Trump Officials Trying to Finalize Legal Language to Expand Gitmo’s Use | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


Trump Officials Trying to Finalize Legal Language to Expand Gitmo’s Use

While President Trump has made clear he intends to not only keep Guantanamo Bay open, but refill it with a new round of detainees, the administration has been struggling with the legal obstacles surrounding a new influx of captives.

The goal is to come up with an executive order that not only reverses President Obama’s 2009 pledge to eventually close the facility,but to provide some sort of basis for putting newly captured people into the facility, after years of trying to release most of those already there.

The initial executive order, which President Trump nearly signed back in late July, would’ve allowed ISIS and al-Qaeda members to be held there, despite warnings from legal officials about the consequences this would have for the broader ISIS war.

Two alternative versions now exist, one adding language that would grant Defense Secretary James Mattis unilateral power to decide who to put at Gitmo, and a third version that would provide guidelines to how Mattis should decide on those people, and would promise a parole board that decides whether to keep the detainees.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

First, a little definition of who these "detainees" are; they are, by every international code of conduct, prisoners of war, and as such, deserve basic humanitarian treatment.

And President Trump, a word, please: Gitmo, as it currently exists, is a blot and stain on the American moral character, and should be closed down.

The torture done here; the force-feeding through NG tubing, when prisoners don't want to eat, is an affront to what we are supposed to be as a nation.

And we understand full well why COs at Guantanamo are so eager to keep their prisoners alive; because through an autopsy process, it would be discovered that water boarding, to get these people to falsely confess to crimes they may have never committed, wasn't the worst thing which had happened to them.

It not only happened at Gitmo; it happened at other facilities in places like Morocco and Pakistan, where torture was outsourced. As reported at the independent.co.uk, regarding the case of Binyam Mohamed:

He was arrested in Pakistan in April 2002 travelling on a false passport and handed over to US interrogators who he says turned nasty when he mentioned a website he had seen with instructions for building a nuclear bomb. The website included instructions such as refining uranium by whirling it in a bucket above an individual's head. What followed, he insists, was a catalogue of encounters with foreign intelligence agents in Pakistan and later Morocco while being subjected to tortures that included being chained to a gate for 22 hours and being cut on his genitals 20 or 30 times during interrogation sessions over two years. Last month, it emerged in a High Court judgment that an MI5 officer visited Morocco three times during the time Mr Mohamed was being held there. MI5 insists it was unaware of his rendition to Morocco in 2002.

When the US government tortures, or outsources torture, it broadcasts to the world that it doesn't care about the rule of law; human dignity, or human rights; it observes those values only in their breach, through the use of torture.

There are compelling reasons not to torture.

It is counterproductive in the extreme, and rarely produces actionable intelligence, because those tortured are saying whatever they can think of in order to get the torture to stop.

And lastly, it also gives carte blanche to countries which don't very much like the US to torture American military and civilians.

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA