A deadly kindness

[Dr_LHA 3]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

I would rather live destitute in the streets than in a comfortable prison. I fail to see how taking away someone's freedom is treating them better than veterans.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Apparently I'm not really understanding this discussion.....

I see Gary posting things that specifically address Gitmo and the conditions there. I see Steven posting generic statements of the ineffectiveness of torture. Am I missing something? Where are the statements of proof saying that they DO torture at Gitmo? Posting quotes that say "Torture is bad, m'kay?" says absolutely nothing about the original topic.

If, in the tangle of "YOU'RE A CONSERVATIVE!!" and "YOU'RE A PINKO COMMIE #######!", I missed out on the part where it was proven that Gitmo = physical torture, then I apologize.

From here, though, I just hear erekose and Steven saying "blah, blah, blah." And no; I'm not a republican or a conservative.

Well this is sort of a continuation of another thread regarding detainees, so a lot of these arguments are becoming circular. For example, Gary (no indictment to him personally because the Bush Administration spews out the same bunk), refers to the detainees as terrorists. He then advocates the use of any means necessary to get them to confess or talk, leaving it up to those interrogating the detainees to decide what is appropriate treatment. So I hope what I posted makes sense as it is relevent. Secondly, if you read the OP article critically, you will see that it's more a PR piece than an actual, factual account of how the detainees are treated. Any investigative journalist worth their weight would have insisted interviewing the detainees themselves. He would have taken photographs. He would have interviewed experts in the field of interrogation. He would have asked pointed questions in relation to the implications against military personal in connection with detainees being abused and some even dying. I haven't politicized this issue and I will continue to use sources that are politically neutral. If I wanted to go the route of Gary, I would have gotten testimony from Sen. McCain, or former Sec. of State Powell. Like robinlake said, this is about the Bush White House and it's failed foreign policies. What a train wreck we're in.

[Fandango 1,439]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

I would rather live destitute in the streets than in a comfortable prison. I fail to see how taking away someone's freedom is treating them better than veterans.

I've lived my whole life watching my grandfather fight for veteran's rights. We're so worried giving these detainees all the mod cons that we don't give our highest heroes...our veterans...the same treatment in so much as making sure there's a bed for them to sleep in, food for them to eat, medical care....

they've come home from war, many of them are screwed up in one way or another from it, and funding gets cut...in the 80s some of the funding for veterans in state funded mental institutions was slashed and the patients were left on the street. Wandering around, in need of medical care, nowhere to go...all because (s)he did his/her service to our country. Yet we don't care for them like we are these detainees. Now YOU may rather walk homeless on the streets, but those who sacrificed themselves for our country should not have to make that choice.

We're walking on eggshells with these detainees and I think that sucks. I'm certainly not advocating torture...but at the end of the day, the disparity of how some of our heroes live vs the seemingly cushy treatment these detainees are given...well it makes me sick. Is it the perfect parallel? Prolly not, but it's still astonishing to me.

They beat us with our own laws and this is nothing but red-tape beaurocratic bullsh!t imo.

Edited September 18, 2006 by LisaD

[Dr_LHA 3]

LisaD, I don't disagree that veterans are treated in a despicable manner, I just disagree that being imprisoned is better than the way they are treated.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

I would rather live destitute in the streets than in a comfortable prison. I fail to see how taking away someone's freedom is treating them better than veterans.

I've lived my whole life watching my grandfather fight for veteran's rights. We're so worried giving these detainees all the mod cons that we don't give our highest heroes...our veterans...the same treatment in so much as making sure there's a bed for them to sleep in, food for them to eat, medical care....

they've come home from war, many of them are screwed up in one way or another from it, and funding gets cut...in the 80s some of the funding for veterans in state funded mental institutions was slashed and the patients were left on the street. Wandering around, in need of medical care, nowhere to go...all because (s)he did his/her service to our country. Yet we don't care for them like we are these detainees. Now YOU may rather walk homeless on the streets, but those who sacrificed themselves for our country should not have to make that choice.

We're walking on eggshells with these detainees and I think that sucks. I'm certainly not advocating torture...but at the end of the day, the disparity of how some of our heroes live vs the seemingly cushy treatment these detainees are given...well it makes me sick. Is it the perfect parallel? Prolly not, but it's still astonishing to me.

They beat us with our own laws and this is nothing but red-tape beaurocratic bullsh!t imo.

...this is a bit dated but still relevent to your point...

Did you know that the Republican majority on the House Budget Committee in March (2003) rammed through a resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans’ medical care for next year? At the same time, they managed to come up with $900 million to give to ####### Cheney’s old company Halliburton and a few other big Republican sugar daddies who will quite conveniently be rebuilding Iraq after the war.

Just so it's clear - it would behoove you to find out just who is in the corner of veteran's benefits and who's making policy with regard to the treatment of the detainees. Shut down these bloody camps and pour more money into intelligence - then find and nab the real terrorists instead of letting countries like Pakistan hand us over who they think are suspects so they can collect the bounty. It's a faulty system currently.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

* No U.S. military officer has been held accountable for criminal acts committed by subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility. Only three officers have been convicted by court-martial for detainee abuse.

Janis Leigh Karpinski (born May 25, 1953, Rahway, New Jersey) is a United States Army Colonel in the 800th Military Police Brigade. She was demoted from Brigadier General in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal for dereliction of duty, making a material misrepresentation to investigators, failure to obey a lawful order.

link

Edited September 18, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

* No U.S. military officer has been held accountable for criminal acts committed by subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility. Only three officers have been convicted by court-martial for detainee abuse.

Janis Leigh Karpinski (born May 25, 1953, Rahway, New Jersey) is a United States Army Colonel in the 800th Military Police Brigade. She was demoted from Brigadier General in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal for dereliction of duty, making a material misrepresentation to investigators, failure to obey a lawful order.

link

I'm not a military lawyer, Charles, but that doesn't sound to me like the same indictment, no?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

* No U.S. military officer has been held accountable for criminal acts committed by subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility. Only three officers have been convicted by court-martial for detainee abuse.

Janis Leigh Karpinski (born May 25, 1953, Rahway, New Jersey) is a United States Army Colonel in the 800th Military Police Brigade. She was demoted from Brigadier General in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal for dereliction of duty, making a material misrepresentation to investigators, failure to obey a lawful order.

link

I'm not a military lawyer, Charles, but that doesn't sound to me like the same indictment, no?

it is. she was held responsible for actions committed by those under her command. hence the dereliction of duty.

[Marc and Olga 0]

* No U.S. military officer has been held accountable for criminal acts committed by subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility. Only three officers have been convicted by court-martial for detainee abuse.

Janis Leigh Karpinski (born May 25, 1953, Rahway, New Jersey) is a United States Army Colonel in the 800th Military Police Brigade. She was demoted from Brigadier General in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal for dereliction of duty, making a material misrepresentation to investigators, failure to obey a lawful order.

link

I'm not a military lawyer, Charles, but that doesn't sound to me like the same indictment, no?

It sounds to me like a slap on the wrist and a stern talking to. so away

[Fandango 1,439]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

I would rather live destitute in the streets than in a comfortable prison. I fail to see how taking away someone's freedom is treating them better than veterans.

I've lived my whole life watching my grandfather fight for veteran's rights. We're so worried giving these detainees all the mod cons that we don't give our highest heroes...our veterans...the same treatment in so much as making sure there's a bed for them to sleep in, food for them to eat, medical care....

they've come home from war, many of them are screwed up in one way or another from it, and funding gets cut...in the 80s some of the funding for veterans in state funded mental institutions was slashed and the patients were left on the street. Wandering around, in need of medical care, nowhere to go...all because (s)he did his/her service to our country. Yet we don't care for them like we are these detainees. Now YOU may rather walk homeless on the streets, but those who sacrificed themselves for our country should not have to make that choice.

We're walking on eggshells with these detainees and I think that sucks. I'm certainly not advocating torture...but at the end of the day, the disparity of how some of our heroes live vs the seemingly cushy treatment these detainees are given...well it makes me sick. Is it the perfect parallel? Prolly not, but it's still astonishing to me.

They beat us with our own laws and this is nothing but red-tape beaurocratic bullsh!t imo.

...this is a bit dated but still relevent to your point...

Did you know that the Republican majority on the House Budget Committee in March (2003) rammed through a resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans’ medical care for next year? At the same time, they managed to come up with $900 million to give to ####### Cheney’s old company Halliburton and a few other big Republican sugar daddies who will quite conveniently be rebuilding Iraq after the war.

