When Torture Kills: Ten Murders In US Prisons In Afghanistan


I cannot view these as they are blocked in U.K


Is a radio programme on 'World News Service'. Not many of the general public listen to it. It was interesting as the U.S military state they are reluctant to release them as there is a 'high incidence of recidivism' which is pretty far out there really. Recidivism to what... being innocent? Where do they get these 'statistics'?

Well done Guardian... you have no TV outlet but fair play, you get it out as best you can in the paper and you tube.


Yes, Web only not TV but as with Guardian, well done to them.


Not recent or about hunger strikes and likely deaths of innocent people. Simply saying how bad the U.S is in using torture and gulags whilst criticising others for doing the same.

Congratulations on your research, well hunted down and I mean that very genuinely.

Still amounts to a TV news blackout tho by what I think would be most peoples standards.
 
Perhaps look at what they are reading online-

the New York Times website receives over 30,000,000 unique visitors every month.

The hunger strike has been covered repeatedly there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/hunger-strike-cases-surge-at-guantanamo.html?_r=0


The RT claim said "US media" - it did NOT specify "TV":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L85X_PfVeEE

It is titled "Blackout TV: US media turn blind eye to Gitmo hunger strike "

They say: "There is little coverage in the U.S media".

Even you must agree with that, surely?
 
Still amounts to a TV news blackout tho by what I think would be most peoples standards.

really??

I showed TV reports from from 3 of the largest TV news networks in the country- CNN, NBC, CBS....and yet somehow you interpret that as a "TV news blackout"

fascinating example of cognitive dissonance.
 
It is titled "Blackout TV: US media turn blind eye to Gitmo hunger strike "

They say: "There is little coverage in the U.S media".

Even you must agree with that, surely?


yes the title says TV but in the entire report they repeatedly say "US media"

Is TV the only media?

Even you can see there is no "media" blackout...can't you??

"little" coverage- I guess its relative...I have been searching on the topic for 2 days now and have seen a lot of reports on it...but in the general flow of the news cycle I would say it is not a top headline.

The NYTimes covering it 3 times in 3 weeks is more than a "little"

The network shows have about 23 minutes to cover everything they want to cover. (I do not watch network news- except local)

I think people might be distracted by young, impetuous dictators threatening to lob nuclear weapons around.
 
really??

I showed TV reports from from 3 of the largest TV news networks in the country- CNN, NBC, CBS....and yet somehow you interpret that as a "TV news blackout"

fascinating example of cognitive dissonance.

CNN, CBS only and sorry but I cannot view them in this country, EVEN ON you tube!!!!!. For all I know they could be like the ABC Australia one, old news, nothing to do with the hunger strikes.
 
CNN, CBS only and sorry but I cannot view them in this country, EVEN ON you tube!!!!!. For all I know they could be like the ABC Australia one, old news, nothing to do with the hunger strikes.

Yesterday I showed one from NBC- you watched it and said it was a good report- go back and look.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/30/hunger-strikers-determined-to-leave-guantanamo-one-way-or-the-other/

Sorry- you can't watch them...anyone can tell you they are current and on topic.

So, no TV news blackout by any rational review of the facts.
 
Yep that was an interesting poll. Took how many years to get the funding or will to do that?

It's just a telephone poll. They can cost around $5000 to do professionally.

There are other cheaper options though, with a bit less accuracy.

Again though, I'm not sure what you think a news story should be covering here. What should NBC News say that you think they are not saying.
 
BBC World service is not unknown.

Reach:
It was listened to by 1,462,000 people (3.0%) each week.
Content from External Source
The BBC World Service is the world's largest international broadcaster,[1][2] broadcasting news, speech and discussions in 28 languages[3] to many parts of the world on analogue and digital shortwave platforms, internet streaming, podcasting, satellite, FM and MW relays. The World Service was reported to have reached 188 million people a week on average in June 2009.[4] It does not carry advertising, and the English language service broadcasts 24 hours a day.
Content from External Source
It is JUST the largest international broadcaster. I listen to it in Dallas
 
It was interesting as the U.S military state they are reluctant to release them as there is a 'high incidence of recidivism' which is pretty far out there really. Recidivism to what... being innocent? Where do they get these 'statistics'?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gitmo-recidivism-rate-soars_521965.html

150 former Guantanamo detainees are either “confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities,” according to a new intelligence assessment released by the Director of National Intelligence’s office on Tuesday. In total, 598 detainees have been transferred out of U.S. custody at Guantanamo. 1 out of every 4, or 25 percent, of these former detainees is now considered a confirmed or suspected recidivist by the U.S. government.
Content from External Source
 
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gitmo-recidivism-rate-soars_521965.html

150 former Guantanamo detainees are either “confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities,” according to a new intelligence assessment released by the Director of National Intelligence’s office on Tuesday. In total, 598 detainees have been transferred out of U.S. custody at Guantanamo. 1 out of every 4, or 25 percent, of these former detainees is now considered a confirmed or suspected recidivist by the U.S. government.
Content from External Source

It is not very convincing to be honest.

William Kristol (born December 23, 1952) is an American neoconservative[1] political analyst and commentator. He is the founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard and a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel.

Kristol is associated with a number of prominent conservative think tanks. He was chairman of the New Citizenship Project from 1997 to 2005. In 1997, he co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) with Robert Kagan.
Content from External Source
Usual suspects... WMD BS.

If they were not innocent, why release them?

Just because someone 'suspects' something is not good enough. They have had ten years to make a case and cannot.

How would you like it if 'someone suspected you' and locked you up and tortured you for ten years or more?

If they were innocent, they cannot be recidivists as they were never criminals so the worst that can be said is; they have now become politically activated and engaged in terrorist or insurgent activities.

If they are terrorists they should be prosecuted, if they are not (and of those in detention, 86 or 88 are declared completely innocent), let them go.

It is a no brainer.
 
It is not very convincing to be honest.

William Kristol (born December 23, 1952) is an American neoconservative[1] political analyst and commentator. He is the founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard and a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel.
Content from External Source


I do not expect you to be convinced about anything that does not fit your preconceived notions...

but whats the point of highlighting the weekly standard and Kristol- they did not draft the report merely reported it- Thats typical misdirection on your part.

You asked where the stats came from, I provided that info...

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/03/latest_gitmo_recidiv.php

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-usa-guantanamo-recidivism-idUSTRE82501120120306

http://www.dni.gov/index.php
Content from External Source
 
I do not expect you to be convinced about anything that does not fit your preconceived notions...

but whats the point of highlighting the weekly standard and Kristol- they did not draft the report merely reported it- Thats typical misdirection on your part.

You asked where the stats came from, I provided that info...

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/03/latest_gitmo_recidiv.php

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-usa-guantanamo-recidivism-idUSTRE82501120120306

http://www.dni.gov/index.php

Yep, ok let's go to the horses mouth:

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsro...0OiJndG1vIjtpOjE7czoxMDoicmVjaWRpdmlzbSI7fQ==


Summary of the Reengagement of Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

The Director of National Intelligence submits this summary consistent with direction in the Fiscal Year 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act, Section 307, which states:

“The Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, shall make publicly available an unclassified summary of,


  1. intelligence relating to recidivism of detainees currently or formerly held at the Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense; and
  2. an assessment of the likelihood that such detainees will engage in terrorism or communicate with persons in terrorist organizations.”
(1) Intelligence relating to recidivism of detainees currently or formerly held at the Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense.


(2) (a) An assessment of the likelihood that such detainees will engage in terrorism.

Based on trends identified during the past 9 years, we assess that if additional detainees are transferred without conditions from GTMO, some will reengage in terrorist or insurgent
activities. Posing a particular problem are transfers to countries with ongoing conflicts and internal instability as well as active recruitment by insurgent and terrorist organizations.

(2) (b) An assessment of the likelihood that such detainees will communicate with persons in terrorist organizations.

Former GTMO detainees routinely communicate with each other, families of other former detainees, and previous associates who are members of terrorist organizations. The reasons for communication span from the mundane (reminiscing about shared experiences) to the nefarious (planning terrorist operations). We assess that some GTMO detainees transferred in the future also will communicate with other former GTMO detainees and persons in terrorist organizations. We do not consider mere communication with individuals or organizations – including other former GTMO detainees – an indicator of reengagement. Rather, the motives, intentions, and purposes of each communication are taken into account when assessing whether the individual has reengaged.

Definition of “Terrorist” or “Insurgent” Activities. Activities such as the following indicate involvement in terrorist or insurgent activities: planning terrorist operations, conducting a terrorist or insurgent attack against Coalition or host-nation forces or civilians, conducting a suicide bombing, financing terrorist operations, recruiting others for terrorist operations, and arranging for movement of individuals involved in terrorist operations. It does not include mere communications with individuals or organizations—including other former GTMO detainees—on issues not related to terrorist operations, such as reminiscing about shared experiences at GTMO, communicating with past terrorist associates about non-nefarious activities, writing anti-U.S. books or articles, or making anti-U.S. propaganda statements.

Definition of “Confirmed.” A preponderance of information which identifies a specific former GTMO detainee as directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities. For the purposes of this definition, engagement in anti-U.S. statements or propaganda does not qualify as terrorist or insurgent activity.

Definition of “Suspected.” Plausible but unverified or single-source reporting indicating a specific former GTMO detainee is directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities. For the purposes of this definition, engagement in anti-U.S. statements or propaganda does not qualify as terrorist or insurgent activity.
Content from External Source
What do you learn from that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Still amounts to a TV news blackout tho by what I think would be most peoples standards.

I guess I must not be "most people", because when I think TV news blackout, I think "Media deliberately withholding information from the public by failing to report on it and/or making sure that information is suppressed," not "Numerous major news outlets report on it but the local news station of some guy on the Internet failed to do so". I don't know, maybe I'm the weird one...
 
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gitmo-recidivism-rate-soars_521965.html

150 former Guantanamo detainees are either “confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities,” according to a new intelligence assessment released by the Director of National Intelligence’s office on Tuesday. In total, 598 detainees have been transferred out of U.S. custody at Guantanamo. 1 out of every 4, or 25 percent, of these former detainees is now considered a confirmed or suspected recidivist by the U.S. government.
Content from External Source

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/w...san-review-concludes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The sweeping, 577-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.

The panel found that the United States violated its international legal obligations by engineering “enforced disappearances” and secret detentions. It questions recidivism figures published by the Defense Intelligence Agency for Guantánamo detainees who have been released, saying they conflict with independent reviews.
Content from External Source
Well I never... People not believing what the military say in their reports... Whatever next?
 
U.N High Commissioner says force feeding of Guantanamo Bay detainees is illegal. When will the U.S stop radicalising the world and creating terrorists?
Does it even want to do that or does it want to perpetuate terrorism so it can engage in a perpetual 'war on terror'?

http://www.arabnews.com/news/450097
GENEVA: Force-feeding hunger strikers is a breach of international law, the UN’s human rights office said yesterday, as US authorities tried to stem a protest by inmates at the controversial Guantanamo Bay jail.
“If it’s perceived as torture or inhuman treatment — and it’s the case, it’s painful — then it is prohibited by international law,” Rupert Coville, spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights, said.
Out of 166 inmates held at the prison at the remote US naval base in southeastern Cuba, 100 are on hunger strike, according to the latest tally from military officers. And of those, 21 detainees are being fed through nasal tubes.
Coville explained that the UN bases its stance on that of the World Medical Association, a 102-nation body whose members include the United States, which is a watchdog for ethics in health care.
In 1991 the WMA said that forcible feeding is “never ethically acceptable.”[/EX]
http://www.newser.com/story/167173/un-its-illegal-to-force-feed-gitmo-hunger-strikers.html
The US is breaking international law by force-feeding Guantanamo detainees to keep them alive as they hunger strike, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said today. "If it’s perceived as torture or inhuman treatment—and it’s the case, it’s painful—then it is prohibited by international law," a spokesman for the commissioner tells the AFP.
Content from External Source
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ce-fed-illegally/story-fnb64oi6-1226634217248
THE US has been accused of breaching international law by force-feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay as the Pentagon struggles to control the detainees' escalating protest. The Pentagon admits that 100 inmates are now on hunger strike, with 23 being fed through nasal tubes. Lawyers say some of them have lost up to 18kg since the protest began in February.
The Pentagon sent 40 nurses and other specialists to Guantanamo this week to help with the care of the hunger strikers as conditions at the camp have come under renewed scrutiny.
One prisoner, who spoke by telephone to his lawyer, said he was restrained by officers in riot gear and tied hand and foot before having a drip forcibly inserted in his hand.
Cuba waded into the controversy yesterday, demanding that Guantanamo Bay should be returned to Havana's control.
Rupert Coville, a spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said yesterday: "If it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment and it's the case it's painful, then it is prohibited by international law." The UN bases its stance on the World Medical Association watchdog, which declared in 1991 that forcible feeding was "never ethically acceptable".

Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Wingard
In civilian life Wingard is a public defender in Allegheny County Pittsburgh.[4][5][6][7]

Lieutenant Colonel Wingard is serving as one of the attorneys for Kuwaiti detainee in Guantanamo Fayiz Al Kandari who was charged before a Guantanamo military commission in 2008.[1][8][9][10][11]
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Wingard and Darrel Vandeveld as "...among a handful of military attorneys who have chosen to risk their careers by publicly voicing criticisms of the Military Commissions, which face an uncertain future."[5]
On September 30, 2012, Lillian Thomas, writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, wrote that, paradoxically, when the Office of Military Commissions suddenly dropped all charges against Faiz al Kandari, it made it more difficult for Wingard to work on his behalf.[2]
Col. Wingard, 45, long maintained that the charges against his client -- material support of terrorism and conspiracy -- were based on flimsy, third-hand evidence. But now that they have been dropped, his client's situation is worse, since there is now no real hope of a judicial proceeding, and his ability to advocate for Mr. al-Kandari is reduced.[2]
Thomas pointed out that Wingard could no longer travel to Kuwait to seek exculpatory evidence, he would no longer be provided with government translators.[2] Guantanamo authorities have arbitrarily cancelled visits to Guantanamo for client-attorney interviews. And his correspondence with his client is no longer protected from censors' scrutiny.

Content from External Source
Content from External Source
 
Force feeding the hunger strikers is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. They are trying to kill themselves, in a method that they know will not be allowed. Should prisoners be able to ask for ropes or pills to overdose with?

We can look at what happened in the Irish hunger strikes. No force feeding except when demanded by the families and the government was vilified.

It is a no win situation for us.
 
US courts seem to allow for force feeding of prisoners.

http://www.euronews.com/newswires/1...eding-detainees-obama-has-courts-on-his-side/

Most U.S. judges who have examined forced feeding in prisons have concluded that the measure may violate the rights of inmates to control their own bodies and to privacy – rights rooted in the U.S. Constitution and in common law. But they have found that the needs of operating a prison are more important.
Courts generally view a prison hunger strike as a suicide attempt, and they have ruled wardens have authority to stop suicide attempts as part of their mandate to preserve order.

Content from External Source
 
Force feeding the hunger strikers is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. They are trying to kill themselves, in a method that they know will not be allowed. Should prisoners be able to ask for ropes or pills to overdose with?

We can look at what happened in the Irish hunger strikes. No force feeding except when demanded by the families and the government was vilified.

It is a no win situation for us.

Is it? What about trying them for a crime, (if there is any evidence whatsoever... which the U.S admit as far as 80 inmates, there isn't)... or let them go.

No, The U.S is keeping people who are known by U.S authorities to be innocent, in abhorrent conditions, without trial... It is outrageous, illegal, immoral, 1984 and worse. The people have the basic right to not eat and end their suffering if they choose.The U.S is making up it's own rules in direct opposition to accepted rules by the rest of the U.N... even the location is designed to circumvent the law.

As far as the IRA hunger strikers were concerned, at least they were convicted and often self confessed murderers. if the government was vilified, it was nothing to the vilification the U.S is getting and deserving.

It appears the U.S is in the business of creating 'terrorists' to allow it to continue with it's 'war on terror'.
 
Back
Top