The forgotton ones in Guantanamo without rights

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Most of the individuals in Guantanamo Bay have never experienced the Standard of Living that they currently have.

That's a joke right?



Another thing about this and the international treaty thing is, when those things were made, there was a certain amount of honor even among the worst militaries. But with these people we deal with a new breed with a totally diferent mindset and set of values than any dealt with before, so they must be dealt with in a different way. Someone must feel strongly they are a danger to the US public or they wouldn't be there. I'm sorry but I care more about thousands of innocent lives being possibly lost to terrorist attacks than the feelings of these few who would love to carry out such acts. We are dealing with very dangerous people here. Any time someone is ready to die to kill Americans, and you can't even threaten him with his life to behave, that's scary as hell to me.

And this his what to do with getting these individuals tried?! If "someone felt strongly" enough to detain them, you would think they would have information about them that could get them tried. Or maybe they don't and that's why they are being detained for so long without trial.
 
STING2 said:

Most of the individuals in Guantanamo Bay have never experienced the Standard of Living that they currently have. Many of these people come from area's where three hot meals a day, a warm bed, a Vollyball court, and a spectacular view of the ocean do not exist.

WTF?!?
 
TylerDurden and BonoVoxSupastar,

Its no joke. Do you have any idea what the standard of living is like in rural Afghanistan?

The fact is that many of these individuals at Guantanamo Bay have never even seen a doctor or a dentist. Most of them come from area's of the world so poor, and unstable that are not even ranked by the Human Development Report.

The fact is that on average, the individuals in Guantanamo Bay recieve better quality food and more of it, and get either better medical care or have seen a doctor for the first time even. Their not out in the cold Mountains of Afghanistan avoiding frost bite and other disease, and hoping to get their first meal in days.

Oh, and it is a fact from reporters who have been inside Camp X-Ray that a section does have a vollyball court and a tremondous view of the ocean. That was not a joke either.

While there are severe restrictions on communication with the outside world, besides that, these guys get treated better than the average American citizen in prison.
 
STING2 I don't mean to speak on anyone's behalf, but I think their point is if anything it merely shows the huge difference in standard of living in America and Afghanistan. The fact that so many are horrified that these people are being kept in such basic and substandard conditions as far as we are concerned plus no sight of a trial in the near future still doesn't make this comparitive improvement any better. Who's standards are we going to go by? If it is America's then they are being treated sub humanly. Yet it is fine for America to use the perceived threat as the basis for their incarceration. If we go by theirs, then why dont we 'just let them go' as their choice would have it.
It cant be both ways. This is being done for America, so America needs to follow this all the way through and treat this how it would any other situation of this nature.

They shouldn't be let go and yes their basic requirements are being met with food and shelter. But whoopee really. Its not Club Med and no one is saying it should be. These people need a trial.
 
I just find it amusing that the US used to bitch all the time about these sorts of actions occuring inthe USSR.

The US is skirting around it's own laws and internatational law. That is a fact. No one knows what eveidence there is against any of these 600+ individuals, that is also a fact. Is anyone so naive as to think that every single one of these people is guilty? 2 years, no trial and no hope for trial as they will not be tried until the war on terror is over. This sounds more like the actions of a facist state than a representative democracy. The American position has always been that "we hold the high ground, we value life and liberty more than the barbarians". As long as it is that of your own citizens maybe. The line that this is war is bullshit. There's a Geneva convention. And just because one side breaks it doesn't mean the other side should (certain attrocities against allied prisoners we committed by the Nazis in WW2, yet German soldiers were still given Geneva rights as far I can recall) . If the American State want to take the high ground line it has to follow its own ethical standards if it doesn't it should shut it's mouth and admit that when it comes down to it there is no difference between the US State and any militaristic state in the history of the world... aka human life is expendible against the goals of the state.
 
STING2 said:
TylerDurden and BonoVoxSupastar,

Its no joke. Do you have any idea what the standard of living is like in rural Afghanistan?

The fact is that many of these individuals at Guantanamo Bay have never even seen a doctor or a dentist. Most of them come from area's of the world so poor, and unstable that are not even ranked by the Human Development Report.

