Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay. Show all posts

Neil Cavuto Makes Fat-Jokes About Prisoners

12 August 2009

On June 17, Neil Cavuto had a segment on his show titled "Living Large? Do healthy physiques of ex-Gitmo detainees dispel rumors of mistreatment in the detention facility?"



The obvious answer to Cavuto's question is a simple "no." The Uighur detainees never made any allegations that they were subjected to forced starvation, so the relative physiques of these formerly accused prisoners are completely irrelevant.

On top of that completely obvious point (Neil Cavuto should know better), it should also be noted that these Uighurs were cleared for release by the Department of Defense years ago, and they have lived separately from the other detainees for a very long time. The only reason they were still at Guantanamo was because we couldn't send them back to their home country of China, where they would suffer religious persecution and possibly torture (our treaty obligations prevent us from sending people to countries where they face torture). Therefore, Neil Cavuto's point was misguided on two separate levels. He used an irrelevant point to knock down an imaginary argument.

Rather than working on getting his facts right, Mr. Cavuto apparently prepared for this "news" segment by writing a bunch of fat jokes to make about these men. Here are some Cavuto quotes from the segment:

  • "Uighurs wobble, but apparently they do chow down."
  • "Is it me, or does it look like they've been enjoying the good life for quite a while?"
  • "I'm looking at these guys, and they look like me."
  • "They don't look like they're doing for a lack of visits to the refrigerator"
  • "They can twist it around and say, they forced us to eat all this good food and we didn't really want to." (presumably a reference to the force-feeding some hunger-strike detainees at Guantanamo have endured)
  • "They'll try to turn it around and say, look, you know, we may look like the late John Candy but we didn't intend to."
  • "What about bakery products? Ring Dings? Yodels? Anything?"
That really sums up the Neil Cavuto segment right there.

Neil Cavuto, however, fails to provide any back-story for who these men are, and how they came to be where they are now. Basically, these are ethnically Turkish men who once lived in China, but fled in order to escape oppression. According to Amnesty International, China "continues to brutally suppress any peaceful political, religious, and cultural activities of Uighurs, and to enforce a birth control policy that compels minority Uighur women to undergo forced abortions and sterilizations." Human Rights Watch has put out its own lengthy report on China's abuse of the Uighur people.

This has long been the case, and the United States government has repeatedly recognized the brutal conditions facing the Uighur people under communist China's rule (see here). Furthermore, it has only gotten worse over the past few years, as the United States Department of State has recognized that "[t]he [Chinese] Government used the international war on terror as a justification for cracking down harshly on suspected Uighur separatists expressing peaceful political dissent and on independent Muslim religious leaders."

Given all this, the Uighurs Neil Cavuto is currently ridiculing as fat decided to flee their oppressive conditions and start a new life elsewhere. You can read their own personal accounts of their flight from China, as told to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, here.

As the Federal Court in Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, 837 (C.A.D.C. 2008), explained, the Uighurs that were held at Guantanamo (and recently released) had all fled to nearby Afghanistan. There, in the mountains near Pakistan, they built a village for Uighur ex-patriates from China. The village stood there until October 2001, when it was destroyed by bombs in the war against Afghanistan. The surviving Uighur villagers fled their now-destroyed village into the mountains of Pakistan, where they were taken in by local Pakistanis.

At about the same time, leaflets were "dropping like snowflakes in December in Chicago" that promised Pakistani villagers "wealth and power beyond your dreams" if they turned in Taliban members fleeing across the border. The leaflets promised cash rewards in the "millions of dollars" and "enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life" (these are all phrases that actually appeared on the leaflets). The Pakistani villagers who took in the Uighurs saw these flyers and quickly turned in the Uighurs to Pakistani officials. According to Freedom of Information Act documents later obtained, the Pakistani villagers received $5,000 for each of the Uighurs they turned over.

Once in the hands of Pakistani officials, half of the Uighurs were turned over to China, and the other half were turned over to the United States. The half that went to China were quickly executed. The half that went to the United States were allegedly beaten prior to being sent to Khandahar and then Guantanamo.

Given this unfortunate series of events, and the questionable motives of those who had turned them in, the United States government had decided that some of them were not enemy combatants even before (!) their CSRT hearings. Others were quickly cleared for release, as well. By 2005, fifteen of the Uighurs at Guantanamo had been cleared for release (although some were still held in solitary confinement, and some were being shackled to the floor) by the U.S. Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs). This, in itself, is pretty telling, since the CSRTs have been roundly criticized by human rights groups ("the CSRT relies predominantly on evidence a detainee cannot see; affirmatively prohibits the assistance of counsel; freely admits statements gained by torture and other coercion; and routinely refuses detainees’ requests to call witnesses or present exculpatory evidence"), and have even been called "inadequate" by the United States Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008), allowed the remaining detainees to seek non-CSRT review in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, where they have been ordered to be released. See, e.g., Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (C.A.D.C. 2008) ("It is undisputed that he is not a member of al Qaida or the Taliban, and that he has never participated in any hostile action against the United States or its allies. . . . Accordingly, we direct the government to release Parhat, to transfer him, or to expeditiously convene a new Combatant Status Review Tribunal to consider evidence submitted in a manner consistent with this opinion.").

All of these men have been cleared.

In the end, this is just a sad story. These men were persecuted in China, had their village bombed in Afghanistan, and were sold by bounty hunters in Pakistan. On top of that, they were held for years by the United States government, even after they had been cleared of all charges, due to the fact that they faced near-certain torture and death in their home country (it has been tough to resettle some of the Uighurs even in other countries, due to the fact that China had been "pressuring other countries not to accept the prisoners").

It is also a very complicated story (ending in vindication of the Uighurs by the CSRTs and federal courts), that deserves serious news coverage from serious newscasters. We need intelligent journalists to explain this very clearly and coherently, and to ask tough questions of the government officials who have been involved.

So what does Neil Cavuto do? He cracks fat-jokes, and says, "Uighurs wobble, but apparently they do chow down."

UPDATE: Neil Cavuto, by the way, has three shows on FOX News, is the Vice President of Business News at FOX News Channel, and is the Senior Vice President & Managing Editor of Business News at FOX Business Network.

UPDATE II: Jason Pinney, one of the attorneys for the Uighurs, had some interesting testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, available here (pdf).

UPDATE III: This FBI report (pdf) from 2004 is also pretty interesting:
"The Uighurs are moderate Muslims who occupied East Turkestan, which was taken over by the Chinese and renamed the Xinjiang province of China. The Uighurs were offered land in Afghanistan in order to gather personnel opposing Chinese oppression. They were often inspired by Radio Free Asia, which [redacted] was often a broadcaster for. The Uighurs considered themselves to be fighting for democracy, and they idolized the United States. Although the Uighurs are Muslim their agenda did not appear to include Islamic radicalism. They claimed to have no political connection to Islamic terrorists or the Taliban. However, their camp in Afghanistan was bombed, and they fled to Pakistan. The Uighurs were captured by the Pakistanis, with half being transferred to US custody, and half being remanded directly to Chinese officials. It was alleged that the Uighurs who were transferred directly to the Chinese were immediately executed. At the time of my TDY, US officials were considering whether to return the Uighurs to the Chinese, possibly to gain support for anticipated US action in the Middle East. The Uighur detainees at GTMO were convinced that they would be immediately executed if they were returned to China."
(h/t Hilzoy)

UPDATE IV: For more on the CSRT process, see this report by Mark Denbeaux (who was attorney for two Guantanamo detainees).

"Torture"

18 July 2009

One of the Guantanamo Bay detainees recently had a hearing on a motion to suppress some of his statements as a product of torture. Yesterday, the motion was granted. According to Federal District Court judge Ellen Huvelle, Jawad's "motion to suppress his out-of-court statements is GRANTED as conceded and therefore, the Court will suppress every statement made by petitioner since his arrest as a product of torture [emphasis added]."

I've written previously about Guantanamo detainee Mohammad Jawad (you can read a little bit more about his case here). It's definitely an interesting one. Even the man originally in charge of prosecuting Jawad (Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld) has written op-ed pieces and a sworn declaration in favor of Jawad's release.

Jameel Jaffer and David Rivkin Discuss FOIA Lawsuit

10 June 2009

Security Here and Abroad

21 May 2009

This Week's Links: Torture, Civil Liberties, and Voting Rights

16 March 2009

  • Mark Danner has written a must-read account of detention and interrogation techniques over the past few years, based on the Red Cross report on torture. [New York Review of Books] [The New York Times]
  • Letting go of the phrase "enemy combatants" isn't really that big of a deal. [The Los Angeles Times]
  • The Washington Post editorial page calls for election reforms. [The Washington Post]
  • Andy Worthington compiles a list of all the Guantanamo Bay inmates ever held, and their ultimate status. This is a great resource. [Anti-War.com]
  • Jane Mayer wrote a great article on the use of Black Sites back in 2007. [The New Yorker]

This Week's Links

05 February 2009

  • On Monday, major First Amendment figure Irving Feiner passed away. [The New York Times]
  • Leon Panetta's Senate hearings are posted on the C-SPAN website, for those who care. [C-SPAN]
  • Barack Obama writes an op-ed for the Washington Post about the stimulus bill. It looks like he's going to be taking a more active role in the debate from now on. [The Washington Post]
  • The Department of Justice is changing. [The New York Times]
  • The ACLU debunks a few myths about Guantanamo. [ACLU]. Their website on the topic is worth a read, too. [ACLU].
  • According to Reuters, "Two senior British judges accused the United States on Wednesday of threatening to end intelligence cooperation with Britain if they published evidence about the alleged torture of a Guantanamo detainee." [Reuters]
  • Guantanamo detainee Benyam Mohammad alleges abuse in Moroccan prison. [The Guardian]
  • Debunking some more myths about the effectiveness of torture. [Vanity Fair]
  • Scott Horton discusses the British judges linked above. [Harper's]
  • Don't mess with Obama's French Fries. [Boston Phoenix]

Karen Greenberg on Closing Guantanamo



Karen Greenberg also has a book coming out in March about the first 100 days at Guantanamo.

Lt. Col. Vandeveld Discusses Why He Resigned as a Guantanamo Prosecutor

31 January 2009



Lt. Col. Vandeveld also discusses his role at Guantanamo in this Washington Post op-ed, and in this sworn declaration in support of Mohammad Jawad's habeas petition.

Guantanamo Bay Prison Set to Close Within the Year

21 January 2009

President Obama has issued an Executive Order (pdf) ordering that "[t]he detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order." Rather than holding people indefinitely, for years on end, without any available legal recourse to bring a challenge based on innocence, we will now be reviewing each individual detainee's case. On the one hand, I'm glad to see that some detainees "shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals." This means that our system of justice will evaluate the evidence against the detainees, and sort out the guilty from the innocent.

On the other hand, however, the Executive Order leaves open the door for torture-obtained confessions to be used against other detainees when it says that for "any individuals currently detained at Guantánamo whose disposition is not achieved under [the subsections dealing with prosecution], the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals." This line seems to be hinting that they are leaving the door open to military commissions, similar to the awful system in place right now. Maybe I'm just being overly-cynical, due to the Justice Department's behavior over past eight years. Nonetheless, it seems suspicious that this Executive Order would leave room for an option other than (1) releasing/transferring the prisoners to another country, or (2) prosecuting them based on the evidence we have legally obtained.

In case you think that it's okay to create a third option, other than release/transfer or prosecution, I highly recommend reading up on Mohammad Jawad's case (pdf). It will give you a sense of the legal process the Guantánamo prisoners have been through so far. Even Jawad's former prosecutor (Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld) has been so disgusted with the man's treatment that he has resigned and written a sworn declaration in support of Jawad's Habeas petition.

UPDATE: Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld also wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post recently, titled "I Was Slow to Recognize the Stain of Guantanamo."

UPDATE II: It looks like I'm not the only one to see this. The Center For Constitutional Rights is similarly pleased with the Executive Order, but cautious about the provision I just highlighted:

The government has to charge the rest of the detainees in federal criminal court. There can be no third way, no new schemes for indefinite or preventive detention or alternative national security courts. Any move in that direction would discredit all of the new administration’s efforts in the eyes of the world.
They also provide copies of the recently-issued Executive Orders:
I'm pretty happy, on the whole.

UPDATE III: The Congressional Republicans who support torture and indefinite detention without charge are predictably raising the temperature of their fear-based demagoguery. According to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), "Closing Guantanamo Bay presents a clear and present danger to all Americans"


Unsurprisingly, Rep. Smith voted to authorize the war in Iraq, voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, voted for the Military Commissions Act, and has received dismal ratings from pretty much every Civil Rights organization.

Rush Limbaugh has similarly argued that this was a "political" move, done at the expense of national security, and that "They're going to have to be held accountable in any future attacks as a result of this."

UPDATE IV: Here is video of the signing.

UPDATE V: In the last days of the Bush administration, you may have heard that the Pentagon informally declared that 61 former Guantanamo prisoners "returned to terrorism." Don't believe it. We've actually seen this song and dance before. The Pentagon had previously made the same claim, only to be embarrassed that their claim was faulty. This time around, unless you include "participating in an anti-Guantanamo documentary" and "having your lawyer write a critical op-ed" as "returning to terrorism," this is a pretty weak case to make.

Attorney Mark Denbeaux picks apart the claim here:


UPDATE VI: Michelle Malkin is a classic example of a torture apologist. She has gone so far as to write a horrible book in defense of the mass internment of Japanese citizens we sadly conducted earlier this century (for which, we have since apologized). She has been rightly criticized by historians, civil liberties advocates, and the Japanese American Citizens League for her "desperate attempt to impugn the loyalty of Japanese Americans during World War II to justify harsher governmental policies today in the treatment of Arab and Muslim Americans." Therefore, it's no surprise that she is still an awful human being.

UPDATE VII: According to conservative host Laura Ingraham, "our country is less safe today" because we have decided to actually charge the people we have imprisoned for years on end.


How is it that people like Laura Ingraham have so much faith that we have detained the right people, yet so little faith that we can put together a compelling case in court to that effect?

UPDATE VIII: Once again, that "61" number is flat-out wrong.


UPDATE IX: I have to agree with Steve Benen on this one. I really didn't expect to see this bizarre "NIMBY" talking point to become so prominent.
There was bound to be some pushback against Barack Obama's decision to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but this isn't the one I was expecting.

Fox News personalities argued last week that the Obama would bring dangerous terrorists "to our soil, right here." Karl Rove argued over the weekend that Obama will change his mind about Gitmo because "there will be an uproar in the U.S." about detaining suspects on American soil. John McCain told Fox News yesterday, "I don't know of a state in America that wants them in their state. You think Yucca Mountain is a NIMBY problem? Wait till you see this one."

Elana Schor reports that the most likely facility is the military's maximum-security prison in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas -- which, by the way, is where Candidate McCain wanted to send the detainees when he endorsed closing Gitmo -- but that's facing resistance, too. Sen. Sam Brownback (R) and three House Republicans are pushing a measure that would prohibit the transfer of any suspects from Cuba to Kansas. (We're seeing a similar response from Republicans in South Carolina over the Charleston Naval Brig and Republicans in California over Camp Pendleton.)

I can appreciate the discomfort one might feel in the proximity of a psychotic religious fanatic, but as the Not-In-My-Backyard phenomenon goes, this is pretty silly.

As Glenn Greenwald explained the other day, there are already all kinds of suspected terrorists, including those associated with the 9/11 attacks, in federal detention right here on U.S. soil. As far as I can tell, no one much cares, and there have been no protests from conservative commentators, lawmakers, or activists about moving them out of the country.

