Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Innocent man dies of medical neglect in Guantanamo

By geoswan in Op-Ed
Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:08:02 AM EST
Tags: politics, afghanistan, guantanamo (all tags)
Politics

On December 30th Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) announced the fifth death in custody of a Guantanamo captive.

The JTF-GTMO asserted that 68 year-old Abdul Razzak was a confirmed jihadist and military leader.

It is interesting to compare the JTF-GTMO claims with his testimony.


Originally, the Bush Presidency asserted they didn't have to tell captives taken in Afghanistan why they were suspected of being "enemy combatants". The Supreme Court over-ruled the Executive Branch in its 2004 ruling, in Rasul v. Bush. Subsequently, the DoD cobbled together one-time Combatant Status Review Tribunals, and annual Administrative Review Board hearings.

About 60 percent of the captives attended their Combatant Status Review Tribunals, in late 2004. A surprising number of the captives considered themselves innocent, and trusted their Tribunals would set them free. A smaller fraction attended their first annual review, in 2005. Less than 20 percent attended their second annual review, in 2006. The documents from 2007 haven't been released yet. So we don't know how the attendance was this year.

Abdul Razzak was one of the very few captives who attended all three of administrative proceedings.

  • Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal -- Razzak, Abdul -- 21 September, 2004 -- page 71
  • Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement -- pages 55-59
  • Unclassified Summary of Evidence for Administrative Review Board in the case of Razzak, Abdul -- 16 August, 2005 -- pages 61-63
  • Summary of Administrative Review Board Proceedings of ISN 942 -- pages 272-283
  • Unclassified Summary of Evidence for Administrative Review Board in the case of Razzak, Abdul -- August 5, 2006 -- pages 90-93
  • Summary of Administrative Review Board Proceedings of ISN 942, pages 37-41

    He willingly acknowledged that he had been involuntarily conscripted by the Taliban -- for three months a year, for the first five years of the Taliban's rule.

    After decades of warfare, and the consequent breakdown in infrastructure, the Taliban found Afghanistan had an enormous shortfall of professionals, of skilled trades, and of clerks who could read, write and do simple arithmetic. About two dozen of the Aghan captives in Guantanamo acknowledged being conscripted by the Taliban -- but not to serve as fighters, rather to work in the civil service.

    Razzak testified that the Taliban put him to work as a truck driver. Razzak testified that while he was illiterate, one of his sons was not only literate, but could read and write English. The Taliban conscripted his son to work in computer support.

    Razzak totally denied almost all the allegations against him. But one serious allegation, possibly the most serious, contained a grain of truth. He was accused of involvement in a plot to try to help senior Taliban leaders escape from custody.

    Razzak testified that approximately two years prior to 9-11, his son had been able to have access to some captured senior Northern Alliance leaders. Taliban Intelligence had been forced to put trust in him, because they relied on him for computer support.

    The three men were Ismail Khan -- who is Afghanistan's current Minister of Energy, Zahir Qadir, a senior military leader, and a General Qaseem.

    Razzak's son got funds to buy a land rover for the escape. Razzak, as the professional truck driver, was to drive the land rover. The leaders escaped, even though the vehicle hit a land mine. Razzak's son lost his foot. Razzak's hand was injured.

    Is it possible that Razzak was lying? Sure. It is possible. But what is clear is that even though Razzak was in US custody for six years -- no member of the US counter-terrorism establishment bothered to take the trouble to contact Ismail Khan, to see if Razzak had been telling the truth.

    Many other captives were told that the USA couldn't find the witnesses they requested, even though those witnesses were members of Karzai's cabinet, or they were senior members of Karzai's administration.

    Unfortunately, the American counter-terror establishment did not take any steps to check out the alibis of any of its captives.

    Another aspect of Razzak's case is that his death casts doubt on the meme that the Guantanamo captives are getting excellent health care. Razzak died of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer is a very slow-growing kind of cancer, that takes decades to get to the fatal stage. It is also very easily detected, decades before it becomes dangerous, when one is receiving competent, modern medical care. After fifty everyone should get a butt periscope. A tube with a camera, and tiny pincers, is inserted up the butt. A doctor monitors the camera, and if he or she sees a pre-cancerous polyp, the pincers are used to snip it off.

    If Razzak had been getting the excellent health care the Bush Presidency claims, his cancer would have been detected back in 2002.

  • Sponsors

    Voxel dot net
    o Managed Hosting
    o VoxCAST Content Delivery
    o Raw Infrastructure

    Login

    Poll
    Does it matter whether Guantanamo contains innocent men?
    o Yes, fiar trials protect all of us. Innocent men's false confessions put us at risk 79%
    o No, because a few mistakes always happen 5%
    o No, the war on terror requires sacrificing luxuries like the rule of law. 14%

    Votes: 34
    Results | Other Polls

    Related Links
    o announced the fifth death in custody of a Guantanamo captive.
    o Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal -- Razzak, Abdul -- 21 September, 2004 -- page 71
    o Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement -- pages 55-59
    o Unclassified Summary of Evidence for Administrative Review Board in the case of Razzak, Abdul -- 16 August, 2005 -- pages 61-63
    o Summary of Administrative Review Board Proceedings of ISN 942 -- pages 272-283
    o Unclassified Summary of Evidence for Administrative Review Board in the case of Razzak, Abdul -- August 5, 2006 -- pages 90-93
    o Summary of Administrative Review Board Proceedings of ISN 942, pages 37-41
    o Also by geoswan


    Display: Sort:
    Innocent man dies of medical neglect in Guantanamo | 103 comments (88 topical, 15 editorial, 7 hidden)
    honestly (1.28 / 7) (#3)
    by achievingfluidity on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:35:29 PM EST

    this is more stupidity.

    No one cares about it. Besides for those that DO care can and do post and read they can go to dkos or moveon.org.

    --
    ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


    and it is attitudes such as this (2.00 / 2) (#4)
    by postDigital on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:48:19 PM EST

    which is the reason the the GOP need be pounded either into its demise or submission.

    Move along loyal sheeple, it's only habeas corpus that is being denied...



    [ Parent ]
    it is only habeus corpus (1.50 / 4) (#9)
    by achievingfluidity on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:13:07 PM EST

    if you are a American. You are confusing non-citizens with REAL citizens of the U.S.

    You need to read some on U.S. Government.

    Sheesh

    --
    ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


    [ Parent ]

    Really? (2.83 / 6) (#18)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:52:29 PM EST

    Really?

    Perhaps you are the one who "needs to read some on U.S. Government"? The SCOTUS re-affirmed that non-citizens were entitled to the protections of habeas corpus in Rasul v. Bush in 2004.

  • US Supreme Court Affirms Rights of Non-Citizen Detainees Muzaffar Chishti -- Migration Policy Institute -- August 2004

    Up until the recent passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 habeas corpus applied to both citizens and non-citizens.

  • The right of prisoners to challenge their confinement -- habeas corpus -- is enshrined in the Constitution and is central to American liberty. New York Times editorial, February 22, 2007

    This aspect of the MCA is being challenged before the Supreme Court. It may be ruled unconstitutional.

    Let me suggest that, before you tell other people they need to do more homework, you should double-check to make sure you know what you are talking about first.

    You might find that failing to know what you are talking about will erode your own credibility.

    [ Parent ]

  • Natural Rights ond The GOP Swill of Citizenship (2.66 / 6) (#41)
    by postDigital on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:23:36 PM EST

    What need be clearly understood about Natural Rights is that they are not a grant of the government's, but are instead possessed by all humans. To believe that habeas corpus is a right of American citizenship is to believe that it is a right granted by a magnanimous state to its people, and therefore, insecure.

    • A people who believe their rights originate from the state will never be free.

    • A legal system which posits a differing standard of applicability based solely upon citizenry can never be just.
    • An American future in which the people did not chain and muzzle its leviathan, which in the understandable desire for vengeance after 911, was loosed upon the world as rabid wolf amongst the sheep, will never again know peace.

    Do you think I am some limp-wristed liberal who sits and contemplates his navel? Have some original contempt tossed into your partisan face, acquiescent swallower of NeoCon ejaculate:

    "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

    Thomas Paine, "Dissertations on First Principles of Government", 1795

    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

    Samuel Adams, Speech, State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, August 1, 1776

    The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume.

