Sorry no postings this week...it's been a busy one, but I will resume this weekend, tapping away at a hopefully much more reliable computer.
I did catch this yesterday though: Darius Rejali "Ice Water and Sweatboxes."
It is interesting to read about the long history of torture, especially as the possibility that torture works or has any redeeming value at all is still a live issue in the media and in the Obama Administration (which is in the middle of a process of figuring out whether torture "works"). Panetta says "The purpose of the review is to, obviously, determine how these interrogation techniques are being used under the Army Field Manual, the quality of the information that's provided, and whether or not in fact these other enhanced efforts produce that kind of information, I don't know. I mean, I don't know the answer to that. And that's why I'm going to participate in that review."
Always reinventing the wheel. And, btw, torture is still against the law...
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
On Obama's New Detention Memo
There are many people who have written far more interesting comments than I am likely to on the new memo put out by the Obama Administration on their power to detain, but the memo is sufficiently interesting to offer additional comment.
Obama's power to detain is still rigged against the proper, criminal justice oriented treatment of someone who may be a criminal. Point number one. For instance, the "evidence" that the Executive gathers to throw away the key can be very very ambiguous. Especially the "functional evidence" that can be used, like "training with Al-Qaida (as reflected in some cases by staying at Al-Qaida or Taliban safehouses that are regularly used to house militant recruits" (p. 6-7). This is very much a guilt by association type thing, and a worryingly vague standard.
The "did you or did you not train with Al-Qaida" question was one put to Binyam Mohamed. He claims to have trained with Al-Qaida in order to take up arms in the Chechen conflict. Would it be appropriate in that case for us to detain him indefinitely based on that evidence alone? And put him in Bagram, for instance, where no competent tribunal has yet been established to review the status of prisoners? (What provides for detention at Guantanamo will provide for detention at Bagram, surely, and Bagram is the new big playing field for the Executive).
More generally, I question the use of criteria such as "trained with Al-Qaida" as significant enough for indefinite detention. If the CIA retains the right to interrogate "short-term," they will certainly be pressing for the detainee to confess to something like this. As Valtin demonstrates in his writing here, interrogation is not solely for information - it is to produce confessions. And if the detainee has no warning and no rights going into this process, the likelihood that they will produce false confessions, or not realize the weight of false confessions, is increased.
I'm not convinced that the current setup, interrogation-wise, with the CIA holding detainees before transfer for a period of time only defined as "short," and the AFM, including its troubling sections, as its guide, provides anything more than a quick system by which to get as many detainees into jails like Bagram as possible. If the detainee is made helpless, and not duly informed as to on what grounds they are being held, then false confessions are an obvious consequence.
We are still in a weird twilight zone between the US criminal justice system and a gulag. Obama needs to make the picture much clearer.
Reading on the subject from TalkLeft, SCOTUSblog.
Update: A good example of what I am talking about above in terms of "evidence of a functional role" is Candace Gorman's client Mr. Razak Ali. She writes: "Razak Ali was found to be an enemy combatant because he was staying in a guesthouse in Pakistan that was raided and amongst the many men staying at that guesthouse was a man that may or may not have been a member of al-Qaeda. There has never been an allegation that Razak Ali even knew the man nevertheless a determination that the man himself is a member of al-qaeda."
Nonetheless Mr. Ali still sits in Guantanamo. Ms. Gorman sees the new definition as grounds for his release. Unfortunately, this memo only extends to Guantanamo, for now. There are plenty of people in Bagram currently wondering "wtf am I doing here?" with no answer. And Obama has so far been unwilling to provide them habeas corpus. I think the framework for unjustifiable detention remains. The broader reassurance here is sketchy. And I still wonder, based on that information about Razak Ali - "he was staying in a guesthouse in Pakistan...amongst the many men staying at that guesthouse was a man that may or may not have been a member of al-Qaeda" - if he would be up for perma-clink once Guantanamo is closed down. There needs to be a real, fair opportunity on the part of those captured to challenge their detention. Otherwise it will seem as though America is just detaining Muslims with impunity. How that would be good for our "soft power" image is beyond me.
