Open letter from former Guantánamo prisoners

[AdamSmith]

Open letter from former Guantánamo prisoners

Former inmates of the notorious prison say Barack Obama must made good on his claim to want it closed

• The Observer, Saturday 4 May 2013 17.43 EDT

'At first the world was shocked by images of shackled kneeling men in orange jumpsuits wearing face masks, blacked out eye-goggles and industrial ear muffs. Then they were mostly forgotten.' Photograph: Shane T McCoy/AP

The hunger strike by our former fellow prisoners at the Guantánamo prison camp should have already been the spur for President Obama to end this shameful saga, which has so lowered US prestige in the world.

It is now in its third month and around two-thirds of the 166 prisoners there are taking part. They are sick and weakened by 11 years of inhumane treatment and have chosen this painful way to gain the world's attention. Eighty-six of these men have been cleared for release by this administration's senior taskforce. Who can justify their continuing imprisonment? This must be ended by President Obama.

Since the opening of the prison camp, numerous prisoners held at Guantánamo have sporadically taken part in hunger strikes to protest their arbitrary imprisonment, treatment and conditions. This, however, is the first time the overwhelming majority of the prisoners are taking part – and for such an extended period.

It will, in a few months, be 12 years since the first prisoners were sent to Guantánamo by the Bush administration to avoid fair treatment and fair trials. At first the world was shocked by the images of shackled kneeling men in orange jumpsuits wearing face masks, blacked out eye-goggles and industrial ear muffs – in order to prevent them from seeing, hearing and speaking. Then they were mostly forgotten.

However, over time their voices did get heard as recurrent and corroborative stories of torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment came out when some of the men who endured it were released. Of the 779 prisoners once held at Guantánamo, 612 have been released – without charge, or apology. We are among these men and it is through our testimony – and that of the prisoners left behind, via their legal teams, – that the voices of those who know the evil of Guantánamo are finally being heard.

Last week, a report by the Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment, which included two former senior US generals, and a Republican former congressman and lawyer, Asa Hutchinson, who served as administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency from 2001 before being appointed in January 2003 as Undersecretary in the biggest division of the Department of Homeland Security, described the practice of torture by the US administration as "indisputable". The report also stated bluntly that the treatment and indefinite detention of the Guantánamo prisoners was "abhorrent and intolerable" and called for the prison camp to be closed by next year. Despite these findings the US administration continues to employ tactics that include:

■ The abuse of the prisoners' religious rights, such as the desecration of the Qur'an

■ The use of chemical sprays and rubber bullets to "quell unrest"

■ Regular and humiliating strip searches

■ Extremely long periods in total isolation

■ Interference in privileged client/attorney relationships

■ Lack of meaningful communication with relatives

■ Arbitrary imprisonment without charge or trial

The present hunger strikes are a result of the culmination of over a decade of systematic human rights violations and the closing of every legal avenue for release. The appalling methods of force-feeding several of the prisoners in a crude attempt at keeping them alive, by strapping down their arms, legs and heads to a chair and forcing a tube through their nostrils and forcing down liquid food into their stomachs, demonstrates the absence of any morals and principles the US administration may claim to have regarding these men.

President Obama claimed he wanted to close Guantánamo and promised to do so. Four years after his initial promise, he has again acknowledged that Guantanamo is not necessary and must close. Speaking on 30 April 2013, the US president reaffirmed his commitment as it was, "not necessary to keep America safe, it is expensive, it is inefficient … it is a recruitment tool for extremists; it needs to be closed."

We hope that on this occasion, such words are not mere empty rhetoric, but a promise to be realised.

We make the following recommendations:

1 For the American medical profession to stop its complicity with abusive forced feeding techniques.

2 For conditions of confinement for detainees to be improved immediately.

3 That all detainees who have not been charged should be released and

4 That the military commissions process should be ended and all those charged should be tried in line with the Geneva Conventions.

Signed, former prisoners,

Moazzam Begg, UK; Sami Al- Hajj, Qatar; Omar Deghayes, UK; Jamal al-Hartih, UK; Ruhal Ahmed, UK; Richard Belmar, UK; Bisher al-Rawi, UK; Farhad Mohammed, Afghanistan; Waleed Hajj, Sudan; Moussa Zemmouri, Belgium; Adel Noori, Palau; Abu Bakker Qassim, Albania; Adel el-Gazzar; Egypt, Rafiq al-Hami, Tunisia; Salah al-Balushi, Bahrain; Sa'd al-Azami, Kuwait; Asif Iqbal, UK; Shafiq Rasul, UK; Feroz Abbassi, UK; Jamil el-Banna, UK; Murat Kurnaz, Germany; Sabir Lahmar, France; Lahcen Ikassrien, Spain; Imad Kanouni, France; Mourad Benchellali, France

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/04/open-letter-former-guantanamo-prisoners

[RA1]

What is the rest of the story? Why are they there in the first place? Most of those so called inhumane tactics are part and parcel of any US prison, aren't they? Except they use real bullets in the US. If they are indeed POW's are they being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention treaty?

My only point is this article seems to lack any balance.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Well, it is explicitly a petition from parties for one side of the case. As such, it would seem not to be its duty to seek "balance," any more than would a pleading from either prosecution or defense, or parties thereto, in any such contest in our adversarial system.

[RA1]

I understand what you are saying. I suppose I am just trying to point out how one sided the "petition" actually is. I did not think of it as one side of a legal argument as our court system is indeed an adversarial one. I thought of it as an article in some medium or another. Generally I am willing to see more than one side of any situation. I guess I am hoping others might do the same. But, alas.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

Oi!

The issue for me is that the United States of America has people, not charged with any crime, under indefinite confinement and none of us ever got asked if we would like to become a country that does that.

We fought two world wars to avoid being a country like that and, when we were done, we asked everybody else in the world to avoid being a country like that too. We helped form international organizations to advance our values, and we helped write international agreements and laws that we are now violating.

Why is it unbalanced for prisoners under our direct and exclusive control to request a trial under the Geneva Conventions? Are we now against what we fought for? Who sez?

If anybody's interested in discussing balance on that issue, please let me know.

[RA1]

One of the questions might be are these folks POW's or not. If they are, I would think their crimes, if any, would be war crimes. If they are to be adjudicated for war crimes then the US civil court system is not the place for that. I believe a logical question is why have they not been brought before a military court. Apparently both the Bush and BO administrations do not care to deal with that question. What is the remedy? Go to The Hague? UN? The media? Apparently the media is the answer, at least at the moment. However, that does not mean we are getting all the facts. We can't even seem to get all the questions, never mind the answers.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, no country has faithfully and completely abided by the Geneva Convention, to include the US. It seems to be an ideal, one that is reduced to writing but still an ideal. The Congress could do something about this, if indirectly, but they won't.

Regardless of any or all of that, I still say there are more issues than mentioned in the "petition". Don't we want to know all the facts?

Best regards,

RA1