    Thomas Jefferson, letter to A. H. Rowan, September 26, 1798

    I'll end this with links to three vigorous contemporary dissents to the theft of habeas corpus by the Bush Admin, a tyranny to which The Republican is an accessory:



    [ Parent ]
    Ken Starr? (none / 0) (#47)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:26:05 PM EST

    That is interersting.

    Interesting post.

    Cheers!

    [ Parent ]

    move to vote (1.20 / 5) (#7)
    by GhostOfTiber on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:08:44 PM EST

    vote to flush this turd down the toilet.

    The Chinese also maintain a conscripted army, but no-one is under any illusion that those people would not be enemy combatants in a war with America.

    [Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

    Combatants, enemy combatants, and illegal combatan (2.66 / 6) (#8)
    by geoswan on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:07:01 PM EST

    Have you considered reading the Geneva Conventions? They are long. But the articles 3, article 4, and article 5, of the third Geneva Convention, are relatively short.

    Veterans aren't combatants. If someone invaded the US, they couldn't go down to the American Legion and lock up all the veterans they found there. At least not if they were going to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

    Now, if your Vietnam Veteran decides to take his varmint rifle down from above the mantel, and defend his property when the Cuban invaders came in sight, he or she would be a combatant. If he or she carried their arms openly they would be considered a a lawful combatant entitled to the full protection of POW status.

    The Geneva Conventions state that all captives are supposed to be treated as if they were POWs, even if the captors are sure the captive committed war crimes. If the captor has doubts that a captive is a combatant who complied with the Geneva Conventions and the laws and conventions of war, they are supposed to convene a "competent tribunal". The US lays out the regulations for how to conduct those competent tribunals in "Military Police: Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees".

    Competent Tribunals, the AR-190-8 Tribunals laid out in the Army Regulation above, are authorized to determine:

  • ...the captive is not a combatant, after all, but isan innocent civilian, who should be immediately released.
  • ...the captive is a combatant, but one who complied with the rules, and therefore continues to qualify for all the protections of POW status.
  • ...the captive is a combatant, who did not comply with the laws and conventions of war, and is not protected by POW status.

    Combatants who complied with the rules can be held for the duration of hostilities. But they would be protected from torture, religious discrimination, and humiliation, like being made to wear women's underwear, or having your interrogator rub her menses on your face, when you are bound hand and foot.

    Only combatants, who didn't comply with the laws and conventions of warfare, can be tried for something they did on the battlefield.

    Now the definition of "enemy combatant" is something else entirely.

    In late 2004, and early 2005, about three dozen of the Guantanamo captives had their writs of habeas corpus considered by a DC Court Judge, Joyce Hens Green. She got to grill some Bush officials over the new definition of "enemy combatant" used in Guantanamo. It is a very broad definition.

    She asked:

    If a little old lady, in Switzerland, donates to what she thinks is a legitimate charity, and unknown to her, some of that charity's funds are secretly diverted to support terrorism, does that make her an "enemy combatant".

    She was told that the little old lady would be considered an enemy combatant.

    [ Parent ]

  • did you advise al-qaeda (1.28 / 7) (#10)
    by achievingfluidity on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:15:57 PM EST

    about your stupid Geneva Conventions.

    Have you heard of reality?

    --
    ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


    [ Parent ]

    circular reasoning (2.80 / 5) (#11)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:09:36 AM EST

    You are giving us an example of circular reasoning.

    Some people believe that terrorist attack pose such a terrible threat that the public should allow the state to throw the rules of civilization, the rule of law, and the presumption of innocence, in the garbage can.

    Those people assert that because the Guantanamo captives are all terrorists they are all uncivilized, they don't deserve the protection of civilization.

    But, without granting the captives the presumption of innocence, and conducting real investigations, how can we know that the captives really are terrorists?

    I know, but weren't all the captives "captured on the battlefield"?

    No, they were not. Almost all the Guantanamo captives were turned over by bounty hunters. Highly credulous Americans paid bounties for men, without doing any meaningful sanity checking on whether the claim that the captive was a member of the Taliban or a member of al Qaeda were credible.

    The allegations against half the captives don't even claim those captives were members of the Taliban or al Qaida.

    The conduct of the the interrogations of the captives, the relaxation of standards, has not, as our fluid friend would like to suggest, made us safer. The detention without charge, the use of abusive interrogation, has made us all less safe. This lack of professionalism has irredeemably polluted the pool of intelligence we have been relying on when we decide how to allocate our counter-terrorism resources.

    Because our pool of intelligence has been polluted we have made bad decisions, based on bad information.

    This was all avoidable, could have been prevented, if we hadn't let those holding the same disrespect for the rule of law as our fluid friend.

    [ Parent ]

    you are the reason (1.16 / 6) (#12)
    by achievingfluidity on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:27:49 AM EST

    people will vote Republican during the elections.

    Shame on you.

    --
    ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


    [ Parent ]

    You answered your own question (none / 1) (#14)
    by GhostOfTiber on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:33:51 AM EST

    Had you bothered to read article 3, you would see it only applies to conflict within the territory of the contacting party. So unless the US were to annex the territory rather than simply have forces on it, none of the article apply.

    [Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
    [ Parent ]

    Geneva Convention (2.83 / 6) (#22)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:51:45 PM EST

    Afghanistan signed the Geneva Conventions decades ago.

    International treaties continue to apply, when a new government takes power. George W. Bush didn't have to resign all the treaties the USA signed, prior to his administration.

    International treaties continue to apply, even if there has been a big change in the constitution of nature of the Government. Russia is continuing to honor the International treaties the USSR signed. That those treaties continue to apply is so commonplace it goes without comment.

    The international treaties signed by previous Governments of Afghanistan, like the Geneva Conventions, continue to apply, even if the USA didn't recognize the Taliban as the Government of Afghanistan.

    You may have been confused by the work of spin-doctors, who have argued that the Taliban don't qualify for the protections of the Geneva Convention, because:

  • ...some claim Taliban soldiers don't wear "uniforms".
  • ...some claim Taliban soldiers didn't follow a "chain of command" to officers responsible for their conduct.
  • ...some claim that the Taliban has committed atrocities.
  • ...however, even Alberto Gonzales has acknowledged that after decades of warfare, practically all Afghans carry weapons, so the criteria "carrying arms openly" doesn't apply.

    WRT "uniforms": The Geneva Convention doesn't say a combatant has to wear a "uniform". It says they have to wear a "fixed, distinctive marking, visible from a distance". JTF-GTMO justified the detention of several Guantanamo because they had been issued "Taliban uniforms". The DoD can't have it both ways. If some captives are detained because JTF-GTMO asserts they were issued a "Taliban uniform", then they can't assert the Taliban don't have a "uniform". I can tell you what a Taliban soldier wears. The documents the DoD have released contain descriptions. Loose off-white pants and matchning tunic, covered by a knee-length grey vest, topped by a large black turban.

    WRT "chain of command:" One of the Guantanamo captives, Khirullah Khairkhwa, had been the Governor of Herat Province. He faced a short list of allegations during his Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The second allegation was: Detainee was appointed the governor of Herat Providence [sic] in Afghanistan from 1999 to 2001. Detainee worked for Mullah Omar while serving as governor. The detainee had control over police and military functions in Herat to include administration of the Taliban's two largest divisions. Detainee was required to route all decisions through Mullah Omar. I put it to you that there could be no clearer description of a "chain of command". A leader, like Khairkhwa, can't be held responsible for all the fighters in an entire province, while also claiming the Taliban doesn't have a "chain of command".

    WRT "atrocities": Sure, some members of the Taliban committed atrocities. And a limited number of American GIs are being investigated for committing atrocities. We don't hold ALL GIs responsible for the atrocities that may have been committed by a limited number of GIs. Let me suggest that the same should hold true for former Taliban fighters. Let me question whether holding former Taliban soldiers responsible for the atrocities of some Taliban war criminals, when they were involuntary conscripts, who were discharged years before September 11th, who never did anything more hostile than pull guard duty.

    [ Parent ]

  • You absolutely must be high (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by GhostOfTiber on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST

    That's all well and good, but it's a really lengthy swing and a miss for "the taliban didn't sign the geneva convention".

    Aside of the fact you're completely ignoring the other side of the story:
    In addition, President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists.

