home

Detainee Abuse and the Question of Fair Trials at Guantánamo

After years of isolation in detention at Guantánamo, is Salim Ahmed Hamdan competent to assist his lawyers in mounting a defense? His lawyers say he's not.

They say Mr. Hamdan has essentially been driven crazy by solitary confinement in an 8-foot-by-12-foot cell where he spends at least 22 hours a day, goes to the bathroom and eats all his meals. His defense team says he is suicidal, hears voices, has flashbacks, talks to himself and says the restrictions of Guantánamo “boil his mind.”

A defendant who isn't competent to understand the proceedings or to assist in his own defense has a due process right not to be put on trial. But due process seemingly has little meaning at Guantánamo. Hamdan's lawyers want their client placed in a less restrictive setting until he's able to focus on his defense. The government's response is less a defense of Guantánamo than an indictment of the American prison system. (more...)

In response to questions, Cmdr. Pauline A. Storum, the spokeswoman for Guantánamo, asserted that detainees were much healthier psychologically than the population in American prisons. Commander Storum said about 10 percent could be found mentally ill, compared, she said with data showing that more than half of inmates in American correctional institutions had mental health problems.

Storum neglects to mention that prison inmates, unlike detainees, have already been tried and convicted. The mental health of prison inmates is a serious issue, but not one that typically implicates the right to a fair trial, at least when those problems are a consequence of imprisonment that follows a conviction. The Guantánamo detainees, on the other hand, have been detained for years without trial. Should the government be entitled to hold them in isolation until they lose their competence to defend themselves, and only then bring them to trial?

American prison inmates at least have the chance to stay in touch with those family members who have the resources to visit them or to accept their collect calls. Not so at Guantánamo.

In more than six years of detention, Mr. Hamdan has had two phone calls to his family and no visits. ... At Guantánamo, there are no family visits, no televisions and no radios. A new policy will for the first time permit one telephone call a year.

In the cells where Mr. Hamdan and more than 200 of Guantánamo’s 280 detainees are held, communication with other detainees is generally by shouting through the slit in the door used for the delivery of meals. Mail is late and often censored, lawyers say.

Conditions are more isolating than many death rows and maximum-security prisons in the United States, said Jules Lobel, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who is an expert on American prison conditions.

The government's insensitivity to the treatment of detainees would be remarkable if it were not so common. Its arguments are nonetheless laughable.

The prosecutors argued that the way that Mr. Hamdan was being held did not constitute solitary confinement in part because “detainees can communicate through the walls.”

The government also argues that Hamdan is "no model detainee, spitting at guards, threatening assault and throwing urine." Gee, do you suppose that his behavior might have something to do with the conditions under which he's been held for more than half a decade?

Officials concede that the daily two hours of recreation in a chain-link pen is sometimes offered in the dark. From inside their cells, detainees cannot see the outdoors. From the exercise pens they sometimes can see only a sliver of sky. ...

This winter, lawyers for Abdulghappar Turkistani, a detainee in Camp 6, received a letter describing life there. “Losing any contact with anyone,” he wrote, “also being forbidden from the natural sunlight, natural air, being surrounded with a metal box all around is not suitable for a human being.” ...

In leaked reports in 2004 investigators for the International Committee of the Red Cross, who do see detainees, said their treatment, including solitary confinement, amounted to torture.

So we torture detainees with inhumane conditions of confinement, year after year, and then expect them to be competent to assist in their defense? Only Bush administration loyalists could believe in this fantasy, could be so dismissive of American values, or could argue that this somehow keeps our country safe.

< Indiana: Former Obama Supporter Stumps for Hillary | Obama Supporters Harming Obama With Divisiveness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    because we can. (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    So why are we treating them like hard criminals in Supermax?

    this will become another blot on our history, much as rounding up citizens of japanese origin in wwII and herding them into concentration camps is.

    this is the type of act the constitution was specifically designed to prevent: the king imprisoning people, with no charges brought against them, indefinitely.

    sen. mccain should be very familiar with this type of prison, it sounds much like the setup at the "hanoi hilton", where he was kept for five years. i'm shocked, but not surprised, that he hasn't argued vociferously against it.

