-
-
related tags:
- Guantanamo Bay
- Guantanamo
- Detainees
- Terrorist Suspects
- Gitmo torture
- President Barack
- detainee
- US torture
- us judicial system
- US Justice
- Military tribunals
- POWs
- Omar khadr
- Guantanamo torture
- Torture
- Gitmo Prisoners
- salim hamdan
- US law
- us legal system
- Guantanamo Prisoners
- terrorists video
- terrorist video
- Prisoners of War
- Interrogation
- Torture Video
- Abu Ghraib
- War on Terror
- Osama Bin Laden's Driver
- GWOT
- Military Trials
- Bagram prison
- Military Tribunal
- Salim Ahmed Hamdan
- Geneva Conventions
- Tom Morello
- Close Guantanamo
- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
- Terrorists
- wrongful imprisonment
- Military Industrial Arms Complex
- Bagram
- Iraq war news
- Adrian Baschuk
- prisoners' rights
- The Real Housewives of New Jersey
- federal prison
- Steve Earle
- Billy Bragg
- Peace Prize
- jon
tagged w/ Gitmo
-
U.S. flouts law at Guantanamo, despite Obama vow: U.N.
By Reuters
Monday, January 23, 2012
GENEVA (Reuters) – The United States is still flouting international law at Guantanamo Bay, despite President Barack Obama’s election pledge to shut the facility, the United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay said on Monday.
“It is ten years since the U.S. Government opened the prison at Guantanamo, and now three years since 22 January 2009, when the President ordered its closure within twelve months. Yet the facility continues to exist and individuals remain arbitrarily detained – indefinitely – in clear breach of international law,” Pillay said in a statement.
Former President George W. Bush set up the camp at a U.S. naval base in Cuba after U.S.-led forces invaded Afghanistan to expel al Qaeda which had launched the September 11 attacks in 2001.
Eight prisoners have died at Guantanamo, two deaths ascribed to natural causes and the rest classified as suicides, and many detainees have said they were tortured. Only six trials have been completed in 10 years.
“While fully recognizing the right and duty of states to protect their people and territory from terrorist acts, I remind all branches of the U.S. government of their obligation under international human rights law to ensure that individuals deprived of their liberty can have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed before a court,” Pillay said.
“Where credible evidence exists against Guantanamo detainees, they should be charged and prosecuted. Otherwise, they must be released.”
Obama had planned to move some detainees to the United States, but Congress blocked funding for that plan and tightly restricted all transfers out, demanding his administration must notify congressional intelligence committees and guarantee the prisoner will not engage in terrorism.
Pillay urged Congress to enable the administration to close the camp.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/23/u-s-flouts-law-at-guantanamo-despite-obama-vow-u-n/
(Reporting by Tom Miles)
"So how bout it BO... Got anymore BS Campaign Slogans???"By Reuters Monday, January 23, 2012 GENEVA (Reuters) – The United States is... more-
- KB723
- added this
- 4 months ago
- |
- 7 comments
-
-
How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA
An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA caused outrage among many Americans, but the full Levin video reveals the opposite.
The YouTube video claimed to be proof that Obama is going to sign a citizen imprisonment law: (VIDEO1)
However, in the first 30 minutes of the debate Sen. Levin stated that the NDAA provisions do not apply to US citizens: (VIDEO2)
Hours prior to the YouTube proof video Sen. Levin stated on the Senate floor that the Obama administration requested that the provision be changed so that it does not apply to American citizens, but he explained the provision wasn’t changed because it already didn’t apply to American citizens, “The administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision the day before our markup and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the administration request that the provision apply only to detainees who are captured overseas. There is a good reason for that. But even here, the difference is relatively modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes all lawful residents of the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or who arrive as tourists or on some other short-term basis, and that is a small remaining category, but an important one, because it includes the terrorists who clandestinely arrive in the United States with the objective of attacking military or other targets here.”
People need to stop believing everything they read from certain pundits and every claim made in a two minute video.
Yes, NDAA was poorly written originally and even after the changes is a crappy bill; it was written in the Senate Armed Services Committee (McCain/Graham- hello), and as such is a nod to Republican authoritarian stances of the Bush administration. It was co-authored by a Democrat, whom many saw in the above shortened video from C-SPAN claiming the President had asked for “this language”.
