NationStates Jolt Archive


US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships.

Zilam
03-06-2008, 19:12
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights

The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.

Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.

The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped.

It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US.

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans.

Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists.

At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were "disappeared" to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay.

Reprieve believes prisoners may have also been held for interrogation on the USS Ashland and other ships in the Gulf of Aden during this time.

The Reprieve study includes the account of a prisoner released from Guantánamo Bay, who described a fellow inmate's story of detention on an amphibious assault ship. "One of my fellow prisoners in Guantánamo was at sea on an American ship with about 50 others before coming to Guantánamo ... he was in the cage next to me. He told me that there were about 50 other people on the ship. They were all closed off in the bottom of the ship. The prisoner commented to me that it was like something you see on TV. The people held on the ship were beaten even more severely than in Guantánamo."

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's legal director, said: "They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them."

Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, called for the US and UK governments to come clean over the holding of detainees.

"Little by little, the truth is coming out on extraordinary rendition. The rest will come, in time. Better for governments to be candid now, rather than later. Greater transparency will provide increased confidence that President Bush's departure from justice and the rule of law in the aftermath of September 11 is being reversed, and can help to win back the confidence of moderate Muslim communities, whose support is crucial in tackling dangerous extremism."

The Liberal Democrat's foreign affairs spokesman, Edward Davey, said: "If the Bush administration is using British territories to aid and abet illegal state abduction, it would amount to a huge breach of trust with the British government. Ministers must make absolutely clear that they would not support such illegal activity, either directly or indirectly."

A US navy spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, told the Guardian: "There are no detention facilities on US navy ships." However, he added that it was a matter of public record that some individuals had been put on ships "for a few days" during what he called the initial days of detention. He declined to comment on reports that US naval vessels stationed in or near Diego Garcia had been used as "prison ships".

The Foreign Office referred to David Miliband's statement last February admitting to MPs that, despite previous assurances to the contrary, US rendition flights had twice landed on Diego Garcia. He said he had asked his officials to compile a list of all flights on which rendition had been alleged.

CIA "black sites" are also believed to have operated in Thailand, Afghanistan, Poland and Romania.

In addition, numerous prisoners have been "extraordinarily rendered" to US allies and are alleged to have been tortured in secret prisons in countries such as Syria, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt.

Bolding is my emphasis. So basically, the US gov't being the sneaky little weasel that it is, has been trying to get away with more human right violations by keeping people on prison ships. The articles says that people were kept on cages that were at the bottom of each ship. They did all of this to keep it hush hush as to what they were doing. What is even more disturbing is that nearly 80,000 people have been in and out of not only these prison boats, but through other secret prisons, with no trials.

As more and more of these violations come to light, does anyone think that President Bsuh will be tried for these crimes against humanity, after his term is up?

Also, there was made mention of this possibly hurting relations with the UK. What implications would that have? Is the US finally isolating the one last ally it has? I don't expect a full break down of relations, but is it possible that our two countries will be on a more neutral relationship with each other, after cases like this?
Hotwife
03-06-2008, 19:14
Assertions are not proof. Nor are they even probable cause.
Zilam
03-06-2008, 19:18
Assertions are not proof. Nor are they even probable cause.

No, but if history holds true, this will end up being true as well. How many things in the administration, just like this, have come to light, been held true, and then swept under the rug by excuses like "its for freedom." "its them or us", "they are terrorists" etc? I find it VERY probable that this is actually happening. Even the official statement from the Navy is very "meh". "No we are aren't doing this, though we have had some prisoners here and there for days on end" Sounds like every other excuse told. Plus, if this was not true, why won't the gov't just release the records on people who they detain, where they are, and the treatment they are receiving. God knows if a lesser nation were to do this exact same thing, we have sanctions on them, while bombing parts of their nation, with the UN behind us.
Zilam
03-06-2008, 19:19
I think that the UN should invade Washington, bring democracy, and give Bush a fake show trial and hang him for war crimes.


*nods*

Treat him like we treat our prisoners - No trial. After all, you reap what you sow. He sowed seeds of injustice, so why can't he have them thrown back at him?
Knights of Liberty
03-06-2008, 19:20
I think that the UN should invade Washington, bring democracy, and give Bush a fake show trial and hang him for war crimes.