    No (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:10:00 AM EST
    This is in no way similar to the Hanoi Hilton. And while you may want to argue the confinement may be "torture," reasonable people just laugh at such.

    Parent
    Jeebus. Is that saying a mouthful regarding our (none / 0) (#1)
    by leis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:47:29 AM EST
    prison system. Is that actually supposed to strengthen her argument that this is acceptable treatment?

     "more than half of inmates in American correctional  institutions had mental health problems."

    This is so horrible. (none / 0) (#2)
    by lorelynn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    Just horrible. I don't know what to say, but I had to express my heartbreak that people are being subjected to his and my fury that it's happening in the name of my country.

    We also have higher (none / 0) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    percentages of mentally ill in prisons because we fail to treat mental illness and then jail them once a crime is committed.  Wouldn't it be in the govts interest to have him healthy?  Never mind, it would mean there might be a fair legal process and he might have grounds to be released.

    How do you know he's a terrorist? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Radix on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    The fact he was incarcerated proves nothing.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    comment was deleted (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:07:56 PM EST
    you are replying to.

    Parent
    That was a snark, yes? (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilybart on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    I am sure you were just riffing on what some wingnut would say because their treatment is punishment in itself, and yet, they have not been convicted in any court of anything yet. So why are we treating them like hard criminals in Supermax?

    I'm just curious... (none / 0) (#8)
    by jccamp on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    What should the U S do with captured fighters like Mr Hamdin?

    In a conventional war with conventional armies, he would be held until the end of hostilities - a reasonable way to prevent his re-joining the fight, and consistent with the Geneva Accords. But this is far from a conventional war. Mr Hamdin's alleged associates have defined the unconventional nature via their actions.

    Is Mr Hamdin entitled to each and all of the rights accorded persons facing criminal charges in a U S Court? If he is, why wouldn't any POW captured in a conventional war also be so entitled? Why should Mr Hamdin and his ilk be entitled to greater rights (than, say, a WWII POW enjoyed) because they have chosen to ignore the rules of conventional warfare? (I know - there's a disconnect between "rules" & "warfare")

    I understand we should not indefinitely imprison captured alleged terrorists, but I am frustrated that persons captured on the battlefield, carrying arms, are suddenly somehow covered by the Bill of Rights.

    Personally, I don't have the answer. But why are we "treating them like hard criminals in Supermax?" Because they are dangerous ideologues who want to kill us.

    BTW, here is what he is accused of.

    HERE

    Parent

    you're assuming he's guilty (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by LCaution on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    I know nothing about this particular person, but you are obviously assuming that the military would not capture anybody who was not guilty.  This is like assuming that the police never arrest the wrong person.  Perhaps we should simply dispense with lawyers and courts altogether and let the cops put everybody they arrest into jail for as long as they want.

    Americans, in previous wars, were assumed to treat POWs with dignity, unlike (for ex.) the Germans and Japanese.   I do not know how often, or how many stories are apocryphal, but there are certainly tales of enemies in many wars who surrendered easily to the U.S. troops precisely because they knew they would be treated well.

    Solitary confinement is, in spite of its widespread use in U.S. jails, cruel and unusual punishment.  You try living in an 8*8 room with no window, no radio, no TV, nothing to read, nobody to talk to. (Many Americans these days can't even walk down a street without a cell phone because they can't bear to be alone with their own minds for even a minute.) How long before you start going nuts?

    It is NOT necessary to treat human beings as animals, no matter how guilty they are of whatever crime (think Nuremberg), in order to protect society from the truly dangerous.

    And, six years after being captured, what possible information could this man have that would be of value in the so-called war against terror?

    Finally, there is no "military" way to win this "war" on "terror".  The way to win it is, to use that old-fashioned phrase, "to win the hearts and minds".

    Our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Graid (sp?), the torture, the rendition - all of these acts of ours simply add up to more proof to potential terrorists that we are every bit as bad as they are being told we are.

    Try to imagine that, when this "war" started, we (with necessary precautions) treated these  prisoners with dignity (good food, fresh air & sunlight, Motel 6 accommodations), let them talk to their family and friends.  Imagine the effect on these men and their families of such treatment.  Sure, we couldn't convert them all, but I'm betting that a good number of these detainees would slowly come to reject the hatred they had been taught.

    But that doesn't matter to the people responsible for and supportive of Guantanamo, etc.  They want revenge.  They want to punish.  They think we have the right to torture because, of course, we are good people and are doing it for the "right" reasons as opposed to Stalin, and Hitler, and Pinochet, and Castro, and Pol Pot, etc. who were bad people and did it for the "wrong" reasons.

    Parent

    Well Said (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by john horse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:16:09 PM EST
    Well said LCaution.  

    I also can't understand why we treat "terrorism" as a military problem.  What people who commit acts of "terror" are doing is committing a crime, specifically murder.  They may be international criminals but they are criminals nevertheless.  We have the FBI, the police and our legal system set up to deal with those who commit crimes.  Our justice system may not always convict the guilty or exonerate the innocent, but after a lengthy period of trial and error, it is still the best system we've got.

    Those who support Guantanamo do so out of the mistaken belief that the best way to deal with "terrorists" is to take off the kid gloves by strippiing the accused of their legal and human rights.  Yes, they want revenge.  The irony is that Guantanamo is the worst vehicle for revenge.  How many convictions have come out of Guantanamo?  The very abuses that have occurred there is making convictions difficult, if not impossible, without rigging the system against the accused.

    Parent

    Come on John (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:14:51 AM EST
    You know very well that we tried the criminal justice solution for years and years and all we accomplished was more and more attacks, ending in 9/11.

    The hard facts are that the CJ solution must always be defensive. It must always be AFTER the death of American citizens.

    The military solution attempts to engage the enemy BEFORE they have attacked.

    Parent

    Heh (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:18:30 AM EST
     
    Sure, we couldn't convert them all, but I'm betting that a good number of these detainees would slowly come to reject the hatred they had been taught.

    These folks are religious zealots. They do not have any value system that you would recognize.

    But never the less, if it is ONLY your life and money you want to gamble, I would suggest we send you into GITMO to preach to these people.

    Better yet, why don't we just drop a couple off at your home??

    Parent

    The key word being (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    accused.

    As for the allegations of torture: THOSE PEOPLE will lie about anything in order to save themselves; everybody knows that.

    Maybe a little more torture is all he needs to tell us where all those mobile chemical labs are.

    I mean, it's not like we were dragged into an abysmally costly, unnecessary war by unscrupulous, lying sacks of sh*t the way some Bush haters say.

    Parent

    Declaration of Outrage (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lora on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    How about a Declaration of Outrage, whereby all good citizens of this country refuse to accept, support, condone, or otherwise agree with the hateful policies of our rogue administration?

    Boo Hoo (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bill W STL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:17:58 PM EST
    Isolation at Gitmo is only for the uncooperative.  The main camp allows prisoners to gather and talk.  You might be surprised to learn:

    They don't wear orange jumpsuits, they wear clean, white garments commensurate with very nice clothes from my experience traveling in the Middle East.  

    Call to prayer is broadcast five times per day, like in most ME countries, with arrows pointed to Meccca, and cones put out that prisoners are currently praying so guards no to keep quiet.

    They have a library with 1000's of books in 19 languages.

    They have a school, for those who want to participate

    The detainees in the relaxed areas have constant access to the outdoors, the people in the other camps contrary to this report have a small window to the outdoors.

    They are provided of course with Korans and culturally correct food.  And our people have to wear gloves while handling these items because we are "infidels" and it would be outrageous if us dirty infidels handled these things without gloves.

    These people have been picked up on battlefields, not "arrested".  They have access to lawyers, and are being processed through military tribunals - these may not be your ideal, but it is one hell of a lot better than most countries.  

    Did you know that they have only brought 775 prisoners there, and have released 420 of them, (some have who have been caught fighting us again), and have 70 more cleared to leave - BUT NO COUNTRY WILL TAKE THEM?  (How hypocritical is it of these other countries then to criticize Gitmo?)

    Sorry, after having lost 12 friends & colleagues, in some cases unmercifully burned & REALLY tortured, I find the hand wringing comments here absurd.  Please go live among these people and witness evil up close before you waste your tears.