Andrew Sullivan on America’s slippery torture slope:

And so abuse and torture are entirely dependent, we are told, on the apparent motives of the abusers and torturers. But torture is actually defined in the law as an illegal tool devised not for sadism’s sake but as a means to extract information. And notice the extremely slippery slope. We no longer have torture as an extreme last resort in the face of a ticking time-bomb; we have authorized it simply “to prevent a threatened terrorist attack.” That means any time anywhere by anyone authorized by the government after 9/11, no? And if a foreign government were to use such a standard? What do we say then?

Not only do such practices stand in stark defiance of the values we espouse in this war, but they ultimately prove counterproductive in a war that transcends bullets and bombs.  If we’re to fight a war on ideology–one chock-full of caliphates, Jihads and insurgents–than we need to remember that maintaining our own ideals is part of such a war.  When pressed on closing Guantanamo, or the extreme (if not illegal) tactics being used by Americans there, the Right often responds incredulously.  To them, this unacceptable measure would be like the offering of quarter to those who’d likely deny us the very same.    

And I think that’s precisely the idea.

Cross posted at Independent Liberal

Via Outside the Beltway comes the news that “[t]he chief of the US military said he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been ‘pretty damaging’ to the image of the United States.”

Admiral Mike Mullen said in an interview with three reporters yesterday: “I’d like to see it shut down.” Asked why he wants it closed down he explained: “More than anything else it’s been the image — how Gitmo has become around the world, in terms of representing the United States.” (more…)

Changing the procedures isn’t enough. Guantanamo Bay has to be closed and, then, the US has to make a new start with regards to how it treats terrorism suspects.

“It’s war” isn’t sufficient reason to break with the rule of law and to prevent suspects from defending themselves, nor to keep people locked up for six years without charging them with anything.

Heck, there’s never a good reason to treat suspects like that.

The Houston Chronicle reports:

Eight detainees were transferred from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the custody of Afghanistan and Middle Eastern governments, a Pentagon spokesman said today.

Six detainees were transferred to Afghanistan, and one each to Libya and Yemen, said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Defense Department spokesman. Their identities were not released. (more…)

Good news for all of those who believe that the US should close Guantanamo Bay ASAP:

The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

Senior administration officials said Thursday a consensus is building for a proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum-security military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where they could face trial.

President Bush’s national security and legal advisers had been scheduled to discuss the move at a meeting Friday, the officials said, but after news of it broke, the White House said the meeting would not take place that day and no decision on Guantanamo Bay’s status is imminent.

“It’s no longer on the schedule for tomorrow,” said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “Senior officials have met on the issue in the past, and I expect they will meet on the issue in the future.”

The sooner the better. Guantanamo Bay is a gigantic mistake in US foreign policy / the war on terrorism. It has hurt America’s image tremendously.

It is good to see that the Bush administration seems to be working on plans to close it down.

The Associated Press reports:

The U.S. war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo have betrayed the principles of fairness that made the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg a judicial landmark, one of the U.S. Nuremberg prosecutors said on Monday.

“I think Robert Jackson, who’s the architect of Nuremberg, would turn over in his grave if he knew what was going on at Guantanamo,” Nuremberg prosecutor Henry King Jr. told Reuters in a telephone interview.

“It violates the Nuremberg principles, what they’re doing, as well as the spirit of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.”

King, 88, served under Jackson, the
U.S. Supreme Court justice who was the chief prosecutor at the trials created by the Allied powers to try Nazi military and political leaders after World War Two in Nuremberg, Germany.

King, who interrogated Nuremberg defendant Albert Speer, was incredulous that the Guantanamo rules left open the possibility of using evidence obtained through coercion.

He added: “The concept of a fair trial is part of our tradition, our heritage. That’s what made Nuremberg so immortal — fairness, a presumption of innocence, adequate defense counsel, opportunities to see the documents that they’re being tried with.”

And: “To torture people and then you can bring evidence you obtained into court? Hearsay evidence is allowed? Some evidence is available to the prosecution and not to the defendants? This is a type of ‘justice’ that Jackson didn’t dream of.”

I am quite sure that Bush et al. will not change their minds, no matter who says what.

On the other hand, the more people speak out against it, the more the pressure will be on the courts and on the US government to do something about it. More and more people are publicly saying that Bush should treat terrorism suspects like all suspects (of other crimes) are treated. Hopefully it will, once, actually accomplish something.

Another Gitmo success story:

Ahktar Qassim Basit says he is not angry about the four years he spent as an American prisoner at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, before his captors mumbled a brief apology and flew him to this drab Balkan capital to begin a new life as a refugee.

It is this new life in Albania, Mr. Basit and other former Guantánamo detainees say, that is driving them to desperation.

Why? Well, because they live in “a squalid government refugee center on the grubby outskirts of Tirana, guarded by armed policemen.” They have been told that they will “need to get work to move out of the center,” but “that they must learn the Albanian language to get work permits.” They have to live on $67 per month (and free meals). They spend this $67 on telephone conversations with their families. Sadly, “some of the men have already lost hope of ever seeing their wives and children again.”

