Here are some quotes from Sami:
After being reunited with his eight-year old son Mohammed, who was just a baby when he last saw him, Sami summoned the strength to greet Sudan’s President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, accompanied by dozens of ministers, and then gave the world another message via Opheera McDoom of Reuters, explaining that the prisoners in GuantĂ¡namo had been subjected to “all kinds of torture,” but that what affected them most deeply was when the guards insulted Islam or desecrated the Holy Qu’ran.
“Security and human rights are inseparable issues — you cannot have one without the other,” he explained, adding, “Human rights are not only for times of peace — you need to hold onto them always even during difficult times and times of war.” He concluded with some choice words for his former captors, which — in light of the well-documented abuse he suffered in US custody, and the agonies of his 16-month hunger strike — will no doubt reverberate around the world:
“My last message to the U.S. administration is that torture will not stop terrorism — torture is terrorism.”
For the whole article, go to: http://www.alternet.org/rights…
The author, Andy Worthington, actually has published a book on the subject, see: http://www.andyworthington.co….
Or, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin:
Those who give up liberty and freedom for safety will not have safety or liberty or freedom.
I have met and talked with several of the attorneys who have represented and worked on the Guantanamo case. As an American, I remain shocked and embarassed that Guantanamo remains open and functioning – it is a low point in our history like the Alien and Sedition Act, the internship camps for Japanese-Americans, and the McCarthy witch hunts. We can and must do better.
under the guise of fighting terrorism. There’s no clearer symbol of that than Guantanamo. Let’s hope the next president dismantles the place ASAP.
but why not include all of the reasons why this man was held as an “enemy combatant”?
<
p>Here is the list from his Summary of Evidence memo from the Department of Defense:
<
p>
<
p>I am not saying I agree with the holding of “enemy combatants” but saying that his only alleged “offense” was interviewing Bin Laden is just not true.
Wish I could trust it. Given the administrations track record on ‘making shit up’, I simply can’t go there.
<
p>He’s Sudanese. Seems like a pretty significant detail to screw up in the “Summary of Evidence.”
what business is it of the united states to detain someone shifting arms between two countries no the unites states when those arms would not be used on the united states?
I’m pretty sure the Russians would appreciate it if we managed to intercept terrorist arms flowing into Chechnya, just as we would appreciate it if they noticed arms on their way to the US.
<
p>If they had held these guys as POWs subject to the Geneva convention, then they would not need to be released, without need for justification. Very foolish decision by the Bushies, but no surprise there, I suppose. They’re not very good at their jobs.
Those missions can stop well short of making it our duty to arrest and indefinitely detain every two-bit arms smuggler with a goat and a crappy rocket launcher. I dunno if it’s too far at all to suggest we’re not in the business of law enforcement when it comes to inter-country arms transfers. Keeping our ears to the ground when it comes to big deals of strategic significance is of course a different matter.
But these guys were snagged in Afghanistan, or at least entering Afghanistan; we have a legitimate reason to be there, and a legitimate reason to detain any/all Taliban/al Quaida there, or trying to get there.
<
p>So while I agree with you on the World Police thing, that doesn’t necessarily describe this situation.
<
p>I will make a note to separate the issue of these guys’ detention, which in my view is entirely legitimate, from the manner of their detention, without the benefit of the protections of the Geneva Convention, and what was done to them there, both of which are not legitimate at all.
… for many of those we “picked up” in Afghanistan, he “legitimate reason to detain” them was nothing more substantive than that some ‘ally’ warlord hand delivered them to US forces. Tuns out that many warlords were handing people over as a means of settling old grudges and that many of the ‘he’s a dangerous terrorist’ claims were bogus. But of course the US can’t bring itself to admit that because any doubt in the process that detained them in the first place would mean that the whole system of detention needs some process of oversight to ensure that there are good reasons behind any decision to hold people indefinitely. Of course we all know what kind of embarrassment would result by any kind of investigation or oversight into the justification for it all would bring.
That doesn’t make any sense.
<
p>I think you misread the list to mean that the detainee is an Iraqi businessman.
<
p>Not exactly a fan of Gitmo. But don’t exactly want these guys released into my neighborhood next January, either.
do you honestly think that would happen? make my eyes roll. đŸ™‚