Of course, the President did not ask for this language, and this is a matter of record, see the November Senate Armed Services Committee mark up of their original NDAA bill referred to by Levin with objections from Obama:
"---
The new bill would also clarify a number of provisions addressing detainee matters in an effort to address concerns raised by the Administration and others. As requested by the Administration, the new bill would clarify that the section providing detention authority does not expand the existing authority to detain under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Force and make Guantanamo- related restrictions one-year requirements instead of permanent restrictions.
The new bill would also modify a provision requiring military custody of al Qaeda members who attack the United States (subject to a national security waiver) to clarify the President’s authority to decide who makes determinations of coverage, how they are made, and when they are made. As modified, the provision makes it clear that these determinations will not interfere with any ongoing law enforcement operations or interrogations. Under the modified provision, the Executive Branch has the flexibility to keep a covered detainee in civilian custody pursuant to a national security determination, or to transfer a military detainee for trial in the civilian courts. The Administration agreed to have military custody apply to al Qaeda members captured outside the United States (subject to a national security waiver) but disagrees with the committee decision not to preclude the application of the provision inside the United States.
---"
You might be wondering why the video was edited to lead you to believe that he did. That’s a great question.
You might also be asking yourself if the same people who were so willing to believe the author of the bill, Carl Levin, will be as willing to believe Levin’s full statement, in which he clearly says that the President did not want this language.
Had Obama not objected to the language, we would be stuck with the original bill since 83 senators voted yes on the original bill which also passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously.
People should be asking themselves about the agenda behind not holding the authors of the bill and indeed the Senate accountable for the language in this bill, as it is the same Senate who refused to fund Obama’s executive order to close Gitmo. We note their attempt to run an end-game around Obama’s push for civilian courts and their attempt to slide in permanent changes to restrictions regarding Gitmo. The President objected to those permanent changes.
One would think that anyone who cared about the issue of closing Gitmo would be up in arms at the Senators’ attempt to use a funding bill to get around Obama’s attempts to get around their refusal to fund the closure of Gitmo.
We are in no way defending NDAA. However, the language was changed, and when taken in total (instead of parsed), courtesy of Mother Jones:
"---
It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill….
The language in the bill that relates to the detention authority as far as US citizens and permanent residents are concerned is, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
---"
The bill is still rotten. It takes us in the wrong direction, moving us toward the militarization rather than the civilian courts this President and the majority of the American people desire. The bill represents the Republican approach to national security; one that the American people soundly rejected in 2008. Luckily the President got the language changed, because even if he chose to veto it, it would be for naught, as the Senate had 83 votes for it and it takes only 67 to override a Presidential veto.
In the House the first NDAA vote was 322-96. The final vote was 283-136 with 43 Republicans voting no. If Obama would have vetoed and 35 of those 43 Republicans flipped to yes, the House would have had the votes to override a presidential veto.
The real focus should be on why this bill was written in this way in the first place, when we the people were very clear about wanting civilian trials, and this president has been clear about his desire to close Gitmo.
In the meantime, we urge you to watch the entire C-SPAN video of Levin, lest we all be Breitbarted, because it matters that we are all clear on exactly who is trying to take our country in the wrong direction.An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA... more-
- WakeUpPeople
- added this
- 5 months ago
- |
- 59 comments
-
-
COMING SOON: AMERICANS IN GITMO
Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial.
Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill.
Americans can be arrested on home soil and taken to Guantánamo Bay under a provision inserted into the bill that funds the US military.
Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.
Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".
The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.
The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.
"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."
more at link...
The title is a misnomer b/c they got plenty of FEMA Camps to send you to.
America is dead. Constitution burned. Freedoms gone.Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial. Civil rights... more-
- rodstradamus
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Senate Votes on Indefinite Detention of Citizens, Obama Vows to Veto
Applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.
http://veracitystew.com/2011/11/30/senate-votes-on-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-obama-vows-to-veto/Applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as... more-
- StewSteve
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
CA Dem Party progressives explore primary challenge to Obama
There have long been rumblings that the liberal base is ticked off at President Obama, but the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party just put that frustration into writing: They've passed a resolution exploring calling for a primary challenge to Obama.
Now, this is largely symbolic, but it's heavy nonetheless. They're ticked that Obama hasn't ditched the Bush tax cuts, has continued drone attacks overseas, and hasn't ended the foreclosure crisis, among other sins listed below. The straw that broke their collective caucus backs, Caucus chair Karen Bernal told us Wednesday, was Obama's -- as the resolution put it -- "unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets."
"Our silence," Bernal told us, "is a price that's too high to pay."
So last weekend -- July 30 -- at a meeting in Anaheim, the Prog Caucus broke their silence.
But doesn't Bernal remember when Teddy Kennedy challenged incumbent Prez Jimmy Carter in 1980...who lost to President Reagan later that year? Isn't she afraid that, as a Democrat, a primary challenge could weaken Obama and possibly lead to a Republican president?
"We already have one in so many of his policies," Bernal said.
Ouch.
Actually, the resolution itself is a bit more restrained -- or nuanced, if you prefer -- than that. Passed last weekend, it says that the Caucus....
"...will begin the process of contacting other Democratic organizations, Democratic Party members and public organizations that share our views on the issues and which seek to alter the course of history by exploring other steps to effect a necessary change, including a possible primary challenge to President Obama."
Bernal doesn't plan to ask the full California Democratic Party to approve the resolution. It was meant more as a statement of conscience than a desire to back a rival to Obama, she said. "Is there a sense of desperation in this?" Bernal said. "I would have to say yes."
The caucus, according to a spokesman, hopes that "Obama would rework his priorities to respond to the needs of working class Americans in order to get progressive support in 2012."
California Democratic Party chair John Burton --- who supported Kennedy versus Carter in 1980 -- told us that he doesn't agree with this resolution.
Caressing the Queen's English in a way that only the Chairman can, Burton told us that he doesn't think that a primary challenge to Obama will help the president's re-election chances.
"F---- no, what is that going to do?" Burton told us.
So a little competition won't help Obama advocate more strongly for core Democratic Party principles?
"Yeah, I'm sure. If the debt limit (debate) showed something, it showed what an absolute f------ disaster it would have been if there had been a Republican president," Burton said. "The people who sat on their hands or voted Republican in 2010, most of them are going through buyer's remorse right now."
What about the frustration the liberal base -- and the Caucus -- feels about the war and...
"A lot of people are frustrated about the war. People talk about cutting Social Security and they're not talking about paying for the war. People are frustrated about a ton of stuff," he said.
"It's how they feel. There's discontent," Burton said. "There's a frustration in the country. Look at the f------ polls. So f---, that's news to somebody?"
But couldn't this be damaging to Obama, coming from his safe blue haven in California?
(The resolution) "is a reflection on the part of liberals in the California (Democratic) Party to the point that they talk about or fantasize about a primary challenge with the hope that it will end the war, have a single-payer health plan, do away with the Bush tax cuts, take Social Security tax cuts off the table," Burton said.
Here's the full resolution:
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the challenge presented by President Obama's negotiating away Democratic Party principles to extremist Republicans, we are challenged by President Obama in the following ways:
His unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets.
His determination to escalate U.S. militarism through illegal secret CIA drone attacks and unauthorized wars.
His willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and bail out big banks without ending the foreclosure crisis that displaces American working families
.
His insistence on pushing a health insurance bill which enriches private insurance companies while ignoring growing support for single-payer health care or robust public options.
His continuance of President Bush’s assault on civil liberties with an extension of the repressive Patriot Act.
His failure to restore due process, including the protection of whistleblowers and habeas corpus.
His numerous failures to adhere to international law.
The continuing practice of nationwide FBI raids of anti-war progressive protestors.
His decision to increase the arrests and deportations of undocumented workers.
His facilitation of the privatizing of the public sphere, which includes education and housing, among others.
His disregard of his promises to the Labor movement.
His failure to adequately protect the environment and adequately address climate change.
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the historical significance of the Eugene McCarthy/Robert F. Kennedy anti-war challenge to President Lyndon Johnson. The challenge followed President Johnson's decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, betraying his campaign promise to end a war that polarized America. Similarly, we recognize the danger and betrayal that the current "Grand Bargain" represents to the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's signature gift to all Americans, Social Security and the New Deal, a point of pride for all Democrats.
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party is committed to the understanding that an interest in a 2012 Democratic presidential primary challenge will not interfere with President Obama's ability to govern and not limit his ability to do so in ways that include invoking Constitutional options, we recognize that this will, in fact, raise debate on important issues without risking the ability to mobilize and energize the base of the Democratic Party to elect a triumphant leader to counter the far-right agenda.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to make our views heard, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party will begin the process of contacting other Democratic organizations, Democratic Party members and public organizations that share our views on the issues and which seek to alter the course of history by exploring other steps to effect a necessary change, including a possible primary challenge to President Obama.