Obama's power to detain is still rigged against the proper, criminal justice oriented treatment of someone who may be a criminal. Point number one. For instance, the "evidence" that the Executive gathers to throw away the key can be very very ambiguous. Especially the "functional evidence" that can be used, like "training with Al-Qaida (as reflected in some cases by staying at Al-Qaida or Taliban safehouses that are regularly used to house militant recruits" (p. 6-7). This is very much a guilt by association type thing, and a worryingly vague standard.
The "did you or did you not train with Al-Qaida" question was one put to Binyam Mohamed. He claims to have trained with Al-Qaida in order to take up arms in the Chechen conflict. Would it be appropriate in that case for us to detain him indefinitely based on that evidence alone? And put him in Bagram, for instance, where no competent tribunal has yet been established to review the status of prisoners? (What provides for detention at Guantanamo will provide for detention at Bagram, surely, and Bagram is the new big playing field for the Executive).
More generally, I question the use of criteria such as "trained with Al-Qaida" as significant enough for indefinite detention. If the CIA retains the right to interrogate "short-term," they will certainly be pressing for the detainee to confess to something like this. As Valtin demonstrates in his writing here, interrogation is not solely for information - it is to produce confessions. And if the detainee has no warning and no rights going into this process, the likelihood that they will produce false confessions, or not realize the weight of false confessions, is increased.
I'm not convinced that the current setup, interrogation-wise, with the CIA holding detainees before transfer for a period of time only defined as "short," and the AFM, including its troubling sections, as its guide, provides anything more than a quick system by which to get as many detainees into jails like Bagram as possible. If the detainee is made helpless, and not duly informed as to on what grounds they are being held, then false confessions are an obvious consequence.
We are still in a weird twilight zone between the US criminal justice system and a gulag. Obama needs to make the picture much clearer.
Reading on the subject from TalkLeft, SCOTUSblog.
Update: A good example of what I am talking about above in terms of "evidence of a functional role" is Candace Gorman's client Mr. Razak Ali. She writes: "Razak Ali was found to be an enemy combatant because he was staying in a guesthouse in Pakistan that was raided and amongst the many men staying at that guesthouse was a man that may or may not have been a member of al-Qaeda. There has never been an allegation that Razak Ali even knew the man nevertheless a determination that the man himself is a member of al-qaeda."
Nonetheless Mr. Ali still sits in Guantanamo. Ms. Gorman sees the new definition as grounds for his release. Unfortunately, this memo only extends to Guantanamo, for now. There are plenty of people in Bagram currently wondering "wtf am I doing here?" with no answer. And Obama has so far been unwilling to provide them habeas corpus. I think the framework for unjustifiable detention remains. The broader reassurance here is sketchy. And I still wonder, based on that information about Razak Ali - "he was staying in a guesthouse in Pakistan...amongst the many men staying at that guesthouse was a man that may or may not have been a member of al-Qaeda" - if he would be up for perma-clink once Guantanamo is closed down. There needs to be a real, fair opportunity on the part of those captured to challenge their detention. Otherwise it will seem as though America is just detaining Muslims with impunity. How that would be good for our "soft power" image is beyond me.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Abu Omar kidnapping case to proceed (in Italy)
Italian prosecutor Armando Spataro is going on with his case under legal circumstances quite different from those in America (well, currently). Spataro is seeking to prosecute 26 Americans and 7 Italians for the kidnapping of Abu Omar, who was flown from Italy to Egypt to be tortured. Amazingly, even though wiretap transcripts of the Italian intelligence agency involved is now excluded as a violation of state secrets, the case will still go on! How can this be?
According to Spataro in an interview set up by Jeff Stein he has "plenty of other evidence to fall back on":
Wait a second...are you telling me that this evidence is admissible? That what is public can be brought into the courtroom? It doesn't sound like this will destroy the Italian state either...
It's no surprise that it was the AP that provided the account describing the exclusion of some of the wiretap transcripts as a "potentially fatal blow." After all, in our country, cases involving torture, rendition, or wiretapping are kicked aside for the flimsiest of reasons by the government. Imagine the variety of the bundle of evidence in Mohamed et al v. Jeppesen. And truly, there is so much that is public - flight records, quotes from Boeing employees, etc.
The Italian government is not seeking to throw out Abu Omar's whole case based on "national security." Nor are they apparently daunted by whatever threats the United States might be making to make this go away (as the UK has been). Even the Americans' attorney suggests that despite the excluded evidence, the case against the Americans may continue.
