from, no offense, Europe. Most Europeans don't realize/care that America is trying to protect herself, and that just because it causes Frances $11 per barrel under-the-table oil deal to go awry doesn't make it immoral for the US to invade a stated enemy of our state.

No nation has a "right" not to be occupied by another. Now you are just being silly. We had no non-agression pacts in place with either Iraq or Afganistan, thus our actions were perfectly legal.

Wrong. The USA is a member of NATO - therefor it is in principle forbidden to invade other countries. The right of countries to not be invaded is one of NATOs founding principles.

Americans can never claim, while these people are alive and in power, to be the victims of any outrage committed against them.

If there is another "9/11," it will be just punishment.

well said. Whoever said that we are wrong to be in Iraq is an idiot and probably from, no offense, Europe. Most Europeans don't realize/care that America is trying to protect herself, and that just because it causes Frances $11 per barrel under-the-table oil deal to go awry doesn't make it immoral for the US to invade a stated enemy of our state.

The US is defending itself by becoming what it is defending itself against.

And I do wonder when Iraq became such an enormous threat..

The US is defending itself by becoming what it is defending itself against.

And I do wonder when Iraq became such an enormous threat..


When they developed nuclear bombs and bought yellowcake and had mobile WMD labs.

You know, all the stuff the government lied to everyone about.

The US has no right to occupy their land. They lied about the WMD's, proceeded in the face of international opinion, vilified the UN to justify their cause and now hold it against the will of the Iraqi people.

America is where Japan was before WW2. About to awake a sleeping giant.

Good luck,
Cathenia

Cathenia, the people they're talking about are not Iraqis. You know, the people who were captured in Afghanistan? :headbang:

And of course the ones kidnapped from the UK, Pakistan and all those other 'great allies'.

Lacadaemon apparently went to the "might makes right" school.

And Lacadaemon, the actions of the US in Iraq were clearly in violation of the UN charter, to which the US is a signatory. That's considered a treaty, which, according to the US constitution, makes it the law of the land, and therefore, the US is in violation of its own law. We are in Iraq illegally.

Afghanistan is another story. We're there legally, but we're doing a crappy job.

The UN charter is not binding international law. It's not a treaty, and is not considered as such. It's a statement of aspirational priciniples, that's all.

We had no treaty with Iraq, no treaty with afganistan. Therefore, invading was no illegal. It has nothing to do with might makes right.

Why are they complaining? They are just being treated as they would if their original governments were in power. Under the geneva convention the US as an occupying power had the option to continue to enforce the laws of the occupied territory, so they should be happy.

Whiny bitches, they can dish it but they can't take it. Frankly i think we should behead a few of them on the internet.

100% agreed. You have to break a few eggs to make a omlette. As far as I'm concerned we should be even more mean to them. Those people should CRAVE torture and our rigid rule.

The sooner they accept their new masters, the better for them. It's for their own good in the end, don't you agree? Sure, we'll hit a few innocents here and there and I mourn their death, but sometimes the end justifies the means.

I can't stand those libruls who side with the terrurist all the time. If the libruls would run the show Saddam would still be torturing and raping iraquy kids all the time.

Just drop a daisy cutter or two on Fallujah and Meccar and all this nonsense would end in 24 hours.

I'm telling you.

Damn terrurists.

100% agreed. You have to break a few eggs to make a omlette. As far as I'm concerned we should be even more mean to them. Those people should CRAVE torture and our rigid rule.

The sooner they accept their new masters, the better for them. It's for their own good in the end, don't you agree? Sure, we'll hit a few innocents here and there and I mourn their death, but sometimes the end justifies the means.

I can't stand those libruls who side with the terrurist all the time. If the libruls would run the show Saddam would still be torturing and raping iraquy kids all the time.

Just drop a daisy cutter or two on Fallujah and Meccar and all this nonsense would end in 24 hours.

I'm telling you.

Damn terrurists.


Did it ever occur to you that they may need to be brought into the twentieth century kicking and screaming?

Anyway, they look upon our secular liberalism as weakness, and they just won't respect us until we show that we can be strongmen too.

Bah, we are doing nothing to them that their own people wouldn't. Probably a damn sight less. If anything we are honoring their culture.

Did it ever occur to you that they may need to be brought into the twentieth century kicking and screaming?

Well, I think they need to be brought in the middle ages first, considering their basically living in the stone age (mentally wise).

Anyway, they look upon our secular liberalism as weakness, and they just won't respect us until we show that we can be strongmen too.

Precisley. In a civilized society there are people on top and in control and people to be controlled.

Bah, we are doing nothing to them that their own people wouldn't. Probably a damn sight less. If anything we are honoring their culture.

We can only "honour" their culture as far as they don't start fighting us again. In the end, we might need to eliminate their culture and assimilate them. I hate to say it, but it might be required.

The UN charter is not binding international law. It's not a treaty, and is not considered as such. It's a statement of aspirational priciniples, that's all.

We had no treaty with Iraq, no treaty with afganistan. Therefore, invading was no illegal. It has nothing to do with might makes right.
It is a treaty, and was ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Look up the history. That's part of the reason that the US was never a member of the League of Nations--because it was a treaty and the mood of the country was isolationist at the time and Wilson could never garner the two-thirds it took to ratify our entry into it. Truman was able to get the two-thirds support to ratify our entry into the UN, however, and as Iraq was also a signatory, the US indeed did have a treaty with Iraq.

Our invasion of Afghanistan was justified because the US had put the Taliban on notice during the Clinton administration that any further attacks by al-Qaeda would be considered an act of aggression by Afghanistan, since they were providing aid and comfort to al-Qaeda. It was a retributive act, and justified.

But the more we get into this Iraq debacle, the clearer it becomes that the UN Security Council was right when they refused to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force--the justification the US attempted to give did not exist. Iraq was not a threat to those in the region, nor were they a threat to the US, nor were they in possession of a WMD program in violation of UN sanction. The US has no legitimate reason to be there; ergo, the war is illegal.

The US has no right to occupy their land. They lied about the WMD's, proceeded in the face of international opinion, vilified the UN to justify their cause and now hold it against the will of the Iraqi people.

America is where Japan was before WW2. About to awake a sleeping giant.

Good luck,
Cathenia
see "Downing Street Memo" for elucidation .....