The fact is that on average, the individuals in Guantanamo Bay recieve better quality food and more of it, and get either better medical care or have seen a doctor for the first time even. Their not out in the cold Mountains of Afghanistan avoiding frost bite and other disease, and hoping to get their first meal in days.

Oh, and it is a fact from reporters who have been inside Camp X-Ray that a section does have a vollyball court and a tremondous view of the ocean. That was not a joke either.

While there are severe restrictions on communication with the outside world, besides that, these guys get treated better than the average American citizen in prison.

So they get food and a doctor, big fucking deal. By this logic let's lock up the homeless, let's lock up Africa, let's lock up everyone else that may benefit from this. Taking someone's right to communication away and them not knowing how long they'll live or ever see their family again and them knowing they are completely innocent does not give one a better life.

Oh and the "average American citizen in prison" know they are getting tried before a jury.

Oh and let me know when you run across those pictures of the actual detainees using the volleyball courts and them breathing in the ocean air as they're looking at the great view they have.
 
O yeah, i did see a tv program about Guanatamo last week also,..i did see a volleyball court also, i did see a new internetcaf? also, but that was for the soldiers because they have a hard time being there,...
 
The right to life of Americans comes before a terrorist right to a speedy trial. Their is no room for error on the part of the government when it comes to this. American lives are at stake.

The conditions that terrorist are living in are not substandard but are as good as or better than any prisoner in the USA. Communication is restricted in order to break up communication among terrorist worldwide. This has saved peoples lives.

Journalist that have been to the compounds have seen the facilities that the prisoners have. It was independent journalist that reported the Vollyball court and views of the ocean.
 
STING2 said:
The right to life of Americans comes before a terrorist right to a speedy trial. Their is no room for error on the part of the government when it comes to this. American lives are at stake.

The conditions that terrorist are living in are not substandard but are as good as or better than any prisoner in the USA. Communication is restricted in order to break up communication among terrorist worldwide. This has saved peoples lives.

Journalist that have been to the compounds have seen the facilities that the prisoners have. It was independent journalist that reported the Vollyball court and views of the ocean.

It's been up to two years for some of these people. Try them and convict them. How is delaying a trial saving American lives? Please explain this to me. If you are delaying trial in order to ensure conviction then maybe you didn't have enough to detain them in the first place. I'm sorry, but your excuse that National Security is at risk is bullshit.

Once again you still call these people terrorist. You have no proof, if so they'd be convicted by now. Maybe innocent until proven doesn't exist in this circumstance but it's good to know that your 100% sure. And you still haven't made any case on how they are as good or better than any prisoner in the US. But maybe if you keep repeating it.

Everything I've seen, the volleyball courts are for the soldiers and I'm pretty sure the detainees don't have ocean front view cells.
 
BonoVoxSupastar,

"It's been up to two years for some of these people. Try them and convict them. How is delaying a trial saving American lives? Please explain this to me. If you are delaying trial in order to ensure conviction then maybe you didn't have enough to detain them in the first place. I'm sorry, but your excuse that National Security is at risk is bullshit."

First, there is an ongoing operation to catch terrorist and prevent the deaths of thousands of innocent people as we speak. This US government has a responsibility to continue to interrogate and gain intelligence from those held in prison there before any trials are to begin. This is a war situation, this intelligence is vital to defeating terrorist attacks worldwide. The USA has foiled multiple terrorist attacks worldwide over the past two years because of intelligence they have gotten out of prisoners at the base.

"Once again you still call these people terrorist. You have no proof, if so they'd be convicted by now. Maybe innocent until proven doesn't exist in this circumstance but it's good to know that your 100% sure. And you still haven't made any case on how they are as good or better than any prisoner in the US. But maybe if you keep repeating it."

Most of these people caught in Afghanistan or other area's of South Asia engaged in operations against US forces just as German soldiers were caught during World War II and sent to US prison camps back in the United States or elsewhere. Those Germans remained in prison until the war was over.

