Guantanamo report conflicts with earlier testimony

So now we are hearing that everything at Gitmo is squeaky clean and always was.But wait…what about the previous headlines that a military commission judgeWashington Post headline “Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.”And what of the comments from Spc. Brandon Neely:He is being very clear. He was present during illegal treatment of prisoners. And all this in the shadow of what we learned about Abu Ghraib after many denials of abuse.What do you think? Is this new report a dog and pony show or are we to presume that Susan Crawford and Brandon Neely liars?Lets also be reminded that we heard confusing numbers regarding recidivism rates of those detainees who were released by the Bush/Cheney Administration. For the uninitiated, recidivism is a term used to describe the return to criminal behavior by prisoners. CNN Article states that many security experts were critical of the reliability of these reports. While the number “61” was bantered around, the Pentagon couldn’t source the numbers.If we are to make an effective determination of value of Guantanamo detention center or other programs we need clear and accurate information on its effectiveness. And while I hesitate to accuse military officers of fabrications or covering their asses, we know from history there are such people who serve our country and fall short in this important moral code of honesty and frank presentation.

2 Responses to “ Guantanamo report conflicts with earlier testimony ”

  1. im4wur Says:

    Common Article 3 of the Geneva ConventionsBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESS”Here is the text of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush administration acknowledged applies to terror war detainees held by the United States:In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;(b) taking of hostages;(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.”


  2. im4wur Says:

    with regard to Susan J. Crawford’s comments:So we’re not even attempting to prosecute some prisoners, BECAUSE they were tortured! It’s just AMAZING to me how f#cked up the BushCo administration was able to get things in a mere 8 years.