Human Rights Watch on the Tenth Anniversary of Guantanamo

 
Human Rights Watch Press release

January 6, 2012


On January 11, 2002, the United States brought the first 20 prisoners to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, marking the beginning of a program of indefinite detention without charge or trial of terrorism suspects that has lasted 10 years.

Since then, a total of 779 prisoners have been held at the facility.

Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2012, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011, codify the practice of indefinite detention without trial into US law. This page is a compilation of selected Human Rights Watch reporting on Guantanamo and related matters over the past decade, as well as facts and figures comparing military commissions to federal courts.

Despite promises by Obama soon after his inauguration to close the facility, 171 prisoners remain.

Of the 779 detained in total, roughly 600 have been released and eight have died over the course of the past decade. Of the eight deaths, six are suspected suicides.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, many detainees at Guantanamo were subjected to painful stress positions; extended solitary confinement; threatening military dogs; threats of torture and death; and prolonged exposure to extremes of heat, cold, and noise that amounted to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

When Obama took office in January 2009, about 242 prisoners remained.

Only a handful of the roughly 600 detainees released over the past 10 years were ever charged with a criminal offense.

Of the 171 prisoners that remain, the Obama administration has said it plans to prosecute 32, yet only one prisoner, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, currently faces any formal charges.

Another five, those accused of planning the September 11, 2001 attacks, have charges pending against them, but formal charges have yet to be brought and they have not been arraigned.

Of the remaining 139 prisoners, the administration has said it plans to detain 46 indefinitely without ever bringing charges against them. Another 89 detainees have been approved for transfer to home or third countries.

A variety of factors have prevented the release of those slated for transfer including inaction on the part of the Obama and Bush administrations, a moratorium placed on transfers to Yemen following the attempted bombing by a Yemeni of a US airliner on December 25, 2009, and restrictions placed by Congress on transfers from Guantanamo in December 2010. Fifty-six of the 89 detainees slated for transfer are from Yemen.

Ongoing US violations of detainee rights are not limited to Guantanamo.

Nearly 3,000 people now held by US forces in Afghanistan have not been afforded the basic rights that even captured enemy fighters are due in a civil war, such as being informed by a judge of the basis for their detention or allowed access to counsel. And individuals apprehended outside of Afghanistan currently detained there should never have been brought to the country at all.

Human Rights Watch opposes the prolonged indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. The practice violates US obligations under international law.

Human Rights Watch has strongly urged the US government to either promptly prosecute the remaining Guantanamo detainees according to international fair trial standards, or safely repatriate them to home or third countries.

We have also called for investigations of US officials implicated in torture of terrorism suspects and for adequate compensation for detainees who were mistreated.

Human Rights Watch will continue to press for compliance with these obligations. Failure to do so does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad.

A Suposta Conspiração Iraniana: E de como os Neocons nos imunizaram

it in your browser.

The Supposed Iran Plot: How The Neocons Immunized Us A few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, I attended a big holiday dinner with family and friends. Naturally much of the conversation revolved around the terrorist attacks and the rage and sorrow we all felt. There was also considerable discussion about President George W. Bush's handling of the catastrophe and his decision to send troops to Afghanistan in pursuit of the perpetrators and to eliminate the Taliban regime that was hosting them. Everyone at the table approved of the president's actions and believed that there was no alternative. Moreover, and this was somewhat surprising considering that none of us thought Bush had been legitimately elected, we all believed that he was being honest about the situation the United States faced and the options that were before him. There was, however, one dissenter. My younger son, then in college, was absolutely opposed to going into Afghanistan. He said that there had to be a better way to respond than rushing into a war that, in his opinion, would likely expand and last "forever." Besides, he added, "I don't believe a word that comes out of Bush's mouth." Naturally a brouhaha ensued with everyone (including me) telling the kid how utterly wrong and unpatriotic he was. There was a lot of yelling, but he would not back down. He just kept saying "you'll see." Boy did we. Prodded by his neoconservative advisers and outside cheerleaders eager to pick up where the first Gulf War ended, Bush quickly pivoted from Afghanistan to the calamitous invasion of Iraq. He justified that invasion by insisting that Iraq was implicated in the 9/11 attacks (it wasn't) and that it possessed weapons of mass destruction (it didn't). Both the Bush administration and its faithful ally, the Tony Blair government in the United Kingdom, famously set out to "fix" the intelligence to deceive the people of both nations into an utterly unnecessary and unjustified war, the main accomplishment of which has been to turn Iraq into, of all things, a strong ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Along the way, of course, hundreds of thousands of Americans, Iraqis, Brits and others have died and Iraq has essentially been destroyed. It is against this backdrop that I view the Iranian plot that was announced earlier this week by the Obama administration. At this point, it is impossible to say how serious the plot was and, more importantly, if it even had anything at all to do with the Iranian government. Are we ready to believe that the cold and calculating people who govern Iran are contracting out assassination plots with Mexican drug traffickers or that they would pick Washington as the best place to attack the Saudi ambassador (knowing that being found responsible for a major explosion in Washington would mean war with the Saudi Arabia and United States)? This is not to dismiss the plot as phony or contrived. But after the Iraq war experience, it would be awfully stupid of Americans to simply accept without question anything we are told about nefarious Muslim states that must be stopped before a "mushroom cloud" appears over downtown Washington. The only good news here is that we have past experience to guide us. But for the lies and manufactured evidenced that led us into Iraq we might not have reason to be skeptical about the case the government laid out yesterday and which the usual suspects are already joyously citing as reason to get tough with Iran (as if that country is not under onerous sanctions already). Here is Reuel Mark Gerecht, one of the leading cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, warning that the supposed plot justifies a U.S. attack on Iran. "The White House needs to respond militarily to this outrage. If we don't, we are asking for it," he writes. (Not very different from what he wrote in 2002 when he said that "if President Bush follows his own logic and compels his administration to follow him against Iraq and Iran, then he will sow the seeds for a new, safer, more liberal order in the Middle East.") But for the lies and manufactured evidence that led us into Iraq, we might actually accept the idea that the Iran plot is thoroughly genuine and in no way linked to the determination of so many inside our government and out of it who are hell-bent on war with Iran and who would do anything they can to achieve it. Fortunately, however, and this may be the only fortunate thing about the Iraq war, the Iraq experience taught us to be skeptical, especially of anything and everything championed by the hawks. So let's go slowly here. If the plot turns out to be both real and sanctioned by powerful people in Tehran, a strong response of some kind is warranted. But first let's make sure. The neocons' "drop bombs now and ask questions later" approach has been thoroughly discredited. How stupid would we have to be, then, to allow the same gang to lead us into yet another reckless war, one that would be infinitely more deadly? Count me among the skeptics. Foreign Policy Matters is updated daily. Check us out HERE. Copyright (C) 2009 Media Matters Action Network All rights reserved.

Wikileaks: mensagem americana referindo o incómodo de Cavaco Silva por não ter sido recebido na Casa Branca

Cable sobre el malestar de Cavaco Silva por no haber sido recibido en la Casa Blanca · ELPAÍS.com

A mensagem está datada de 29 de Agosto de 2008 e explica que o atraso no reconhecimento do Kosovo e com a redução de efectivos portugueses no Afeganistão é da responsabilidade de Cavaco Silva desgostado por não ter sido recebido na Casa Branca em 2007.

Siga o link para ver a mensagem.

"Time" ao serviço da propaganda ideológica do belicismo e do ódio

Afegã desfigurada pelo marido é capa da Time - Ionline

A jornalista Maria Catarina Nunes colocou no Ionline um apontamento sobre a capa da revista americana Time que dá destaque à trágica história de Aisha, uma jovem afegã, de 18 anos, a quem foram cortadas as orelhas e o nariz por não respeitar as regras talibans e ter fugido da casa da família do marido.

De facto, mesmo cruelmente desfigurada, vê-se que é uma jovem muito bela. E pergunto-me: se não se visse ainda tanta beleza teria sido escolhida pela fotografa Jodie Bieber para modelo e pela Time como capa, para sustentar o seu objectivo político que claramente inscreve junto com a fotografia: "What happens if we leave Afghanistan" (O que acontece se nós deixarmos o Afeganistão).

Como se a agenda dos Estados Unidos no Afeganistão não continuasse a ser ditada pelos interesses do complexo militar-industrial-financeiro do "império".

A capa da Times, apresentada nestes termos, é um produto de propaganda ideológica, potenciando o ódio e a descriminação racial, étnica e religiosa ao serviço das forças mais conservadoras, retrógradas e belicistas da sociedade americana e não a execração da violência contra a mulher, como, por exemplo, a da campanha das Nações Unidas  UNITE!  que o primeiro ministro do XVI Governo Português (o actual é o XVII) subscreveu, acompanhado pelo seu ministro das Negócios Estrangeiros, mas por aqui se ficaram...