In addition, I have a friend that was involved in the detention and capture of Al Quada personal in Afghanistan, several of whom were shipped to Camp X-Ray. My friend and other in the military have no desire to round up people who are not attacking them and send them to Camp X-Ray.

Even if the USA is not 100% sure in every case at Camp X-Ray, it is still to risky to let someone out if they could possibly commit the next terrorist act. A Speedy trial is not in the best interest of the safety and security of the American people. These Terrorist or prisoners have provided valuable information that has saved lives, and it would be wrong to stop are disrupt that process in any way.

There are several cases where individuals who were mistakes were released and sent home.

You have not made any case that the prisoners at Camp X-Ray are treated any worse than prisoners in US prisons. The communication part is restricted for obvious security reasons. The trials will proceed on a time table that is appropriate to US National Security interest.

"Everything I've seen, the volleyball courts are for the soldiers and I'm pretty sure the detainees don't have ocean front view cells."

Last week, I saw on NBC journalist that had been inside the Camp who saw the Volley Ball courts for prisoners and the view of the ocean and court yard. They were not allowed to take pictures, but made drawings of what they saw. The Journalist were very impressed with what they saw. The detainees do not have ocean front view cells, but they are allowed in an area to near the volley ball courts where there is clear and open view of the ocean that the journalist said is stunning.

Most Americans are concerned about preventing the next 9/11 and will not tolerate a naive and inefficient policy that would allow terrorist to win in the US Justice system and get released. 3,025 people were murdered in the space of 2 hours on 9/11. Preventing that or a worse event is a greater priority than the speed at which any trial takes place.
 
Sting2,

If holding these individuals until this ongoing indefinate "War on Terrorism" is over without any mechanism of justice, in temporary cells of cinderblock and chainlink with exposure to the elements and lights remaining on at night, being interrogated while shackled, moved in blacked out goggles(hard to see that view), only a bucket for waste (in their cells), 15 minutes of recreation every other day, not even giving them the name and rights of a prisoner of war including the handful of minors under the age of 16 is considered humane and as good or better than other prisoners, and this makes you sleep better at night than go right ahead and believe that. I'm sure our nation is better for it.

But while you argue the point of National Security remember the fact that as we keep and treat more and more brothers and sons in this fashion we're creating more and more enemies. So is our National Security really that much better off not convicting and trying these individuals? I guess we'll never know.
 
BonoVoxSupastar,

The journalist who have actually been to the camp did not describe many of the conditions you cite. If anything, I would say that the environment their currently in is sometimes a little lax.

But if you feel that the conditions and certain rights of these terrorist or prisoners is more important than certain other national security issues such as preventing the next 9/11 and the American's publics right to safety and security, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree. For me, a few potentially wrongful detentions is nothing compared to the death of 3,025 people in 90 minutes.

"But while you argue the point of National Security remember the fact that as we keep and treat more and more brothers and sons in this fashion we're creating more and more enemies."

Where is your evidence for this? How many terrorist attacks have occured inside the USA since 9/11?
 
Sting

When is it appropriate in your mind to put them on trial? How much longer should they have to wait? In general I am supportive of your position, however, the war on terror, is potentially an never ending war. There is no clear enemy, where in a conventional war there is a begining a middle and an end. Where is the end to the war on terror? Is there an end? If not are we looking at detaining people forever?
 
Sting, the US Declaration of Independence is not limited in scope to Americans it extends to all humanity, who are said to have certain inalienable rights. Your govenment limits these rights to Americans only. Security is not an excuse to deny rights unless a crime can be proven. That requires a trial. This is not a case of conventional war as conservatives so love to point out. A captured soldier in uniform undeniably belongs to an enmey army, not trial is needed to prove this. A trial is needed to prove that someone is a terrorist. And even then German soldiers were not kept in the sorts of conditions that these people are kept in. There are clearly conflicting reports, and given how much of the US media bows down and for teh most part reports only what is largely beneficial to the government I am wary of trusting US sources, I would like to do some background on the journalist and actually read his/her article. Either way being holding prisoners without charge trial is one of the things the US has constantly criticised other governments for. The US has long believed that it's values are superior and should be adopted elsewhere, yet here we have a case where values which are plainly un-American are being adopted and applied.

