PhillyKev 0 #1 October 21, 2003 LINDA MOTTRAM: New claims have emerged that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are being tortured by their American captors, and the claims say that Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib are among the victims. US-based Australian lawyer, Richard Bourke, has made the allegations after working for almost two years on the cases of Camp X-Ray detainees. He says that he and his colleagues have been receiving reports of horrendous abuse of prisoners in Cuba, and in Afghanistan. They've made slow progress through the American court system. Mr Bourke says he's now prepared to take the cases to international tribunals, including the UN Standing Committee on Torture. Ben Knight reports. BEN KNIGHT: Two years ago, Richard Bourke was a Melbourne criminal barrister, who left for the US to defend death row inmates who couldn't afford lawyers. Not long after he arrived there, David Hicks was arrested in Afghanistan and since then, Richard Bourke has been working on his case, as well as those of dozens of other Camp X-ray inmates. Two weeks ago, he helped open a resource centre for other lawyers doing the same, but progress through the American courts has been slow and now, Richard Bourke says he and his colleagues will look at taking their cases to international tribunals like the International Court of Justice and the UN Standing Committee on Torture. RICHARD BOURKE: They are torturing people. They are torturing people on Guantanamo Bay. They are subjecting them to cruel and unnecessary treatment. And people sometimes argue about the definition of torture. What they're doing clearly comes within the definition of torture under the convention, under the international convention, but it also…they are engaging in acts which amount to torture in the medieval sense of the phrase. They are engaging in good old-fashioned torture, as people would have understood it in the Dark Ages. BEN KNIGHT: Richard Bourke says reports have been leaked by American military personnel, adding to the descriptions given by prisoners who've already been released. RICHARD BOURKE: One of the detainees had described being taken out and tied to a post and having rubber bullets fired at them. They were being made to kneel cruciform in the sun until they collapsed. The reports about the number of suicide attempts and the level of mental health of the detainees is evidence of the treatment that they're receiving. BEN KNIGHT: And he believes the two Australian detainees, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, have also been tortured. RICHARD BOURKE: I, I don't doubt that. I think the very fact that David Hicks was one of the first designated for prosecution is clear evidence that he has made confessions, presumably multiple confessions to something or other and has indicated that he is willing to take a plea. The US tactic is to have a series of show trials in which people admit their guilt and plead guilty to vindicate the US policy amongst those early prosecutions and the fact that David Hicks was designated simply backs up what they've done. BEN KNIGHT: A spokesman for the Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, confirmed that no one has raised these allegations before. He also said that Australian officials who've visited Guantanamo Bay reported that the two men were in good health, and being treated humanely and that the Red Cross also has access to the prisoners. But lawyers have still been unable to get to them and while two of Richard Bourke's colleagues are currently applying to represent David Hicks at the military tribunal, the American courts will not allow an Australian lawyer to do the same. Richard Bourke says it's now time to take these cases to the international justice bodies, but he concedes it's not going to be easy. RICHARD BOURKE: What we really require is other governments around the world to be willing to stand up and say, we think there's a problem here and we want it investigated. We want the UN to be investigating the reports of torture as they're empowered to do under the torture convention. There is enough evidence out there to justify them looking at what's occurring and they've certainly looked at other situations with far less evidence. What we need is a government to sponsor that type of action. LINDA MOTTRAM: Richard Bourke is an Australian lawyer working full time in the US on the cases of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan. He was speaking to Ben Knight. Related Stories: Terry Hicks agrees prisoners are being mistreated A short time ago, AM Reporter Rafael Epstein spoke to the father of detainee David Hicks, Terry Hicks, on the line to his home in Adelaide. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s962052.