    Alright, so why is this all important? Or why isn't this guy held to the same standards as the geneva convention? Because you totally left out the part of your article which also stays he associated with Al Quaeda.

    [Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the link... (2.75 / 4) (#29)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:30:46 PM EST

    Thanks for the link to 2003 White House press release. Its useful. I am sure to use it elsewhere. I appreciate that.

    Thanks for putting thought and effort into your reply. I appreciate that too.

    So, the allegations assert he was a member of al Qaeda? But, if his consistent account of himself is true, then those claims aren't credible.

    His account of himself is highly testable. He testified that he helped rescue Ismail Khan, the current Minister of Energy, and then hid out from the Taliban, in Iran, until the Taliban were kicked out.

  • Will Ismail Khan confirm he was held in a Taliban prison?
  • Can the Northern Alliance confirm they paid him a pension during the time he was a refugee in Iran?

    Why is this important? Lots of reasons. Leaving aside the moral dimension, I think if Ismail Khan can confirm Razzak's account all the other allegations evaporate. And this remains extremely important because it would mean that the real Abdul Razzak who was really the leader of this forty-man unit is still at large. It is important to determine this.

    Of course if JTF-GTMO had been doing its job properly, they could have settled this case back with a month or two of his being captured.

    Those other allegations are based on this guy having the same name as that second in command of the "forty-man unit". The JTF-GTMO analysts were obsessed with this "forty-man unit". If you read the documents the DoD released they accuse over a dozen captives of being members of this "forty-man unit". The allegations don't clearly state why this forty-man unit was important. They imply it was some kind of elite unit of Taliban, financed and trained by al Qaeda. JTF-GTMO believe some guy named Abdul Razzak was the 2nd in command of this unit. Note: This is such a common name that Guantanamo contained six men named Abdul Razzak.

    Could JTF-GTMO hold guys, for years, just because they had the same name as someone they were on the lookout for? Absolutely. I could cite you a dozen shocking examples.

    This atrocious incompetence remains extremely important because we are still relying on the bad intelligence squeezed from these men.

    [ Parent ]

  • Those were his own words (none / 0) (#32)
    by GhostOfTiber on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:10:05 PM EST

    He admitted to being a member of al quaeda.

    DO YOU EVEN READ YOUR OWN LINKS?

    [Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
    [ Parent ]

    Of course I do (3.00 / 2) (#35)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:17:54 PM EST

    The JTF-GTMO allegations frequently claimed captives had made these kinds of confessions, and the captives routinely denied those claims.

    Did you read the transcript from his testimony at his Tribunal and Review hearings? I have.

    JTF-GTMO had terrible problems getting competent translators.

    [ Parent ]

    oh so it was the translators now (none / 0) (#38)
    by GhostOfTiber on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:35:26 PM EST

    So we can't possibly trust his testimony either way.

    [Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
    [ Parent ]

    JTF-GTMO's failures (3.00 / 4) (#40)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:18:14 PM EST

    JTF-GTMO didn't contact the easily locatable Ismail Khan.

    Did you read about Steven Abraham's affidavit? Recommended reading. Maybe JTF-GTMO didn't have a mandate to check out even the most easily verifiable or refutable alibi. If they were not given the mandate or resources to check out easily verifiable alibis, then the fault lies with the those who had held back that authority. Public safety relied on taking all legal, effective steps to verify or refute the suspicions against the captives.

    There are many different dialects of Arabic. In the dialect one of the teenage boys in Guantanamo spoke the word the translator kept asking him about was "tomatoes". In the translators dialect that word was "money".

    Every time the his translator asked this kid who he would go to for money, this kid, who was doing his best to be cooperative, would name one of the vendors who had a vegetable stall in his local bazaar who he would go to for tomatoes.

    The end result was that the report of this interrogation described this boy as a "senior al Qaeda financier" because he knew so many people he could go to for tomatoes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmoney.

    There was no meaningful sanity checking JTF-GTMO. Errors like this routinely crept into the allegations against the captives. And there is no sign that any meaningful attempt was made to purge them. Another captive got bored with repeating that he didn't know Osama bin Laden, had never seen him, or heard him speak. So he gave a flippant answer. "Sure, I saw Osama bin Laden. I saw him twice on CNN, and three times on Al Jazeera."

    This captive had the allegation, "Admits seeing OBL five times permanently in his file.

    When you have an imperfect mastery of a language one of the most common mistakes is to mistake pairs of words like "before" and "after". One captive had his Tribunal reconvened because someone else who spoke Arabic ratted out the translator.

    The translator had reversed whether the captive arrived in Afghanistan before 9-11 or after.



    [ Parent ]

    So this totally throws out the context? (none / 0) (#44)
    by GhostOfTiber on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:45:46 PM EST

    We're not talking individual sentences here getting people locked up.

    But taking a step back - you're trying to argue both sides of the point. Either the testimony is reliable and the guy was part of Al Quaeda or the testimony is not reliable and your entire article sucks cocks because you don't know what he's saying either.

    [Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
    [ Parent ]

    Please re-read the allegations (3.00 / 4) (#46)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:57:08 PM EST

    Please re-read the allegations.

    You mis-read them, asserting he admitted to being a member of al Qaeda. I pointed out he didn't. Maybe I was too tactful.
    He didn't admit to being a member of al Qaeda.
    He didn't admit to being a member of al Qaeda.
    He didn't admit to being a member of al Qaeda.

    Do I know his testimony was reliable? Here is part of what I wrote in my original article:

    Is it possible that Razzak was lying? Sure. It is possible. But what is clear is that even though Razzak was in US custody for six years -- no member of the US counter-terrorism establishment bothered to take the trouble to contact Ismail Khan, to see if Razzak had been telling the truth.

    Checking out alibis is not something that should be reserved solely for Americans, as some of our correspondents here have suggested. The failure to check out his easily checkable alibi is one of the failures that puts us at further risk. In Razzak's case, if he was innocent, then confidence that the 2nd in command of the "forty-man unit", described in some allegations as an elite assassination unit, is still at large.

    The DoD released three of Razzak's transcripts, 32 pages in total. I've read them. Over the last two years I've read thousands of pages of the documents from other captives' documents. I think this gives me a meaningful background to judge the captives' credibility. Can I ask on what you base your judgment of the captives' credibility?

    [ Parent ]

    Is it possible you didn't go to page 71? (3.00 / 2) (#39)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:43:12 PM EST

    Is it possible you didn't go to page 71 of that pdf file? The allegations against Abdul Razzak are one page 71.

    The allegations from that document don't contain an allegation he confessed to being a member of al Qaeda. The allegations from that document follow:

    a. The detainee is associated with al Qaida and the Taliban:
    1. Detainee served as a Taliban driver beginning in 1992.
    2. Detainee is an al Qaida facilitator and smuggler.
    3. Detainee was a commander of a Taliban terrorist cell in Afghanistan.
    4. Detainee conducted an escort mission for Usama bin Laden in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
    5. Detainee provided goods and funding for Taliban terrorist cells in Afghanistan.
    6. Detainee provided guidance in the terrorist training camp near Kandahar.

    b. The detainee participated in military operations against the coalition.

    1. Detainee fought against United States forces in Kabul.
    2. Detainee provided weapons and explosives to a Taliban terrorist cell in Afghanistan.
    3. Detainee was involved in assassination attempts against Afghani government officials.


    [ Parent ]
    Allegations against Khirullah Khairkhwa (3.00 / 3) (#33)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:12:05 PM EST

    Maybe your comment above concerned the allegations against Khirullah Khairkhwa?

    WRT to Khairkhwa being the Taliban's spokesman to the BBC and the VOA -- actually he was the spokesman for the Taliban's Foreign Ministry. Is this an important distinction? I think so. -- The Taliban was not a monolith. Khairkhwa's boss made a concerted effort to warn the USA about the impending al Qaeda attacks in the late summer of 2001. It is a tragedy that his warnings were ignored.

    WRT to the allegation that he was present at at meeting with Iranian officials. You might forget, given the fears of an Iranian bomb, and general anti-Iran sentiment, but Iran provided help to the USA in its fight with the Taliban. The Taliban are all Sunnis, while Iran is ruled by Shias. They are enemies.

    WRT to the statement that he was captured in Chaman. It is not much of an accusation. It seems to have been dropped by the time his Tribunal took place.

