home

Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:41:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Guardian reports on the negotiations underway to send many Guantanamo detainees back to their home countries for continued incarceration. The countries include Afghanistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

The principal issue is whether there will be, or even can be assurances that the returned detainees won't be tortured. These countries are known for human rights violations. The Washington Post has an editorial noting this today.

The New York Times reports:

The new transfers to Afghanistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia would be explicitly for those countries to take over the detention and not release any individuals immediately.

Amnesty International has released this statement of concern.

"No government should force people to return to a country where they may be at risk of human rights abuses," said Sharon Critoph, North America researcher at Amnesty International. "The USA's own State Department reports serious human rights violations in all three of the countries to which it is planning to return detainees."

The 2004 US State Department Report for Afghanistan reported that prisoners were beaten, tortured, or denied adequate food. Torture and ill-treatment are common practices in Saudi Arabia, as are harsh prison conditions and indefinite detention without charge or trial. Arbitrary arrest and detention without charge or trial in connection with the "war on terror" is a long-standing concern in Yemen, as are conditions of detention.

Amnesty made this recommendation:

"The USA should close Guantánamo and either charge the detainees under US law or release them," said Sharon Critoph. "Afghanistan and other countries receiving Guantánamo detainees should ensure they are released and allowed to live a normal life if they are not to be charged and tried."

Amnesty also released this report Friday on the abuse of the ghost detainees.

< Racist Drops Out of Council Election | Narco-Terror Provision Added to House Patriot Act Bill >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation | 34 comments (34 topical)
    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#1)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    It is now time for the Left to understand that success is getting what you want, happiness is wanting what tou get.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#2)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    And it is now time for PPJ to understand that Guantanamo is indefensible. Clearly constructed to bypass the justice system, with military lawyers resigning rather than be associated with railroading prisoners in kangaroo tribunals, Guantanamo has become an icon of everything that goes wrong when a powerful country relates to the rest of the world exclusively through the use of force. Charge them or release them, says Amnesty. A child could understand that reasoning. Pay attention, Jim. It's not the "Left" that bombed the World Trade Center. Osama bin Laden is not the "Left". But you know that of course. You rant against the "Left" because your real enemy is much harder to fight. So you convince yourself you're doing something useful by writing little vitriolic comments about the "Left". Pathetic.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#3)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Some of you may not care or know, but most of the prisoners are not going home but are being sent to prison's in the USA, And many who will be sent home! will not be to happy about what is going to happen. it would be a good idea to check on some of the prisoners in 2 years to see how many are still alive. by the way where is bin laden?