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 October 21, 2003 Judges condemn Camp X-Ray Clare Dyer, legal correspondent Saturday October 11, 2003 The Guardian Judges and lawyers from around the world yesterday condemned the US treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as a violation of international law. The International Bar Association's task force on international terrorism said: "States cannot hold detainees, for which they are responsible, outside of the jurisdiction of all international courts ." The task force was led by Justice Richard Goldstone, a judge of South Africa's constitutional court and former chief prosecutor of the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and Emilio Cardenas, president of the IBA and Argentina's ambassador to the UN. The UK delegate is the Labour peer Helena Kennedy. Speaking from Washington, DC, where the report was launched, Justice Goldstone noted that there had been dozens of suicide attempts at Guantanamo Bay where prisoners deemed "enemy combatants" are being held indefinitely outside US territory. The US authorities plan to try them by military commission with no right of appeal. Justice Goldstone said: "The law just doesn't accept black holes. If they're prisoners of war they've got rights under the Geneva convention. If they're civilians they've got rights under the domestic law of the US. "It's unacceptable and inconsistent with the rule of law that you're holding 662 people without any access to due process. They're at the mercy of Pentagon officials." The report coincided with a statement from the International Red Cross. Wrapping up a two-month visit to the base, the organisation, the only independent group with access to the detainees, said it had found a "worrying deterioration" in their mental health. The IBA task force also suggests the US/UK strike on Iraq was questionable under international law. It says: "The task force has grave doubts as to whether claims of self-defence justify, per se, unilateral action to engage in armed intervention in any country that has not attempted an attack or threatened international peace and security." The task force calls for adherence to a set of fundamental principles of law in the fight against terrorism. Among the first principles, it says, is that states should not use the threat of terrorism to disregard international law. Justice Goldstone added: "The new scale of terrorism has produced greater challenges for all of us. International cooperation will be critical to the protection of citizens in the 21st century." http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1060689,00.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #3 October 21, 2003 A diverse group of ex-judges, diplomats and former military lawyers is urging the US Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of hundreds of men being held without trial by the government. Detainees have been given no access to lawyers They hope the top court will agree to review the detention of suspected al-Qaeda and Taleban members in the US military camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. US officials insist there are reasons for holding the alleged fighters and say they will get a fair legal hearing in due course. But opponents say it is already nearly two years since most of the detainees were captured and they should be afforded more rights now. John Gibbons, a former appeals court judge, said justice was being "totally denied" to the detainees in Guantanamo. "They don't have access to lawyers; they have had no hearings; they are just in limbo. That's as clear an example of justice denied as you can find," he said. A key issue is that the detainees are foreign citizens being held on foreign soil and as such may not come under the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Mr Gibbons said he found it "repugnant" that the administration could order the imprisonment of people possibly beyond the reach of law, especially as he said the US clearly ruled over Guantanamo Bay, even if it was technically part of Cuba. Shafiq Rasul is among the Britons held at the military camp He said he hoped the Supreme Court would be persuaded to "restore the rule of law" with the filing of the legal papers by the seven groups supporting two cases brought concerning 16 detainees, including two Britons - Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal. There is no compulsion for the US Supreme Court to review the cases, but Mr Gibbons said he was optimistic that the support needed from four of the nine justices would be forthcoming. Retribution feared Don Guter, the US navy's judge advocate general until last year, said extreme measures were necessary after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States. But Mr Guter, who was inside the Pentagon when it was deliberately hit by a hijacked plane that day, said it was not acceptable simply to hold suspected al-Qaeda or Taleban members until the US' war on terror was over. Such a victory might never come he said, and even if there was no public outcry about the treatment of Guantanamo detainees the US should permit them various rights, not least to stop possible retributions. The US has the might, but not the right, the advocates say The argument filed to the Supreme Court by Mr Guter and other former military lawyers said: "The lives of American military forces may well be endangered by the United States' failure to grant foreign prisoners in its custody the same rights that the United States insists be accorded to American prisoners held by foreigners." That view was backed by ex-prisoners-of-war, some of whom told the Supreme Court they believed they owed their lives to the fact that their captors abided by the Geneva Conventions designed to protect captured soldiers. William Rogers, a former undersecretary of state, said there was concern that the situation in Guantanamo would take the US from the moral high ground where it could be a role model to other nations to a much lower position. He and 18 former US diplomats, including 11 ambassadors, filed their own papers which said: "The perception of this case abroad - that the power of the United States can be exercised outside the law and even, it is presumed , in conflict with the law - will diminish our stature in the wider world." [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179014.stm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 October 21, 2003 My guess is that they are making them eat military chow. That IS cruel... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 October 21, 2003 Red Cross says Guantanamo status "unacceptable" Fri 10 October, 2003 17:32 BST By Jonathan Wright WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The International Red Cross say it is unacceptable that the United States continues to detain more than 600 people at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without charges or prospect of a timely trial. The United States set up the detention camp in early 2002 to hold suspected members of al Qaeda captured during the war to overthrow the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan. But it refuses to treat the detainees as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and reserves the right to hold them indefinitely without bringing them to trial. "The main concern for us is the U.S. authorities ... have effectively placed them beyond the law," said Amanda Williamson, spokeswoman in the Washington office of the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross on Friday. "After more than 18 months of captivity, the internees have no idea about their fate, no means of recourse through any legal mechanism. They have been placed in a legal vacuum, a legal black hole. This, for the ICRC, is unacceptable," Williamson told Reuters. The Red Cross, which has an international mandate to monitor compliance with the Geneva Conventions and visit people detained in conflicts, has repeatedly expressed its concerns about aspects of the detention camp at Guantanamo, which was deliberately chosen because of its legal ambiguity. But it usually couches any criticism in careful language because its priority is to retain access to the detainees and to work behind the scenes for improvements. ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger visited Washington in May and told the United States it was time to set a legal framework for the detainees. But little has happened since then and the Red Cross has grown increasingly concerned about the psychological effect of the uncertainty on the detainees. "As time wears on, the anxiety for the detainees increases, and so do our concerns for the impact this uncertainty is having on the population in Guantanamo," Williamson said. "We did feel that we had to make our concerns known. "Clearly when you look at Guantanamo today, that crucial element -- the lack of a legal framework -- remains unresolved." The United States says the detainees are "enemy combatants" but not prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. It reserves the right to try them before military tribunals but has not yet brought any to trial. White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday repeated the U.S. position that it treats the detainees consistently with the requirements of the conventions. "They are enemy combatants. We are at war on terrorism," he added. On Thursday, a group of former U.S. federal judges, diplomats, military officials and human rights advocates urged the Supreme Court to review the case of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere in the name of "terrorism." "The idea that American executive branch personnel, particularly military personnel, can detain people beyond the reach of habeas corpus is just repugnant to the rule of law," said John Gibbons, former chief judge of the federal appeals court in Philadelphia. http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=386653§ion=news Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #6 October 21, 2003 Aaaaaaaaaawwwwwww...poor terrorists. __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #7 October 21, 2003 Yep, These news make me sad....that the them base is not OVERFLOWING with them terrorists...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #8 October 21, 2003 QuoteAaaaaaaaaawwwwwww...poor terrorists. That's beautiful. I think it's great that we now hold people without trial on foreign soil in definitely and deny them any due process of law. This kind of precedent scares me a lot more than any terrorist does, this is truly terrifying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #9 October 21, 2003 Repeat after me..." I - Can - Waste - Band - width"I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #10 October 21, 2003 and after me.....see you later aligator, after a while TALIBAN......."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #11 October 21, 2003 So what do you suggest we do with these monsters of the world. They were enemy's during a war. They have no right to due process under our govt. Oh I get it, you want to brung them over here, put them in a big hotel and go through a big trial with a bunch of jag-off lawyers. I just want to know, what you want to do with them, since all you do is bitch about what is going on now, you never suggest what should be done.