I'm not even sure what the complaining is about, exactly. That the Gitmo detainees might break out of incarceration? If conservatives trust federal officials to administer a system of indefinite detention in Cuba, they should probably trust federal officials to keep the bad guys locked up effectively.

Some, meanwhile, have gone so far as to suggest that terrorists could be freed if their allies "crashed a plane into the prison to faciliate [sic] an escape."

Senate Report on Detainee Abuse

21 December 2008

The Senate Armed Services Committee recently released a report (available here) (pdf) recounting our recent policy of detainee abuse. It also recounts the approval process, and concludes that "[t]he abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own." Rather, the report finds that these policies were the direct result of Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld's "message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody."

Aside from linking Rumsfeld to the Abu Ghraid atrocities, the report is a good read just for its timeline of events. It's still bizarre to look back at how these policies came to be implemented, despite such strong opposition, and warnings that they risked violating anti-torture statutes.

For more on the detainee abuse issue, you can watch this video interview with Janis Karpinski (the former Commanding General of Abu Ghraib), who was told by her superiors that "You have to treat them like dogs." The ACLU also has some interesting resources to look at on their website.

GTMO is going to be a major issue in the coming months, so you had all better do your homework.

UPDATE: One of the big misconceptions about Guantanamo is that it is filled with people who are almost certainly guilty of conspiring in terrorist plots. In the words of Donald Rumsfeld himself, these people are "the worst of the worst." While I don't doubt that there certainly are some very bad people there, it's still shocking to look back and see that 520 of the 775 detainees have already been released without charge. Furthermore, it's troublesome to see that 86% of the people detained were turned over by Afghan and Pakistani citizens, who had been offered "millions of dollars ... enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."

UPDATE II: The New York Times Editorial Board concludes that "A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse." They also highlight this:

One page of the report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so blithely and arrogantly ignored: The Air Force had “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques”; the chief legal adviser to the military’s criminal investigative task force said they were of dubious value and may subject soldiers to prosecution; one of the Army’s top lawyers said some techniques that stopped well short of the horrifying practice of waterboarding “may violate the torture statute.” The Marines said they “arguably violate federal law.” The Navy pleaded for a real review.

The legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time started that review but told the Senate committee that her boss, Gen. Richard Myers, ordered her to stop on the instructions of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legal counsel, Mr. Haynes.
I think that the internal opposition to these policies is very important to keep in mind.

UPDATE III: Failed Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter (R-CA) thinks that this is all "left-wing rubbish." Scott Horton dresses Hunter down here:
Hunter is right that the Defense Department reports made no accusations against Rumsfeld. But isn’t it worth asking why? Rumsfeld was the boss of the authors of the reports; he commissioned them and carefully set the guidelines within which the generals who wrote the reports could operate. They were not permitted to comment upon the conduct of any officials up the chain of command. However, Major General Antonio Taguba, who authored the principal report, left no question about his conclusions. “Serious war crimes were committed with the approval of senior Bush Administration officials,” he said to an audience at New York University two weeks ago (I spoke at that event as well), “there is no question about that. The only question is whether there will be accountability for the political figures who are responsible.”

Hunter demonstrates another failing. He supposes that in the absence of a “smoking gun” linking Donald Rumsfeld directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib Rumsfeld is in the clear. Of course, that smoking gun exists in the form of the Rumsfeld memos, but is not necessary. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, Rumsfeld faces per se liability for the abuses at Abu Ghraib assuming he knew or had reason to know of the abuses and failed to take steps to stop them (now well established, as the Levin-McCain Report notes).


UPDATE IV: For a longer account of the entire detainee abuse story, and its approval process, I highly recommend checking out Jane Mayer's excellent book The Dark Side.

UPDATE V: Taxi to the Dark Side is also a pretty good account.


UPDATE VI: Another popular misconception is that torture works, and has provided us with reliable information in the past. Interrogator Matthew Alexander has recently published a book pushing back against this myth, and David Rose has written an excellent article debunking the previous claims made by the current administration.