Just so it's clear - it would behoove you to find out just who is in the corner of veteran's benefits and who's making policy with regard to the treatment of the detainees. Shut down these bloody camps and pour more money into intelligence - then find and nab the real terrorists instead of letting countries like Pakistan hand us over who they think are suspects so they can collect the bounty. It's a faulty system currently.

Veterans have struggled under both parties, just so it's clear.

Furthermore, I'd love to live in a world where everything is so cut and dry like you seem to think, Steven....'shut down the camps'...yeah that's a good solution

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

* No U.S. military officer has been held accountable for criminal acts committed by subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility. Only three officers have been convicted by court-martial for detainee abuse.

Janis Leigh Karpinski (born May 25, 1953, Rahway, New Jersey) is a United States Army Colonel in the 800th Military Police Brigade. She was demoted from Brigadier General in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal for dereliction of duty, making a material misrepresentation to investigators, failure to obey a lawful order.

link

I'm not a military lawyer, Charles, but that doesn't sound to me like the same indictment, no?

It sounds to me like a slap on the wrist and a stern talking to. so away

base pay 0-6 over 26 years per month = $10,066.50

base pay o-7 over 26 years per month = $8,841.30

$1,225.20 a month difference.

converting that to retirement pay means $7,549.88 for o-7 and $6,630.96 or a difference of $918.92 a month for life.........basically if she retired now and lived for 20 more years, that's about $220,540.80 less in pay. obviously a slap on the wrist

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Furthermore, I'd love to live in a world where everything is so cut and dry like you seem to think, Steven....'shut down the camps'...yeah that's a good solution

Yes, shut them down and then open a camp that has international oversight (EU or UN). It's what they've already recommended and would help to show the world community that we are committed to treating these detainees with dignity and using due process.

[mmmbop1976 1]

Gary, you're politicizing the issue. First it's, "We should be able to do with the terrorists what we want" (assuming of course that all detainees are bonafide 'terrorists'), then it was, "it's not torture" and now it's, "See! Gitmo is like the Marriott Hotel." (with the disclaimer that such kind treatment of these terrorists is undermining American safety).

Which is it? Can you find somebody who's not a supporter of the Bush Administration's policies - someone politically neutral who has reported on the facts regarding detainees?

I am politicizing the issue? hehe I'd say you are also. Let me ask you the same question. Find me one source that doesn't have a political agenda that has BEEN THERE that disputes the report. Rumors and 3rd hand info don't count. Show ME the facts.

You've politicized the issue by relying on politicians and political ideologues to tell you 'how it is', meanwhile ignoring the testimony by military intelligence officers (they have no political bend, Gary, just that they obviously aren't afraid to be critical of the Bush Administration). I'm going to keep harping on that until you address what they said. Quit ignoring their statements as if they hold no weight.

Here's more testimony...

Military, Intelligence and Law Enforcement Officers Opposing Torture

Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy

"The United States has been a strong, unwavering advocate for human rights and the rule of law for as long as you and I have been alive. I'm not ready to throw in the towel on that just because we are in a battle with some terrible people. In fact, in a war like this, when we are tempted to respond in kind, we must hold ever more dearly to the values that make us Americans. Torture, or "cruel, inhuman or degrading" conduct, are not part of our national character. Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners. Torture will get you information, but it's not reliable. Eventually, if you don't accidentally kill them first, torture victims will tell you something just to make you stop. It may or may not be true. If you torture 100 people, you'll get 100 different stories. If you gain the confidence of 100 people, you may get one valuable story." (Legal Affairs "Debate Club" January 27, 2005)

Bob Baer, former CIA official

"And torture -- I just don't think it really works. I think it works for the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Saudis, who want to scare the hell out of people. But you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you." (Interview with Slate, May 12, 2004)

Lawrence Korb, former Naval Intelligence officer and Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration

"The highest levels of the U.S. military, the Defense Department, and the White House must be held accountable for putting our troops at greater risk and diminishing America's moral authority across the globe." (Article co-written by John Halpin, Center for American Progress)

Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center

"I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear." (60 minutes "CIA flying suspects to Torture?" March 6, 2005)

