There are now numerous reports that prisoners at Gitmo are on a hunger strike to protest the inhumane conditions at Gitmo.
The primary issue is that prisoners are forced to live naked and they are being sexually assaulted by female guards.
This is outrageous, we are all not clothed at the pleasure of the king. Clothing is a human right that we all have - it is not a privilege given to us by a dictator.
More below the fold:
Clothing is absolutely a fundmental human right and it is listed as such in the UN declaration of human rights.
Furthermore, the 1993 interrogation document lists witholding of something that is required by the conventions such as clothing as an example of mental torture. Finally, the Fay report called forced nudity an abuse, which Fay said led to more serious abuses at Abu Ghraib.
This is not a rogue state - we must follow the law and provide the most basic fundamental rights to detainees such as food, shelter, clothing and adequate medical care that are mandated under our international treaty obligations.
Three of these things (including clothing) are listed in the 1987 interrogation document as three things that must be provided to detainees.
Here is the report from the center for constitutional rights.
CCR
Despite recent attempts by the DOD to tout living conditions at Camp 4, where a small number of prisoners clothed in white jumpsuits are cooperating with interrogators, the conditions at Guantánamo remain unacceptable. The vast majority of prisoners live in appalling conditions in the other camps.
Camp 5, which has remained closed to outside visitors including political representatives, alone houses nearly 100 prisoners. According to Shearman and Sterling, the prisoners' description of the planned strike reflects their peaceful demand to be treated as human beings. In recently declassified notes, the prisoners describe the planned hunger strike as follows:
The protest is "a peaceful, nonviolent strike until demands are met;"
- The strike "calls for starvation until death;"
- The prisoners plan to boycott showers; (because female guards are sexually assaulting some restrained prisoners in the showers to "soften them up").
- They plan to boycott their recreation time;
- Some prisoners plan on refusing to wear clothes in order to be equal to the living conditions of prisoners in other camps who are denied clothing;
- The protesters call for "no violence, by hand or even words, to anyone, including guards."
When asked by Shearman and Sterling for the reasons behind the hunger strike, the prisoners described specific ongoing abuses and cited the denial of their legal rights. To remedy this treatment, the prisoners were planning to demand the following (partial list) from the Guantánamo command:
- We need respect for our religion, including an end to the desecration of the Koran and religious discrimination;
- We need fair trials with proper legal representation
- We need to know why we are in Camp 5 for so long, in some cases for over a year. What have the Camp 5 detainees done to be treated so much worse than the other detainees?
- We need basic human rights like everyone else in the world - including real, effective medical treatment;
- We need the "level system" of various Camps and privilege levels to be abandoned and everyone treated equally;
- We need a neutral body to observe the situation and report publicly about the conditions at Guantánamo.
CCR President Michael Ratner stated that "From the beginning, this Administration has blatantly misrepresented who is imprisoned in Guantánamo and what treatment the prisoners are subjected to. This call for a hunger strike is the last straw. It is clear that the military cannot be trusted to police itself and that an independent commission is required to end the military's cover-up in Guantánamo."
The hunger strike has also been reported by released detainees.
LA Times
Two former detainees say the prisoners still at the Cuba facility are becoming mentally ill because of how they are treated by U.S. forces.
Two longtime detainees at the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba who were returned home here Wednesday said that they were pleased about their release but that many at the prison were suffering from poor treatment that was harming their mental health.
About 180 prisoners have been on a hunger strike for more than two weeks to protest the treatment and the lack of information about their cases, the two men said.
Afghan detainees Moheb Ullah Barakzai and Habib Rasool were handed over to the government through an initiative to repatriate noncriminal combatants and insurgents and re-integrate them into Afghan society.
"We are happy to be released but have to bring to you the voices of hundreds of our brothers that are becoming mentally ill in the prison," said Barakzai, 24. "They haven't been in touch with their families for years and have no idea what is going on with their cases."
"I have been held all of this time with no real charges," said Rasool, who is from the southeastern province of Khowst. "That is why I am free now, but I paid a harsh price for their mistake."
Rasool said prisoners at Guantanamo had not had access to doctors and medicine. He and Barakzai also complained about interrogation tactics they say disrespected Islam.
"Guantanamo is a prison that no Muslim should ever be in," Rasool said.
Legal rights for prisoners under the Geneva Conventions:
Prohibited acts by detaining party against any prisoner of any status includes Taliban:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
International standards for ALL persons in ANY kind of detention:
UN Human Rights Declaration
3. Article 10, paragraph 1, imposes on States parties a positive obligation towards persons who are particularly vulnerable because of their status as persons deprived of liberty, and complements for them the ban on torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contained in article 7 of the Covenant.
Thus, not only may persons deprived of their liberty not be subjected to treatment that is contrary to article 7, including medical or scientific experimentation, but neither may they be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; respect for the dignity of such persons must be guaranteed under the same conditions as for that of free persons. Persons deprived of their liberty enjoy all the rights set forth in the Covenant, subject to the restrictions that are unavoidable in a closed environment.