    [ Parent ]

    there is no third way (3.00 / 2) (#42)
    by postDigital on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:32:07 PM EST

    The detainees are either protected by the Geneva Conventions relative to Prisoners of War, or they are held as criminal actors by the United States Government, whose only sceptre of legitimacy for its use of force is the US Constitution.

    Pray tell me: Just What Part of The Phrases:

    • No person
    • In all criminal prosecutions

    Do you have difficulty understanding?



    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 1) (#45)
    by GhostOfTiber on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:47:04 PM EST

    Consider: What the the Constitution of the United States grant in terms of rights to the French?

    [Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
    [ Parent ]

    Looking for clear, civil, reasoned disagreement (none / 1) (#59)
    by geoswan on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:48:36 PM EST

    Consider: What the the Constitution of the United States grant in terms of rights to the French?

    Can anyone decode this question for me?

    Surely, even if one believes the US constitution allows stripping foreigners of the right to habeas corpus, it doesn't single out the French?

    Or perhaps GhostOfTiber is trying to compare the rights granted by the US constitution with those granted by the French constitution?

    I am disappointed that GhostOfTiber hasn't acknowledged being mistaken that Razzak was alleged to have confessed to being a member of al Qaeda. He or she has shown they are capable of giving a meaningful response.

    Intellectual honesty -- owning up when we make mis-statements is important.
    Owning up when we realize someone made a good point is important.
    Owning up when something else has made us change our mind is important.

    I look for correspondents who disagree with me, yet can remain civil and reasonable, because I am more likely to learn the flaws in my conclusions, and the flaws in the info I used to reach those conclusions, through civil dialog with those who hold differing views than I am with those who share my conclusions.

    I thanked GhostOfTiber when he or she brought in a good solid reference. I'll thank them again, any time they offer a meaningful reply. Unfortunately, this one holds no meaning for me.

    AcheivingFluidity told me I should go to Daily Kos. Sorry, I am unlikely to find civil correspondents. who can civilly draw my attention to flaws in my reasoning, preaching to the choir. I found some civility here, in 2005.

    It looks like I can find lots of correspondents who disagree with me in 2008. It is unclear whether I can find any I can count on being willing and able to put their own conclusions up to the real test of articulating reasoned explanations of those conclusions.

    Of course my correspondents are completely free to choose to not allow themselves to test their own reasoning, and their own sources.

    CircleTimesSquare accused me of "hating America". Of course I don't. I love free speech. Through free speech we have the opportunity to freely exchange our views with fair-minded people willing to test their reasoning.

    Cheers!

    [ Parent ]

    MTV VTD (1.40 / 5) (#13)
    by yellow shark on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:49:43 AM EST



    -1AWTP (NT) (1.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Enlarged to Show Texture on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:13:32 PM EST




    "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Isaac Asimov
    [ Parent ]
    oh hai (1.63 / 11) (#15)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:24:21 PM EST

    does anything bad happen elsewhere in the world?

    or only guantanamo?

    the problem with people like you is you don't seem to really care about human suffering, but only care about human suffering insofar as it is currency in the prosecution of the west

    there's a lot of suffering in the world. mountains of it. and yet you seem to be inordinately concerned with molehills, because the west did it

    is bad things in guantanamo excusable, ignorable? no

    but anyone who cares about the issues you say you care about, would have their attention turn to much more horrible examples of these kinds of abuses elsewhere in the world

    but you don't. which leads one to conclude you care less about actual human suffering, and more about prosecuting the west

    so take you propaganda elsewhere


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    About two years since I last contributed here... (3.00 / 4) (#17)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:33:35 PM EST

    It has been about two years since I last contributed here, and I see you haven't changed. Yours is the only ID I remember from my earlier contributions here.

    I found your comments two years ago to be (1) prolific (1) highly repetitive; (3) only marginally on-topic, or completely off-topic; and (4) often highly confrontational and insulting.

    No, as I believe I told you two years ago, I am not solely concerned with human rights abuses committed by Americans. I have written about human rights abuses committed by citizens of other nations -- when there has been reputable sources to back them up.

    Full-fledged torture states, like Uzbekistan, routinely torture captives by boiling them alive. But, because it is a fully closed, totalitarian state, reliable news of its abuses are hard to come by.

    I have no intention of not writing about human rights abuses committed by Americans, to help preserve the illusion of those who want to pretend that the USA is not really involved in serious human rights abuse -- just because full-fledged torture states commit more human rights abuse.

    America likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country, so every human rights abuse committed by Americans is highly noteworthy.

    Some free advice: One phrase to avoid if you want a discussion to stay on a well-reasoned, civil plane, is "people like you".

    [ Parent ]

    this is the big illusion (1.00 / 7) (#26)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:56:31 PM EST

    "the illusion of those who want to pretend that the USA is not really involved in serious human rights abuse"

    no one believed that, no one believes that, and no one will ever believe that

    "America likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country"

    Iran likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country

    Zimbabwe likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country

    Uzbekistan likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country

    Saudi Arabia likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country

    but, as before, you seem intent on prosecuting the usa, and the usa only, for crimes of every nation that exists, and did ever exist

    "every human rights abuse committed by Americans is highly noteworthy."

    yes, we know it is noteworthy to you darling

    now what i'd like you to do is to look around. there's actually more going on in the world than the usa. those who blindly love the usa are complete morons. those who hate the usa, that's you darling, are also complete morons, in mirror image reflection

    the only people who can claim any impartiality and wisdom in this world are those who aren't obsessed with one nation or another

    you're obsessed

    therefore, you're a loser and a retard, and we, the world, are sick of you

    xoxoxoxoxox


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Please be more serious (3.00 / 2) (#31)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:45:29 PM EST

    Please don't assert that your correspondents "hate America" simply because they have criticisms of some of the policies of the current administration, or criticisms of those policies' implementation, or they have a criticism of the consistent pattern of lapses in policing America's human rights laws.

    I, for one, absolutely do not "hate America". I quote the founding fathers because I honor the principles America was founded upon. Would I be doing that if I hated America?

    Please be more serious in your replies. Please try to make more of an effort to read what your correspondents actually say, OK?

    Oh, yeah, on reviewing your comment I noticed you called me a "moron". I am so used to your usual style I overlooked that.

    Please don't call your correspondents "morons".

    [ Parent ]

    you've just contradicted yourself (1.25 / 4) (#34)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:16:21 PM EST

    you have raised a number of issues in your story

    1. if you care about those issues, you will attack the most egregious abusers of those issues. that's not the usa

    2. if you continue to atack the usa on these issues, you actually don't care about those issues. you care about prosecuting the usa, you hate the usa

    pick 1 or 2, carry on with your life

    but you cannot claim to impartially care about the issues you have raised in your story if you continue to prosecute the usa on them. that is a position incompatible with yur current concerns

    if you are a police man, and you see a murder and you see some guy jaywalking at the same time, and you choose to go after the jaywalker, and ignore the murderer, one can safely assume you really hate the guy who jaywalked. because why didn't you go after the murderer?

    do you have a human conscience? or an american conscience? right now, you seem to have only an american conscience, as what the usa does seems to be your overiding concern, not actual human suffering in the world


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Failure of imagination? (2.80 / 5) (#36)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:28:54 PM EST

    I contradicted myself? Is it possible you can't conceive of someone both valuing the principles America was founded upon and having some criticisms of the current US policies?

    Your comparison to the policeman who sees both a murder and a jaywalking is specious. A more valid comparison would be to the policeman who sees a bank-heist, live and in person, right before him, and heard a vague rumor of a murder, in the next town.

    But then these kinds of arguments, through stretched comparisons, quickly lose value.

    [ Parent ]

    uh what? (1.00 / 4) (#50)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:43:48 AM EST

    principles

    you seem to be grasping for the concept

    let me help you out:

    principle #1: all human lives are equal

    #2: all human beings are responsible for each other

    now ruminate on that topic, and get back to us when you figure out americans are not more equal, nor are they more responsible, than any other human on this planet

    why are you so obsessed with the usa?

    don't you consider it a little unhealthy, or at the very least, that it clouds your reason and judgment?

    the only morally and intellectually defensible pov on any issue in the world is a global one

    not a brazilian one, not an indian one, not an american one

    capisce?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You should really ignore him (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by asret on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:05:23 PM EST

    Arguing with circletimessquare is pointless. He can't make a rational, logical argument. He just puts up strawmen that he can knock over while spouting his own nonsense.