Posted By: Joe Garofoli (Email, Twitter, Facebook) | August 03 2011 at 05:58 PM
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=94646#ixzz1U5bJpNyCThere have long been rumblings that the liberal base is ticked off at President Obama,... more-
- KB723
- added this
- 10 months ago
- |
- 95 comments
-
-
Gitmo prisoner dies in apparent suicide
An Afghan detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison has died in apparent suicide, a US military spokesman said.
Detail here:
http://www.politicalfailblog.com/2011/05/gitmo-prisoner-dies-in-apparent-suicide.htmlAn Afghan detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison has died in apparent suicide, a US... more-
- Pfailblog
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Chris Martin: Vlad the Impaler
"If I ever do Rumanian porn, I want to be known as Vlad the Impaler." Stand-up comedian Chris Martin discusses plan B at McCormack's Irish Pub December 22, 2010. Ray Bullock is the MC.
http://chrismartincomedy.com"If I ever do Rumanian porn, I want to be known as Vlad the Impaler."... more-
- ChrisMartinComedy
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
WIKILEAKS: 7 SHOCKING GITMO REVELATIONS
A massive leak of more than 700 military documents, attributed to infamous transparency group WikiLeaks, was released Sunday night. Much of the new information deals with detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, records that begin immediately after the September 11 terrorist attacks and range to 2009, including documents relating to 172 prisoners still held at the controversial detention facility.
Here are seven shocking revelations about Guantanamo Bay and the practices there.
One hundred twenty-seven "high risk" prisoners remain at Guantanamo Bay, but almost as many "high risk" prisoners have been released to other countries or freed, despite being described as "likely to pose a threat." Of the 600 detainees known to have been transferred out of the prison since 2002, 160 fell under the "high risk" categorization, according to NPR. At least two dozen transferred "high risk" prisoners have been linked to terrorist activity since their Gitmo exit, including two Saudis who became leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
"There's a group there that we all agree never gets let out, and then there's the rest," Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) said of Guantanamo detainees at a recent congressional hearing. "As you close on that number of folks who should not ever be let go, then you run the risk of letting somebody go who shouldn't be."
Officials aren't sure what they're doing. In 704 leaked documents assessing detainees, the word "possibly" appears 387 times, “unknown” 188 times and “deceptive” 85 times. Two conflicting committees from the Department of Defense worked at the facility and clashed frequently over how to classify prisoners' threat levels and the quality of information they shared.
While some "high risk" prisoners have returned to terrorism, still others have become U.S. allies. A former Gitmo detainee whose files identify him as "a probable member of al-Qaeda," Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, is now a key figure on the rebel side of the Libyan revolution, a leader of a rebel brigade in the northern part of the country. When Qumu was captured in Pakistan shortly after 9/11, he was considered an enemy of the United States. Now, he and the U.S. have a goal in common: unseat Gaddafi.
Instead of getting closer to catching Osama bin Laden, the documents show that the focus has broadened from catching key al-Qaeda operatives, noting information about other foreign operations. One captive was sent to Gitmo so officials could glean any information he had on the Bahraini court, and another was interrogated about any knowledge he had of Uzbekistan's secret service.
Officials took note of every possible piece of evidence, in hopes of building mosaics of information — even evidence as trivial as origami art. McClatchy reports:
Guards plucked off ships at sea to walk the cellblocks note who has hoarded food as contraband, who makes noise during the Star Spangled Banner, who sings creepy songs like "La, La, La, La Taliban" and who is re-enacting the 9/11 attacks with origami art.
Officials noted that information from some unstable prisoners may be faulty or untrue, but used it anyway. Yasim Mohammed Basardah, a detainee who gave information about 60 other prisoners, was noted as being unreliable, and his file stressed that information he shared should be independently verified. However, he was also given a "high" intelligence value, and his threat level was lowered from high to medium in exchange for his cooperation. He was resettled in Europe in 2010. According to the documents, eight prisoners have revealed information about 235 others.