Dan Coleman, retired FBI agent

"It’s human nature. People don’t cooperate with you unless they have some reason to." He added, "Brutalization doesn’t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul." (The New Yorker "Outsourcing Torture" by Jane Mayer)

Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1

"The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

Declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, responding to the question of whether FBI in agents Guantanamo agents were instructed to "stand clear" due to interrogation techniques utilized by Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security

"Our formal guidance has always been that all personnel conduct themselves in interviews in the manner that they would in the field. <redacted> along with the FBI advised that the LEA [Law Enforcement Agencies] at GTMO were not in the practice of the using <redacted> and were of the opinion results obtained from these interrogations were suspect at best. BAU explained to DoD, FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques."

http://www.kintera.org/site/pp.asp?c=fnKNK...E&b=1293047

steve, again in this text you provide, not 1 person alleges that we are torturing anybody, all they are doing is giving their opinion that torture is not effective. only 1, korb, states the administration needs to be held accountable, but for what? i suppose we are to infer he means torture. but that claim is never made by any of these officers.

[Fandango 1,439]

Furthermore, I'd love to live in a world where everything is so cut and dry like you seem to think, Steven....'shut down the camps'...yeah that's a good solution

Yes, shut them down and then open a camp that has international oversight (EU or UN). It's what they've already recommended and would help to show the world community that we are committed to treating these detainees with dignity and using due process.

I'm not primarily concerned with 'showing the world community' anything. But since we're talking all pansy, I think our treatment as a whole of these detainees does exactly that anyways.

Lol, you'll come back with that we're 'not doing enough' cos the detainees should be able to have cable, lol...

[mmmbop1976 1]

Furthermore, I'd love to live in a world where everything is so cut and dry like you seem to think, Steven....'shut down the camps'...yeah that's a good solution

Yes, shut them down and then open a camp that has international oversight (EU or UN). It's what they've already recommended and would help to show the world community that we are committed to treating these detainees with dignity and using due process.

camp with internationanl oversight..hmmmmmm.....so their is transparency, yes? such as....

> Guantanamo Congressional Record Statement

[Transcript of remarks on the floor of the Senate - June 27, 2005]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

Mr. CRAPO . Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I stand and join my colleague, Senator Bunning from Kentucky. I was one of those who was able to be on this trip to Guantanamo yesterday. Along with Senator Isakson from Georgia, we were joined there by two other Senators, Senator Wyden from Oregon and also Senator Nelson from Nebraska, who came in on a separate trip.

We had an opportunity to view exactly what is happening at Guantanamo . As I said, I am glad to be able to stand with my colleague, Senator Bunning, and set the record straight about what the United States and the honorable men and women of our armed services are doing to serve the United States, the people of this country, and, frankly, the people of the world as we fight to defeat terrorism.

I want to first thank my colleague, Senator Bunning, who has given a very thorough and helpful review. I will try not to repeat too many of the things he went through, but he has identified the core points that need to be made as we discuss what is truly happening at Guantanamo .

I want to start out by going into a little bit of detail about who exactly is there. Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about the legal framework because, frankly, a lot of the debate we hear throughout the country and throughout the world today has to do with different points of view about the legal framework within which we are dealing with the circumstances at Guantanamo .

Then I want to talk about the question of transparency; in other words, do we really know what is happening there? I know there are a lot of people who will say: You went there and you visited, but did you really see the truth? I want to talk about that. I also want to talk about what we saw--how are the detainees being treated.

Finally, I want to talk about our own troops. What is their morale? And what is their conduct? And then, actually, the last thing I want to talk about is: Of what benefit to the United States and the world is Guantanamo ?

I am going to go back now and talk, first of all, about who is there. I think there has been a bit of a misconception about who it is we are detaining at Guantanamo .

Since the effort began in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan--and it has expanded to the war in Iraq--the United States has captured more than 70,000 detainees--70,000--in the conduct of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among that number, the vast majority have been handled in other ways. Either they have been released or they have been turned over to other authorities, other nations, or they are being held in facilities in the area of the battle.

But we are working with Iraq, Afghanistan, and other governments to make sure they take control of detainees to the maximum extent possible. But there are some detainees who are so dangerous that we have made the decision we must maintain control over them. They are also controlled because they have information that is critical to us in the battle against terrorism. And after a very thorough vetting process, out of 70,000 who have been captured in these battles and in other efforts to fight against terrorism, approximately 800 have been moved to Guantanamo .

