Torture Continues at Guantanamo

It never ended under Obama at US torture prisons worldwide, Guantanamo the tip of the iceberg.

The practice continues under Trump. He believes it works. Clear evidence proves otherwise.

He believes if it doesn’t work, detainees deserve it anyway. The vast majority in US torture prisons post-9/11 were innocent victims, wrongfully called terrorists, brutalized for their faith and ethnicity – their pain and suffering ignored, largely unreported by Western media.

International law is clear and unequivocal. Torture is illegal at all times, under all circumstances with no allowed exceptions.

It’s mostly used for punishment and control, not to obtain useful information. Most, maybe all, detainees in US torture prisons have nothing to tell.

They’ll say anything their torturers want to hear to stop the pain. Most everyone would do the same thing.

Common US torture methods include waterboarding (simulating drowning), severe beatings, electric shocks, mock executions, hooding, prolonged isolation under extreme heat or cold, deafening noice, use of stress positions, along with sexual humiliation and abuse.

Founded by civil and human rights attorney Clive Stafford Smith, UK-based Reprieve “fight(s) for the victims of extreme human rights abuses with legal action and public education.”

The group’s main focus is on the death penalty, indefinite detentions without trial, extraordinary renditions, extrajudicial killings and torture.

Last October, it published seven facts most people don’t know about Guantanamo, as follows:

“1. Most detainees were sold to the US for enormous bounties.

2. The Bush administration decided that the prisoners had no rights, and Reprieve was a big part of changing that.”

3. All the prisoners initially faced the death penalty.

4. At least 15 children have been held in Guantanamo.

5. More men have died in Guantanamo than have been convicted of a crime.

6. Over 90% of Guantanamo detainees have been released without charge.

7. Guantanamo is possibly the world’s most expensive prison.”

It costs Washington around $445 million to keep Guantanamo’s 41 prisoners incarcerated – $29,000 per prisoner daily, a shocking waste of money on top of committing grievous human rights abuses.

Of the roughly 775 Guantanamo detainees since its detention facilities opened in January 2002, only four were convicted of a crime.

The vast majority were held uncharged and untried, their fundamental rights denied. At least 10 were killed by prison guards or other US personnel, falsely listed as suicides.

The ACLU called torture and abuse at Guantanamo one of the most shameful episodes in US history, urging its facilities to be shut down.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) led the fight against indefinite detention and torture at Guantanamo – calling it an “island prison designed to exist beyond the rule of law.”

Trump vowed to resume sending prisoners there, saying he wants to “load it up with some bad dudes.” CCR continues working for the release of remaining detainees, seeking closure of the facility.

UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer said he has information that Ammar al-Baluchi, falsely accused of involvement in 9/11, is being tortured and abused at Guantanamo, explaining:

“In addition to the long-term effects of past torture, noise and vibrations are reportedly still being used against him, resulting in constant sleep deprivation and related physical and mental disorders, for which he allegedly does not receive adequate medical attention.”

Other detainees perhaps are treated the same way. Melzer called for prosecution of US officials responsible for involvement in torture, issuing a statement saying:

“By failing to prosecute the crime of torture in CIA custody, the US is in clear violation of the Convention against Torture, and is sending a dangerous message of complacency and impunity to officials in the US and around the world.”

He and his predecessors were denied access Guantanamo – to learn firsthand what apparently still goes on.

The post Torture Continues at Guantanamo appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