Suspects were nabbed and shipped to Gitmo because they wore cheap watches. A specific model of watch — a Casio style released in the 1980s — was suspected to be used as a timer by al-Qaeda operatives. People in Afghanistan were seized and sent to the detention facility because they were wearing the watches, but most have been quietly released because of a lack of evidence.A massive leak of more than 700 military documents, attributed to infamous... more-
- treewolf39
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 8 comments
-
-
Chris Martin: I just flew in
"I just flew in from the North Pole and, boy, are my arms tired." Stand-up comic Chris Martin delivers a post-Christmas bag of jokes December 27, 2010 for a MS research benefit at the 9:55 Comedy Club in Richmond, VA.
http://chrismartincomedy.com"I just flew in from the North Pole and, boy, are my arms tired." Stand-up... more-
- ChrisMartinComedy
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Whitehouse GITMO Torture Psychologist
Now here’s a Psychologist we can all turn to in our darkest hours, someone who will listen to your innermost thoughts and solve them with torture. After listening carefully to your troubles you can then look forward to a nice long, painful recovery.
Put your minds at ease, the White house has solved all your mental health problems.
One of the most intense scandals the field of psychology has faced over the last decade is the involvement of several of its members in enabling Bush's worldwide torture regime. Numerous health professionals worked for the U.S. government to help understand how best to mentally degrade and break down detainees. At the center of that controversy was -- and is -- Dr. Larry James. James, a retired Army colonel, was the Chief Psychologist at Guantanamo in 2003, at the height of the abuses at that camp, and then served in the same position at Abu Ghraib during 2004.Now here’s a Psychologist we can all turn to in our darkest hours, someone who... more-
- FLeggplant
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 106 comments
-
-
Super Frat: Obama Repeats Himself
White House intern MPH confronts the president on the toilet.-
- TonyDiGerolamo
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Rumsfeld Knew: Seton Hall Discovers Memo That Contradicts “Worst of the Worst”
http://www.presidentialufo.com/old_site/Nixon_Rumsfeld_ESP.gif
Rumsfeld Confesses to Joint Chiefs of Staff that Guantanamo is Filled with “Low Level” Detainees in Recently Declassified Memo; Finding Calls into Further Question “Recidivism” Representations
Read the Seton Hall Report Here. - http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCenters/PublicIntGovServ/policyresearch/Guantanamo-Reports.cfm
Read Washington Post Report. - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2011/03/rumsfeld_complained_of_low_lev.html
Seton Hall University School of Law’s Center for Policy & Research has issued a report: Rumsfeld Knew: DoD’s “Worst of the Worst” and Recidivism Claims Refuted by Recently Declassified Memo. The Seton Hall Center for Policy and Research has discovered a recently declassified memo written by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld’s explicitly contradicts his continued public statements that Guantanamo Bay was reserved for the “worst of the worst.”
Rumsfeld Knew suggests that the misrepresentations of the dangerousness of those sent to Guantanamo is of a piece with the government’s continuing public characterization of those who had been detained at Guantanamo as having “returned to the battlefield” or “reengaged” against the United States. It demonstrates that the Department of Defense’s recent Summary, the latest in a series of statements on this subject, is no better based in fact than earlier efforts to mislead the American people on the dangerousness of those detained in Guantanamo.
Throughout, the U.S. Government has maintained publicly that detainees incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay are dangerous, “high-value detainees,” the “worst of the worst.” The Government has also claimed that upon release from GTMO, many of these detainees have “reengaged” in their dangerous activities. Seton Hall Law discovered a recently declassified Memorandum from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from April 2003. The Memorandum undermines both of these claims, revealing that no later than that date, Secretary Rumsfeld knew that GTMO was “populated. . . with low-level enemy combatants.” Not only does this contradict Government assertions that the prison at GTMO holds the worst of the worst, but it also calls into question the Government’s assertions that the released detainees are dangerous men who have and likely will reengage.
Sean Camoni, a Fellow at the Seton Hall Law School Center for Policy and Research and a co-author of the report said: “Bob Woodward has said that Donald Rumsfeld’s memoir is ‘a book filled with evasion and deception.’ It now appears that the same thing is true of Guantanamo and this time the proof is in Secretary Rumsfeld’s own words.”
