Voice of Revolution

Defend Prisoners’ Rights

Close Guantánamo Concentration Camp

The brutal torture, humiliation and degradation of people held at the U.S. concentration camp at Guantánamo has continued without let-up for more than four years now. In direct violation of U.S. and International law and military standards, the U.S. continues to hold more than 500 people, some teenagers, without charges, trials or respect for any of their rights as prisoners and as human beings.

More than 200 prisoners at Guantánamo are now engaged in a hunger strike, demanding an end to torture and inhuman treatment and that they be given fair trials now. The strike has remained strong for weeks and has now entered its third month. A number of the prisoners are close to death, with some described as “coughing up blood or falling unconscious on the floor.” Together the strikers have repeatedly expressed their determination to persist in the hunger strike until justice is won.

Buffalo Forum salutes the just and determined stand of the strikers and vigorously condemns these crimes of the government. We demand that the Guantánamo concentration camp be immediately closed and that all prisoners either be charged and tried publicly or released and returned to their homelands—as required by right and by law. We also demand that all government officials responsible for these crimes, beginning with President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld be held accountable for their criminal actions.

The conditions facing the prisoners have been horrendous for years. In addition to endless interrogations and repeated torture, many are being held in isolation, deprived of sunlight, proper food and water, and suffering repeated humiliation. As one prisoner said, “this is the fourth year in prison although no charges have been filed and we lack medicine, products or conditions to wash, and are without sun.”

Several hunger strikes have been held since 2002 as prisoners organize to defend their rights. As a report by the Center for Constitutional Rights brings out, “Since the 2002 hunger strikes, the Guantánamo prisoners have been seeking fair trials, freedom from religious abuses, an end to physical and psychological abuses, adequate shelter and food, and access to clean water. As years have passed, the U.S. government has not permitted a single fair hearing for any prisoner, even after the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case, Rasul v. Bush in June 2004, affirming the prisoners’ right to challenge in federal court the lawfulness of their detention and conditions of confinement. In response to the U.S. military’s ongoing defiance of the rule of law, the prisoners’ protests have become more serious, with the current series of hunger strikes resulting in an unknown number of detainees slipping into comas.”

The U.S. is using Guantánamo as a means to eliminate rule of law and create a situation where the Office of the President can act with complete impunity, anywhere, against anyone. The stand of the prisoners is a block against this barbaric direction and one that deserves the full support of all.

[TOP]

Legitimacy Crisis of Government

Senate Funds Iraq War, Passes Amendment on Torture

Congress is currently debating Pentagon funding for the coming year. The Senate passed its version of the bill on October 7, authorizing $445 billion for the Pentagon. The Senate bill included $50 billion in “emergency” funding for the war against Iraq. This brings direct funding for the war to $350 billion, with additional Pentagon funds also used for that purpose. The House passed a similar bill authorizing $440 billion and the two must now be reconciled before the bill is passed into law. Congress’ Research Service reports that the Pentagon is currently spending about $6 billion a month for the war against Iraq and $1 billion for war against Afghanistan.

The actions of both Houses of Congress stand in direct conflict with the broad stand of the majority of Americans against the Iraq war. This stand was represented most recently in the spirited and determined march in Washington, D.C. September 24.

The Senate bill also included an amendment concerning U.S. torture of prisoners. The amendment comes at a time that more than 200 prisoners at the concentration camp at the Naval base in Guantánamo are on hunger strike, demanding an end to torture and fair trials and respect for their human rights.

The amendment calls for the Army Field Manual on interrogations to be used as the standard for all interrogations of anyone held by the U.S. The manual requires that the Geneva Conventions, as law of the land, be met. The amendment also prohibits “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government.” The amendment was proposed by Senator John McCain, a Republican.

The vote in favor of the amendments was 90-9, meaning the large majority of Republicans and Democrats voted in favor. The Republicans included John W. Warner, Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military lawyer. The amendment was also supported by 28 retired generals and admirals, including the highest-ranking legal officers for each of the armed services.

The vote coincides with efforts by President George W. Bush to block the amendment. Vice-President Cheney was previously sent to convince Senators to oppose the amendment. Bush has repeatedly threatened to veto the bill if the final version includes the amendment. The White House claims such an amendment “restricts the president’s authority.”

A main concern expressed by those favoring the amendment is how to overcome the legitimacy crisis of the government given the continuing torture and inhuman actions at Guantánamo and new reports of continued torture in Iraq. An article in the voice of the Bush neo-conservatives, the American Enterprise Institute’s “Weekly Standard,” an article said, “The consequences of a failure to set a clear standard for the treatment of detainees are plain to see.” It emphasized “We’re not only making it easier for our enemies to hate us, but harder for our friends to love us.” Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell, in a letter to McCain said, “The world will note that America is making a clear statement with respect to the expected future behavior of our soldiers. Such a reaction will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib.”

It remains unclear if the vote on the amendment and the amendment itself will do anything to change public opinion on the legitimacy of government, including both the president and Congress. As widely expressed September 24, people are angry at continued funding for the war and refusal by Congress to demand and implement an immediate withdrawal.

They have also lost patience with Congress that has reduced itself to a consultative body. According to the Constitution, it is Congress that has authority to deal with all prisoners captured during wartime, just as it is Congress that has sole authority to declare war. The failure of Congress to stand up and use its authority, while continually acting to fund unjust wars is fueling the legitimacy crisis of government. It also remains to be seen whether the Senate will insist on the amendment as passed or will accept a compromise acceptable to Bush.

[TOP]

210 Continue Hunger Strike for Second Month

Prisoners Demand Justice, End to Torture at Guantánamo Bay Concentration Camp

- Center for Constitutional Rights -

We reprint below excerpts from a report by the Center for Constitutional Rights, “The Guantánamo Prisoner Hunger Strikes & Protests: February 2002 – August 2005” available at their website: www.ccr-ny.com. CCR reports that for nine weeks now, 210 prisoners remain on hunger strike, and they intend to strike “until they die or receive justice.”

June/July 2005 Hunger Strike

From late June through most of July 2005, a hunger strike occurred in all five camps at the detention center. The June/July 2005 Hunger Strike was first publicly announced on July 20, 2005 by two Afghani citizens, Habir Russol and Moheb Ullah Borekzai, who had been released from Guantánamo two days earlier. On July 21, 2005, the Center for Constitutional Rights confirmed that in June 2005, the prisoners had planned a hunger strike to protest their lack of due process and inhumane living conditions. From this information, it is clear that while the DoD was conducting misleading “show tours” of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station for U.S. Senators, up to 200 prisoners were actively engaged in a hunger strike to protest their inhumane treatment. […]

According to attorneys from Shearman & Sterling, the prisoners’ description of the planned June/July 2005 Hunger Strike reflected the prisoners’ peaceful demand to be treated as human beings.

The prisoners described the June/July 2005 Hunger Strike as follows:

• The protest was “a peaceful, nonviolent strike until demands are met;”

• The strike called “for starvation until death;”

• The prisoners planned to boycott showers;

• They planned to boycott their recreation time;

• Some prisoners planned 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 called for “no violence, by hand or even words, to anyone, including guards.”

When asked by Shearman & 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 demanded the following from the Guantánamo command:

1) We need respect for our religion, including an end to the desecration of the Qur’an and religious discrimination;

2) We need fair trials with proper legal representation;

3) We need proper human food and clean water. We are not given adequate amounts of food and the food is often old and inedible. The water is frequently dirty and tastes contaminated;

4) We need to see sunlight, and not be forced to go months without seeing daylight;

5) 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?

6) We need basic human rights like everyone else in the world - including real, effective medical treatment;

7) We need to be able to contact our families, and write to them and receive letters. Some prisoners have not received any of the letters sent by their families, their families have not received any of the prisoners’ recent letters, and this is a widespread problem across the camp;

8) We need the “level system” of the various Camps and privilege levels to be abandoned and everyone treated equally; and

9) We need a neutral body to observe the situation and report publicly about the conditions at Guantánamo.

[…] Prisoners with legal counsel explained to their attorneys the seriousness of the hunger strikers’ requests for a fair hearing and humane treatment. Jarallah Al-Marri, for example, was hospitalized as a result of his participation in the June/July 2005 Hunger Strike and a deteriorating heart condition, and placed on an IV. He told his attorney, Jonathan Hafetz of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, that the government had a nurse make sexual advances towards him while he was lying in his hospital bed in a vain attempt to convince him to give up his hunger strike.

Mr. Al-Marri had been in solitary confinement for over 16 months and often goes as long as 3 weeks without being allowed outside his cell for recreation. The lights in Mr. Al-Marri’s cell remain on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and he has been denied adequate bedding and clothing. Mr. Al-Marri is able to sleep only 2 hours a night, and his physical and mental health have deteriorated significantly. […]

While the military has only acknowledged that 52 prisoners took part in the June/July 2005 Hunger Strike, consistent and reliable reports by habeas counsel show that approximately 200 prisoners participated in the strike. In fact, from early July through July 25, 2005, the hunger strike became so severe that the DoD was forced to place approximately 50 men on IV’s. Medics could not manage the detention center’s need and elected to stop making their regular medical calls. The prisoners spent 26 days without food. […]

The breadth and severity of the June/July 2005 Hunger Strike forced the DoD to permit the creation of a prisoners’ representative committee to negotiate with prison officials concerning the protesters’ demands. Based upon U.S. promises to bring the detention center into compliance with the Geneva Conventions, the June/July 2005 Hunger Strike ended on July 28, 2005.

August 2005 Hunger Strike

A new hunger strike began at Guantánamo in mid-August 2005 after the DoD reneged on promises to bring the prison into compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Confirming fears expressed by the attorneys for the prisoners, as soon as the DoD believed that public scrutiny had stopped, prisoner mistreatment returned.

In early August 2005, for example, several prisoners were beaten by military personnel. British resident Binyam Mohammed explained to his attorney that a Kuwaiti prisoner was violently assaulted by the military’s “Extreme Reaction Force” (ERF) and subjected to psychological abuse. These beatings came upon the heels of violence occurring during the June/July 2005 Hunger Strike.

In one incident on July 9, 2005, O.K., an individual seized when he was a juvenile, was kicked by MP’s approximately ten times while he was collapsed on the ground from weakness after being transported back from the hospital. The same MP then placed a finger on a pressure point on O.K.’s neck and applied strong pressure for approximately one minute, causing O.K. severe pain and restricting his ability to breathe.

The beatings and persistent denial of basic human necessities and fair trials sparked renewed protest among the prisoners. According to detainee Shaker Aamer, when the August 2005 Hunger Strike began, the DoD placed the representative members of the “Prisoners’ Council” in isolation.

A statement made by British resident Binyam Mohammed to his habeas counsel on August 11, 2005, expresses the detainees’ clear demand that the United States bring the detentions within the protections of the rule of law. Prisoners have refused to sign the DoD’s “hunger strike waiver form” and additional waivers forced upon them for previously refusing IV treatments. The prisoners intend to strike until they die or receive justice.

Mr. Mohammed stated clearly that, “We ask only for justice: treat us, as promised, under the rules of the Geneva Conventions for Civilian Prisoners while we are held, and either try us fairly for a valid criminal charge or set us free.”