Hopefully, as this case goes on, it will prove doubly embarrassing for the US, triply even. First for the exposure it will give to our shameful rendition to torture program and its ineffectiveness. Secondly because it will show up exactly how cowardly our government is for seeking to dismiss cases involving similar facts outright. As Stephen Grey writes in "Ghost Plane," "If Watergate was about 'follow the money,' the story of renditions was about 'follow the planes'." Except...we are apparently barred from doing that, and worse, the victims of these flights, would be by the request of the government barred from doing that.
Thirdly, it should be embarrassing because those at the very top responsible for authorizing the torture are still getting off scot-free - while the operatives who carried out the nitty-gritty of the rendition of Abu Omar are being put in front of an Italian court. The geniuses that decided torture was the way to go refuse to take responsibility for their actions - and we still refuse the responsibility to hold them accountable. First Abu Omar was a victim of these policies - and now the CIA operatives (such as Bob Lady) are. Bushco seemingly never is. Abu Omar and Bob Lady have both been deeply affected by this case. Neither of them thought it was a particularly good idea to carry out this rendition. Others did. So it goes. But for them to claim they take responsibility is a crock - and that we do not take steps to hold them accountable is also a crock.
According to Spataro in an interview set up by Jeff Stein he has "plenty of other evidence to fall back on":
"According to some early news accounts Wednesday, the court's decision was
a 'potentially fatal blow' to the prosecution.
But Spataro, who has also successfully prosecuted some of Italy's top terrorism cases, has plenty of other evidence to fall back on.
After Omar was reported missing, for example, Spataro's investigators
talked to a woman who said she saw men snatch Omar off a Milan street and take
him away in a van.
Using cell phone records, investigators eventually linked the kidnapping to
25 CIA agents and a U.S. Air Force officer at Aviano Air Base, where Omar was
allegedly taken and flown out of the country, according to an official who
identified the plane.
They also raided the home of the CIA's top official in Milan, Robert Seldon
Lady, where they captured computer disks with surveillance photos of
Omar and other evidence related to the case.
Spataro will also be able to call on Italian police who were involved with, or learned of, the 'extraordinary rendition' plan."
Wait a second...are you telling me that this evidence is admissible? That what is public can be brought into the courtroom? It doesn't sound like this will destroy the Italian state either...
It's no surprise that it was the AP that provided the account describing the exclusion of some of the wiretap transcripts as a "potentially fatal blow." After all, in our country, cases involving torture, rendition, or wiretapping are kicked aside for the flimsiest of reasons by the government. Imagine the variety of the bundle of evidence in Mohamed et al v. Jeppesen. And truly, there is so much that is public - flight records, quotes from Boeing employees, etc.
The Italian government is not seeking to throw out Abu Omar's whole case based on "national security." Nor are they apparently daunted by whatever threats the United States might be making to make this go away (as the UK has been). Even the Americans' attorney suggests that despite the excluded evidence, the case against the Americans may continue.
Hopefully, as this case goes on, it will prove doubly embarrassing for the US, triply even. First for the exposure it will give to our shameful rendition to torture program and its ineffectiveness. Secondly because it will show up exactly how cowardly our government is for seeking to dismiss cases involving similar facts outright. As Stephen Grey writes in "Ghost Plane," "If Watergate was about 'follow the money,' the story of renditions was about 'follow the planes'." Except...we are apparently barred from doing that, and worse, the victims of these flights, would be by the request of the government barred from doing that.
Thirdly, it should be embarrassing because those at the very top responsible for authorizing the torture are still getting off scot-free - while the operatives who carried out the nitty-gritty of the rendition of Abu Omar are being put in front of an Italian court. The geniuses that decided torture was the way to go refuse to take responsibility for their actions - and we still refuse the responsibility to hold them accountable. First Abu Omar was a victim of these policies - and now the CIA operatives (such as Bob Lady) are. Bushco seemingly never is. Abu Omar and Bob Lady have both been deeply affected by this case. Neither of them thought it was a particularly good idea to carry out this rendition. Others did. So it goes. But for them to claim they take responsibility is a crock - and that we do not take steps to hold them accountable is also a crock.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
I Concur: Uh, WTF?
the talking dog raises an interesting point over at his blog about the new court filing of 5 Guantanamo detainees, including KSM. These men are all (to my knowledge) in Camp 7, the super secret, most secure camp at Guantanamo. Even in the Obama administration, we still don't know much about it. To quote from a write-up on the recent Pentagon review of GITMO (blech):
Verrry mysterious. One of the five filers, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, was the occasion (in Oct 2008) for the very first (and very unconventional) visit of defense attorneys to the Camp. The reason the defense lawyers were visiting was because bin al-Shibh was "being administered a psychotropic drug normally used to treat schizophrenia" and possibly unable to stand trial himself.
So reports suggest that Camp 7 detainees "are experiencing mental and physical health problems" and are, against their will, taking heavy meds - Zubaydah, also at Camp 7, was reportedly taking an anti-psychotic drug. Not only that but they may very well be hunger-striking. And the people in charge of Camp 7 let five of these people sit together and draft a legal document for a court over a period of time in a situation where their lawyers could not even be present. That was accepted by the judge, despite Obama's order to halt the military commissions. NYT:
Yeah, that is definitely, definitely weird. A good catch by the talking dog whose post lays out the true absurdity of it all ("and while we won't let ordinary run of the mill schmucks, many of whom the military itself asserts are innocent, have human contact, the 9-11 perps are allowed to consult with each other?"). And it raises once again the question - WTF is going on at Guantanamo? Has anything changed? And if not, why not? Somehow Guantanamo seems able to avoid the spirit of all of Obama's executive orders. BTW, the 81 page Pentagon Review is here.
Update: From the review (p.47):
So they yelled out the document across their open-air cells? Or perhaps it was part of their "special socialization management" which is described elsewhere (p.45) as "a program that seeks to maintain detainees’ mental well-being through intellectual stimulation." Writing a confession does sound like it would be an intellectually stimulating experience - useful too!
"Little is known about Camp 7, which is at a secret location at Guantanamo Bay
and off limits even to military attorneys representing the men there. It houses
those detainees who were formerly held at secret CIA prisons."
Verrry mysterious. One of the five filers, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, was the occasion (in Oct 2008) for the very first (and very unconventional) visit of defense attorneys to the Camp. The reason the defense lawyers were visiting was because bin al-Shibh was "being administered a psychotropic drug normally used to treat schizophrenia" and possibly unable to stand trial himself.
So reports suggest that Camp 7 detainees "are experiencing mental and physical health problems" and are, against their will, taking heavy meds - Zubaydah, also at Camp 7, was reportedly taking an anti-psychotic drug. Not only that but they may very well be hunger-striking. And the people in charge of Camp 7 let five of these people sit together and draft a legal document for a court over a period of time in a situation where their lawyers could not even be present. That was accepted by the judge, despite Obama's order to halt the military commissions. NYT:
"It appears that the men wrote the document at meetings they are permitted to
conduct periodically at the detention camp without lawyers."
Yeah, that is definitely, definitely weird. A good catch by the talking dog whose post lays out the true absurdity of it all ("and while we won't let ordinary run of the mill schmucks, many of whom the military itself asserts are innocent, have human contact, the 9-11 perps are allowed to consult with each other?"). And it raises once again the question - WTF is going on at Guantanamo? Has anything changed? And if not, why not? Somehow Guantanamo seems able to avoid the spirit of all of Obama's executive orders. BTW, the 81 page Pentagon Review is here.
Update: From the review (p.47):
"Camp 7 consists of single cells that do not allow for communication between
cells. However, detainees there are allowed to recreate in adjacent, but
separated open-air recreation spaces for at least four hours daily with a
recreation partner. These detainees are also offered special socialization
management opportunities once per week for two hours."
So they yelled out the document across their open-air cells? Or perhaps it was part of their "special socialization management" which is described elsewhere (p.45) as "a program that seeks to maintain detainees’ mental well-being through intellectual stimulation." Writing a confession does sound like it would be an intellectually stimulating experience - useful too!
Torture in the Sunlight
Reading about Binyam Mohamed and his recent interview with the British Mail newspaper, I've been struck by a certain blase quality in some torture reporting. Yesterday the NYTimes hosted a headline about Binyam's torture account that went something like "Detainee Claims Torture by Eminem." The article by Robert Mackey is here.