My numbers are going to be kind of rounded here, but of that 800, about 235 have already been released or moved into the custody of other countries. My colleague, Senator Bunning, indicated that is not always good news. At least 12 of those who have been released have been found again in the battlefield--some of them killed in battle, others captured again, and at least one was found to have ordered some very significant terrorist activities after being released from Guantanamo .

But about 235 of the 800 who we determined were so dangerous they needed to be moved to Guantanamo have been released or put into the custody of other countries. Approximately 520 remain at Guantanamo . Who are these 520? These are terrorist trainers. These are bomb makers. These are recruiters and facilitators for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. These are terrorist financiers. These are bodyguards of Osama bin Laden. And these are would-be suicide bombers--to name just a few of those who we have identified and the activities we are stopping by keeping them detained.

I am going to come back a little bit later and talk about what we learn from these detainees. But I would like to talk, next, a little bit about some of the details of individuals whom we have identified. An elaborate process has been put into place, as I indicated, to identify whom we will return and take to Guantanamo to assess the threat they pose to the United States and the international community, and then to give regular review to this process to be sure they are still the threat that they were and deserve to be kept at the Guantanamo base.

But as a result of this effort, we have collected the most dangerous, and the ones with the most information who can give us the most assistance, through the interrogation process, to help us pursue the war against terrorism.

These detainees include terrorists who are linked to a major al-Qaida attack, including attacks in east Africa, the U.S. Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole attack; terrorists who taught or received training teams on arms, explosives, surveillance, and interrogation resistance at al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere; terrorists who continue to express their commitment to kill Americans, if released; terrorists who have sworn personal allegiance to Osama bin Laden; terrorists who have been linked to several al-Qaida operational plans, including possible targeting of facilities in the United States; members of al-Qaida's international terrorism support network including the financiers, the couriers, the recruiters, and the operatives and those who participated in attempted hijacking instances.

Let me give a couple specific examples. One al-Qaida explosives trainer is there who has provided information to the United States on the September 2001 assassination of Massoud and on the al-Qaida organization's use of mines; another individual who completed advanced terrorist training at camps in Afghanistan and participated in an attempted hijacking and escaped while in custody that resulted in the deaths of Pakistani guards; another individual who was involved in terrorist financing who provided information on Osama bin Laden's front companies, accounts, and international money movements for financing terror. The list goes on and on. This is who is there at Guantanamo . These are the people whom we seek to detain and about whom the debate in this country revolves. They are dangerous, and they must be kept under control or they will kill more Americans and threaten people throughout the world.

What is the legal framework within which they are being detained? That is the crux, though it is not often stated that way, of the debate. I will get into this in more detail, but Senator Bunning has already indicated, the treatment that is being provided to the detainees is probably the most humane, high quality treatment any nation that has ever captured detainees at war has ever provided to its prisoners. I suspect no other nation today or throughout history could claim to be treating its detainees better. But still the question arises, how and under what legal framework should they be handled? There is an irony here. These detainees do not serve in a normal army. They do not wear uniforms. They do not serve a nation that is a signer to the Geneva Conventions. They do not honor Geneva Conventions, meaning they do not refrain from attacking civilians and conducting terrorist activities. And because they do not qualify in these categories, they don't qualify under the Geneva Conventions as prisoners of war.

Here is the irony. If they were prisoners of war, they wouldn't be entitled to the legal benefits about which we are now wrangling. They would be entitled to humane treatment, but they would not be entitled to get into the court system of the country that has captured them.

Many throughout this Nation and throughout the world are saying we should provide all of the legal benefits in a criminal law system, such as the criminal justice system in the United States, to these detainees. The United States has declined to do so, stating that these are enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions. But they are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. And there is the irony. If we could classify them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, we could avoid the debate about what their rights are and how they should be treated. Instead, since they are not a group entitled to participate in the United States criminal justice system and are not a group entitled to be considered prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, but are instead enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions in a category for which nations have not yet agreed on how they should be treated, the United States is embroiled in a debate as to how to treat them.

How have we resolved this decision? On January 19, 2002, the Secretary of Defense gave specific guidance that all detainees are to be treated humanely. On January 21, the same year, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued executive orders to commanders that transmitted the Secretary of Defense order that these detainees be treated humanely. On February 7, 2002, President Bush determined that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees should be treated humanely, consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions and consistent with military necessity. The detention of enemy combatants in wartime is not an act of punishment. It is a matter of security and military necessity. It prevents enemy combatants from continuing to fight against the United States or its partners in the war on terror. Releasing enemy combatants before the end of hostilities and allowing them to rejoin the fight would only prolong the conflict and endanger our coalition and American forces.

Here is the point of the debate. The United States, though these enemy combatants are in an uncertain category, has provided to them all of the humane treatment required by the Geneva Convention and more legal rights than they would have if they were prisoners of war. Yet the United States continues to be criticized because there are those--and this is what everyone needs to understand--who will not be satisfied until we choose not to treat these enemy combatants in the context of a war but instead choose to treat them as criminals in a criminal justice system and thereby change the legal framework under which they are being handled. The United States correctly and properly refuses to do so. If we were to do so, we would not be able to defend the interests of the country against enemies who are conducting war against us as effectively as we can if we are able to treat them under the Geneva Conventions as enemy combatants. And when you hear the debate about how they are being treated, listen carefully, because most of the debate is not about their physical condition or whether they are being treated humanely. It is about how they are being categorized with regard to these legal battles that those who are engaged in the issue wish to see ensue.

Let's talk about what we saw, and then I will describe how they are actually physically being treated and whether what we saw is true. I have already had those who knew that I went there ask me whether the opportunity we had is one which truly showed us what was happening at Guantanamo . To me this is an issue of transparency. What is happening there, and were we shown what was truly going on?

First, we visited every facility there. Five Senators, with many other individuals with us from other government agencies, went through and visited every facility. My colleague Senator Bunning indicated that we even went to Camp X-Ray which has not been utilized for 2 or 3 years and which is literally overgrown. I walked into one of the containment facilities there at Camp X-Ray. I had to brush away the weeds in order to move through the door and to go in and see what it looked like. We visited Camps 1, 2, 3, and 4. And they are numbered in terms of the order in which they were built. These are the newer camps that were constructed to provide better facilities for these detainees than were originally there at Camp X-Ray when we first started using the base.We were able to see the medical facilities. We were able to observe literally everything at the base. And I can say that I don't think it would have been possible for them to have hidden from us what was happening.

We were able to observe the interrogations, to interview and discuss with the personnel present what was happening, right down to the troops who were conducting the specific guarding activities inside the cell blocks. If that is not sufficient, the International Committee of the Red Cross has had 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week access to the facility at its discretion. They have had a permanent presence, recently changing that only at their choosing. The media, both national and international, have had 400 visits to Guantanamo, representing over 1,000 members of the media who have been there to also observe. Lawyers for the detainees, who would not even be allowed if we categorized them as prisoners of war, have come and, in many of the habeas corpus cases, to observe and discuss with the detainees. And somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 Senators and 75 to 100 Representatives, in addition to over 100 congressional staff, have been there to observe.

My point is that in terms of transparency, is the United States letting its own people, its Congress, and the world know what is being done there? I believe the answer is clearly yes.

My colleague Senator Bunning went through the numbers of deaths in the Nazi concentration camps, in the gulags under Stalin, and the numbers, you will recall, were in the millions. Not one detainee has died at Guantanamo . On the contrary, they have the best medical care that I believe any detainees in history have ever had. So as far as the question goes with regard to whether we are providing a true and accurate picture to the public about what is happening there, the answer is unequivocally yes.

What is happening there? I would like to talk a little bit about what we saw. As I indicated, there are a number of facilities. They are called Camp 1, 2, 3, and 4. They are building Camp 5 and Camp 6. They are different in terms of the levels of security and in terms of the operations. Those who are detained there are able to be in one of the camps versus the other camps depending on how they respond to their detention. If they are the more violent kind who do not follow instructions, then they are often in individual confinement. This individual confinement does not mean solitary confinement. It means they would be in a cell block with 40 or 50 others, and you can see each other through the cell. These are not enclosed. So they have the ability to play chess between cells and so forth. They have running water, sinks, and toilets in each cell.

They have religious paraphernalia so they can practice their religion. They are facilitated in the practice of that religion by being provided with prayer calls and with directions. From wherever in the camp you are, you can see an arrow that points toward Mecca so you know the directions. They are provided recreational opportunities, showers, and three, good, solid meals a day, as well as outstanding medical care. Those are the ones who are in the most closely confined circumstances. Those who are more willing to follow instructions and less willing to attack their guards are allowed to live in more communal circumstances where the rooms, instead of being individual cell units, are in units where ten or more can live together, and then those groups can go out in recreational facilities and have [Page: S7401] a little bit expanded recreational opportunity and the like.

Then there is the maximum security facilities which would be comparable to the kinds of similar facilities that are there that you could find anywhere in the United States, in prison facilities that are subject to extensive litigation and oversight by attorneys and our own judicial system. Throughout this entire process, whether one is in the most extreme, highest maximum security circumstance or whether one is in some of those areas where the more responsible detainees are able to be, they are always provided with the best possible treatment. I don't believe it would be possible for a valid argument of some type of physical abuse to be made because there is such care there to be certain that even when the detainees are being interrogated--and, by the way, the interrogation is a very humane and, frankly, easygoing process which does not create physical threat to the detainees--there are always more than one or two or three people observing what is happening so there cannot be a circumstance where something goes awry and someone abuses the relationship and the situation.

Let me talk a little bit about the medical care. I said they are getting top-notch medical care. I asked many of those who we were there with what the comparability would be between the medical care provided to these detainees and that provided to detainees by other nations in other wars or in other circumstances. Consistently no one could give me an example of better medical care ever being provided anywhere. I asked if it was equivalent to the kind of medical care that our own troops were being provided. The answer was yes. It is probably better medical care than these detainees have ever had in their lifetime. When they were first brought there, many of them had traumatic injuries from the battles in which they were captured. Those injuries were treated. Now they have reached a point that they have been there several years, some of them, where they are being treated for the kinds of problems you and I and others would want to have medical care for. They are getting annual checkups. They are being treated for diabetes, if they have back ailments or heart problems, whatever it may be, if they have dietary needs, they are being treated for them.

A number of them have lost their limbs, not because they lost them in battle but because they lost them while they were building bombs to blow up Americans. And we have provided treatment for their loss of limbs and actually provided them with prosthetics and helped them with the physical therapy so they can regain the use of their bodies to the maximum extent we can help them. We have facilities there to do major surgery. We have all kinds of other support. If they have medical needs that go beyond what we have there available, they are taken elsewhere to get that medical treatment.

In fact, I would like to move now to the discussion of what the morale of our troops is. I think as we met there with people at all levels, from the guards to those who ran the hospitals to the managers to everyone else, I could honestly say the morale of our troops there is very high. But there is a concern that was consistently expressed to me by them. I had the opportunity to have lunch with some of those who were literally on the front lines having to go into the cell blocks and to provide the guard service around the clock with these detainees.

And they are concerned about what the American people and the international public think about them and about what they are doing because they believe they are treating these detainees with the highest respect and with the most humane treatment possible. They are overseeing it rigorously. If any of them steps out of line, they get handled and they get in trouble. Yet they are subjected constantly to threats and harassment and abuse from the detainees.

It is my perspective that if anyone is being abused at Guantanamo , it is not the detainees, it is the good young men and women guards who are there on the front line, who are themselves physically threatened, verbally threatened, and in other ways abused. It has been reported what kinds of things are thrown at them through the cell blocks as they walk through. When they happen to go through and a detainee throws urine or feces on them, they have to go out, be hosed off, and go back into duty. If anyone is being abused at Guantanamo , it is the treatment that is being afforded to our men and women of the military that is causing the abuse to them, rather than the reverse.

For those here in this body or anywhere else to accuse our men and women of mistreating those at Guantanamo is a great irony because any abuse or mistreatment that is happening is the reverse.

I am proud of our men and women there. They are truly doing a great service for this country and for this world. Let me conclude by talking a little bit about what that is.