Sparked by the revelation that the Government knew at least as early as spring of 2003 that GTMO was populated with low-level detainees, the Center for Policy & Research reexamined all government claims of detainee recidivism. This Report is consistent with the Center’s past findings on alleged recidivism –that the Government has not supported its claims, claims that rest on even weaker ground now that it is clear that the men released from GTMO were never the worst of the worst in the first place.http://www.presidentialufo.com/old_site/Nixon_Rumsfeld_ESP.gif Rumsfeld Confesses... more-
- toyotabedzrock
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
THE FUTURE OF ACTIVISM: March the Cyber-Streets Against Fascism! "Join The Anonymous Protest"
http://is.gd/hogVd3
By Gerard Ange'
This is a News Story about a new platform of protest. Similar to the civil rights marches and anti-war marches & protests of the past ~ people in the streets voicing their support of a worthy and valiant cause. A combined humanistic call to action to temporarily block traffic... To let the world know..... that they should pay attention to what is going on...
Today... nothing is changed The same ideals the same objections the same people trying to do something good! The same solidarity... The same look in their eyes... The sound of people marching... shouting to let the world know that they should pay attention to what is going on...! The only difference is the in 2011 is.... the people marching are on the "Cyber Streets" these are just as meaningful and just as valid as the Marches of people of the past... These are the marches and the protests of today 2011 Virtual Marches of tens of thousands of people blocking "Cyber Traffic" protesting against Fascism and Oppression... Anywhere it exists...
The word today is... Join the March!!! This is the future.... This is Our Future...
Our Future in NOW.... Not Tomorrow...
"Join AnonymousIRC now ~ protect freedom!"
STAND UP FOR THE TRUTH!
Protest Against Fascism!
Protest Against Oppression!
Protest Against Corruption!
Support Freedom of Speech!
Support Freedom of the Press!
Support Freedom of the Internet!
=== STAND UP FOR THE TRUTH! ===
#OpTunisia: 272 users
#OpAlgeria 161 users
#OperationPayback 155 users
TO GO THE ORIGINAL NEWS STORY CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW:
http://search.mibbit.com/channels/AnonOpshttp://is.gd/hogVd3 By Gerard Ange' This is a News Story about a new... more-
- gerardange
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 24 comments
-
-
BREAKING NEWS: Former Swedish Judge:Sundberg-Weitman speaks out on the handling of the Julian Assange case
The following summarizes the unfolding of events surrounding the arrest of Julian Assange, as recounted in an article entitled "The European Arrest Order Against Julian Assange," originally published here by Brita Sundberg-Weitman, retired Swedish judge and author in the areas of legal and civil rights. Sundberg-Weitman also expresses concerns about media coverage of the event and about the possible extradition of Julian Assange in this article, which I received via email by a source who also reports that Sundberg-Weitman translated the piece herself. Quotations refer directly to this English translation received.
The article has 3 parts: Background, justification of extradition fears and clarification of related political considerations under Swedish law. Each is summarized here.
Background
On Friday, August 20, 2010, the decision was made by Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand to arrest Julian Assange, in absentia, on grounds of “suspected rape. This decision was made upon a telephone report by a police officer.” As we know, the police had interviewed the two women concerned. However, Sundberg-Weitman points out that the arrest decision was made “before the police interviews of the two women concerned were finished.”
It was also previously known that “[s]omebody leaked the decision to the Swedish tabloid Expressen, and it was made public all over the world,” and that the decision “was overruled within 24 hours by chief prosecutor Eva Finné. She stated that Assange was no longer suspected of rape.”
Claes Borgström, a lawyer known for feminist activism, lodged an appeal on behalf of the two women. The appeal was examined by Marianne Ny, chief of a prosecution “development center” specialized in, among other things, sexual offences.
[Ny] decided to overrule Finné’s decision and reopen the case of suspected rape. Like Borgström Ny is a feminist. She is known to have said that when a woman alleges she has been a victim of assault by a man, it is a good idea to have the man detained, because it is not until he is arrested that the woman has time to think of her life in peace and realize how she has been treated. According to Ny the detention has a good effect as protection for the woman ”even in cases where the perpetrator is prosecuted but not found guilty”.
Sundberg-Weitman then notes that despite the belief that an accused man should be detained irrespective of innocence, Ny did not arrest Julian Assange, who was in Sweden at the time. “[Nor] did [Ny] interview him about the allegations under investigation.”
When Assange had left Sweden (his application for a residence permit was rejected) Ny decided to arrest him in absentia and applied to the Stockholm District Court to confirm her decision. The District Court granted her application and, after appeal, its decision was confirmed by the Svea Court of Appeal. However, even before the Court of Appeal had had time to examine the appeal, Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant against Assange.