I was most struck at first by the disrespect and flippancy of the headline. Binyam Mohamed was unjustly abused by the United States of America, a fact which seems not to have sunk in with most American media (though Britain has been rather rocked by it). In Mackey's article, Mohamed's story is pointedly and consistently undermined:
Uh, yes, Mohamed does claim that - do you wonder why? On one hand, I guess you can't blame Mackey - it may very well be part of journalistic ethics to emphasize that this is Binyam Mohamed's side of the story. But Binyam Mohamed wasn't abducted by UFOs - he was abducted by the government of the United States. He was abducted by Jeppesen. Yet our government - under Bush and Obama - systematically blocks his ability to have official documentation of this torture aired in court. British high court judges suppressed the documentation (by US request, or by UK requested US request...that's another story) which they said amounted to evidence of torture - documentation based on the admissions of American officials! We do, in fact, know he was tortured.
My gripe may seem a little incoherent, but Mackey's total lack of effort to demonstrate that Binyam Mohamed isn't just a crazy man with a grudge - he is demonstrably a victim of torture and abuse by the US government - pisses me off. What the ex-detainees of our secret prisons and Guantanamo have been saying isn't just gibberish designed to undermine the US government - it is an account of the way our government actually worked. And our government should have the guts to expose to the broader public the documents that bear proof of the abuse. While our media should likewise have the guts to continue prying, peeking, and investigating, with a committment to the sunlight and shedding always more.
I was most struck at first by the disrespect and flippancy of the headline. Binyam Mohamed was unjustly abused by the United States of America, a fact which seems not to have sunk in with most American media (though Britain has been rather rocked by it). In Mackey's article, Mohamed's story is pointedly and consistently undermined:
"In an interview with the British newspaper The Mail on Sunday, Binyam Mohamed, who was recently released from the United States detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, discussed his treatment while in American custody and renewed his claim that he was tortured.
In the interview, Mr. Mohamed described in detail some of the treatment
he says he endured while being held and interrogated in Pakistan, Morocco and
Afghanistan before being sent to Guantánamo Bay." [emphasis supplied]
Uh, yes, Mohamed does claim that - do you wonder why? On one hand, I guess you can't blame Mackey - it may very well be part of journalistic ethics to emphasize that this is Binyam Mohamed's side of the story. But Binyam Mohamed wasn't abducted by UFOs - he was abducted by the government of the United States. He was abducted by Jeppesen. Yet our government - under Bush and Obama - systematically blocks his ability to have official documentation of this torture aired in court. British high court judges suppressed the documentation (by US request, or by UK requested US request...that's another story) which they said amounted to evidence of torture - documentation based on the admissions of American officials! We do, in fact, know he was tortured.
My gripe may seem a little incoherent, but Mackey's total lack of effort to demonstrate that Binyam Mohamed isn't just a crazy man with a grudge - he is demonstrably a victim of torture and abuse by the US government - pisses me off. What the ex-detainees of our secret prisons and Guantanamo have been saying isn't just gibberish designed to undermine the US government - it is an account of the way our government actually worked. And our government should have the guts to expose to the broader public the documents that bear proof of the abuse. While our media should likewise have the guts to continue prying, peeking, and investigating, with a committment to the sunlight and shedding always more.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Senate Select Committee Launches CIA Investigation
Hooray! The Senate Select Committee has decided to investigate the CIA. Applause here is warranted since it wasn't too long ago that Senator Feinstein was offering the CIA reassurance and minimizing their role in Bush-era terror policy. To quote her from January: "They (the CIA) carry out orders and the orders come from the (National Security Council) and the White House, so there's not a lot of policy debate that goes on there." Well, I guess we'll find out how true that is.
I have written previously about why an inquiry into the CIA is necessary. If you just read through the Senate Armed Services Committee's report on the treatment of detainees, you find many instance in which the CIA plays a role in pushing policy forward (this post from January provides all the examples). The CIA in this report "seeks policy approval" and "requests" approval for controversial tactics. This is not a passive agency. They appear to play a very active role in the development of these torture policies, and were active in helping other agencies adopt such policies (Invictus has a post on the torture meeting convened at GITMO with the involvement of the CIA as an authority on using torture in interrogations).
