UN inquiry demands immediate closure of Guantanamo

[junglee069 0]

A United Nations inquiry has called for the immediate closure of America's Guantanamo Bay detention centre and the prosecution of officers and politicians "up to the highest level" who are accused of torturing detainees.

The UN Human Rights Commission report, due to be published this week, concludes that Washington should put the 520 detainees on trial or release them.

It calls for the United States to halt all "practices amounting to torture", including the force-feeding of inmates who go on hunger strike.

The report wants the Bush administration to ensure that all allegations of torture are investigated by US criminal courts, and that "all perpetrators up to the highest level of military and political command are brought to justice".

It does not specify who it means by "political command" but logically this would include President George W Bush.

The demands are contained in the final report of the commission's working group on arbitrary detention, which will be presented at its Geneva headquarters in the next few days. A copy of the report has been obtained exclusively by The Daily Telegraph.

The report is bound to intensify the already strained relations between the US and the UN over the Iraq war.

Washington officials yesterday denounced it as "a hatchet job" when informed of the contents by this newspaper.

"This shows precisely what is wrong with the United Nations today," said a senior official. "These people are supposed to be undertaking a serious investigation of the facts relating to Guantanamo.

"Instead, they deliver a report with a bunch of old allegations from lawyers representing released detainees that are so generalised that you cannot even tell what they are talking about.

"When the UN produces an unprofessional hatchet job like this it discredits the whole organisation."

The Bush administration has repeatedly called for the UN's wholesale reform, and the report is likely to lead to demands from Congress for a freeze on Washington's annual donations.

The authors question the right of America to classify the detainees as "enemy combatants" and argue that the "war on terror" is no justification for holding them indefinitely without charge.

The report is also deeply critical of the US over recent disclosures that some of the detainees have been subjected to force-feeding when they have gone on hunger strike.

The authors argue that force-feeding is akin to torture, and demands that "the authorities in Guantanamo Bay do not force-feed any detainee who is capable of forming a rational judgment and is aware of the consequences of refusing food."

But US officials refuted the suggestion that force-feeding is torture, arguing that they had a duty under international law to protect the lives of the detainees.

"We have a duty to prevent people killing themselves," said an official, "and we are proud of the fact that none of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay has died since it opened."

The Guantanamo Bay detention centre was adapted to hold hundreds of al-Qa'eda fighters captured during the 2001 war in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban.

More than 750 detainees have been processed by the facility during the past four years.

After interrogation by US intelligence officers, some have been released and others returned to their country of origin.

Because the al-Qa'eda fighters do not wear uniforms and have no allegiance to any government they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

And while there is insufficient evidence to charge most of the 520 detainees with war crimes, the US insists on the right to detain them to prevent them returning to the battlefield to carry out further attacks against the coalition.

There have already been at least 12 instances where released Guantanamo detainees have resumed attacks against the coalition.

US officials are also prepared to return detainees to their home countries, assuming those countries are prepared to receive them and that they will not be subjected to torture on their return.

While American officials are prepared to concede that there are conflicting interpretations over how the laws governing international conflict should be applied, they are furious at the way the investigation was conducted, especially the evidence that the four "special rapporteurs" who compiled the report have used to reach their conclusions.

Although Washington invited the group to visit Guantanamo at the end of last year to inspect the facility, the rapporteurs rejected the invitation after American officials made it clear that they would not be allowed to meet the detainees.

"They [the rapporteurs] were offered the same access as congressmen responsible for overseeing the facility, but they declined to take up the offer," said a government official. "And then they complain that they had no access to doctors or guards - all of which they were offered."

The Bush administration also challenges whether it is the responsibility of a body such as the UN Human Rights Commission to investigate Guantanamo.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the internationally recognised body responsible for monitoring detention facilities, visits Guantanamo on a monthly basis.

source

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Force feeding inmates on hunger strikes is now torture?

Funny, there was a time when you had to string someone upside down and set his ####### on fire for it to be called torture

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Remember: From a US point of view, the UN is relevant only when it accuses the other guys. After all, Saddam had to go because he ignored the UN. Thus, it was relevant then. When the US wanted to march in and the UN said "not so fast" it was a corrupt organization that doesn't matter much anyway. Clearly, in this case, it is the corrupt UN that we must ignore...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Remember: From a US point of view, the UN is relevant only when it accuses the other guys. After all, Saddam had to go because he ignored the UN. Thus, it was relevant then. When the US wanted to march in and the UN said "not so fast" it was a corrupt organization that doesn't matter much anyway. Clearly, in this case, it is the corrupt UN that we must ignore...

I would certainly hope that the US would disregard the UN when the UN acts in a manner that is not consistent with US interests.

Note that I am not saying Gitmo is in US interests. I don't believe it is. I am, however, taking issue with the belief many hold that there is something wrong with wanting to protect your own interests unless the UN rubberstamps it first. The UN should only matter as long as the UN is consistent with US interests. No international body should ever be allowed to dictate what we do as a nation.

JMHO

[Mirorgate 0]

Remember: From a US point of view, the UN is relevant only when it accuses the other guys. After all, Saddam had to go because he ignored the UN. Thus, it was relevant then. When the US wanted to march in and the UN said "not so fast" it was a corrupt organization that doesn't matter much anyway. Clearly, in this case, it is the corrupt UN that we must ignore...

I KNEW there was a rational explanation!

Seriously though, I highly doubt the US Gov'ment will close it. Sad that. We blame Cuba for so much, and say we won't have anything to do with them, then "rent" Gitmo from them??

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Remember: From a US point of view, the UN is relevant only when it accuses the other guys. After all, Saddam had to go because he ignored the UN. Thus, it was relevant then. When the US wanted to march in and the UN said "not so fast" it was a corrupt organization that doesn't matter much anyway. Clearly, in this case, it is the corrupt UN that we must ignore...

I KNEW there was a rational explanation!

Seriously though, I highly doubt the US Gov'ment will close it. Sad that. We blame Cuba for so much, and say we won't have anything to do with them, then "rent" Gitmo from them??

The 'rivalry' is make-believe. You really think the US couldn't take out Castro in the last fifty years? You really think Castro, being as close as he is to the US, couldn't have destabilized Florida a helluva lot more?

The rivalry is make-believe.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Remember: From a US point of view, the UN is relevant only when it accuses the other guys. After all, Saddam had to go because he ignored the UN. Thus, it was relevant then. When the US wanted to march in and the UN said "not so fast" it was a corrupt organization that doesn't matter much anyway. Clearly, in this case, it is the corrupt UN that we must ignore...

I would certainly hope that the US would disregard the UN when the UN acts in a manner that is not consistent with US interests.

Note that I am not saying Gitmo is in US interests. I don't believe it is. I am, however, taking issue with the belief many hold that there is something wrong with wanting to protect your own interests unless the UN rubberstamps it first. The UN should only matter as long as the UN is consistent with US interests. No international body should ever be allowed to dictate what we do as a nation.

Gotta be honest then and withdraw from that body as it is supposed to work based on dialogue and consensus. That usually means reaching compromises which, more often than not, would be in US interest. Had the White House listened back in late 02 and early 03, we'd have avoided the unbelievable mess that we're in now. Just because a President (any President) says something is in the US interest doesn't mean it is. And if the vast majority of the nations (including ones allies) deem a course of action wrong, chances are they're right. There's a difference between protecting one's interest (which any nation does) and being the arrogant jerk, the bully or whatever else you want to call it...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

In a related story..... the John Birch Society demands the immediate closer of the U.N.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Just because a President (any President) says something is in the US interest doesn't mean it is.

I don't disagree.

And if the vast majority of the nations (including ones allies) deem a course of action wrong, chances are they're right.

I do disagree. I do not trust that other nations will always arrive at conclusions that are consistent with our interests. Sorry, but we have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Mirorgate 0]

The 'rivalry' is make-believe. You really think the US couldn't take out Castro in the last fifty years? You really think Castro, being as close as he is to the US, couldn't have destabilized Florida a helluva lot more?

The rivalry is make-believe.

Yes, it is made up to a great deal, but there is also truth hidden within the message. Could the US have taken him out? Sure, if we use our own ppl, and not another "Bay of Pigs" fiasco type of operation.

It's all dirty politics. Many policies held over from the McCarthy era when "Communism = BAD, Capitalism = Greatest" mentality. Socialism does have its benefits, and its downsides. Then there is the human factor that gets in the way. It's always about ppl's thoughts and perceptions as to what makes everything "real", truth be damned.

Do we honestly need Gitmo? I doubt it, but then I'm not privy to the inner sanctum of the oval office, nor want to be.

[almaty 19]

Force feeding inmates on hunger strikes is now torture?

Funny, there was a time when you had to string someone upside down and set his ####### on fire for it to be called torture

aw, the good old days...

In a related story..... the John Birch Society demands the immediate closer of the U.N.