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#4)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    ppj, ask where is bin laden? and ask Bush. do you really think that Bush isn't helping to "hide" his family friend?..check out what Bush the right guy said about bin laden 3 weeks after 9-11. its not the Left Or Right its the system.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Jim: "happiness is wanting what tou get." What an idiotic claim. That's the happiness of a pig. It's immoral. Used to be 'conservatives' said that happiness was fighting for what you believe in. Now it's taking the SLOP in your trough, and being grateful for it.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#6)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Paul in LA, Oops, gobbed on the carpet, didja? Fred Dawes, Just a hunch, but I'd bet Osama is dead. Even that last "video" was virtually impossible to analyze, the quality was so poor. Best guess: he's a splatter of DNA in Tora Bora. And he'll stay in limbo cuz it serves both sides to have people believe it. AQ doesn't want to admit they lost their leader; makes 'em look weak, but even more to the point, most of his immediate subordinates derive their power thru his say-so. If he's not around ... power struggle! Why would those already in charge want that? As for the nations fighting the terrorists, they know that terrorist cells are totally dependent on a central authority to provide direction; it's the nature of such a cell structure. As long as the members of those cells think OBL might be alive, they wait in limbo for orders that will never come. Not the be-all and end-all of anti-terrorist techniques, but it helps. Not coincidentally, it also provides time for OBL's reputation to fade - he is already much less popular in the ME than he was, say, two years ago - a.o.t. a symbolic martyr. And so we get rumor after rumor that he's here ... no, he's there ... but he isn't ... and the anti-terrorists likes it cuz it lessens terrorism, and the AQ leaders like it, too, cuz it protects their personal positions. I wouldn't count on seeing OBL anytime soon. Ever, in fact. But, as I say, call it a hunch.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    As for the nations fighting the terrorists, they know that terrorist cells are totally dependent on a central authority to provide direction;
    clearly wrong, as the London bombings prove. There never has been a formal hierarchical structure. But you have never let facts get in the way of making an argument. AQ will go on fine with or without OBL.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#8)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Actually, Soccerdad, there are about 10 gazillion pieces of info to support my claim re the hierarchical nature of a terrorist cell structure. here's an entry level one for you: Al Qaeda means "The Base," a name chosen for a reason. As for London, that was a separate, made-in-England group, one whose oper'l capabilities allow for killings by the dozens, a step down indeed from what AQ had been able to do before it was counter-attacked. Guess you needed your snide fix for the day, eh? Fine. Hope it helped. I mean that, too, cuz it's about all your side has left now, as elections continue to demonstrate, and you gotta have something to comfort you at night, as modern liberalism/socialism continues its decades-long decline. And that's no hunch.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#9)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    SD, The deranged are not logical. You might as well talk to your toaster.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    my toaster says ras doesn't have anything. As with many of the right who "make reality" they just make crap up as they go and call it the truth.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    He is already much less popular in the ME than he was, say, two years ago
    Of course that explains the uptick in terrorism[/not] from "Dead or alive" to "we don't care" to 'ahh, he's already dead." Please provide links.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Well certain folks around these parts were calling for the release of the prisoners from Gitmo and now you have gotten your wish. I am sure they will be welcomed home with open arms by thier respective nation's secret services much to the consternation of those who wanted them released from Gitmo. The old adage of 'Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it' kicks in about now. It is just a guess on my part but I think that Gitmo is going to be looked upon fondly by those released back to thier respective Mid-East gov'ts.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#13)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Sailor, I'll only say this once: I used to provide links on request, but had to stop after I was put on the Save The Cocoon quota, in order to retain my comments for when I desire. You are welcome to email me privately for links, on condition that you then reply in this forum, and include those links and associated comments in your reply. Sorry for the incovenience, but to cut to the chase, and I'll be blunt, too many lefties were publicly losing too many args, and some of them whined to Mom to protect them from that nasty boy ras and his wicked evidence. She did, and the cocoon remained snug & warm. Whether that was a good or a bad thing is a matter of both politics and philosophy (would we all be better off if we couldn't feel pain?) Me, I never really complained back, partly cuz I don't need protection - my args can stand on their own and don't need to be shielded from rebuttal - but mostly cuz I respect TL's right to run her own site her way. See? Property rights are your friend! Nonetheless, if you want links, send me a note next time. Tip: pls try to avoid using invective, or mentioning items such as viagra, or even hinting that I might have already won a lottery: I use a lot of spam filters! Cheers.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    hey ras you are indeed full of selfrightous crap - some things never change.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    ras, links do not use bandwidth, TL never complained about your links, (were there any?) If you want a cocoon of your own, I suggest you go to powerline, etc. How would anyone respond personally if you don't provide your email address or your website's URL? Ohh, preys jeebus, I agree, all of lefties lost to many args, that's why you r d man.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#16)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Soccerdad, I'm not the one that needed protection, kid. Sailor, Every comment spent responding to requests for links is one less from the quota. It's not a bandwidth issue. The STC quota is specifically based on ideology. Talkleft.com is a protected liberal sandbox, whether you or I like that or not. As stated, this is TL's right as this is her site. I may think it's a foolish policy (and I do) but so what? The site is hers, not mine. I have in the past replied to q's such as your w/links, but TL has deleted my replies as being over the quota. Noted, which is why you, or anyone else, now needs to email me directly. Her site, her rules. BTW, I normally only provide links in a first comment if I feel the initial assertion is controversial, but if you disagree with my assessment of controvery and want links, or wish to argue a point (argue, not insist) on a level playing field - warning, it gets much tougher; there's a reason the quota was enacted in the first place - feel free to drop me a line: suchlittlethings@yahoo.ca. BTW, My email address used to show up all the time. Dunno why the system stopped displaying it. I explicitly grant permission for it to be used every time I sign in. TL?

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    ras, if you are limited to 4 posts per day, adding a link to a post doesn't impact on that quota. As for TL deleting your links and addy, I call BS. BTW, I pinged, tracerouted, lookedup, scouted, scanned, whoised and netstated the link you gave. It doesn't exist. PPJ, we almost never agree and have been at loggerheads thru our entire association on this site. Have you found ras' previous post and statements to be true?