    Just forget him.


    Be happy. You're cute when you smile.
    [ Parent ]
    What would be the point? (2.66 / 3) (#61)
    by QuickFox on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:44:13 PM EST

    Forgive me if quoting you I'll arrange paragraphs and sentence-ending periods:
    Iran likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country. Zimbabwe likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country. Uzbekistan likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country. Saudi Arabia likes to represent itself as the archetype of a freedom-loving country.

    but, as before, you seem intent on prosecuting the usa, and the usa only, for crimes of every nation that exists, and did ever exist.

    Suppose someone posts K5 stories about Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe atrocities. Do you think that those stories would influence Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe voters, so that they'd vote for better governments in their countries? Even if it did influence such voters, do you think this could influence the politics of future governments in those countries?

    Trying to influence American debate and voters through K5 makes sense. There is some hope that ideas and thoughts expressed here will be read by other debaters who may spread them elsewhere.

    Trying to influence Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe debate and voters through K5 would be quite hopeless, as far as I can tell.

    Democracy needs informed citizens. Widen your perspective, watch American, European and Asian TV channels.
    [ Parent ]

    my mind continues to be blown (1.25 / 4) (#62)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:46:47 PM EST

    you ADMIT that there are worse countries out there, doing worse things, but you still want to criticize the usa... because the usa listens, and the worse countries don't

    dumbfounding!

    this is an amazing new morality to me: "punish wrongs in this world to the extent wrongdoers listen and try to make amends"

    so in your wacky wonderful world, all a murderer has to do is ignore your criticisms, and he gets away scott free

    amazing

    simply mind blowing


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh cry me a river! (2.33 / 3) (#66)
    by QuickFox on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:41:44 PM EST

    Debate is not punishment. Discussing problems and looking for improvement is not punishment.

    Why is it that some Americans get all touchy and whiney when people express opinions? Why do some Americans feel that the US should just impose its will, and everyone else should simply bow down in total submission and silence? Why this talk about "freedom", if people aren't even allowed to express opinions?

    Come on, if you take actions there will be reactions. This is inevitable reality. Face it! Deal with it!

    Try to adopt a mindset of real freedom and democracy, a mindset where debate is normal and accepted.

    Other people are being locked up for years! And you poor things can't even take some debate? Oh cry me a river! Grow some spine for chrissakes!

    Democracy needs informed citizens. Widen your perspective, watch American, European and Asian TV channels.
    [ Parent ]

    uh, dude? (1.25 / 4) (#67)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:55:07 PM EST

    if you wish to send someone up for their touchiness, it tends to work better when you aren't touchy yourself

    calm down, take a deep breath, try again

    this time try not to embody the very essence of that which you are complaining about

    (snicker)

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    IHBT (none / 1) (#69)
    by QuickFox on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:27:45 PM EST

    But then again, any reply to a CTS comment is troll food.

    My two previous trollfood posts were worth posting, because your comments provided useful hooks for interesting arguments that are worth posting anyway. But this last comment of yours isn't in any way useful as any kind of hook for any point that I feel like making.

    IOW, YFI.

    HAND.

    Democracy needs informed citizens. Widen your perspective, watch American, European and Asian TV channels.
    [ Parent ]

    I am an American (2.83 / 6) (#43)
    by postDigital on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:34:55 PM EST

    And as such, am responsible for the acts of the US government, or the thought that it is a government of, by, and for the people, is naught but a sham.



    [ Parent ]
    100% gold except "acts of the US government (1.25 / 4) (#52)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:59:05 AM EST

    when you talk about acts of the US government, we find you making specious connections of cause and effect and accountability

    connections that speak more about your poor grasp on the reality of human responsibility and human freedom, than any grasp on real international issues and who is really responsible for what

    your voice doesn't represent reason or responsibility, your voice represents patronization: "the usa is responsible for xyz", where xyz is something the usa is not responsible for

    and a real solution to problem xyz starts with you realizing who really is responsible for the problem, ESPECIALLY when we are talking about shit that goes on in other countries

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    The government.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by svampa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:10:46 PM EST

    Sorry, The government of the people, by the people, for the people, perished from the Earth long time ago, perhaps in 1920.

    Now it's the government of the people, by the corporations-banks, for the corporations-banks

    So you are not that responsible.

    Most people has been trained to watch TV, reality shows, Super bowl etc, not to be informed. Don't feel embarrassed for you country, we, the rest of Western countries, are the same (or very close) except that we don't have a such a huge army.



    [ Parent ]
    Umm... (1.14 / 7) (#21)
    by undermyne on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM EST

    fair trials are only for citizens. All foreigners can STFU or GTFO.



    "When fascism comes, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Dr. Ron Paul

    fair trials protect the general public (3.00 / 6) (#23)
    by geoswan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:10:16 PM EST

    Respondent, above, writes:
    Umm... fair trials are only for citizens. All foreigners can STFU or GTFO.

    Which US President was it who did his best to make sure those non-citizens from the Amistad got a fair trial? This comment must have the founding fathers rolling in their graves.

    On a purely practical level, stripping suspects of the protections of the rule of law, and the presumption of innocence, makes all of us, including our respondent, above, less safe.

    When a lazy or incompetent prosecutor convicts someone of murder, on evidence they know is, or should know, is not reliable, they put everyone at risk, because they are risking leaving the actual murderer on the street.

    Same with the Guantanamo captives. By not taking any meaningful steps to do any sanity checking on the allegations against the captives, those in charge put us all at much greater risk. This leaves potentially innocent men in detention, where the likely results are:

  • ...they will be coerced into false confessions.
  • ...they will be coerced into false denunciations against the other captives.
  • ...those of us on the outside will make the wrong decisions about how to allocate our limited counter-terrorism resources. Based on the bad intelligence that experts know flows from bad techniques, we will allocate resources to non-threats. We will not have resources left to allocate to the actual real threats. This makes us all much less safe.

    The Bush administration wants to allow for trials to be held in secret. The Bush administration wants to use "evidence" derived through "extended interrogation methods". The Bush administration claims these extraordinary techniques were necessary to preserve national security. They claim the secrecy is intended to hide the tools and techniques used to capture the most dangerous captives from the suspected terrorists who remain at large.

    After reading the transcripts the DoD was forced to release, I don't believe this at all. I don't believe there are any secrets to hide from terrorists who remain at large. I believe the secrecy is really intended to hide from the public how incompetent the Bush administration has been in its prosecution of efforts to counter terrorism.

    [ Parent ]

  • No they can't. (3.00 / 3) (#64)
    by FreakWent on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:18:58 PM EST

    If they shut the fuck up they get tortured, and while they'd no doubt love to get the fuck out, they are locked in a cell and can't leave.

    If all foreigners really could STFU or GTFO we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place!

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#102)
    by jd on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:24:00 PM EST


    1. Justice is blind, not stupid.
    2. If all men are equal in the sight of God and the Declaration of Independence, then they are unequal only in the sight of those who would be greater than God or the Founding Fathers, depending on who you believe in.
    3. "Liberty and Justice for all" has no room for exclusion clauses.
    4. The Constitution is the law of Governance, it is what the US Government may (or may not) do, it says nothing about where, it says nothing about who to.
    5. The Constitution is derived from the Magna Carta, which does indeed explicitly say that foreigners may not be persecuted. It may be assumed that this was the Founding Father's implicit understanding.
    6. The War of Independence was in part because foreigners (those later known as Americans) objected to the owners of the northern half of the Continent (the British monarchy) imprisoning and punishing them without trial or just cause. Any attitude in the United States which condones the elimination of the very rights America fought for criminalizes and derides as terrorists and traitors the Founding Fathers and the United States itself.

    It seems to me that the so-called "patriots" are the least patriotic, spitting in the eye of all that America stood up for in the War of Independence, slapping the Founding Fathers across the face, burning the Declaration of Independence and its inalienable truths that such "patriots" have indeed labeled alien when it suits.

    America should stand for American values and the rights those values convey - not just to who you want but to ALL - as defined and expressed in those documents that founded this nation. Those who would change the understanding of equality and liberty to suit their political views of the day, who would pervert the Constitution from its original meaning of imposing the rule of law on Government itself, are as un-American as they get. Why don't they STFU or GTFO and go to some country that's more suited to such filth and depravity?

    (Moi? Flamebait? Nahhhh. Besides, we all know it's not flamebait if it's true.)

    [ Parent ]

    as stated by those better than me (1.50 / 4) (#51)
    by yellow shark on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:52:42 AM EST

    QUIT WHINING you lozer.

    wait... a... second... (1.50 / 2) (#54)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:41:18 AM EST

    turmeric?

    is that you?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    I voted +1FP (2.66 / 3) (#55)
    by ksandstr on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:25:24 AM EST

    Partly to spite the right-wingers (the largest part is still just a part, right?) and partly because it's an interesting take on things. Of course they don't verify any alibis -- the purpose of Gitmo isn't investigation, but revenge and the somewhat-domestic training of torture experts; therefore no actual investigation is conducted.

    Fin.
    No (2.75 / 4) (#58)
    by Sgt York on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:30:24 PM EST

    the point of gitmo is security theater. It's purpose is to justify the creation, continuation, and expansion of DHS.

    "See? We're protecting you! See all these dangerous criminals we've caught? See what good work we're doing? You're safe now, because of these terrible, evil people we've caught. In fact, what they did is so terrible, so horrifyingly evil, that we can't even tell you what they did. Honest. It's that bad. You can trust us because we're protecting you."

    There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
    [ Parent ]

    Not to be too didactic, but (2.33 / 3) (#60)
    by sudogeek on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:32:06 PM EST

    Colon cancer does not take decades to progress as a rule. Some tumors arise primarily (not going through the adenoma stage) and may become invasive in less than 2 years. Most (estimated at 90%) begin as adenomas. It takes on average 10 years for an adenoma to grow from 2 mm (minimum detectable size) to 2 cm (about 5% chance of containing carcinoma), and then another 2-5 years to invasive carcinoma. Some are faster.

    In the US, only 20% of those persons who should be screened with colonoscopy (everyone over 50) actually undergo screening both because of patient fear/denial/lack of knowledge or doctor ignorance of current practice guidelines. Accordingly, we still see a lot of advanced colorectal cancer in US citizens.

    This is not to justify the lack of medical care in Gitmo, but there may be more factors. Do the US Army MDs know their stuff? Will the patients accept screening (due to religious beliefs of personal fears)? Can they even do colonoscopy in Gitmo? I wonder if there are any gastroenterologists there. If not, the detainee would have to be transported to another location (in the US) and then could make a claim for habeus or other legal motions.

    You're an arrogant, condescending, ignorant dipshit. - trhurler

    The quality of Guantanamo medical care... part 1 (2.75 / 4) (#71)
    by geoswan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:48:03 AM EST

    Can they do a colonscopy at Guantanamo? I am sure they can.

    Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani millionaire held in in Guantanamo needs a heart bypass. He did appeal, in Federal Court, to be taken to a US hospital for that bypass. The Judge didn't grant his appeal. IIRC the judge ordered the US government had to provide him with the bypass, but he accepted the DoD word that the medical facilities at Guantanamo were capable of performing the heart bypass. If he didn't choose to have it at Guantanamo, he would have to go without.

  • Heart surgery must be at Guantanamo: Court denies Pakistani detainee's request to have procedure done off base -- MSNBC -- November 20, 2006
  • Detainee who refused Guantanamo medical procedure describes failing health -- San Diego Union Tribune -- June 27, 2007

    The heart specialist who said Paracha needed the bypass told Paracha what the required after care would be. He was told that he would need to get up, and walk around the room, every half hour. Impossible in the inmates hospital. The regulations require every captive who is a patient has to have their hands and feet shackled to their hospital bed 24x7. The camp authorities wouldn't make an exception for a recovering heart patient, even if it were doctor's orders.

    Paracha also said some earlier cardio work they had done had been done in a sloppy fashion.

    The DoD press statements about him declining his heart surgery sounded pissed off. They claimed that undertaking all the preparation for his heart surgery cost almost half a million dollars.

    Here is a picture of the captive's operating room from 2005:
    "Detainees at Navy Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, receive the same high-quality medical care available to U.S. servicemembers, the detention facility commander said, including surgery in this operating room at the detainee hospital."

    Maybe Paracha is right to have reservations about JTF-GTMO's ability to do a heart bypass. But a colonscopy is much less complicated. I've had two. The colonscopy requires a single (optional) shot of demerol, the six foot, flexible tube to stick in the out port, and the padded bed to lie on. The most unpleasant thing about having a coloscopy is that you have to take laxatives, or have an enema first, so scraps of food won't hide those pre-cancerous polyps.

    Don't forget that Guantanamo's population is now over 10,000, when you include the GIs families and civilian contractors. There is a Guantanamo Macdonalds franchise there, a Pizza Hut, and several other restaurants. So I think we can expect they can do a colonscopy.

    Many other captives testified that the interrogators arranged for medical care to be withheld in order to put pressure on them to be more forthcoming in their interrogations.

    I started to tell you about Abdul Matin's medical care, but I decided his story is interesting enough to stand on its own.

    Oh, why is Paracha held in Guantanamo anyhow?

  • He is a rich guy who has met Bin Laden. Among his businesses he is a movie producer. He met OBL because he was considering doing a documentary. JTF-GTMO analysts seem to be applying the One percent doctrine -- every rich guy who ever met OBL might be an al Qaeda financier, so our safety requires treating them as al Qaeda financiers.
  • His son was convicted of being part of one of the plots Jose Padilla was supposed to have been part of. I don't know how much you guys know about these plots. Padilla's lawyers say his mental health was so damaged by his interrogations that he was unable to participate in his defense. Apparently he didn't seem to understand that he was on trial. Other captives report that they were being tortured to induce them to confess to associating with Padilla. So, do the conviction really establish their guilt?
    Which suspicion came first? I dunno. But I suspect that a second source of suspicion cropped up seemed to confitm the first.

  • www.freeparachas.org/saifullah.htm

  • Dossier of unclassified documents from Saifullah Paracha's CSR Tribunal

  • Unclassified Summary of Evidence prepared for his first annual Administrative Review Board hearing -- 14 November, 2005 -- pages 77-78

  • Documents from his first annual Administrative Review Board hearing -- pages 138-195

  • Unclassified Summary of Evidence prepared for his second annual Administrative Review Board hearing -- 29 November, 2006 -- pages 50-51

  • Documents from his second annual Administrative Review Board hearing -- pages 49-71

    [ Parent ]
  • Ok. You presume. (2.50 / 2) (#90)
    by sudogeek on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:59:10 PM EST

    It still could not be available. The equipment is no big deal, but you also need a gastroenterologist (of which there are fewer and fewer in the armed forces medical system) and surgical backup (risk of perforation, need for surgery depending on the findings, etc.).

    I agree it doesn't take a big tertiary care hospital but it may not have made the cut when the general made the staffing decisions. Given this administrations demonstrated lack of aptitude in planning and foresight, they may just be playing it by ear - sort of a faith-based medical staffing policy.  Also, there may have been a political decision not to do this because of the possibility that it would trigger a transfer to the continental US and then the patient/detainee could make a habeus claim.

    That leaves aside patient preference or choice. I really don't know what hard-core muslims/islamists think about western medicine generally or colonoscopy specifically. I do know that the doctors would not do such an elective procedure without the patient's consent

    You're an arrogant, condescending, ignorant dipshit. - trhurler
    [ Parent ]

    informed medical consent... (2.50 / 2) (#94)
    by geoswan on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:15:29 AM EST

    That leaves aside patient preference or choice. I really don't know what hard-core muslims/islamists think about western medicine generally or colonoscopy specifically. I do know that the doctors would not do such an elective procedure without the patient's consent.
    Over in another venue I have had a number of discussions over whether the captives' should be allowed the right to give or withhold their informed medical consent.

    At the height of the first two big hunger strikes as many as 200 captives were participating in a hunger strike. Camp authorities were force-feeding them -- sticking feeding tubes down their noses, and letting gravity fill their stomachs with some kind of liquid food supplement.

