Pentagon Report: Guantanamo Complies With Geneva Conventions

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:45:48 PM EST
Tags: Guantanamo, detainees (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In the fox guarding the hen house department: A report on Guantanamo President Obama requested on his second day in office has been completed.

A Pentagon report requested by President Obama on the conditions at the Guantánamo Bay detention center concluded that the prison complies with the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions.

The report is by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations.

In related news, Attorney General Eric Holder is setting up a task force to review the cases of the 245 detainees still held at Gitmo. Here's who's on it: [More...]

The group, which is to include representatives of military, intelligence and other agencies, is to be led by a career federal prosecutor, Matthew G. Olsen, who has been a senior Justice Department lawyer dealing with national security issues.

Not a defense lawyer among them? Why?

Here's a twist:

The Pentagon has long insisted that no detainees are held in solitary confinement. Military officials have said instead that the prisoners are held in “single-occupancy cells.”

I'd like to know the difference between "solitary confinement" and being held 23 hours a day in one's "single occupancy cell."

Here's who probably could tell me:

According to one official, the report noted that some detainees had difficulty communicating from cell to cell, a contention that many detainees’ lawyers have also made.

Could it be the reason defense lawyers aren't on the new task force is that DOJ doesn't want to hear what they have to say?

< Chandra Levy's Parents Want Life , Not Death as Penalty for Murder | Obama Sides With Bush on Bagram Detainees >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pentagon Report: Guantanamo Complies With Geneva Conventions | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Wow (none / 0) (#1)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:50:46 PM EST

What a load of self serving BS. Seems to me that Obama needs to remind these guys that BushCo and the good ole days are over.

What are they thinking?

LOL (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Intrepid One on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:43:01 PM EST

Yep here is the guy you supported and have continued to support.

And here you are in this post squeaky still ready to defend him, in fact waiting for him to be the Knight in Shining Armor and Opps then you found out about Bagram!

Ready to face reality now about who Obama really is?
I was just about to post about Bagram. And I will anyway to provide a couple of more links.

For those who wish not to connect the dots the Pentagon Report on Gitmo is exactly as Obama ordered.

Remember all four, Panneta, Holder, Kagan, and Obama, are all down with holding people without rights and doing whatever it takes to keep it like that. Just more frigging lies from Barry Obama during the primary and general campaign.

Here is more on Bagram prison in Afghanistan:

As President Barack Obama declared his intention to close the Guantanamo Bay camp last week, he made no mention of another growing prison -- with more than twice as many inmates and an even murkier legal status.
More than 600 detainees are held at the US Bagram Theatre Internment Facility -- known by campaigners as "the other Guantanamo". Not only are there no plans to close it, but it is being expanded to hold 1100 enemy combatants; prisoners who cannot see lawyers, have no trials and never see what evidence there may be against them.

The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush's legal team.
In a two-sentence filing late Friday, the Justice Department said that the new administration had reviewed its position in a case brought by prisoners at the United States Air Force base at Bagram, just north of the Afghan capital. The Obama team determined that the Bush policy was correct: such prisoners cannot sue for their release.
"Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position," wrote Michael F. Hertz, acting assistant attorney general.
The closely watched case is a habeas corpus lawsuit on behalf of several prisoners who have been indefinitely detained for years without trial. The detainees argue that they are not enemy combatants, and they want a judge to review the evidence against them and order the military to release them.
...
The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's legal view for prisoners held at Guantánamo in landmark rulings in 2004 and 2006. But those rulings were based on the idea that the prison was on United States soil for constitutional purposes, based on the unique legal circumstances and history of the naval base.

Let me repeat that last bolded part:

But those rulings were based on the idea that the prison was on United States soil

So when the apologists come along saying this goes against the SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo - No it doesn't. Not according to Obama and the attorney he sent to court it doesn't.

Change is on the way! LOL. And he keeps telling you that in light of the facts.

[ Parent ]

Drop It Pal (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:46:23 PM EST

I did not support Obama in the primaries and have and will criticize him when he does something I disagree with. YOu on the other hand have clearly exhibited a cult mentality regarding Hillary and only have negative things to say about Obama.

Dishonest.

[ Parent ]

: Really? (none / 0) (#8)
by Intrepid One on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:55:56 PM EST

Read what you said:

Seems to me that Obama needs to remind these guys that BushCo and the good ole days are over.
Clearly you were hoping for Obama to be the White Knight and shoot the Pentagon down in that statement. And then Bagram pops up. Opps!
Don't call me dishonest. In light of the daily revelations that come up about Obama I am one of the few here who has been honest about him.
Just because I am capable of seeing the writing on the wall and have the experience of where people like him are headed is not being a cultist it is being a realist. The rest of you will catchup eventually. And pal, all that he has lied about and we are only 30 days in!!!

[ Parent ]

Oy (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:05:45 PM EST

After reading this horrible news, it seems that Obama is going to agree with the Pentagon and continue BushCo polices regarding detainees.

Feb 20th, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.
In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.
"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."
[snip]
"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

via digby

: I have a new post up on that (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:23:18 PM EST

here

[ Parent ]

Of course they keep them in (none / 0) (#3)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:14:50 PM EST

effective solitary. Looking at it from their point of view, the LAST thing they want is for these horrible evil terrorists to be able to communicate with each other and hatch more plots either against the U.S. or just resistance to their jailers at Guantanamo.

Idiotic, ridiculous, preposterous, shameful for them to claim they don't keep them in solitary.

: Solitary is a minor point (none / 0) (#7)
by Intrepid One on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:47:53 PM EST

in light of Bagram prison in Afghanistan which is mentioned in this thread.
Change is coming! Someday maybe. Just not with Obama.
I hope the holdouts are starting to wakeup now about exactly what we are dealing with. It isn't the guy who campaigned.

[ Parent ]

Don't we routinely keep our own (none / 0) (#9)
by nycstray on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:59:54 PM EST

prisoners in "single occupancy cells" for 23 hrs a day? It's been awhile since I watched MSNBC's back2back prison programming, but I seem to remember those and wondering what the difference was. Solitary is more isolated?

My friend's sister was(/is?) working on this (prosecution I think, we talked dogs when I met her, lol!~), so I'll have to see what she has to say on this.

At least in CA state correctional facilties, (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:05:35 AM EST

single occupancy cells are only available to those inmates who have so many "enemies" they can't have a cell mate or an inmate whom medical department, including psychiatrty, deem unsuitable for roommate--danger to self and/or others. Solitary involves loss of many more privileges, including exercise,sports, canteen, phone calls, and visitors.

[ Parent ]

: Thanks (none / 0) (#11)
by nycstray on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:18:35 AM EST

forgot about the "privileges". The facilities I saw on the TeeVee were southern, iirc.

[ Parent ]

Are they out of their cotton picking minds?? (none / 0) (#12)
by magnetics on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 03:08:31 AM EST

Not just absence of defense lawyers, but (none / 0) (#13)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 02:44:37 PM EST

absence of any non-government members. A snow job.