It is also noted that “[t]he Court of Appeal was chaired by its President, who was until recently National Prosecutor General.”
The question Sundberg-Weitman raises is that of why Ny did not take the opportunity “to interview Assange whilst he was still in Sweden” and “why she did not accept Assange’s proposal to be interrogated in England,” which is a legitimate request, in accordance with “rules valid in both Sweden and Britain on Mutual Legal Assistance.” She goes on to explain that The Handbook on International Legal Assistance, published by the Swedish National Prosecutor General, provides various means by which to proceed with interrogations in such cases. This detail is highlighted because Ny had claimed that “it would not be compatible with Swedish law to interrogate Assange in England.” Sundberg-Weitman notes that this “obviously is not true.”
In later interviews Ny answered that in the case of where it turned out after an interrogation of Assange that he should be immediately arrested, that would not be possible unless he was in Sweden. Possibly we see here a reflection of her view that it is a good thing to have a ”perpetrator” (!) locked up even in cases where he is subsequently acquitted in a court of law.
Assange’s fear of being extradited from Sweden to US
Sundberg-Weitman points out that Assange was opposed to the idea of being surrendered to Sweden because his fear was “that Sweden would in its turn extradite him to US, where he would be likely to be put away in jail or even murdered as a result of the anger Wikileaks has caused in US.” She reminds us that “there are prominent persons who have expressed the view that he should be treated as a terrorist and sentenced to death,” due to the perception that Assange “violated US law on espionage.” She adds that arguments have been raised to the effect that “it would be legally easier for US to have him extradited from UK than from Sweden.”
However, Sundberg-Weitman notes that this argument overlooks some important points. She states that Assange “has much more popular support in UK than in Sweden” and concludes that an extradition from the UK to the US would be less probable, on a political level, than an extradition from Sweden to the US.
[H]aving him extradited from Sweden would probably not cause much protest amongst Swedes. All the mass media in Sweden have a rather biased view on the case to the detriment of Assange, and they express great confidence in Sweden’s judiciary in the present case.
Sundberg-Weitman points out 2 facts that justify, in her own view, Assange’s “fear of being extradited from Sweden to US.”
[T]here are extremely strong interests in US who want him delivered because of Wikileaks.
[R]eports from the US embassy in Stockholm published by Wikileaks have revealed that the Swedish Government has gone out of its way to be helpful to US in various controversial matters.
She goes on to ask, in closing: “So why would the US not make use of its influence to put pressure on Sweden in order to have Assange extradited to the US?"
Political considerations under Swedish law
Continued...
To Go To The Rest Of The Story Click Below:
http://wlcentral.org/node/1015The following summarizes the unfolding of events surrounding the arrest of Julian... more-
- gerardange
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
-
Americans Face Guantanamo-Like Torture Everyday in a Super-Max Prison Near You
To little public outcry, tens of thousands of citizens are being held in horrific conditions in super-harsh, super-maximum security, solitary-confinement prisons.
Editor's Note: Courageous WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning is reportedly suffering some of the same horrible experiences detailed in the article below, including 23 hours a day of solitary confinement, which has been labeled torture by numerous prison and psychological experts.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/149431/why_wikileaks_whistleblower_bradley_manning's_solitary_confinement_rivals_the_suffering_of_physical_torture
“They beat the shit out of you,” Mike James said, hunched near the smeared plexiglass separating us. He was talking about the cell “extractions” he’d endured at the hands of the supermax-unit guards at the Maine State Prison.
“They push you, knee you, poke you,” he said, his voice faint but ardent through the speaker. “They slam your head against the wall and drop you on the floor while you’re cuffed.” He lifted his manacled hands to a scar on his chin. “They split it wide open. They’re yelling ‘Stop resisting! Stop resisting!’ when you’re not even moving.”
When you meet Mike James you notice first his deep-set eyes and the many scars on his shaved head, including a deep, horizontal gash. He got that by scraping his head on the cell door slot, which guards use to pass in food trays.To little public outcry, tens of thousands of citizens are being held in horrific... more-
- toyotabedzrock
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 4 comments
-
-
Support Wikileaks ~ You're The Voice - Support The Truth
Please support Wikileaks by donating.
Click here: http://213.251.145.96/support.html
Please sign the petition: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks...
If you would like to become even more involved, then there may be a "support Wikileaks protest" near you.
