Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday said the United States should close the prison at Guantanamo Bay for terror suspects as soon as possible, backing a key conclusion of a U.N.-appointed independent panel. White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected the call to shut the camp, saying the military treats all detainees humanely and "these are dangerous terrorists that we're talking about." The panel's report, released Thursday in Geneva, said the United States must close the detention facility "without further delay" because it is effectively a torture camp where prisoners have no access to justice. Annan told reporters he didn't necessarily agree with everything in the report, but "the basic premise, that we need to be careful to have a balance between effective action against terrorism and individual liberties and civil rights, I think is valid." He said he supported the panel's opposition to people being held "in perpetuity" without being prosecuted in a public court. This is "something that is common under every legal system," he said. "I think sooner or later there will be a need to close the Guantanamo (camp), and I think it will be up to the government to decide, and hopefully to do it as soon as is possible," the secretary-general told reporters. The 54-page report summarizing an investigation by five U.N. experts, accused the United States of practices that "amount to torture" and demanded detainees be allowed a fair trial or be freed. The panel, which had sought access to Guantanamo Bay since 2002, refused a U.S. offer for three experts to visit the camp in November after being told they could not interview detainees. Annan said the report by a U.N.-appointed independent panel was not a U.N. report but one by individual experts. "So we should see it in that light," he said. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the report will be presented to the U.N. Commission of Human Rights, which appointed the panel, when it convenes on March 13 in Geneva. Manfred Nowak, the U.N. investigator for torture who was one of the panel's experts, told The Associated Press in Geneva that the detainees at Guantanamo "should be released or brought before an independent court." "That should not be done in Guantanamo Bay, but before ordinary U.S. courts, or courts in their countries of origin or perhaps an international tribunal," he said. The United States should allow "a full and independent investigation" at Guantanamo and also give the United Nations access to other detention centers, including secret ones, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, Nowak said by telephone from his office in Vienna, Austria. "We want to have all information about secret places of detention because whenever there is a secret place of detention, there is also a higher risk that people are subjected to torture," he said. The United States is holding about 490 men at the military detention center. They are accused of links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime or to al-Qaida, but only a handful have been charged. The U.N. investigators said photographic evidence _ corroborated by testimony of former prisoners _ showed detainees shackled, chained and hooded. Prisoners were beaten, stripped and shaved if they resisted, they said. The report's findings were based on interviews with former detainees, public documents, media reports, lawyers and questions answered by the U.S. government, which detailed the number of prisoners held but did not give their names or the status of charges against them. Some of the interrogation techniques _ particularly the use of dogs, exposure to extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation and prolonged isolation _ caused extreme suffering, the report said. "Such treatment amounts to torture, as it inflicts severe pain or suffering on the victims for the purpose of intimidation and/or punishment," the report said. The International Committee of the Red Cross is the only independent monitoring body allowed to visit Guantanamo's detainees, but it reports its findings solely to U.S. authorities. Legislators and journalists have been allowed in on guided tours but few are permitted to see interrogations. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the U.N. report "clearly suffers from their unwillingness to take us up on our offer to go down to Guantanamo to observe first-hand the operations." McClellan, the White House spokesman, echoed Whitman, saying "it's a discredit to the U.N. when a team like this goes about rushing to report something when they haven't even looked into the facts. All they have done is look at the allegations." Although his statement did not address specific allegations, the Pentagon has acknowledged 10 cases of abuse or mistreatment at Guantanamo, including a female interrogator climbing onto a detainee's lap and a detainee whose knees were bruised from being forced to kneel repeatedly. In Strasbourg, France, the European Parliament condemned the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and renewed its calls for the detention center to be closed. Human rights activists also supported the investigators' findings. Amnesty International said the report was only the "tip of the iceberg." "The United States also operates detention facilities at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq and has been implicated in the use of secret detention facilities in other countries," an Amnesty statement said. Many of the allegations in the report have been made before. But the document represented the first inquiry launched by the 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission, the world body's top rights watchdog. ============================================ Human rights only matter to Americans when they aren't the ones breaking them
Kofi Annan complaining about tortune and unfit conditions...thats rich. How many times has he and the UN turned their back on people Coming from anyone else I might have actually took a moment to read the whole thing but not that guy. Apparently there is no money for him in Guantanamo so hes actually going to have a position.