I am also interested in finding out more about the culture at the CIA at this time. Matthew Cole in Blowback describes how more or less renditions were "in." Of course the CIA should be willing to "take risks" - but the rendition of Abu Omar was so bungled that it resulted in more than two dozen American CIA officials tried (in absentia) in Italy and a big wrench in Italian-American relations. One of the officials involved, Bob Lady, claims that it would've been much more effective to just continue classic spy work on Abu Omar, then arrest and prosecute - they were only weeks away from having enough evidence to do so. But uh, why not ship someone to Egypt to be tortured instead? Aggressively ignoring the rule of law, as we see quite clearly now, only hurts our cause and energizes terrorists worldwide.
And aggressively ignoring the rule of law was apparently the CIA's style. Funny how we can argue with entire agencies that collectively decided, in the course of two or three years, to completely ignore international law and basic sense - that torture is wrong. We entertain the premise that they might have been right or at least well-meaning when implementing torture policies. We can go on and on and waver on prosecutions and so forth. But the CIA's simple destruction of evidence - the 92 torture tapes - is a bridge too far. It's unclear as to where the CIA found the authority to destroy evidence. Reports suggest that Bush didn't know they were going to do it - but he never knew anything so that means nothing. Apparently Harriet Miers told the CIA not to destroy the tapes.
But as we go through each personal excuse, each justification, each instance of plausible deniability, we need to also continue to press forward with broad investigations into wrongdoing. We need to expose those who supported this lawlessness and tinker with the structure of these agencies (or at the very least tinker - I know some would prefer to abolish the CIA, period). It still boggles my mind that the CIA could torture again at the drop of a hat - request permission from the President and legal authorization from the AG, and you've got yourself all it takes to turn up the music, put someone in a stress position, and carry out torture. This type of structure needs to be studied and changed, and the investigation format can accomplish this even if it is too lame to seek prosecutions.
We have to come to grips with the answers to a lot of questions over the next few years. Hopefully this investigation of the CIA will be a forum that accepts those questions honestly and seeks answers.
I have written previously about why an inquiry into the CIA is necessary. If you just read through the Senate Armed Services Committee's report on the treatment of detainees, you find many instance in which the CIA plays a role in pushing policy forward (this post from January provides all the examples). The CIA in this report "seeks policy approval" and "requests" approval for controversial tactics. This is not a passive agency. They appear to play a very active role in the development of these torture policies, and were active in helping other agencies adopt such policies (Invictus has a post on the torture meeting convened at GITMO with the involvement of the CIA as an authority on using torture in interrogations).
I am also interested in finding out more about the culture at the CIA at this time. Matthew Cole in Blowback describes how more or less renditions were "in." Of course the CIA should be willing to "take risks" - but the rendition of Abu Omar was so bungled that it resulted in more than two dozen American CIA officials tried (in absentia) in Italy and a big wrench in Italian-American relations. One of the officials involved, Bob Lady, claims that it would've been much more effective to just continue classic spy work on Abu Omar, then arrest and prosecute - they were only weeks away from having enough evidence to do so. But uh, why not ship someone to Egypt to be tortured instead? Aggressively ignoring the rule of law, as we see quite clearly now, only hurts our cause and energizes terrorists worldwide.
And aggressively ignoring the rule of law was apparently the CIA's style. Funny how we can argue with entire agencies that collectively decided, in the course of two or three years, to completely ignore international law and basic sense - that torture is wrong. We entertain the premise that they might have been right or at least well-meaning when implementing torture policies. We can go on and on and waver on prosecutions and so forth. But the CIA's simple destruction of evidence - the 92 torture tapes - is a bridge too far. It's unclear as to where the CIA found the authority to destroy evidence. Reports suggest that Bush didn't know they were going to do it - but he never knew anything so that means nothing. Apparently Harriet Miers told the CIA not to destroy the tapes.
But as we go through each personal excuse, each justification, each instance of plausible deniability, we need to also continue to press forward with broad investigations into wrongdoing. We need to expose those who supported this lawlessness and tinker with the structure of these agencies (or at the very least tinker - I know some would prefer to abolish the CIA, period). It still boggles my mind that the CIA could torture again at the drop of a hat - request permission from the President and legal authorization from the AG, and you've got yourself all it takes to turn up the music, put someone in a stress position, and carry out torture. This type of structure needs to be studied and changed, and the investigation format can accomplish this even if it is too lame to seek prosecutions.
We have to come to grips with the answers to a lot of questions over the next few years. Hopefully this investigation of the CIA will be a forum that accepts those questions honestly and seeks answers.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Post-Release Treatment of Guantanamo Detainees
Something to keep an eye on, since the process of releasing and moving Guantanamo detainees is one of those things that could potentially slow down the actual closure of the prison. It has already, after all, as figuring out what to do with the detainees is what's responsible for the allocation of a year to shut down the prison. The Chicago Tribune has an excellent and interesting article on the attempt of one former Gitmo detainee to return to a normal (and terror-free) life:
And although we are eager to expand our military efforts in Afghanistan, apparently we haven't done much to help them set up an effective re-integration program for the detainees they have received:
Well, holy sh*t. No wonder some of the detainees returned to the "Taliban fold." If there is no coordinated effort to monitor them and help them reenter society, what would you expect them to do?
President Obama might want to work on the government in Afghanistan to provide more assistance to the detainees released from Guantanamo. Unless Obama is interested in giving ammunition to right wing critics like Dick Cheney. Guantanamo has ruined lives - it's important to ensure that we provide or otherwise work with other countries to provide the detainees of Guantanamo the tools they need to live peacefully and in freedom again.
"Umar Abdullah al-Kunduzi, a trained militant who spent almost six years in the
U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, says he is trying to live a straight life.
He has no job. He has only the money his brother occasionally sends him.
During an interview, he wanted to know how much he could earn selling his
laptop, a gift from his brother, who lives outside Afghanistan. No one will hire
him, and a stint in Guantanamo—plus the fact that he has plenty of Al Qaeda and
Taliban associates—does not bode well for future job prospects.
Kunduzi, who hid out for a month with Al Qaeda militants in the Tora Bora
mountains after the Sept. 11 attacks, was returned to Afghanistan in December
2007. After four months, he was freed when an Afghan judicial commission ruled
he no longer posed any danger, and now his old associates want him back.
'When I say I am vulnerable, understand this—the policy of those on the
other side is, "You're with me, or you're against me,"' said Kunduzi, 30, who
spoke to the Tribune in a Kabul restaurant. 'One day, finally, they will come
after me. That's why I want to disappear.'"
And although we are eager to expand our military efforts in Afghanistan, apparently we haven't done much to help them set up an effective re-integration program for the detainees they have received:
"More than a dozen former detainees who have spoken to the Tribune in
recent years say they received nothing after leaving Guantanamo but a large gym
bag and, in some cases, toiletries, a change of clothes and $10 in taxi or bus
fare home.
In Afghanistan, unlike in countries such as Saudi Arabia, there is no
program to integrate detainees back into society. At first, the freed detainees
were simply flown back and released after signing a pledge to the new
government. They were allowed to go back to their villages, many of which are
now under Taliban control.
In the past 18 months, 40 detainees once considered dangerous, such as
Kunduzi, have been sent home. They were flown to the United States' Bagram Air
Base and handed over to the Afghan army, which brought them to a newly fortified
prison wing of the Pul-i-Charkhi prison near Kabul.
At first, hearings on their future were held behind closed doors. After
complaints, a new commission was set up and has so far released all but five
detainees.
But no one seems to know where they are. The National Independent
Commission for Peace and Consolidation of Afghanistan, which is working to
reconcile former Taliban members with the Afghan government and has vouched for
Guantanamo detainees, knows of only 63 in the country.
'We do not have any system to observe people coming back,' commission
spokesman Sayed Sharif Yousofy said.
The country's intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security, is
tasked with tracking the detainees, but the directorate spokesman repeatedly
declined to comment, saying he did not have the information.
Some detainees probably returned to the Taliban fold. The Pentagon in
January said that 61 former detainees from Guantanamo may have returned to
terrorist activities but declined to name them. Security experts have questioned
that number. So far, seven have been publicly identified, including a top Al
Qaeda leader in Yemen and three Afghans killed in fighting."
Well, holy sh*t. No wonder some of the detainees returned to the "Taliban fold." If there is no coordinated effort to monitor them and help them reenter society, what would you expect them to do?
President Obama might want to work on the government in Afghanistan to provide more assistance to the detainees released from Guantanamo. Unless Obama is interested in giving ammunition to right wing critics like Dick Cheney. Guantanamo has ruined lives - it's important to ensure that we provide or otherwise work with other countries to provide the detainees of Guantanamo the tools they need to live peacefully and in freedom again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
