Skip to main content

Guantanamo 5 years on: Still a disgrace

The Independent reports:

"When the first prisoners arrived at Guantanamo in January 2002 they were handcuffed, shackled and wearing hoods. The reason for these exceptional measures, explained the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, was that the prisoners were highly dangerous. "These are the sort of people who would chew through a hydraulics cable to bring a C-17 [transport plane] down," he claimed. "They are very, very dangerous people."

Five years later none of these "worst of the worst" have been brought to trial. Just 10 have been formally charged while hundreds of others have been returned to their own countries and released. Meanwhile, three have committed suicide, at least 40 others have tried to do so and there are concerns about the mental health of most of the 400 or so remaining prisoners.

"It is remarkable that Guantanamo still exists five years on," said Clive Stafford Smith, legal director of the British group Reprieve, which represents three dozen inmates. "But what is also remarkable is that Guantanamo has distracted attention from other secret prisons the US has. As of August last year we know there are 14,000 prisoners in US custody around the world."

David Hicks still languishes in Guantanamo - with no end in sight for him. What is "happening" to him can only be described as a disgrace and totally unacceptable. However A-G Phillip Ruddock tries to explain the situation both he and John Howard, as lawyers [did they ever actually practice?] can't conceivably accept, whatever their public pronouncements, that how Hicks is being treated is other than a scandal and against all notions of justice and fairness.

Lex Lasry QC ventures his views on the Hicks case and the way the Government has dealt with it in this op-ed piece in The Age.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more