While the USA is a Hegemony and the backbone of the UN, that does not mean we should go around doing what we want. Spreading our philosophy of democracy is important and we need to lead by example. The reason why our country is a hegemonic nation-state today is due to the fact that we shed our policy of isolationism at the conclusion of WWII and went out into the world. I would only ask the following: 1. What is "justice"? 2. Who decides what "justice" is? "Justice" in China is different than "Justice" in the USA, which is different than "Justice" in Japan, which is different than "Justice" is Venezuela (and so on). The spread of democracy is the only sure way towards a more peaceful world. We need to act with less authoritarianism and more with an understand of our role in today's global environment.
It's not easy to spread democracy to china when the government kills demonstrating people such as the Tianmen
hahahahahaha If they are so fucking concerned for peoples human rights then why the fuck do they still have China on the Human Rights council? Shit you people have such a one track mind where all you fucking do is attack this administration and give the UN a pass on actually giving a shit about some guy in GITMO that had his picture taken with a leash on. All they give a shit about it making America look as bad as they can and from the looks of it that is all you want to do yo-yo. No matter what bad news is good news for you when it comes to Bush. So pathetic.
So, because China does something bad, it's ok for America to do so? First of all, holding anyone without rights is against our constitution and what our country was founded on. I am not saying we should close anything, but all those we capture or arrest need to be given due process. It's important to remember that the UN has no official power and is simply a collection of "observers" if you will. However, we need to realize that if our country (USA) is going to go against popular UN sentiment, we can't expect a sovereign state like Iran to listen either. Moreover, the UN is a collection of representatives from 191 states. Just because Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan says something does not mean he is speaking for the world. His goal is to echo what he believes the majority of member states would say.
Don't pull that shit on me. No where did I say that I approved of what has happened at Gitmo. I don't. What I get sick of is the fucking UN leg humping going on with the thread starter. The UN doesn't give a shit about human rights and it's laughable that they are the ones critizing America and shaming America for Gitmo. Holding OUR CITIZENS without giving them the rights afforded to OUR CITIZENS is against out constituion. These people are NOT OUR CITIZENS. We are in a state of war in which we can hold people without giving any reason for doing so for a period of time if it is during war. No they shouldn't Gitmo is a prison to hold prisoners of war. These are not US citizens. Thanks goodness for that. Kofi Annan is full of shit just like half the people in charge over there. He is full of shit just like Bush is full of shit. It pisses me off when these assholes start harping on America like they do and let China get away with bullshit while giving them a voice on Human Rights. Just like having Syria on the fucking security council. It just pisses me off how anyone can be for the United Nations and give a rats ass what they think of America.
The UN is only doing slightly better than its predecessor. It has been a good vehicle for the spread of USA doctrine. Just a point to make. You keep referring to the UN as if it's some single source entity, when it's not. Do you know every state that's in the UN (without googling it) and what every state's stance is on every issue? So, since non-Americans are not equal to Americans and every world actor is poo-poo as you put it, just who is great and what's the right answer to you? What state are we at war with? Also, does the holding of people in "darkness" apply to anyone you don't like or just citizens from the warring states?
When I refer to the UN I am referring to their spokesman. Kofi Annan along with everyone else associated with him. I know it is not one. We are at war with Iraq and Afganastan. Show me one person that is at Gitmo that was not arrested with connections to those two countries or organizations within those two countries. Iraq is like an portal for terrorists to come in and fight America. We got people coming in from Iran and Syria to fight us. Show me instances where someone was held on the grounds that someone just didn't like them?
Gitmo was a mistake from the beginning. Why would you take a POW and store them in a different hemisphere? We've declared victory in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, we removed the ruling party. Soldiers should be sent home. You can't just call someone a terrorist and put them in prison indefinitely, give them no legal recourse, no trial, and no visitors. What if this was your son we were talking about? What if US citizens were being held since the beginning of the Afghan war in some prison where even the red cross had difficulty learning whether he was held anywhere, let alone how he was being treated? I applaud the UN for finally making an issue out of it. I only wish they could grab more headlines. I wonder how many americans held in vietnamese or korean prison camps support what the US is doing. Of course, we have come a long ways since the days of Japanese internment camps... When exactly is somebody going to stand up and say "We are world leaders. We need to behave as such."
Blah blah blah... resorting to personal attacks huh? It's not good news, it's bad news. And I'm doing my duty as an American by spreading the word of the wrongs our government is doing. Nothing changes if no one speaks (stands) up against them. Blah blah blah... more personal attacks. Leg humping of the UN? I only put a 1 sentence comment about Americans, want to point out this "UN leg humping" because I posted a news article featured on Drudge? I guess Drudge is a "leg humper" now too. We've already done it to at least one of our citizens (jose padilla). And just because we're in a "state of war" doesn't mean we can hold anyone we want for as long as we want, it's against international law. Combatants captured and held by the United States as a result of its operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban government and Al Qaeda forces were not recognized as as prisoners of war by the Bush administration and were termed “unlawful combatants†instead. This decision was criticized by human rights groups as a failure to abide by international law, and drew criticism from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as well. In June, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these prisoners, which the Bush administration had claimed it could hold indefinitely (most them at the Guantánamo, Cuba, naval base), had the right to challenge their detention. Ooops... wrong again. Prisoners of war have rights Oooops... WRONG AGAIN (you're a regular genious aren't you?). We haven't declared war on Afghanistan (we invaded it and called it a "military operation" , Operation Enduring Freedom (what a load of crap that was)) The officially-stated purpose of the invasion was to target al-Qaeda members, and to punish the Taliban government in Afghanistan which had provided support and haven to al-Qaeda. We also never declared war on Iraq either, it's a "military invasion" and "occupation"... Variance in the use of the 'Iraq war' term can be traced to basic differences in the operative definition for 'war' and 'occupation'; as well as the understanding of 'political authority' and 'sovereignty'. For instance, the United States never formally declared war on Iraq (which under the U.S. Constitution could only be done by Congress; the last time that Congress made a formal declaration of war was for World War II). In international law[1] however, an ultimatum is considered equal to a proper declaration. Formal declaration or not, Iraq was nevertheless invaded by U.S. military forces. How are you going to do that when the military or the government won't discuss who's being held prisoner, why they're being held prisoner or give anyone access to see them? Knowing that our brilliant "troops" over there have already raped, murdered, and tortured people it's not hard to believe for a minute that some of them are racist and sadistic enough to arrest people for no reason at all. Without a trial, we don't know what any of them did. Why exactly do you think they're not being given trials? Because there is NO EVIDENCE against probably 99% of them.
What terrorists came from Iraq and attacked America? If you can't think of any, what about Iran and Syria? Also, if one person in an entire country does something bad, does that mean we need to attack the country? BTW, we are not formally at war with anyone. The President has authorized the use of our military in hostile operations in foreign lands. But all that is besides the point.
Opinion on your thought process. I said its pathetic. I could call you an idiot every post you make like Anthony did to me but i don't Where you this vocal 8 years ago and will you continue to be this vocal once a republican leaves offices? I can not answer that for you but you know it. So just remember that. I believe I can say yes because I do speak out against Bush. Alot. I also speak out against the left wing extremist which you have yet to do. The democrats have offered no solutions to some of the bullshit that Bush has thrown at us. Biggest Attack Against American Free Speech One example of me critizing Bush. I was going to post it on here but the open mindness on here is well.. limited. All the Democrats do is attack. Attack with the name calling. That is all you hear. If they took their goddamn job serious for 2 seconds they would have put someone that wasn't an complete dumbass up against Bush and easily kicked his ass out of office. You know what though? They picked the third most liberal piece of shit in Washington and put him against Bush. I like to balance things out. If you are going to allow the United Nations to attack your country on grounds of human rights while the spokesman for the United Nations endorses China for Human rights leadership then that is your problem I guess. I was just pointing that out while pissed off. Were these 4 people at Gitmo? If so 4 out of how many? 4 people enough to close down a whole prison? If they are American citizens they have rights, I am not denying that. That is wrong. 4 people is not enough reason to close a whole damn prison down. Combatants captured and held by the United States as a result of its operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban government and Al Qaeda forces were not recognized as as prisoners of war by the Bush administration and were termed “unlawful combatants†instead. This decision was criticized by human rights groups as a failure to abide by international law, and drew criticism from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as well. In June, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these prisoners, which the Bush administration had claimed it could hold indefinitely (most them at the Guantánamo, Cuba, naval base), had the right to challenge their detention. Sure they have rights, but not the same as American Citizens. You just sat there and argued that Bush did not declare them prisoners of wars only then to tell me that they get rights becuase they are prisoners of war. After the Supreme Court ruling what happened to these people that they deemed as unlawful combatents? Are they still at Gitmo? I am far from a genious and never claimed to be one. Are you somhow impling that you are? I seriously doubt you are myself. Point me to resources where people as of February 20th 2006 are not being allowed to be seen by people such as the Red Cross. Do not disgrace American troops for the actions of a few. These people that did these are sick people and do not deserve the title but do not for one instance try to imply that the majority of American troops are like this.
8 years ago I was 14 and didn't care about anything but basketball, girls and computers. I'm vocal when I feel there's a need to be (like ever since we started invading and occupying the rest of the world). I don't think there's any difference in my judgment wether it's a republican or a democrat. If the government fucks up bad enough (either party of it), then I'm going to speak out against it. Unlike some of the older people here who always like to "label" everyone, I could care less who a democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, etc is. I care about each issue individually (pro guns, pro choice, pro civil liberties, pro less taxes, pro less government, less laws, etc) Have the left wing extremists invaded soveriegn nations? Have they caused thousands of people to die, have they limited free speech or held americans prisoners without trials? Let me know when they start, so I can speak out against them. Where did you come up with this "4" number? No, I said prisoners of war have rights under international law, I never called them prisoners of war - you did. I was trying to show you the difference in prisoners of war and what the Bush Admin is labeling 'enemy combatants' I honestly don't know. I'd imagine they're all still locked up and being tortured on a daily basis, but that is just my speculation based on how Bush and Co. treat humans. I love this "actions of a few".... it's been going on since the start of these invasions and hasn't stopped since then. It's not "a few" it's a lot. The big problem is (and we've already disucssed this on DP) that the army requirements to serve are far too low. They let any dummy join the army and give him a gun. Do you actually think the majority of the ground forces in the army have college educations? These guys are 18 years old straight out of high school (or dropped out), and I can tell you right now the level of maturity and thinking abilities of our youth coming out of high school is incredibly low. I mean, in all seriousness - how many honor roll students join the army? how many college educated people join the army? There's a reason these abuses keep happening all the time, and it's not "a few", I'm really sick of this PC crap about supporting them.
The "troops" are kids - if you put any group of 18-25 year olds in a country, give them guns, and tell them to shoot people, bad things are going to happen. People will die. The kids will do things they ordinarily would not do. Some of the kids are bad seeds that may have done those things anyways. If we had a foreign army on our land, regardless of the country, women would be raped, kids would be killed. That's just one of the thousands of things that need to be contemplated prior to instigating a military action, and it's also one of the first factors to be ignored. As far as the democrats are concerned... What stand up guy in the democratic party is there? Who is there that stands up for human rights, constitutional rights, spending policies, and military responsibility? There hasn't been one person who has taken it upon himself to be a true leader. That is the fault of the voters, the party leaders who decide on candidates, and the public at large for not making a meaningful stance in the last 200 years to reform our government. Even with all the protests in the sixties there was no push to change the quality of candidates put in front of us. And as far as the detainees go... their status was made as such to avoid the globally accepted terms of the geneva convention. Which is almost reasonable because most certainly those enemies that we do actually have out there would attack every loophole to propogandize their plight and to villainize the USA. But here's the rub - we villainize ourselves by making the rules up as we go along. Terrorism was a problem pre-911 and it will forever be a problem. There are ways to deal with terrorists. What this legislative administration (I'm not just going to blame the president) has done is played right into the hands of terrorism. They legitimized the entire mode of operation on a scale that is so far beyond what was ever even comprehensible. And to make matters worse, past the first four months of 911 there has never been any reason to believe that a long term plan with exit strategies has been implemented. Forget Vietnam. We are Russia in Afghanistan now. No way to leave. Ever. No way to control the regions we declared victory over. And finally - the thing that really gets me is that we all laughed hysterically at the Iraqi "information minister". And yet we actually vote for people who lie to us every election - lies that actually mean something to most of us. Not just in one district or in one state, but accross the country. We do nothing to hold our politicians accountable, nothing to inspire real men to run for office, and nothing to create a sense of hope within our own people. Here in California, we actually had a real governor's election, with real candidates. For once, faced with a choice other than "the guy who lied to us while in office" and "the guy who lied to us while holding another office". Who did we vote for? The Republican. Why? Because the Democrat was deposed. The new democratic candidate was even more of a joke. And nobody would really listen to a single other candidate. So who do we get? Arnold Schwarzennegger - who I might add, had a sexual harrassment scandal during the election! And a drug scandal! So of all the people we could pick, a washed up actor born outside the state - outside the country even, who is most famous for his inability to speak english correctly. Yeah, that's the guy we should have elected. I see the logic all over the place. No wonder the rest of the world is pissed at us. We elect leaders like that and expect that they will make the best and most informed decisions. And don't get me started on the Patriot Act.
Incorrect, this was previously discussed with case law and precedent in this post. Many have already been released and gone on to commit other acts of terrorism. Yet some would still defend them. Granted, it didn't come from a url with "prison" or "anti" in it, it's solid and factual none-the-less. jose padilla is an al qaida terrorist. Once again, we see that *some* only resort to the Constitution when it concerns the rights of terrorists. I suppose someone has to stand up for them, might as well be young angry white males with low IQs