prison camp
obama and habeas corpus
Submitted by antarchi on May 24, 2010 - 02:02One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team"...
Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Bush/Obama position, holding that even detainees abducted outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram have no right to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a U.S. federal court, because Boumediene1 does not apply to prisons located within war zones (such as Afghanistan).
So congratulations to the United States and Barack Obama for winning the power to abduct people anywhere in the world and then imprison them for as long as they want with no judicial review of any kind. When the Boumediene decision was issued in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." But Obama hailed it as "a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," and he praised the Court for "rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."
- 1. Supreme Court decision which held that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo have habeas corpus rights under the US Constitution
internment after 9-11
Submitted by antarchi on April 25, 2010 - 20:10[After 9-11], Blair bulldozed through Parliament a new brand of internment. This allowed for the indefinite detention without trial of foreign nationals, the ‘evidence’ to be heard in secret with the detainee’s lawyer not permitted to see the evidence against him and an auxiliary lawyer appointed by the attorney general who, having seen it, was not allowed to see the detainee. The most useful device of the executive is its ability to claim that secrecy is necessary for national security. Each of the dozen men snatched from his home on 17 December 2001, and delivered to HMP Belmarsh, expressed astonishment: first at finding himself the object of the much trumpeted legislation and, second, at discovering who his fellow detainees were. Each asked why, if he was suspected of activity linked to terrorism, he had never been questioned by police or the Security Services before it was decided that he was a ‘risk to national security’.
...Each man was told that, for a reason that could not be disclosed, he was in some unspecified way thought to be linked to unspecified persons or organisations, in turn linked to al-Qaida.
it was there just to have somebody go insane
Submitted by antarchi on May 10, 2009 - 17:03I take the ‘Dark Prison’ as being the worst, and that’s because I was literally there...not for gathering information, it wasn’t set up as a detention centre- it was literally there just to have somebody go insane...
Right from the beginning of where you can’t sleep unless you literally...you’re so tired you can’t stay awake- that just tells you that you’re in a place where your mind starts telling you that, to me, literally that I didn’t know I existed...In the other prisons I was in, it was ‘when is this going to end?’ In the ‘Dark Prison, it wasn’t, ‘is this going to end?’; it was, ‘is this real?’
handing them over to torture
Submitted by antarchi on March 2, 2008 - 00:25Throughout my time in Iraq I was in no doubt that individuals detained by UKSF and handed over to our American colleagues would be tortured. During my time as member of the US/UK Task Force, three soldiers recounted to me an incident in which they had witnessed the brutal interrogation of two detainees. Partial drowning and an electric cattle prod were used during this interrogation and this amounted to torture. It was the widely held assumption that this would be the fate of any individuals handed over to our America colleagues.
so as not to leave a mark
Submitted by antarchi on February 29, 2008 - 02:53Typical first time interrogation consisted of some kind of heavy metal music really loud, strobe light, lot of yelled questions and stuff like that, until they finally would break down and cry and say “I don’t know anything, I don’t know anything!” If [the detainee] was a particular target of interest that they thought knew something, you know, they’d grab him, punch him—stomach, neck, arms—you know, right in here [indicating the back of the arm, above the elbow], you’d punch them in the back of the elbows—hold your arms up—you’d punch them in the back of the elbow, I guess, so not to leave a mark. . .. Particularly people of interest, they really want to talk to, they would use everything.
Interview with Nick, a US interrogator in Iraq, in No Blood, No Foul
at least one gut shot
Submitted by antarchi on February 29, 2008 - 02:47He’s on his knees, usually a rifle pointed at him, strobe light going, music going, whatever. Then the guys sitting at the desk asking him questions directly. It was always yelling at that point—you had to, in order to hear [over the music]... For the most part, that would drag on for quite a while. They’d ask and ask and ask and ask.
I would say, about, overall, about half the guys to 60 percent of the guys got at least one gut shot - either punched or the butt of the rifle in the stomach... I couldn’t put an exact figure, somewhere on the low ball, I would say, 60 percent...