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    PIL - That's "poor boy" philosophy. You'll understand when you mature and gain some wisdom. Fred - From time to time you appear rational. This isn't one of them. Al - And perhaps you will tell us why non-American citizens, captured outside the US should be treated as if they are US citizens. But no matter. They will now be taken out of an imperfect, but overall decent prison environment, and returned to some truly evil places. The Left demanded change. The Left got change. Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Ras, when I had to change TalkLeft to registered comments, I deleted the space for email addresses since most people don't want their email address shown. You can put it in the url link or put the link to your blog in there.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#20)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    sailor - I confess that I don't understand the argument. ras made a statement and you demand links. Your right to demand, his to remind you that to provide links - after the inital commemnt - would subtract from his number of allowed comments. I'll try to find you a link from the Washington Times or Newsmax...or Powerline.... ;-) As to his comment about how cells are controlled, yes al-Qaida is a very centrally controlled organization. As to OBL... You may note who made the last appearance, and it wasn't OBL. There is a reason for that.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#21)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    I think this comment puts me over for the day, but thanks. I'll use the URL field from now on. p.s. Sailor, you can't ping or traceroute etc an email address. Those only work on i.p. addresses, or symbolic names that DNS can resolve to i.p. addresses. The best way to verify an email addr is to send a note, silly goose.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    so ras uses all his comments telling us how he isn't going to supply comments. I'm shocked - shocked I tell you. Since the right makes its own reality they don't need links, or data, or anything.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    should read to supply links

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#24)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    The cell structure is inherently decentralized, that's why anti-nazi and communist groups liked it so much. If a local cell is busted, it is impossible to move up the chain. Nice how Ras hijacks the thread with his usual BS, and stifles any real discussion. The point of the story was a "new, improved" version of "extraordinary rendition". I am sure that noone will be sent to a country that would not torture.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#25)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." Let us be clear about what is going on here. Guantanamo has become a major embarassment. The Bush administration wants to avoid the negative political fallout from the abuse scandal. This prisoner tranfer is about covering up what happened in Guantanamo, not about justice. After 2 or 3 years in custody, you should have the evidence whether any of these detainees committed a crime. If they did, charge them. If not, let them go. Why transfer them to countries that practice torture? If the practice of holding these detainees is justified as the Bush administration claims, then why are they trying to transfer these prisoners? The Bush administration believes that if these prisoners are transferred, the American people will forget about them. Out of sight is out of mind. However, what happens to these prisoners is our responsibility, like it or not. And no matter how strongly Bush tries to wash his hands of the matter, he will never remove the stain.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    John Horse Right on the mark!!!!!

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#27)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Roger, Sigh. Let's consider the issue from first principles, shall we: The cell structure is inherently decentralized, that's why anti-nazi and communist groups liked it so much. If a local cell is busted, it is impossible to move up the chain. A typical cell, we know, runs up to maybe 50-75 people, tho it can be smaller if necessary. Nonetheless, each member only knows a handful of others - 6? 7? Whatever the actual figure in a given case, it's all on a need-to-know basis. Which means that the higher-ups are critical. These cells have no way of functioning without them. Indeed, absent that, the cell can be said to not even exist effectively. Indeed, for a cell without a boss to do anything, it would have to to re-organize itself all over again, beginning with recruitment. Think of it as entropy. You cannot have that if you are to be organized. A certain amount of non-entropy - i.e. organization - must be provided. That organizational force can be centralized, or it can be distributed, but it must be present or the cell sits ineffectively, doing nothing. Arab culture and Islam (a Muslim, remember, is One Who Submits; now there's a hierarchical philosophy if I've ever heard one) strongly promote hierarchy. It's a major reason why they have fallen militarily so far behind the West. Hierarchy wouldda initially promoted Islam's imperial growth, early in its history, cuz a little organization is better than none. But - tho it takes longer to set up - a decentralized organization is best of all -two heads are better than one - and they have been passed [and will remain behind until they can free their individuals to make more contributions in a decentralized system. But that's another story...] At present, a cell system where the cells are so completely dependent on the bosses - a.o.t. most orgs in other walks of life which these days usually prefer a much flatter structure with distributed control - is, in fact, as hierarchical as you can find. And this applies right up the AQ chain of command. Think the local cell bosses know the other local cell bosses in their area? Not a chance, and for the same reasons. It's all quite top-heavy, which is why disrupting The Base is an effective tactic, and why letting the various bosses (and their bosses etc) sit waiting for OBL to give them direction is a reasonable approach to putting them in limbo for a time. Can't last forever; eventually they'll realize Osama's gonzo. But you can bet that a power struggle will ensue after that becomes common knowledge, as the other AQ mucky-mucks then vie to be the next Caliph In Waiting. Just remember, the terrorist cells, like all human orgs, need a certain amount of management. If it were distributed to the cell members, empowered to make decisions of their own, then it would be termed distributed power. But it's not. It's the exact opposite; it's completely hierarchical. Do not be confused by terminology. AQ is not really decentralized, excepting in the sense that their "corporation" has many "departments" who don't talk to each other. Overly-centralized would actually be more accurate, as well as more consistent with the culture from which they sprang. If I call a tail a leg, it's still a tail, Mr. Lincoln. And terrorist cells are still overly-centralized and strongly hierarchical. One can figure that out for oneself, and thereby not fall into the semantical trap that has evolved.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Ras, You sure seem to know an awful lot about Al Qaeda...kind of like how Goss has an "excellent idea" where Bin Laden is. Also, one of your "10 gazillion pieces of info" concerning the hierarchical nature of AQ makes no logical sense. 1) AQ means "the base." 2) Therefore AQ is hierarchical. Actually, "the base" refers to the "foundation" (also an acceptable translation) on which the new caliphate will be built...according, of course, to Al Qaeda. ALSO, it serves one side for Bin Laden to remain at large...and it isn't ours. He has become a kind of William Wallace figure to these people. He perpetrated the single most brutal act of terror against the U.S., we vowed to catch and kill him, we didn't, and as a consequence he rose to mythical status. He's almost as good a recruiting tool as the war in Iraq. As you write, "we get rumor after rumor that he's here ... no, he's there ... but he isn't..." You don't think that kind of ghost-like defiance of a super-power romanticizes terrorism for young recruits? Finally, your last logical travesty: 1) Bin Laden (the leader) is probably dead. 2) AQ needs top down leadership to function. Assuming these two things we arrive at the conclusion that terror has greatly decreased. But, as you see, it hasn't. We have Madrid and London, and countless operations in Iraq. Bad, logic, bad politics, poorly thought out argument. PS If you really believe that to destroy AQ we have to catch the leaders, yours should be the loudest voice calling for administration heads. All they have been able to do is kill a bunch of foot soldiers. Oh, and capture the "number 3 man" about 10 gazillion times.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#29)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Roger I agree with you that some of our rightwing friends like ras have a problem staying on task. As you correctly note, the subject is the Bush administration's attempt to transfer its Guantanamo prisoners to countries that practice torture. Regarding one point of ras's rant, he is just plain wrong about Al Queda being a decentralized organization (as you point out). As wikipedia points out "Organizational specialists point out al-Qaeda's network structure, as opposed to hierarchical structure is both its strength and a weakness. The decentralized structure enables al-Qaeda to have a worldwide base; however..." I also noticed that he does not provide any links backing his claims which leads me to speculate where he is pulling his information from. There are some conservatives who justify Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo on the grounds that the only way to fight "terrorism" is to get tough with the "terrorists." If this includes breaking some legal restraints (that pesky Geneva Convention and the laws against torture), well so be it. Among my problems with these tactics is that its not working. Terrorism is increasing, not decreasing. Still, I suppose its an improvement over the days when conservatives were providing material support, including weapons, to Islamic fundamentalists (or "freedom fighters" as they were known back then).

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#30)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    The hallmark of the political cell is its decentralization, otherwise you would have traditional command and control. This is pretty basic stuff. The cell has been used by communists, as well as the French resistance. The functioning is well documented and understood. We also, by now, have a pretty good idea of how "extraordinary redition" works. This looks to be just more of the same.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#31)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Ras is an excellent writer of fiction. But his view is not believed even by the Pentagon.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#32)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Roger, With respect, do not conflate cells of the past with cells of the present. Each is a product of its times and its needs. 'Nuff said.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#33)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Ras, A cell is a cell, is a cell. If you want to maintain that AQ is different, then give it a different name. The cells of the past were called "cells" because of the structure that they created. Very independant, and hard to go up the chain. If there is a strict hierachal (sp?) structure, then they are not cells.

    Re: Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation (none / 0) (#34)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    I would expect to see Republicans and libertarians to be the first to decry the abuses at Guantanamo. After all, is there not a more clear example of abuse of power by the state. However, what we have instead is the silence of the conservative lambs on this issue. According to ras, a Muslim is One Who Submits. I'm beginning to think that that definition now describes Republicans. Republicans were once for civil liberties before they became against it.

    Guantanamo Prisoner Transfer Under Negotiation | 34 comments (34 topical)