    If the camp authorities were concerned about administering medical procedures without getting captives informed consent they wouldn't administer any force-feedings.

    Former captives report that the injection of mystery drugs was routine. Captives believed some were some kind of truth serum. While other captives said that one of the methods used to punish captives was to inject them with a huge jolt of sedatives powerful enough to leave them catatonic for three or four weeks.

    Captives report that refusing the mystery injections was one of the behaviors that would trigger other punishments, like solitary confinement and/or the "withdrawal of comfort items". The mystery injections can't be independently documented. But force-feeding are official policy -- on any captive who has skipped nine consecutive meals.

    As to whether the Guantanamo medical staff should get the captive's consent prior to elective medical procedures -- and whether they did get the captive's consent -- did you read about Mohammed Al Qahtani's interrogation log?

  • Exclusive: '20th Hijacker' Claims That Torture Made Him Lie
  • Mohammed al Kahtani's interrogation log

    Al Qahtani was a Saudi who INS officials had denied entry to the US in early 2001. When JTF-GTMO analysts learned this they decided he was "the 20th hijacker", and he was singled out to be subjected to more extreme methods.

    He had three shifts of interrogators, so he could be kept sleep deprived, and interrogated 18 to 20 hours a day. This kind of interrogation required regular medical intervention. He was given shots when his body was on the point of collapse. Force-feeding. Forced enemas.

    For almost two months straight.

    I do not think informed consent was the limiting factor in the decision not to administer colorectal exams to the twenty captives who were estimated to be fifty years old or older in 2002, when the camp was opened.



    [ Parent ]

  • Write-in poll option (2.50 / 6) (#73)
    by QuickFox on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:26:17 AM EST

    The poll question: Does it matter whether Guantanamo contains innocent men?

    Yes, it matters, and the really important reason is that the current situation makes it all too simple for Al Qaeda recruiters to claim that, when the US talks about spreading freedom and democracy, this is window-dressing without substance.

    The current policies are handing Al Qaeda arguments on a silver platter. I've seen the effects on some youngsters of Middle-Eastern descent, and it's really scary.

    The US could have turned the situation into a showcase of how the free world conducts justice. Of course it became a showcase anyway, that was inevitable. It just had the opposite effect.

    9/11 made a few nutjobs dance on a street in Pakistan. The subsequent actions of the US made millions feel admiration for Usama bin Laden, as a man capable of making the world's superpower tremble in fear and abandon its principles.

    Al Qaeda propaganda and recruitment would be far more difficult if the actions of the US were consistent with its claimed goals.

    Democracy needs informed citizens. Widen your perspective, watch American, European and Asian TV channels.

    You are fundamentally incorrect (1.50 / 6) (#74)
    by achievingfluidity on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:10:14 AM EST

    about the islamo-nazis. Radical islam is not so much a political movement but a religious movement. Islam is fundamentally scared of democracy and could not tolerate it within the context of its religious beliefs. So saying that they would not hate the U.S. if the U.S. would "play nice" is simply ridiculous and shows your typical Western ignorance of other countries and religions.

    Radical islam has been growing for at least 50 years. Its political system takes a back seat to islamic theocracy. Hatred of Western cultural, religious, political and economic values have existed long before the U.S. was a country. Living under islamic law is barbaric, totalitarian and feudalistic. Consider the Sudan an islamic country that sanctions chattel slavery of hundreds of thousands of human beings...and that is but ONE example.

    You and other islamo appeasers (such as the author) need to read some history and pull your head out of the sand and view the current islamic agenda in the context of history.

    --
    ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


    [ Parent ]

    that isn't uniquely Muslim though (3.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Delirium on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST

    The idea that you could blaspheme against Christian beliefs and not be arrested for it is a quite recent one in Europe, and the Catholic Church only accepted the idea that freedom of religion was acceptable in the early 20th century.

    [ Parent ]
    There are and were no such (2.00 / 3) (#91)
    by achievingfluidity on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:36:29 PM EST

    constraints in the U.S. for at least 200 years, at least not in a legal sense.

    I suppose if you consider that humans have existed for the last 10,000 years or so, then yes that is recent.

    --
    ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


    [ Parent ]

    yes, the U.S. is a bit of an outlyer there (none / 0) (#97)
    by Delirium on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:11:21 AM EST

    Being founded in part by people who were persecuted for having weird minority religious beliefs, it's tended to have a bit less in the way of governmental enforcement of religious orthodoxy. But now we're talking about a difference between governments and constitutions, not between Islam and other religions.

    [ Parent ]
    *Smirk* (none / 0) (#99)
    by BJH on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST

    Americans - they think 200 years is a long time.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]
    Justice is not appeasement (3.00 / 5) (#82)
    by QuickFox on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:18:30 PM EST

    Radical islam is not so much a political movement but a religious movement.

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    Islam is fundamentally scared of democracy and could not tolerate it within the context of its religious beliefs.

    Not Islam per se, not any more than Christianity per se.

    The Middle East societies are in many regards medieval. Their systems are in many regards similar to those of medieval Europe, which was Christian. In fact, in medieval times Islam was far more enlightened and tolerant than Christianity. In terms of enlightenment the roles are reversed today.

    So saying that they would not hate the U.S. if the U.S. would "play nice" is simply ridiculous

    If I had said that, it would indeed have been ridiculous, but I said no such thing.

    I talked about recruitment. Getting new members to the fanatical organizations. Increasing the number of adepts. I talked about the fanatics getting more numerous, not about their movements becoming more radical.

    If anything they become less radical, since they no longer consist of a small core of raging fanatics, with a high proportion of psychotics, sociopaths and clinically paranoid. The hard core gets diluted. The percentage of clinically insane decreases.

    Of course the individuals who get recruited do get more radical than they were before recruitment. These are people who previously were not fanatical islamists, who get converted and become fanatical islamists. Previously they had a general and unfocused hatred toward the US, combined with reluctant admiration, causing conflicting emotions. Now, propaganda and recruitment has made the hatred focused, while the admiration has receded.

    I've worked as a substitute teacher in schools all over Stockholm (Sweden), with lots of immigrant children. Previously the fanatics were an oddity at the fringe, they were few and far between. When 9/11 occurred everyone was outraged, except the few at the fringe. Today even the mainstream people express a reluctant admiration for bin Laden. This change in attitude is a disaster.

    You and other islamo appeasers

    Justice is not appeasement. You can have both justice and punishment. There is no contradiction.

    For example, when you try a murderer and then convict him, this is not appeasement. It's real punishment.

    Justice is not about appeasement, it's about finding the culprits and punishing them. As opposed to punishing some random joe who was turned in by a bounty hunter for a quick buck.

    When the US justice system punishes a murderer, first it does its best to make sure that the guy is really the murderer, and not somebody else. This makes sense, because punishing the wrong people wouldn't have the desired effect.

    Suppose the US created laws saying that only white people have the right to trial. Black people get punished regardless of guilt or innocence. Such laws would not prevent crime, instead they would cause serious resentment and unrest.

    Similarly, punishing the wrong people at Guantanamo is causing serious resentment and unrest.

    Democracy needs informed citizens. Widen your perspective, watch American, European and Asian TV channels.

    [ Parent ]

    Islamic fundamentalism (2.25 / 4) (#96)
    by geoswan on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:01:46 PM EST

    I'd like to know what AchievingFluidity's assertions about Radical Islam are based on. As I ploughed my way through the documents the DoD has been forced to release I came across names I had never heard of before.

    I came across dozens of allegations that justified captives detention because they were alleged to have traveled to Afghanistan in response to a fatwa. About a dozen of them were said to be in response to a fatwa by Sheik Hamoud Sheubi Al Aqqa. (Al Aqqa's name was spelled inconsistently each time.)

    I came across over one hundred allegations that justified captive's detention because they were alleged to be a member of, or have some association with, the Tablighi Jamaat movement.

    I'd never heard of this Tablighi Jamaat movement. So, I looked into it. I wanted to find out, was it a "fundamentalist" movement? I wanted to find out what comparisons people who thought it was a fundamentalist movement would make between fundamentalist muslims, fundamentalist christians, and fundamentalist zionists.

    I wanted to see if there was any reason, in the public arena, to tie the Tablighi movement to terrorism.

