Pentagon Report: Guantanamo Complies With Geneva Conventions

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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?

    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.



    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."


    "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
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.