More:

Mr. Basit and four other men here, who spent time at a hamlet in Afghanistan run by Uighur separatists, are still considered terrorist suspects by China’s Communist government. Only Albania’s pro-American government would give them asylum, but Albanian officials have since told the men they cannot afford to give them much else.

Things could be worse, the former prisoners note. At least 15 of the 17 Uighurs who remain at Guantánamo have also been cleared for release, but not even Albania will accept them — and neither will the United States. Instead, American diplomats say they have asked nearly 100 countries to provide asylum to the detainees, only to find that Chinese officials have warned some of the same countries not to accept them.

The State Department’s legal adviser, John B. Bellinger III, said in an interview that “the United States has made extensive and high-level efforts over a period of four years to try to resettle the Uighurs in countries around the world.” Its lack of success “has not been for lack of trying.”

Lets see: they were arrested, after which they were imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, until they were finally released (after four years) because they pose(d) no threat to the US. Let me think; what could the US do for these men? It seems to me that the US owes them something after having kept them prisoner for four long years. But what is the US to do?

How about, dare I say it, giving asylum to these men? The US captured them; the US kept them locked up in Gitmo; they are the responsibility of the US. The US should not try to convince other countries to accept them, the US itself should accept them.

The problem:

American officials said they considered that idea. But two officials said it was shot down in 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security, which argued that the men would be barred from entering the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act because they had been linked to a terrorist group or received “military-type training” from a group that engaged in terrorism.

Change the law. Make an exception. Whatever. I am not one who will defend terrorists, but this is unacceptable as well.

Children have become victims of the war on terror, according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and four other human rights organizations. They describe, among other examples, the fate of Yusuf al-Khalid and Abed al-Khalid, sons of Al-Akadiabrein Sheikh Mohammed al-Khalid. They were arrested in Pakistan, in 2002, together with their mother, where they were interrogated: the interrogators asked questions about their father (who they couldn’t find). According to a fellow inmate, the two little boys will badly treated: sometimes they didn’t receive water and / or food. “They were mentally tortured, by letting ants and other animals crawl on their legs to scare them.”

In March 2003, after Sheikh Mohammed was arrested, were the two boys handed over to the CIA. It remains unclear whether the CIA was involved in earlier interrogations. Of course, the CIA denied torturing them back then:

“We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children,” said one official, “but we need to know as much about their father’s recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care.”

For those who are wondering about who Sheikh Mohammed is, he is the person who, not too long ago, admitted to be responsible for just about every terrorist attack in the last decade or so. He made this confession after being held in Gitmo for four years and after the CIA used his sons against him (from that 2003 article):

Their father, Mohammed, 37, is being interrogated at the Bagram US military base in Afghanistan. He is being held in solitary confinement and subjected to “stress and duress”-style interrogation techniques.

He has been told that his sons are being held and he is being encouraged to divulge future attacks against the West and talk about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

“He has said very little so far,” one CIA official said yesterday. “He sits in a trance-like state and recites verses from the Koran. But while he may claim to be a devout Muslim, we know he is fond of the Western-style fast life.

“His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and their return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him.”

Trouw reports that, by now, the sons have been released. I am trying to find information about when they exactly were released. I am asking you to help me find more information about that: how long were they held? When were they released? I get the impression, from this sentence: “They arrested my kids intentionally. They are kids. They been arrested for four months they had been abused,” that they were being held for four months… at least. Again, can anyone help me find more information about that? How were they treated? Can the CIA get away with this?

You can read more about this at the Amnesty International website. Amnesty is concerned about 39 individuals who were taken prisoner by the US and have disappeared since then. Nothing has been heard about their whereabouts.

You can read the report here.

The US should have the moral highground here. Sadly, this is not so. When the CIA makes people disappear, when the CIA holds children to put pressure on their father… the CIA has lost the moral highground (and thus the US as well).

I do not quite understand why there is not a massive movement in the US to do something about this. Not only is it highly immoral, it is also incredibly bad for America’s reputation. Do you really expect Europeans to defend and to support you if you do not respect human rights? Do you expect us to defend and support you when you are holding and interrogating children? Do you expect us to defend and support you when you make people disappear like the KGB once did?

I’m a hawk, I’m a supporter of the US, but the US has to change its policies ASAP. This is highly unacceptable.

UPDATE
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for linking to this post. Andrew comments:

I tend to think that even Bush’s CIA would not abuse children, apart from imprisoning them for the crimes of their father.

I tend to think the same.

On the other hand, once I also thought that Bush et al. would oppose taking children of terrorists prisoner, just so the CIA can pressure the father into a confession.

But I have learned the bad way that Bush and Cheney cannot be trusted with the humane tradition of American warfare. These children belong, like many others, in the black hole of the Bush-Cheney torture and detention regime, beyond the reach of the law, treaties or civilization. Just as Cheney likes it.