[TOP]

For Your Information

Guantánamo Detainees: The International Legal Framework

- Amnesty International -

The international armed conflict in Afghanistan ended in June 2002.[1] When that armed conflict ended, those who were captured by the USA during hostilities [2] — and who the USA was obliged to treat as prisoners of war in the absence of a determination “by a competent tribunal” that they were not [3] — were required to be released, unless charged with criminal offences.[4]

Civilians detained in that conflict were entitled to have their detention (“internment”) reviewed “as soon as possible” by a “court or administrative board.”[5] They too were required, when that conflict ended, to be released, unless charged with recognized criminal offences.[6] Those detained later in Afghanistan, for reasons related to the subsequent non-international armed conflict there and transferred to Guantánamo were required, as a minimum, to have their detention promptly, and thereafter periodically, reviewed.

Those detained in countries outside of the zones of armed conflict and transferred to Guantánamo should always have been treated as criminal suspects, therefore subject to international human rights law, including the right to a prompt judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention and to release if that detention is deemed unlawful, and if prosecuted to be tried in proceedings which meet international standards of fairness (see below).[7]

The USA has applied none of the above-mentioned provisions of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in determining the status of the Guantánamo detainees:

• it has not treated those captured during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan initially as prisoners of war, pending determination of their status by a court;

• it has not convened a court to determine whether or not persons captured during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan are entitled to prisoner of war status;

• it has not reviewed promptly the detention of those captured during the subsequent non-international armed conflict in Afghanistan;

• it has not brought the detention of civilians promptly under judicial review, tried or released them;

• it did not, at the close of international hostilities, release the detainees captured during hostilities, with the exception of those against whom criminal procedures had been initiated — in fact, the USA initiated no such procedures.

More than 200 people have been released or transferred from the base, but the USA was expressly acting, in this as well as in other matters, in pursuit of it own perceived interests, rather than in compliance with its international legal obligations. As noted further below, the USA has denied having any such obligations regarding the detainees in Guantánamo.

In view of the above, Amnesty International believes that all those currently held in Guantánamo are arbitrarily and unlawfully detained. It continues to call on the USA to either:

• Release and repatriate the Guantánamo detainees, subject to international law and standards, including the prohibition of returning or transferring a person to a country where he or she faces a risk of torture, other ill-treatment, unfair trial, “disappearance”, arbitrary detention or the death penalty; or:

• Prosecute those suspected of committing internationally recognizable criminal offences [8] in proceedings that meet international standards of fairness, and which do not include the imposition of the death penalty.

Fair trial standards

Any trials, whatever the status of the person being tried, must be carried out in proceedings that meet international standards of fairness.[9] These standards include:

• All persons must be equal before the courts and tribunals;

• Charges must be for internationally recognizable criminal offences;

• Trials must commence within a reasonable time;

• All persons are entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law [10];

• All persons must be presumed innocent until proven guilty;

• All persons must have full access to legal counsel of their own choosing, and have adequate time to prepare their defense;

• All persons must be informed promptly and in detail in a language which they understand of the nature and cause of the charge against them;

• All persons must be tried in their presence;

• All persons must be able to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against them;

• No persons must be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt;

• Statements or any other material obtained by torture or by cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment must not be admissible as evidence (except as evidence that such treatment took place);

• All persons convicted of a crime must have the right to have their conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. Reviews must be made by competent, independent and impartial tribunals, be genuine and go beyond formal verifications of procedural requirements.

Endnotes

1. The conflict is deemed to have ended with the conclusion of the Emergency Loya Jirga and the establishment of a Transitional Authority on 19 June 2002.

2. Geneva Convention III, Art. 4 uses the term “persons [belonging to certain categories]… who have fallen into the power of the enemy.”

3. Geneva Convention III, Art. 5.

4. Geneva Convention III, Part III, Part IV, Section II.

5. Geneva Convention IV, Art. 43.

6. Geneva Convention IV, Art. 133.

7. See for instance International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Articles 9(3) and 9(4).

8. Prisoners of wars cannot be charged in connection with their lawful conduct of hostilities.

9. See especially Article 14 of the ICCPR, Articles 1, 2(2), 15 and 16 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

10. Principle 5 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary states: “Everyone shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals.” Endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985.

From the May 13, 2005 Amnesty International Report on Guantánamo (see below).

[TOP]