Click here for details: http://wlcentral.org/events-protests
Here is a list of Wikileaks mirror sites:
http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html
After Effects template for opening by Kenzei via Video Hive.
The statistics of how many have died as a result of the war on terror is an estimate taken from http://www.unknownnews.net
It is hard to pin pinpoint just how many have died due to the fact that this information isn't released. estimates have the toll somewhere between
800,000 and 1,200,000
Requests under freedom of information act denied by Obama Administration should read 49% - for more info
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/16...
Another point to make is that the clip of Obama talking about different terrorists was an except taken from an interview with Bill O'Reilly where he was explaining the difference between terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, i thought it was relevant as so much of the terminology in the media is focused around labelling wikileaks and it's people terrorists.
The song "Your the Voice" was by Coldplay featuring John Farnham - song was originally by John Farnham.
The clip was taken from a concert in Sydney "Sound Relief" where many bands came together to support people who were devastated by the Black Saturday fires. - of whom Coldplay were amongst them.
PLEASE POST THIS AROUND.
CheersPlease support Wikileaks by donating. Click here: http://213.251.145.96/support.html... more-
- gerardange
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 6 comments
-
-
Wikileaks ~ A Swedish Documentary Film ( 60min HD )
Wikileaks ~ A Swedish Documentary Film About Julian Assange & Wikileaks
(60 Min / SVT)Wikileaks ~ A Swedish Documentary Film About Julian Assange & Wikileaks (60 Min... more-
- gerardange
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 4 comments
-
-
Torture Victim Sues Obama Administration
In a first for a former Guantánamo captive freed by a federal judge, a Syrian man now living in Europe is suing the U.S. government for damages from what he calls a "Kafkaesque nightmare."In a first for a former Guantánamo captive freed by a federal judge, a Syrian... more-
- The_Global_Report
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
A Tale of 2 Gitmo Opinions: Ruling Altered to Hide Evidence of Dead, Tortured Witnesses
The investigative news website ProPublica has revealed shocking details in the case of Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, a Guantánamo prisoner ordered freed earlier this year. A day after the March 16 order was filed on the court’s electronic docket, the opinion vanished. Weeks later, a new ruling appeared in its place. While it reached the same conclusion, eight pages of material had been removed, including key passages in which Kennedy dismantled the government’s case against Uthman.
Video at the link.......
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/13/a_tale_of_2_gitmo_opinionsThe investigative news website ProPublica has revealed shocking details in the case of... more-
- treewolf39
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 9 comments
-
-
US unable to document any payments for Abu Ghraib | Raw Story
US cannot document any payment to detainees for abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Fending off demands that he resign over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress he had found a legal way to compensate Iraqi detainees who suffered "grievous and brutal abuse and cruelty at the hands of a few members of the United States armed forces."
"It's the right thing to do," Rumsfeld declared in 2004. "And it is my intention to see that we do."
Six years later, the U.S. Army is unable to document a single payment for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Nor can the more than 250 Iraqis or their lawyers now seeking redress in U.S. courts. Their hopes for compensation may rest on a Supreme Court decision this week.
Story continues below...
The Army says about 30 former Abu Ghraib prisoners are seeking compensation from the U.S. Army Claims Service. Those claims are still being investigated and many do not involve inmate abuse.
The Army added that U.S. Forces-Iraq looked at its records and could not find any payments to former detainees. The Army also cannot verify whether any such payments were made informally through Iraqi leaders.
From fiscal years 2003 to 2006, the Defense Department paid $30.9 million to Iraqi and Afghan civilians who were killed, injured, or incurred property damage due to U.S. or coalition forces' actions during combat. The Army has found no evidence any of those payments were used to compensate victims of abuse at Abu Ghraib.
So instead of compensation, the legacy of the most infamous detainee abuse episode from President George W. Bush's tenure is lawsuits, and the court battle mirrors the Iraq war — a grinding, drawn-out conflict.
At the U.S. Supreme Court, the former detainees are asking the justices to step into a case alleging that civilian interrogators and linguists conspired with soldiers to abuse the prisoners. All the detainees, who allege they were held at Abu Ghraib or one of the other 16 detention centers in Iraq, say they were eventually released without any charges against them.
Source: AP NewsUS cannot document any payment to detainees for abuse at Abu Ghraib. Fending off... more-
- toyotabedzrock
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