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 October 21, 2003 Mr. Kev. This right-winger happens to agree with you. Maybe it's the lawyer in me. Maybe it's those couple of times I've raised my right hand to support and defend the Constitution. I take great issues with the fact that anybody can be held by our government in this way. It is a dangerous precedent to set. Maybe it's because of that pesky 14th amendment, which states that "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Yeah, this applies to the Feds as well as the states. The simple fact is that these terrorists are under our jurisdiction. If the American government acts like this, then the terrorists have won.... Either put them on trial or let them go. It's that simple. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #13 October 21, 2003 No, he wants to give peace a chance.... This are good people who intend to work on world peace, and tolerance to mankind..... I heard that dilussion can be triggered by drug consumption..."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 October 21, 2003 What should we do? One of two legal things, either give the red cross access to inspect the facilities as required by the Geneva convention if they are enemy combatants. But, if we do that, then we have to let them go back to Afghanistan since we're no longer at war with them. The other option is to treat them as criminals and put them on trial, meaning actually charge them with a crime and give them access to a lawyer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #15 October 21, 2003 QuoteThe simple fact is that these terrorists are under our jurisdiction. If the American government acts like this, then the terrorists have won.... Exactly!!!! no more posts from me on this issue....it makes me sick.__________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #17 October 21, 2003 >They were enemy's during a war. They have no right to due process > under our govt. Then treat them as POW's according to the agreements we signed - agreements that help guarantee that OUR soldiers are not tied to posts and shot with rubber bullets when they are captured by our enemies. > I just want to know, what you want to do with them, since all you do > is bitch about what is going on now, you never suggest what should > be done. They are either common criminals or POW's. Decide which one they are and deal with them accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #18 October 21, 2003 The Red Cross is there!!!!!!!!! My cousin who is in the Marines is there now and he has mentioned the red cross several times.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 October 21, 2003 Yes, they are there. And they have said that the conditions are unacceptable. Try reading the articles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #20 October 21, 2003 QuoteOne of the detainees had described being taken out and tied to a post and having rubber bullets fired at them. They were being made to kneel cruciform in the sun until they collapsed. I think it's interesting that the title "claims of torture" was chosen, but the only "medieval," presumably meaning physical torture, cited was the above. From one of the articles: "I haven't heard any details on [my son] on his treatment but, um, I have heard quite a few of the others are going through quite a bit of stress on this type of treatment that they are getting." So, someone's heard something? BFD I'm sure Quade will be pointing us to the actual accounts shortly, but the stories sounds like propaganda... As for holding them in limbo, that's another story and should be another title. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #21 October 21, 2003 Quote The Red Cross is there!!!!!!!!! There's no question the Red Cross is there... It's just that they're not saying very good things about what they find. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=red+cross+guantanamo&sa=N&tab=wn _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #22 October 21, 2003 So offer them room and board at your crib.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #23 October 21, 2003 I'll throw my two cents in here. How many of the guys they captured in Afghanistan were actively fighting the US before the US went in there? Those that were actively fighting/training to attack the US and may have intelligence that can assist in breaking the terrorist cells you can keep. Let them be monitired by the Red cross/crescent, give them legal representation and access to embassy representatives from their country i.e. UK, Australia etc. Those that were tribesman fighting as a way of life following their tribal warlord (may not be that bright and may not be a threat to the US in the future) can be sent back to Afghanistan. I believe there have already been a number of those repatriations. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #24 October 21, 2003 Quote>They were enemy's during a war. They have no right to due process > under our govt. Then treat them as POW's according to the agreements we signed - agreements that help guarantee that OUR soldiers are not tied to posts and shot with rubber bullets when they are captured by our enemies. If they are prisoners of war, on behalf of which signatory to the Geneva Convention were they fighting? So, when they decide to add kidnapping to their arsenal, we know where to send the Red Cross. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #25 October 21, 2003 >If they are prisoners of war, on behalf of which signatory to the >Geneva Convention were they fighting? ?? So you don't think they are prisoners of war? In that case, put them on trial and then put them in prison or execute them. If they are innocent of any crimes, let them go. The US is not bettered by torturing innocent people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