4. Treating all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with respect for their dignity is a fundamental and universally applicable rule. Consequently, the application of this rule, as a minimum, cannot be dependent on the material resources available in the State party. This rule must be applied without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
UN judgements
Here are some of the charges that have been held up as crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court.
7.7. Count 13 (rape) and Count 14 (other inhumane acts) - Crimes against Humanity
The Tribunal notes that while rape has been historically defined in national jurisdictions as non-consensual sexual intercourse, variations on the form of rape may include acts which involve the insertion of objects and/or the use of bodily orifices not considered to be intrinsically sexual.
The Tribunal considers that rape is a form of aggression and that the central elements of the crime of rape cannot be captured in a mechanical description of objects and body parts.
The Tribunal also notes the cultural sensitivities involved in public discussion of intimate matters and recalls the painful reluctance and inability of witnesses to disclose graphic anatomical details of sexual violence they endured.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not catalogue specific acts in its definition of torture, focusing rather on the conceptual framework of state-sanctioned violence.
The Tribunal finds this approach more useful in the context of international law. Like torture, rape is used for such purposes as intimidation, degradation, humiliation, discrimination, punishment, control or destruction of a person.
Like torture, rape is a violation of personal dignity, and rape in fact constitutes torture when it is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
The Tribunal defines rape as a physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive.
The Tribunal considers sexual violence, which includes rape, as any act of a sexual nature which is committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive.
Sexual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact.
The incident described by Witness KK in which the Accused ordered the Interahamwe to undress a student and force her to do gymnastics naked in the public courtyard of the bureau communal, in front of a crowd, constitutes sexual violence.
The Tribunal notes in this context that coercive circumstances need not be evidenced by a show of physical force.
Sexual violence falls within the scope of "other inhumane acts", set forth Article 3(i) of the Tribunal's Statute, "outrages upon personal dignity," set forth in Article 4(e) of the Statute, and "serious bodily or mental harm," set forth in Article 2(2)(b) of the Statute.
In the War Crimes Trials of interrogators from Rwanda "forced nudity" was defined as an "outrage upon personal dignity" and thus a grave war crime.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
UN Declaration of Human Rights
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
There is ample evidence that the Abu Ghraib torture tactics are still being used at Gitmo.
No one seems willing to talk about the torture tactics in explicit detail, but we did have one account from a former air force officer who gave a limited account of the torture techiniqes.
Susan Hu's diary
I went through SERE in 1987 at Camp McCall, NC. This one set up by the late Col. Nick Rowe for the Army. A lot of the technigues of torture I've seen through the past few years seemed like an extension of our training. I knew where they were coming from. I never had Bibles torn up in front of me or waterboarding but I do have a bad experience with ice cold water where I have an aversion to it to this day because I was already sleep deprived and half starved (went from 140 to 118 in three weeks, great weight loss program). Altogether, they really worked their magic on my psyche to this day.
Never blogged it before because I signed a non-disclosure form and some of the stuff is classified though not highly classified. Now that it is out, I can give an anecdote.
I do remember the sexual stuff though. One female interrogator laughing at my shrunken genitalia while I sat naked on a stool. I thought to myself "yea, bitch, let's see how your nipples look after they submerge you in ice-cold water"... but that was before they beat the cockiness out of me (not physically, but rather psychologically, which I found worse).
So, yea, for me, this is not surprising at all.
This was some of the best training that I've ever gone through. I was always the little guy proving myself, even after I earned my tab and Green Beret. This training showed me that no matter your size or strength, it's your mental strength, your "heart" that allows you to survive and keep you alive. So it had some very positive developments as well as the negative stated above, in my character.
I am not sure what further I can legally blog about this subject, I don't want to go to jail like Uncle Karl for disclosing something that I shouldn't. This comment was a fine line. I think I can say that the training is set up for 3 to 5 days in the POW camp just so that you don't know when it will end. They know that this is one of the strongest inducements for breaking your mind...now imagine Gitmo, it's not 3-5 days it's endless years! So yea, the prospect of it ending or not is a very powerful weapon on the psyche.
What disgusted me at the beginning of all of this is that THESE WERE ALL COMMUNIST INTERROGATOR TECHNIQUES! learned from Korea and Vietnam. Now we are using them.
Not one person who came out of a communist POW camp did not break, North Korea or Vietnam.
The technique described above is currently called "change of scenery down" and it is apparently still in use at Gitmo and elsewhere.
Physicological torture defined
Torture Defined
Psychology of torture relies on psychological pain coupled with physical trauma to achieve the purposes of the torturer.
Psychological pain is pain caused by psychological stress and by emotional trauma, as distinct from that caused by physiological injuries and syndromes. The practice of torture induces psychological pain through various acts that often involve both physiological pain and psychological manipulation to achieve a tactical goal or for the gratuitous sadistic satisfaction of the torturer.
The process of psychological torture is designed to invade and destroy the presumptions of privacy, intimacy, and inviolability assumed by the victim. Beyond merely invading the victim's mental and physical independence on a one-to-one level, such acts are made further damaging via public humiliation, incessant repetition, and sadistic glee. As a result, the effects of psychological torture tend to remain with the victim long after the actual activity is discontinued.
Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld
Justice O'Conner on Thursday called her ruling in this case one of the two biggest of her career. Justice O'Conner said she hoped that people would look to the decision that she wrote for guidence on prisoner detention.
Here is the decision:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by "universal agreement and practice," are "important incident[s] of war." Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S., at 28. The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again. Naqvi, Doubtful Prisoner-of-War Status, 84 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 571, 572 (2002) ("[C]aptivity in war is 'neither revenge, nor punishment, but solely protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war from further participation in the war' " (quoting decision of Nuremberg Military Tribunal, reprinted in 41 Am. J. Int'l L. 172, 229 (1947)); W. Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 788 (rev. 2d ed. 1920) ("The time has long passed when 'no quarter' was the rule on the battlefield ... . It is now recognized that 'Captivity is neither a punishment nor an act of vengeance,' but 'merely a temporary detention which is devoid of all penal character.' ... 'A prisoner of war is no convict; his imprisonment is a simple war measure.' " (citations omitted); cf. In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (CA9 1946) ("The object of capture is to prevent the captured individual from serving the enemy. He is disarmed and from then on must be removed as completely as practicable from the front, treated humanely, and in time exchanged, repatriated, or otherwise released" (footnotes omitted)).
It is a clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities. See Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, [1955] 6 U. S. T. 3316, 3406, T. I. A. S. No. 3364 ("Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities"). See also Article 20 of the Hague Convention (II) on Laws and Customs of War on Land, July 29, 1899, 32 Stat. 1817 (as soon as possible after "conclusion of peace"); Hague Convention (IV), supra, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2301("conclusion of peace" (Art. 20)); Geneva Convention, supra, July 27, 1929, 47 Stat. 2055 (repatriation should be accomplished with the least possible delay after conclusion of peace (Art. 75)); Praust, Judicial Power to Determine the Status and Rights of Persons Detained without Trial, 44 Harv. Int'l L. J. 503, 510-511 (2003) (prisoners of war "can be detained during an armed conflict, but the detaining country must release and repatriate them 'without delay after the cessation of active hostilities,' unless they are being lawfully prosecuted or have been lawfully convicted of crimes and are serving sentences" (citing Arts. 118, 85, 99, 119, 129, Geneva Convention (III), 6 T. I .A. S., at 3384, 3392, 3406, 3418)).
Hamdi contends that the AUMF does not authorize indefinite or perpetual detention. Certainly, we agree that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized. Further, we understand Congress' grant of authority for the use of "necessary and appropriate force" to include the authority to detain for the duration of the relevant conflict, and our understanding is based on longstanding law-of-war principles. If the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel. But that is not the situation we face as of this date. Active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in Afghanistan. See, e.g., Constable, U. S. Launches New Operation in Afghanistan, Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2004, p. A22 (reporting that 13,500 United States troops remain in Afghanistan, including several thousand new arrivals); J. Abizaid, Dept. of Defense, Gen. Abizaid Central Command Operations Update Briefing, Apr. 30, 2004, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040430-1402.html (as visited June 8, 2004, and available in the Clerk of Court's case file) (media briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000 United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban combatants who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States." If the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of "necessary and appropriate force," and therefore are authorized by the AUMF.
This quote is extremely important: "'Captivity is neither a punishment nor an act of vengeance,' but 'merely a temporary detention which is devoid of all penal character.'", because the court is saying there are no penological interests regarding the detention of prisoners.
With no penological interests there is no debate about the penological benefits or drawbacks of detention practices that envoke Title IX vs. the fourteenth amendment or any other amendment.
Our obligation is to secure the enemy and to comply with basic international standards of detention. Every individual is entitled to food, clothing, housing and medical care as well as to be treated humanly and with respect for their inherent dignity as human beings.
Respect for the basic human dignity of the individual is clear and requires no subterfuge.
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that "to ensure protection of the dignity of a person who is being searched by a state official, a body search should only be conducted by someone of the same sex" [ General Comment 16 to Article 17 of the ICCPR, "Compilation of General Comment and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies," UN Document HRI/GEN/Rev.3, 15 August 1997.].
Respecting the basic human dignity of all prisoners should not be limited to strip searches, but should include all other sensitive detention practices such as shower monitoring, toilet monitoring and monitoring while changing.
If the United States will stand up for human rights and individual dignity it will be all the more stronger for it. In the interest of our national character; we must have a policy change.
Human Rights are universal and when we protect the human rights of others we are in actuality protecting our own.
May God bless this great country - that is if we deserve it.