    A couple of conclusions first: Fundamentalists include both those who believe in using violence, and those who are opposed. I think we all know Christianity best. Fundamentalists like the Branch Davidians have a strong belief in violence. And old order Amish and Mennonites have an extremely strong belief in Pacifism. From my reading I think we can find the same huge spread among fundamentalist muslims and fundamentalist jews. IIUC the followers of Rabbi Kahane would be an example of jewish fundamentalists who believe in violence. Of course fundamentalists like OBL, or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are examples of fundamentalist muslim who believe in violence.

    Academics whose field is comparative religion say the Tablighi movement is non-political.

  • Qamar-ul Huda]], a Professor of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religion at Boston College, wrote that:
    "From the very beginning the Jama'at al-Tablighi has deliberately distanced itself from politics, political activities, and political controversies."
  • pages 93-95 -- letter to Murat Kurnaz's 2005 detention review
  • Barbara D. Metcalf, Director of the Center for South Asian Studies and the Alice Freeman Palmer Professor of History at the University of Michigan wrote that:
    "I will also attempt to explain why it is implausible to believe that the Tablighis support terrorism or are in any way affiliated with other terrorist or `jihadi' movements such as the Taliban or Al Qaeda."
  • pages 96-98 -- letter to Murat Kurnaz's 2005 detention review
  • Jamal J. Ellias, Professor of Religion at Amherst College, wrote that:
    "I must emphasize this last point, that the Tablighis formally and actively believe that traveling to engage in missionary activity fully discharges any religious obligation to engage in Jihad."
  • pages 103-105 -- letter to Murat Kurnaz's 2005 detention review
  • A report by the International Crisis Group stated:
  • "The other stream of Islamic fundamentalist revivalism practice is strictly non-political, and has never been linked directly to violence."
  • "As noted above, the Tablighis are best known for their proselytising, organised around retreats. It is here that worries emerge. The Jama'at al-Tabligh itself is staunchly apolitical. No source interviewed by Crisis Group could specify an instance of Tablighis breaking the law or engaging in specifically political activity in any of the four countries. A Malian scholar of Islam spent 50 days of itinerant preaching with the Da'wa, and noted no deviation from their apolitical stance. Nevertheless, both Western and African intelligence services consider them a significant potential threat."
    Islamist terrorism in the Sahel: Fact or Fiction? -- March 31 2005
  • So, what does JTF-GTMO have to say about the Tablighi movement? First I will list some things I found, doing my homework, that JTF-GTMO doesn't seem ready to acknowledge.

  • The Tablighi movement has three million partcipants.
  • The typical Tablighi participant makes a forty-day commitment to join with about a dozen other men, travel to mosques outside their home are, where they are billeted, and talk about Islam. They are supposed to talk about Islam, with one another, or with the locals. They are supposed to avoid any talk of politics.
    So, what does JTF-GTMO have to say about the Tablighi movement?
  • Frequently the allegations merely state that the captive has some kind of tie to the Tablighi movement, and don't state why this should be seen as threatening.
  • Frequently the allegations state that terrorists have pretended to be traveling on a Tablighi pilgrimage, as a cover for travel to engage in terrorism.
  • A few allegations state that the Tablighi movement targets poor, young Muslim addicts -- one of the same pools of potential recruits that terrorist recruiters target.
  • A few allegations state that while the captive is not a Tablighi participant himself, he is suspected of knowing a Tablighi participant, or is suspected of being related to a Tablighi participant.
  • One or two captives were alleged to have attended "Tablighi training camps" -- as if these were military camps.

    One captive, asked a question that should have been asked by everyone who drafted one of these allegations. Fayad Yahya Ahmed asked the officer delegated to meet with him prior to his CSR Tribunal to provide him with an explanation as to how al Qaida was related to Tablighi Jamaat. This officer told Ahmed's Tribunal:

    We searched for a document to show that there is a connection but did not find one.
  • page 86 -- Summarized transcripts Fayad Yahya Ahmed's Tribunal
  • This fear of the Tablighi movement is an example of the deeply flawed "One percent doctrine". However, in this case it is the 0.03 percent doctrine. if the Tablighi movement has 3,000,000 participants, and 1,000 terrorists pretended to Tabligh pilgrims then the chance that any particular Tablighi participant was actually a terrorist would be 1 in 3000. We have no idea how many terrorists pretended to be Tabligh pilgrims. It might only be hundreds, dozens, or none at all.

    If the actual experts are to be believed the Tabligh movement represents a pool of potential allies, not enemies. They proselitize in the same pool of lapsed moslems, who want to participate in the muslim equivalent of a revival meeting, go through the muslim equivalent of being "born again". Every one of these individuals seeking a spiritual rebirth who is recruited by the Tabligh movement is one who isn't recruited by the terrorists. This should be seen a a good thing.

    The parent post says:

    You and other islamo appeasers (such as the author) need to read some history and pull your head out of the sand and view the current islamic agenda in the context of history.

    I resent this. I am not an appeaser of terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers. Anyone for whom there is evidence of participation in terrorism that would stand up in court should face charges and have a fair trial.

    A fair trial? I know some people say: "Terrorists don't deserve fair trials". Until we have a fair trial we don't know who is a terrorist and who isn't. Fair trials keep us safe.

    Think back on Richard Jewell. He was a hero. He saved lives. And, through the same kind of rush to judgment the parent poster is making over who is a terrorist, and who is an appeaser, Jewell became the prime suspect in the bombing where he saved lives.

    He was described as a cop-wanna-be, who could only become a measly security guard. Personality profiles pilloried him as someone who planted the bomb himself, so he could represent himself a a hero, and get into being a real cop.

    Eventually the rule of law, and the presumption of innocence protected him, protected all of us. If we used Guantanamo style "justice", where suspects are guilty, until they can prove themselves innocent, when they don't even know what all the charges are, he would have rotted away while the search for the real bomber was dropped.

    Parent poster told me"

    it is only habeus corpus...
    ...if you are a American. You are confusing non-citizens with REAL citizens of the U.S.

    You need to read some on U.S. Government.

    Sheesh

    I've read history. And I have read the details of current events.

    Parent poster's own reading of history and current events seems to have missed the part of the definitions of fascism and democracy where it is explained the willingness to forgo the rule of law and the presumption of innocence is what separates fascism from democracy.

    I am going to remind the parent poster, again, of what Ben Franklin said:
    Those who will sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    [ Parent ]

  • yhbt. yhl. hand. (none / 0) (#103)
    by The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:09:51 PM EST

    HAMSTERDAM.

    ___
    I'm a pompous windbag, I take myself far too seriously, and I single-handedly messed up K5 by causing the fiction section to be created. --localroger

    [ Parent ]
    agreed (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by mikelist on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:24:00 PM EST

    the war on terror is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    it does seem like many of the actions taken in the WoT are calculated to outrage and incite. if you piss someone off enough for a long enough period of time, they will commit a criminal act. and if you bland it down to the point that saying hi to a person who is also a terrorist becomes a terrorist act, anyone you you randomly accuse will in fact, be guilty. it's cyclical.

    whoever has their hand up gw's ass needs to be discovered and prosecuted. the prosecution would be the difficult part, i think, since it hasn't happened yet.

    [ Parent ]

    Evidence (none / 1) (#93)
    by n8f8 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:00:19 AM EST

    Seems like there is enough there to keep the guy locked up.

    Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
    What about his alibi? (none / 1) (#95)
    by geoswan on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:42:20 AM EST

    Would there be enough to justify treating Abdul Razzak as a POW, and holding him in detention until hostilities ceased?

    Surely that really depends on whether his alibi was confirmed or refuted?

    He testified he had helped spring the current Afghan Minister of Energy from Taliban custody, circa 1999, and then lived as a refugee in Iran. He testified he lived as a refugee in Iran until shortly before his return to Afghanistan, and subsequent capture. He testified the Northern Alliance paid him a stipend there.

    If this alibi had been confirmed there would have been no justification for holding him whatsover.

    Can I ask what evidence you think justifies dismissing his alibi?

    [ Parent ]

    No kidding (none / 0) (#98)
    by wji on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:09:45 PM EST

    I mean, he had a beard. What more do you need?

    In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
    [ Parent ]
    Innocent man dies of medical neglect in Guantanamo | 103 comments (88 topical, 15 editorial, 7 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!