Exactly, and that is an incredbily sad thing.

To Andrew’s readers: if you want to help find out more about this, please send me an e-mail.

And this is exactly why Americans don’t believe the Democrats will fight terrorism as actively, aggressively and effectively as they should:

A day after two military judges ruled against the Bush administration’s system for trying terrorism detainees, Democrats seized on the rulings on Tuesday as evidence that Congress should restore the right of those held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their detentions.

Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the majority leader, said he would be willing to bring such legislation to the floor. The Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing to approve such a plan on Thursday.

Challenge their detention? Challenge their detention? What’s this? They are terrorists, not human beings! Human beings have rights, terrorists (unlawful enemy combatants) don’t.

Reid, Harry, Pelosi, Nancy… Please. Listen to me people, I watched the first Republican debate: talking like that will get you no where.

It’s all about doubling the size of Gitmo and torturing detainees.

Yes, I watched the first Republican debate and I have learned my lesson.

Gitmo should be closed asap. It is hurting America’s image tremendously and it’s quite simply wrong to treat people as if they are animals.

Mark Tran reports for the Guardian, that the “British national, Gary McKinnon, today lost his high court bid to avoid extradition to the US for allegedly carrying out the ‘biggest military computer hack of all time’.”

The case dates back to 2001, when it is alleged Mr McKinnon hacked into computers belonging to the US military and scientific establishments from his home in Wood Green, north London.

Under the codename Solo, he is said during a period of 18 months to have hacked into hundreds of machines belonging to the Pentagon, the US army and air force and Nasa not properly secured by officials.

US prosecutors claim he caused $700,000 (£375,000) worth of damage. A lawyer for the US government said the hacking “was intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US government by intimidation and coercion”.

When asked why he did what he did, he answered that he “had simply been searching for evidence of UFO activity.”

His fear, and that of his lawyers, is that he will be send to Guantanamo Bay. He also “faces a sentence of 70 years if found guilty.”

70 years. Gitmo.

Quite a heavy price to pay for trying to find information about E.T. isn’t it?

As I wrote yesterday, I believe that Guantanamo Bay should be closed ASAP. Its very existence is doing great damage to America’s image abroad, and, of course, the way its prisoners are treated isn’t exactly in line with what the U.S. stands for or at least used to stand for.

U.S. secretary of defense Robert Gates shares my view, as does U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. Sadly, however, it’s not going to happen under Bush’s Presidency.

Snow: “It’s highly unlikely that you can dispense with all those cases between now and the end of the administration.”

The real problem, it seems to me, is that Bush simply doesn’t truly want to close Gitmo down.

“In his first weeks as defense secretary”, the New York Times reports, “Robert M. Gates repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.”

Although supported by Condoleezza Rice, he failed to convince Bush - mostly because both Gonzales and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney “expressed strong objections to moving detainees to the United States.”

An anonymous senior administration official said, however, that the battle isn’t over yet: Gonzales might be forced to step down as a result of the scandal involving the dismissal of the USA’s. Perhaps Gonzales’ successor will be less fervently opposed to closing Guantanamo Bay, or, perhaps, he’ll have less influence…

Even if Gonzales doesn’t resign the battle will continue: he is severely weakened. He already has less influence.

I hope that Gates and other ‘realists’ will win this debate. Gitmo should be closed ASAP. Guantanamo Bay isn’t just in breach with everything America stands for or at least used to stand for, it also does great damage to America’s image abroad. People like myself, pro-America, have great difficult defending America as long as America seems to be dedicated to turn the entire world against itself.

The Washington Post reports that Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) “flew to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Saturday to observe the closed military hearing for al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed”, they “watched the proceedings over closed-circuit television from an adjacent room” according to a spokeswoman of Levin.

Strangely, although the “fficial transcript of Mohammed’s hearing… acknowledged the presence of five unnamed military officers, a translator and an official tribunal reporter” it did not mention the fact that Levin and Graham were present as well. Those two, of course, “helped write the law codifying the tribunals.”

The two authors of the article, Dafna Linzer and Josh White, point out:

Saturday’s trip underscores congressional efforts to exert oversight of one of President Bush’s most controversial programs in his fight against al-Qaeda. After recent criticism from the Justice Department’s inspector general over its use of surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act, the Bush administration is under pressure to demonstrate greater transparency than it has been willing to offer in the past.

As I wrote yesterday, the problem with KSM’s confessions is that he might have been tortured, or at least that he didn’t have the rights ‘normal’ suspects have, etc. His confessions are tainted and… he did quite a lot if he is to be believed. Something like a superterrorist.

It’s a good thing that Levin and Graham were present, but it would be even better if terrorism suspects would get the same treatment individuals who are suspected of other crimes get. They should not have been flown to Gitmo, because Gitmo shouldn’t be used for this.