*nods*
Hotwife
03-06-2008, 19:21
No, but if history holds true, this will end up being true as well. How many things in the administration, just like this, have come to light, been held true, and then swept under the rug by excuses like "its for freedom." "its them or us", "they are terrorists" etc? I find it VERY probable that this is actually happening. Even the official statement from the Navy is very "meh". "No we are aren't doing this, though we have had some prisoners here and there for days on end" Sounds like every other excuse told. Plus, if this was not true, why won't the gov't just release the records on people who they detain, where they are, and the treatment they are receiving. God knows if a lesser nation were to do this exact same thing, we have sanctions on them, while bombing parts of their nation, with the UN behind us.

A lot of the assertions about Guantanamo have turned out to be false as well.

The ICRC has a permanent presence there, and has for years now. No one have proven any beatings took place, so his assertion about beatings already sounds false.

Just because you want to believe the worst, doesn't make it true.

The government has released records on everyone at Guantanamo. The ICRC has reviewed them. They've even sat in on the interrogations, and found no problems.

What are you talking about?
Neo Art
03-06-2008, 19:22
Assertions are not proof. Nor are they even probable cause.

actually that's not true at all. Assertions by "tipsters" can be sufficient for a "common sense practical determination" of probable cause.
Hotwife
03-06-2008, 19:23
actually that's not true at all. Assertions by "tipsters" can be sufficient for a "common sense practical determination" of probable cause.

Depends on the tipster's reputation. In this case, his reputation is near zero.

Combine his testimony about "beatings at Guantanamo" and the ICRC's finding that no beatings took place there, he's not credible at all.
Rambhutan
03-06-2008, 19:24
Assertions are not proof. Nor are they even probable cause.

If only the US hawks would remember this next time they suggest invading a country like Iraq or Iran...
Knights of Liberty
03-06-2008, 19:24
Treat him like we treat our prisoners - No trial. After all, you reap what you sow. He sowed seeds of injustice, so why can't he have them thrown back at him?

I was actually making a parallel between Bush and Saddam, but that works too.
Mad hatters in jeans
03-06-2008, 19:25
ah Guantanamo. That old chestnut.
that's odd prison ships, i thought they stopped using them after slavery was given up a good ohh, 200 years ago?
I doubt Bush will be tried for his stupidity, but i think he has an increased risk of being assassinated.
Gun Manufacturers
03-06-2008, 19:39
I think that the UN should invade Washington, bring democracy, and give Bush a fake show trial and hang him for war crimes.


*nods*

Yeah, I don't think so. It's not that I'm a Bush supporter, but I sure as hell don't want the UN running this country.
greed and death
03-06-2008, 19:50
Yeah, I don't think so. It's not that I'm a Bush supporter, but I sure as hell don't want the UN running this country.

Like the UN could win.
Rambhutan
03-06-2008, 19:56
It would only take visits from some international inspectors to clear this up of course.
Call to power
03-06-2008, 20:00
next thing you know terror suspects will be shipped off to Australia like the good old days :)

Also, there was made mention of this possibly hurting relations with the UK. What implications would that have?

none at all the US has already violated our equivalent of a constitution and is detaining and holding trail our citizens for crimes committed in the UK

I wouldn't be surprised if I soon find myself pressed into the US navy

Like the UN could win.

like anyone would stop us (also US vs Earth?)
Damor
03-06-2008, 20:04
Like the UN could win.If they're backed by countries like China, Russia (maybe), the EU, they could. Especially considering the US military pretty much has it's hands full with Iraq.
Call to power
03-06-2008, 20:11
If they're backed by countries like China, Russia (maybe), the EU, they could. Especially considering the US military pretty much has it's hands full with Iraq.

pfft we will just get Canada to do all the work whilst everyone else bickers in Europe ;)
Lord Tothe
03-06-2008, 20:12
Yeah, I don't think so. It's not that I'm a Bush supporter, but I sure as hell don't want the UN running this country.

QFT. Bush incompetence and corruption can't hold a candle to UN corruption and incompetence. Although it might be fun to ventilate blue helmets - what better opportunity to restore the Republic than to have the UN remove the current system so we can boot the UN and reboot the Constitution?
Lunatic Goofballs
03-06-2008, 20:12
If they're backed by countries like China, Russia (maybe), the EU, they could. Especially considering the US military pretty much has it's hands full with Iraq.

No. They really can't. The logistics and expense of landing enough troops on US soil to do the job would be cataclysmic. And that's assuming the US Navy suddenly ceased to exist.
Call to power
03-06-2008, 20:14
No. They really can't. The logistics and expense of landing enough troops on US soil to do the job would be cataclysmic. And that's assuming the US Navy suddenly ceased to exist.

all that would need to happen though is to catch Bush and maybe redecorate the Whitehouse so I'm thinking just jumping in and out with all the foreign troops based in the US maybe even just placing an embargo till America gives up

how long would you last without Bananas?
Knights of Liberty
03-06-2008, 20:17
I love how seriously everyone has taken my comment where I was trying to parallel Bush/Saddam.

WHOOSH!
Lunatic Goofballs
03-06-2008, 20:19
all that would need to happen though is to catch Bush and maybe redecorate the Whitehouse so I'm thinking just jumping in and out with all the foreign troops based in the US maybe even just placing an embargo till America gives up

Your best hope would be a covert insertion, capture and extraction by a small strike team. Have fun invading the White House. :)

how long would you last without Bananas?

:eek:

:(
Lunatic Goofballs
03-06-2008, 20:20
I love how seriously everyone has taken my comment where I was trying to parallel Bush/Saddam.

WHOOSH!

Bush would never eat Doritos. He's been fearful of salty snackfoods since the pretzel incident. :p
Damor
03-06-2008, 20:21
pfft we will just get Canada to do all the work whilst everyone else bickers in Europe ;)I suppose Canada does have experience burning Washington.

No. They really can't. The logistics and expense of landing enough troops on US soil to do the job would be cataclysmic. And that's assuming the US Navy suddenly ceased to exist.Well, with Canada on our side, we can just invade over land, now can't we. And don't forget about Mexico, they're already invading your country as we speak ;) And they can buy the weapons anywhere in the US.
Besides, with the way the dollar is dropping in value, the US can soon simply be bought at less of a cost than waging war.
Gun Manufacturers
03-06-2008, 20:23
If they're backed by countries like China, Russia (maybe), the EU, they could. Especially considering the US military pretty much has it's hands full with Iraq.

How could the UN get enough troops into Washington DC, let alone the rest of the nation? If the UN tries to use naval craft to land in Virginia or Maryland (on their way to DC), they'd have to deal with the US Navy and US Coast Guard in those areas (not to mention any ground based Air Force, Army, Marine, or Navy aircraft). If they try to come in through Canada or Mexico, they'd have a long path to DC, where they would get ground up by the US military. BTW, there'd be an insurgency that would make Iraq's insurgency look like a peace rally. There are 70-80 million firearms owners in the US. Even if 10% of us were to become insurgents, that's still 7-8 million.

There's still a lot of military personnel here in the states.
Lunatic Goofballs
03-06-2008, 20:28
pfft we will just get Canada to do all the work whilst everyone else bickers in Europe ;)

Oh, Noes! Not Canada! :eek:

:p
Knights of Liberty
03-06-2008, 20:29
How could the UN get enough troops into Washington DC, let alone the rest of the nation? If the UN tries to use naval craft to land in Virginia or Maryland (on their way to DC), they'd have to deal with the US Navy and US Coast Guard in those areas (not to mention any ground based Air Force, Army, Marine, or Navy aircraft). If they try to come in through Canada or Mexico, they'd have a long path to DC, where they would get ground up by the US military. BTW, there'd be an insurgency that would make Iraq's insurgency look like a peace rally. There are 70-80 million firearms owners in the US. Even if 10% of us were to become insurgents, that's still 7-8 million.

There's still a lot of military personnel here in the states.

Not to mention all the crazy hicks...
Gun Manufacturers
03-06-2008, 20:32
Oh, Noes! Not Canada! :eek:

:p

http://www.pointmanspage.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=13171&g2_serialNumber=2
Gravlen
03-06-2008, 20:33
Depends on the tipster's reputation. In this case, his reputation is near zero.

Combine his testimony about "beatings at Guantanamo" and the ICRC's finding that no beatings took place there, he's not credible at all.

Lies.

Also:
A confidential 2003 manual for operating the Guantánamo detention center shows that military officials had a policy of denying detainees access to independent monitors from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The manual said one goal was to “exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee,” by denying access to the Koran and by preventing visits with Red Cross representatives, who have a long history of monitoring the conditions under which prisoners in international conflicts are held. The document said that even after their initial weeks at Guantánamo, some detainees would not be permitted to see representatives of the International Red Cross, known as the I.C.R.C.

It was permissible, the document said, for some long-term detainees to have “No access. No contact of any kind with the I.C.R.C.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16gitmo.html

The worst part is that I find the statements of released detainees more credible than those of the US government on this issue.
Soldnerism
03-06-2008, 20:34
Not to mention all the crazy hicks...

At least they are better then nobody!!!

Jeff Foxworthy clan unite!!!!!!
Gravlen
03-06-2008, 20:36
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights

Bolding is my emphasis. So basically, the US gov't being the sneaky little weasel that it is, has been trying to get away with more human right violations by keeping people on prison ships. The articles says that people were kept on cages that were at the bottom of each ship. They did all of this to keep it hush hush as to what they were doing. What is even more disturbing is that nearly 80,000 people have been in and out of not only these prison boats, but through other secret prisons, with no trials.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
As more and more of these violations come to light, does anyone think that President Bsuh will be tried for these crimes against humanity, after his term is up?
One can only hope, but I doubt it.
Holy Paradise
03-06-2008, 20:37
I think that the UN should invade Washington, bring democracy, and give Bush a fake show trial and hang him for war crimes.


*nods*

The moment the UN invades the United States is the moment I take up a gun and fight back.

Not for Bush, but because whatever the UN sets up is going to be worse.
Ifreann
03-06-2008, 20:38
The moment the UN invades the United States is the moment I take up a gun and fight back.

Not for Bush, but because whatever the UN sets up is going to be worse.

Clearly they should wait for the next president to get in, so they don't have to set up anything, just take Bush and leave.
Holy Paradise
03-06-2008, 20:42
If Bush is arrested (which I think is stupid, but that's beyond the point.), I think the UN shouldn't do it. UN has had its own problems with human rights stuff.
Damor
03-06-2008, 20:43
How could the UN get enough troops into Washington DCWe set up a UN conference in Washington, and then when we declare war the delegates immediately pick up arms and march on the white house while the Americans are still doubled up laughing.

let alone the rest of the nation?Oh, like they really want to be a federation. Given the excuse I bet most would rather go at it alone. ;)

BTW, there'd be an insurgency that would make Iraq's insurgency look like a peace rally. There are 70-80 million firearms owners in the US. Even if 10% of us were to become insurgents, that's still 7-8 million.You really expect 10% of people would become insurgents; in a western nation? I'd be surprised if one percent could be bothered to get out from behind the TV.

There are plenty of reasons why it won't ever happen, not least of all because the Us has a veto, and none of the countries of the UN would be likely to support it. But that doesn't mean that if there actually were a fight of Earth vs US that the US would win.
Holy Paradise
03-06-2008, 20:44
We set up a UN conference in Washington, and then when we declare war the delegates immediately pick up arms and march on the white house while the Americans are still doubled up laughing.

Oh, like they really want to be a federation. Given the excuse I bet most would rather go at it alone. ;)

You really expect 10% of people would become insurgents; in a western nation? I'd be surprised if one percent could be bothered to get out from behind the TV.

There are plenty of reasons why it won't ever happen, not least of all because the Us has a veto, and none of the countries of the UN would be likely to support it. But that doesn't mean that if there actually were a fight of Earth vs US that the US would win.

I'd be one of those insurgents.

Also, I thought the UN didn't carry weapons?
Call to power
03-06-2008, 20:50
Your best hope would be a covert insertion, capture and extraction by a small strike team. Have fun invading the White House. :)

all we would need to do is get certain citizens to work for us ;)

Oh, Noes! Not Canada! :eek:

they have zombie Robert Ross!

Not for Bush, but because whatever the UN sets up is going to be worse.

proportional representation with each state having the independence experienced under the current E.U?

If Bush is arrested (which I think is stupid, but that's beyond the point.), I think the UN shouldn't do it. UN has had its own problems with human rights stuff.

yes and Bush is a big violator of those rights and think of how much of STFU that would be:p
Holy Paradise
03-06-2008, 20:53
proportional representation with each state having the independence experienced under the current E.U?



yes and Bush is a big violator of those rights and think of how much of STFU that would be:p


The E.U.?
I would rather die than live in a country ruled by an E.U. like state.

I honest to God rather would.
Zilam
03-06-2008, 20:55
Lies.

Also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16gitmo.html

The worst part is that I find the statements of released detainees more credible than those of the US government on this issue.

I agree, simply because the only thing the detainees could win out of saying something, is freedom. If they lied, the US could EASILY show otherwise, and they'd still be detained. But the US doesn't do that. They could settle the whole mess in a heart beat, but won't. That is why I whole-heartedly believe they are doing HR violations.
Soldnerism
03-06-2008, 20:57
I'd be one of those insurgents.

Also, I thought the UN didn't carry weapons?

I would be with you!!

I think they carry harshly worded letters. :p
Knights of Liberty
03-06-2008, 20:58
UN has had its own problems with human rights stuff.



Like....?
Holy Paradise
03-06-2008, 21:04
Like....?

Peacekeepers raping people in Africa. Oil for food.
Holy Paradise
03-06-2008, 21:11
Hey, has anyone else been having problems with Jolt right now?