The Latest on the JFK Assassination

Bart Sibrel is an award winning filmmaker, writer and investigative journalist who has been producing movies and television programs for over 30 years. During this time he has owned five production companies, been employed by two of the three major networks and produced films shown on ABC, NBC, CNN, TLC, USA, BET, as well as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. To discuss his films, he has appeared and been interviewed on The Daily Show, Geraldo, NBC, CNN, FOX, Tech TV, Coast to Coast, and The Abrams Report. Articles featuring Mr. Sibrel’s films have been published in Time Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, USA Today and many others. His top awards from the American Motion Picture Society include “Best Cinematography”, “Best Editing” and “Top Ten Director”. As the writer and director of the infamous “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” which exposed the moon landing hoax, Mr. Sibrel has collected over the years innumerous military, government, industrial and private sources for credible firsthand verification of very real conspiratorial crimes against humanity. He will use these contacts and experience in exposing the true and unbelievably horrific intentions of the hidden minority who have diabolical intentions for mankind in his monthly Sleuth Journal column "Conspiracy Corner". Be sure to visit his site at Sibrel.com and subscribe to his Youtube Channel.If you are so inclined, you may Donate to further Bart Sibrel"s research with a with a generous one time donation, or a modest $5 per month recurring donation, to help Conspiracy Corner be entirely user supported. Your thoughtfulness is most appreciated.Bart Sibrel is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. When you want to shop on Amazon, please come back to this page and click HERE to visit the Amazon homepage, or copy and paste the following url into your browser"s bookmarks as "Amazon.com" for future use (http://amzn.to/2bvcs9I). Thank you!

What the Supreme Court Battle Tells Us About Trump’s Plans for Guantanamo

(ANTIMEDIA) Even though Democrats on Capitol Hill are fighting tooth-and-nail against Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, it’s almost impossible to win the battle. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has asserted “it’s up to the Democrats” whether or not Gorsuch gets confirmed, but many political analysts interpret his statement to mean that he’ll pull their filibuster — essentially changing the rules of the Chamber.

Assuming he is confirmed, Gorsuch is likely to see a Guantanamo Bay case early in his time on the bench. The Cuba-based American prison has been one of the most hotly contested legal debates in the past two decades. It’s an ethical and legal dilemma for a number of reasons. First, most of the prisoners have not been charged, and a large segment of them have been cleared for transfer. In 2013, a Boston University article noted that only six of the 166 detainees “face[d] any formal charges.”

Many believe the way Guantanamo operates is in violation of the Geneva convention. The Bush administration took the stance that “the Geneva Conventions did not apply to ‘unlawful enemy combatants,’ such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.” In 2006, the Supreme Court presided over Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and sided with Hamdan. Unfortunately, that did little to change the conditions in Guantanamo Bay or the way it operates.

We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

Now the Supreme Court is once again being asked to rule on issues related to the notorious facility. The first defendant, Yemeni-born Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul, was convicted on three charges relating to his role as a propagandist for al-Qaeda. However, those are not international war crimes — remember, the government’s defense of the center was that it was used to detain war criminals. Bahlul’s lawyers posit that his offenses are not international war crimes. A Harvard Law blog outlined the case, essentially writing that Bahlul was tried for domestic crimes under a military court.

The second case, al Nashiri v. Obama, features a defendant who is facing charges for bombings he may have been involved in during 2000 and 2002. His attorneys are making a similar argument — that the statute that allows him to be tried by a military commission was not put in place until 2001. Therefore, they argue, there is no basis to try him as a foreign agent of war rather than as a civilian.

CNN reported that “the Trump administration is likely to respond within 30 days,” but if President Trump’s campaign rhetoric is any indication, it certainly doesn’t look good for Nashiri and Bahlul. During his stump speeches, Trump eloquently declared that he intended to “fill [Guantanamo Bay] up with some bad dudes.” Obama promised — and failed — to shut down the facility, though at the time he left office there were fewer than fifty detainees still being held at the Cuban base. That’s a big step down from the 680 who were at the prison in 2003.

With Neil Gorsuch on the court, conservatives will have the majority. And like Trump, Gorsuch is an admirer of Guantanamo Bay. According to the New York Times, the judge actually toured the facility in 2005 — the same year a C.I.A. memo showed two suspected terrorists had been waterboarded 266 times. Following his visit, Gorsuch wrote a letter to the warden stating his visit made the “job of helping explain and defend it before the courts all the easier.”

The New York Times also acquired a series of emails between Gorsuch and a number of lawmakers from around the time of the 2006 Supreme Court case. In the opening of those emails, Gorsuch even referenced the defendant and tried to find ways to structure a bill that might shore up the power of the military courts.

It’s likely it will be a few more months before the two Guantanamo cases will come before the Supreme Court, by which time Gorsuch will almost certainly be on the court. But if his past leanings are any indication, it seems inevitable that he will rule against the suspected terrorists. In particular, he will likely rule against their argument that they cannot be tried as war criminals when charged with domestic crimes.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo