UN Denied Private Interviews With Guantamano Detainees

Legion · 11-19-2005, 08:42 AM

Quote:

The UN has formally rejected a US invitation to visit the Guantanamo prison camp, saying it cannot accept the restrictions imposed by Washington.

UN human rights experts said the US had refused to grant them the right to speak to detainees in private.

UN senior official Manfred Nowak said private interviews were a "totally non-negotiable pre-condition" for conducting the visit.

Some 500 terror suspects are being held at the US military camp.

Mr Nowak, the UN's special rapporteur on torture, told the BBC his team would accept nothing less than unfettered access.

"If you want to hear from a detainee or know from a detainee whether he or she has been subjected to torture or ill treatment then you must be allowed to speak to this person in private," he said.

"In front of prison guards they would never tell you the truth because of being afraid of reprisal.

"There are certain conditions which we feel are non-negotiable and unannounced visit to places of detention and private interviews with detainees is one of those totally non-negotiable pre-conditions."

Only the International Committee of the Red Cross has been given access to the prisoners. It reports its findings only to the detaining authorities.

Pentagon refusal

Human rights campaigners have expressed growing concern about the treatment of the inmates at Guantanamo, a number of whom are on hunger strike.

Calls for it to be opened to human rights monitors increased this year, as more allegations surfaced of abuse at the prison camp.

UN officials have been trying to visit the camp since it opened in January 2002.

Last month, the Pentagon said the UN monitors would be allowed to visit the camp on 6 December.

Pentagon spokesman Lieut Col Brian Maker told the BBC the invitation to the UN team was intended to allay fears that detainees were being mistreated.

Yup. Nothing suspicious going on here. ¬_¬

Come to America, Land of the Free, where you can be locked up indefinately without charge for having an opinion!

DELICIOUS POISON · 11-19-2005, 02:01 PM

Pfff, like a little bit of torture ever hurt anyone.

Erdawn Il Deus · 11-20-2005, 09:09 PM

Still waiting on the Ministry of Truth.

Link2000 · 11-20-2005, 09:26 PM

^^^Well, they are trying to kill them you know...

***CaptHayfever*** · 11-21-2005, 12:07 AM

^^Don't forget where that's gonna be located. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

**Prince Toad** · 11-21-2005, 05:25 PM

^Vivec?

Dusty · 11-21-2005, 08:14 PM

^Crawford.

Shane Sacobie · 11-23-2005, 02:30 AM

If people give negative opinions in private, there won't be consequences for them? Such a naive excuse for an organization that should just admit we own them anyway. Granted, their refusal to even bother with a visit doesn't make up for the fact that the US position suggests guilt.

Chronos · 11-23-2005, 11:46 PM

Factor in the possibility that one of the UN staff flunkies is on the payroll of some inernational terror group. Fctor in the possibility that the aforementioned staff flunkie will either try to sneak information in and/or out. Factor in the possibility that the staff flunkie will get out sensitive security information.

I'd say that the US's concerns are justified, if a little overblown. Given the UN's recent track record of ****ing over the US, I'd say the US Military is right to be concerned over the UN screwing things up, either accidentally or purposefully.

Legion · 11-24-2005, 05:22 PM

Legion89: "Factor in the possibility that one of the UN staff flunkies is on the payroll of some inernational terror group. Fctor in the possibility that the aforementioned staff flunkie will either try to sneak information in and/or out. Factor in the possibility that the staff flunkie will get out sensitive security information."
Legion89: "I'd say that the US's concerns are justified, if a little overblown. Given the UN's recent track record of ****ing over the US, I'd say the US Military is right to be concerned over the UN screwing things up, either accidentally or purposefully."
Eastwood1427: Yeah.
Eastwood1427: They might notice the gross breaches of human rights.
Legion89: I'm just wondering what info they could get from a starving POW in Cuba.
Eastwood1427: And that'd blow the whole US operation.
Legion89: Ah, but you see, al-Qaeda could launch a daring rescue operation.
Legion89: Osama would come swinging in on a lasoo.
Eastwood1427: [img]redface.gif[/img]
Legion89: with his Merry Madmen.
Eastwood1427: To the sounds of "The A-Team"
Eastwood1427: "I pity the infidel who get in the way of Osama B!"

Meh, my views summed up. With humour no less.

Chronos · 11-25-2005, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Legion's Back:
Legion89: "Factor in the possibility that one of the UN staff flunkies is on the payroll of some inernational terror group. Fctor in the possibility that the aforementioned staff flunkie will either try to sneak information in and/or out. Factor in the possibility that the staff flunkie will get out sensitive security information."
Legion89: "I'd say that the US's concerns are justified, if a little overblown. Given the UN's recent track record of ****ing over the US, I'd say the US Military is right to be concerned over the UN screwing things up, either accidentally or purposefully."
Eastwood1427: Yeah.
Eastwood1427: They might notice the gross breaches of human rights.
Legion89: I'm just wondering what info they could get from a starving POW in Cuba.
Eastwood1427: And that'd blow the whole US operation.
Legion89: Ah, but you see, al-Qaeda could launch a daring rescue operation.
Legion89: Osama would come swinging in on a lasoo.
Eastwood1427: [img]redface.gif[/img]
Legion89: with his Merry Madmen.
Eastwood1427: To the sounds of "The A-Team"
Eastwood1427: "I pity the infidel who get in the way of Osama B!"

Meh, my views summed up. With humour no less.

Yes, yes; how droll.

Now for some cold hard facts. The UN recently pulled the US off the Human Rights Council, and put China in it's place. Mind you, China has some of the worst human rights violations in the world.

Right now, the UN has about as much credibility as a "used car salesman." I wouldn't trust the UN to watch my dog, if I even had one. The UN is thinking about moving to Europe. I say, let them. Good riddance to those mysoginistic asshats.

Legion · 11-25-2005, 05:51 AM

Recently, as in 2002? Yes, the old Human Rights Commission is crooked in the extreme. That's obvious. That's why they're replacing it with a new Council on Human Rights and ejecting those states without a good enough record on the subject. Because that's now a body like the UN works. If it's not performing satisfactorily, then you change it so it does.

The UN's failings do not however give the US an excuse to ignore international law and do whatever the hell it feels like. Which is exactly what it's doing in Cuba and other countries at this moment in time.

Yes, the convo was over the top. But I'm still wondering, what sesitive information could a UN official get from interviewing starving prisoners? Apart from the whole torturing them thing?

Sampson1986 · 11-25-2005, 11:58 AM

The supreme law of the United States is the Constitution, not the UN or "international law" or anything else.

Legion · 11-25-2005, 12:32 PM

The law of the United States only applies within the United States. Last I checked, Iraq and Cuba were not part of the USA.

Besides, the segregation. humiliation and murder of the Jews was legal under Nazi German law. Just because the courts say it doesn't make it right.

Sampson1986 · 11-25-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Legion's Back:
The law of the United States only applies within the United States. Last I checked, Iraq and Cuba were not part of the USA.

Besides, the segregation. humiliation and murder of the Jews was legal under Nazi German law. Just because the courts say it doesn't make it right.

The base in Cuba is under United States control. Iraq is occupied by the United States military.

Do terrorists respect the rights of those they capture? I think not. The bottom line is that there is a war going on, and there are different rules in war. Does that make it right? Hell no, but that's the way it is.

[ November 25, 2005, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Sampson1986 ]

Legion · 11-26-2005, 04:35 PM

The only problem being that many of those held in Guantameno and other places are not terrorists. That's one of the problem. The US government can lock up people without charge for an indefinate amount of time. Therefore, there's little incentive to actually investigate many of these people's cases to find out if they are actually guilty of what the government thinks they are.

Detention without charge does not work. We know. We tried it during the Troubles. Did it work? Did it hell. In one memorable case it took the police 18 bloody years to find out that a group they'd locked up as terrorists were innocent.

I find it ironic that in this so-called 'War on Terror' we're being told we have to give up the very freedoms we're meant to be protecting.

Sampson1986 · 11-26-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Legion's Back:
I find it ironic that in this so-called 'War on Terror' we're being told we have to give up the very freedoms we're meant to be protecting.

I agree. Our freedoms are slowly being stripped away by judges and legislators.

Erdawn Il Deus · 11-26-2005, 11:22 PM

If this was really a "War on Terror" it would have been waged on Afghanistan and wouldn't have passed into Iraq. It's bull****.

11-19-2005, 02:01 PM	#2
DELICIOUS POISON Retro Nintendo Supermod Art & Literature Mod Metroid Mod Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 16,925 Thanks: 579 Thanked 1,777 Times in 873 Posts Points: 17,806.57 Bank: 4,848,504.55 Total Points: 4,866,311.12 Donate	Pfff, like a little bit of torture ever hurt anyone.

11-20-2005, 09:09 PM	#3
Erdawn Il Deus Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Threading the jeweled thrones of earth under my sandalled feet Gender: Posts: 2,990 Thanks: 4 Thanked 45 Times in 39 Posts Points: 24,293.11 Bank: 853.44 Total Points: 25,146.55 Donate	Still waiting on the Ministry of Truth.

11-20-2005, 09:26 PM	#4
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Points: 17,432.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 18,236.37 Donate	^^^Well, they are trying to kill them you know...

11-21-2005, 12:07 AM	#5
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 20,026 Thanks: 313 Thanked 1,014 Times in 615 Posts Points: 123,484.76 Bank: 2,638.67 Total Points: 126,123.43 Donate	^^Don't forget where that's gonna be located. [img]tongue.gif[/img] And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

11-21-2005, 05:25 PM	#6
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,429 Thanks: 43 Thanked 59 Times in 50 Posts Points: 46,985.56 Bank: 27,199.79 Total Points: 74,185.35 Donate	^Vivec?

11-21-2005, 08:14 PM	#7
Dusty Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Under your bed Posts: 205 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,986.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 3,486.00 Donate	^Crawford.

11-23-2005, 02:30 AM	#8
Shane Sacobie Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 12,259.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 12,759.00 Donate	If people give negative opinions in private, there won't be consequences for them? Such a naive excuse for an organization that should just admit we own them anyway. Granted, their refusal to even bother with a visit doesn't make up for the fact that the US position suggests guilt.

11-23-2005, 11:46 PM	#9
Chronos Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Gender: Posts: 288 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,030.62 Bank: 1,792.64 Total Points: 5,823.26 Donate	Factor in the possibility that one of the UN staff flunkies is on the payroll of some inernational terror group. Fctor in the possibility that the aforementioned staff flunkie will either try to sneak information in and/or out. Factor in the possibility that the staff flunkie will get out sensitive security information. I'd say that the US's concerns are justified, if a little overblown. Given the UN's recent track record of ****ing over the US, I'd say the US Military is right to be concerned over the UN screwing things up, either accidentally or purposefully.

11-24-2005, 05:22 PM	#10
Legion Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Greater Mancester, UK Gender: Posts: 1,860 Thanks: 10 Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts Points: 8,425.29 Bank: 6,647.77 Total Points: 15,073.06 Donate	Legion89: "Factor in the possibility that one of the UN staff flunkies is on the payroll of some inernational terror group. Fctor in the possibility that the aforementioned staff flunkie will either try to sneak information in and/or out. Factor in the possibility that the staff flunkie will get out sensitive security information." Legion89: "I'd say that the US's concerns are justified, if a little overblown. Given the UN's recent track record of ****ing over the US, I'd say the US Military is right to be concerned over the UN screwing things up, either accidentally or purposefully." Eastwood1427: Yeah. Eastwood1427: They might notice the gross breaches of human rights. Legion89: I'm just wondering what info they could get from a starving POW in Cuba. Eastwood1427: And that'd blow the whole US operation. Legion89: Ah, but you see, al-Qaeda could launch a daring rescue operation. Legion89: Osama would come swinging in on a lasoo. Eastwood1427: [img]redface.gif[/img] Legion89: with his Merry Madmen. Eastwood1427: To the sounds of "The A-Team" Eastwood1427: "I pity the infidel who get in the way of Osama B!" Meh, my views summed up. With humour no less.

11-25-2005, 05:51 AM	#12
Legion Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Greater Mancester, UK Gender: Posts: 1,860 Thanks: 10 Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts Points: 8,425.29 Bank: 6,647.77 Total Points: 15,073.06 Donate	Recently, as in 2002? Yes, the old Human Rights Commission is crooked in the extreme. That's obvious. That's why they're replacing it with a new Council on Human Rights and ejecting those states without a good enough record on the subject. Because that's now a body like the UN works. If it's not performing satisfactorily, then you change it so it does. The UN's failings do not however give the US an excuse to ignore international law and do whatever the hell it feels like. Which is exactly what it's doing in Cuba and other countries at this moment in time. Yes, the convo was over the top. But I'm still wondering, what sesitive information could a UN official get from interviewing starving prisoners? Apart from the whole torturing them thing?

11-25-2005, 11:58 AM	#13
Sampson1986 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Glacier County, Montana Gender: Posts: 323 Thanks: 4 Thanked 7 Times in 3 Posts Points: 12,089.70 Bank: 585.83 Total Points: 12,675.53 Donate	The supreme law of the United States is the Constitution, not the UN or "international law" or anything else.

11-25-2005, 12:32 PM	#14
Legion Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Greater Mancester, UK Gender: Posts: 1,860 Thanks: 10 Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts Points: 8,425.29 Bank: 6,647.77 Total Points: 15,073.06 Donate	The law of the United States only applies within the United States. Last I checked, Iraq and Cuba were not part of the USA. Besides, the segregation. humiliation and murder of the Jews was legal under Nazi German law. Just because the courts say it doesn't make it right.

11-26-2005, 04:35 PM	#16
Legion Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Greater Mancester, UK Gender: Posts: 1,860 Thanks: 10 Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts Points: 8,425.29 Bank: 6,647.77 Total Points: 15,073.06 Donate	The only problem being that many of those held in Guantameno and other places are not terrorists. That's one of the problem. The US government can lock up people without charge for an indefinate amount of time. Therefore, there's little incentive to actually investigate many of these people's cases to find out if they are actually guilty of what the government thinks they are. Detention without charge does not work. We know. We tried it during the Troubles. Did it work? Did it hell. In one memorable case it took the police 18 bloody years to find out that a group they'd locked up as terrorists were innocent. I find it ironic that in this so-called 'War on Terror' we're being told we have to give up the very freedoms we're meant to be protecting.

11-26-2005, 11:22 PM	#18
Erdawn Il Deus Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Threading the jeweled thrones of earth under my sandalled feet Gender: Posts: 2,990 Thanks: 4 Thanked 45 Times in 39 Posts Points: 24,293.11 Bank: 853.44 Total Points: 25,146.55 Donate	If this was really a "War on Terror" it would have been waged on Afghanistan and wouldn't have passed into Iraq. It's bull****.