By the way, I forgot one piece of information. I have talked about the medical facilities and other kinds of support that have been provided to these detainees to make sure they are being properly cared for. In the newest facilities, the prisoners even get air conditioning, which is not something most of the troops get, at least during their working hours. But what does that cost us? What kind of investment has the United States made? To this point, the United States has spent over $241 million in providing these medical facilities, these containment and detention facilities, and for the care and treatment and feeding of these detainees. The annual cost will go on probably at $100 million a year, until we are able to resolve this conflict. The United States has also spent over $140 million in existing or new detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. So we are putting a tremendous amount in here.

What benefit does it provide to us? As I indicated, the purpose of this detention, to me, is twofold. First of all, it is to stop dangerous terrorists from being put back into the field so they can go back out and continue to kill Americans and others and train and facilitate other terrorists in doing the same thing. The first thing is to stop them from committing terrorist activity. The second purpose is to be able to gain from them information that will help us better pursue or fight against terrorists around the world. The question of Guantanamo detainees, which I will again state is not the kind of interrogation that one thinks of when they think of a gulag, or what you might see on TV as a threatening interrogation. This is entirely nonthreatening interrogation. It has improved the security of our Nation and coalition partners by helping us to expand our understanding of the operations of the terrorists. It has given us an expanded understanding of the organizational structure of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. It has given us more knowledge of the extent of the terrorist presence in Europe, the United States, and the Middle East. It has given us knowledge of al-Qaida's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, of methods of recruitment and location of recruitment centers, terrorist skill sets, general and specialized operative training, and of how legitimate financial activities are being used to hide terrorist operations.

The intelligence we are gaining by the interrogations of those who are kept at Guantanamo has prevented terrorist attacks and has saved American lives. Not only has no one died at Guantanamo , not only has the highest health care possible been provided to them, but lives have been saved as a result of our activities there. Detainees have revealed al-Qaida leadership structures and operating funding mechanisms, training and selection programs, travel patterns, support infrastructure, and plans for attacking the United Sates and other countries. Information has been used by our forces on the battlefield to identify significant military and tribal leaders who are engaged in or supporting attacks on coalition forces. Detainees have continuously provided information that confirms other reporting regarding the roles and intentions of al-Qaida and other terrorist operatives.

I could get into details, but I will not do that publicly. The fact is, we are getting extensive, detailed information from the terrorists who are kept at Guantanamo , which is saving American lives and helping us to protect our young men and women in the military and people in other nations.

I want to conclude my remarks by coming back to the beginning. There has been a lot of debate about what is going on at Guantanamo . What is the United States doing? Why is it doing it? Is the United States creating some type of a new detention circumstance in modern warfare, which parallels some of the most terrible examples that our critics have been able to throw up at us? I went down there wanting to know and wanting to see and to be able to report back to the American people about what truly is happening.

What I found was that the U.S. men and women of our Armed Forces are committed, honorable, loyal, duty-bound members of the American military who are following the orders of their Commander in Chief to the letter, following the Geneva Conventions, and providing beyond what the Geneva Conventions even requires in terms of protection to these detainees, in a service to America and to the world. I found a circumstance where I don't believe a valid argument can be made that there is any nonhumane treatment of these detainees. I found a circumstance in which it appears to me that what is being portrayed by some is simply manufactured out of whole cloth in order to perpetuate a broader debate against the United States and our interests.

I also became convinced that, far beyond being simply a detention facility, Guantanamo is one of the key strategic interrogation facilities necessary for the United States in pursuit of the war against terror in this world. As we have said in both of our remarks, Guantanamo is where the worst of the worst are taken. They are taken there to be protected so that we can be protected from them and so that we can gain information from them that will help us better protect ourselves as we continue to fight to defend against the likes of Osama bin Laden.

I also stand here to commend the young men and women of our fighting forces--not just those who at Guantanamo are suffering the abuse of the detainees and the extremes of the weather and the living circumstances there to defend us, but those who serve throughout this world, whether it be in Iraq or Afghanistan or any of the other points of conflict or in any other of the stations around this world, where we have men and women deployed to defend our interests.

The United States is at war against terrorists and we must acknowledge that. The efforts of the men and women in our military should be commended, not discredited. I stand as one Senator to thank the men and women of our Armed Forces for the tremendous job they do. They put their lives on the line daily for us and they should be given our thanks, not our criticism.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

http://crapo.senate.gov/legislative/transc.../guantanamo.cfm

Edited September 18, 2006 by mmmbop1976