This is not new. The US has always bathed in the luminence of representitive democracy, yet for security reasons in the Cold-War it crushed the democracies of sever nations like Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile when said governments steered away from freemarket capitalism towards varying forms of socialism. A logicalmove interms of security but one copletely at variance with the nation's values. But I suppose it was okay, the people affected weren't Americans.

If you wan't to prevent another 9/11 have your government cahnge it's policies to reflect the values written in it's charters, not hose of an expansionist stae preoccupied with it's own security to the exclusion of all others. It's is not your democracy and freedom the terroists hate it is the high handedness, autocracy, and general callousness of US foriegn policy they hate. These actions prove the terrorist's point and make wonderful propaganda. All your talk of democracy an d freedom means nothing in the face of Guantanamo.
 
Dreadsox,

"When is it appropriate in your mind to put them on trial? How much longer should they have to wait? In general I am supportive of your position, however, the war on terror, is potentially an never ending war. There is no clear enemy, where in a conventional war there is a begining a middle and an end. Where is the end to the war on terror? Is there an end? If not are we looking at detaining people forever?"

When the results of the trial and the process of the trial will not potentially in anyway interfere with the intelligence that is currently being gained from these individuals, then that should be the time for a trial. I do not know when that will occur, but I know that the safety of the American people is a higher priority over the speed at which any trial occurs for a potential terrorist, in my opinion.

Could we be detaining people forever without a trial? I hope not, but I cannot deny that it is a possibility although I think its remote.

Lets not forget that innocent people over the past two years have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places as a result of necessary and just actions by members of the international community to insure peace, security, stability and prevent terror. These were accidents and we knew they would happen once military action began. But we also knew that the action had to be taken, otherwise the cost to innocent people around the world in a variety of ways would be far far greater.
 
Blacksword,

The safety and security of the people of the United States has a higher priority to any interpretation of the technical details of the law involving the trial and prosecution of terrorist. A trial not necessarily needed to prove someone is a terrorist. I have a friend that was involved in the detention and transportation of terrorist in Afghanistan. These individuals were prior to capture engaged in combat against US military personal including my friend. Their uniform was that of any terrorist, one that confuses the disinction between a terrorist and a civilian. What is not confusing is the actions that these individuals were engaged in, the same as any German soldier fighting US troops France in WWII.

The freedom of Americans and others is infringed on when the government fails to properly defend the country, here in the USA and abroad. The inalienable rights of any single individual cannot not be used to infringe upon the rights of millions of others. The values of America, chiefly the right to life, are being defended rather than being undermined.

Without National Security, the values any country holds dear cannot exist.

"If you wan't to prevent another 9/11 have your government cahnge it's policies to reflect the values written in it's charters, not hose of an expansionist stae preoccupied with it's own security to the exclusion of all others. It's is not your democracy and freedom the terroists hate it is the high handedness, autocracy, and general callousness of US foriegn policy they hate. These actions prove the terrorist's point and make wonderful propaganda. All your talk of democracy an d freedom means nothing in the face of Guantanamo."

This is the typical line that US policies cause terrorism. Its simply false. Bin Ladin does not give a shit about anyone in Guantanamo except for their value to his plans which have nothing to do with whether or not the USA has somehow been abusive in its foreign policy. The United States is not an expansionist State. The USA has not annexed any major piece of land since before 1945. The only exception might be land to bury US troops who lost their lives defending freedom and democracy through out the world.

Al Quada, the Taliban, Saddam and other terrorist and dictators, do not like US Foreign Policy, because it is a threat to their existence goals and prevents them from accomplishing their goals which our the opposite of US freedom and democracy.
 
STING2 said:
BonoVoxSupastar,

The journalist who have actually been to the camp did not describe many of the conditions you cite. If anything, I would say that the environment their currently in is sometimes a little lax.

But if you feel that the conditions and certain rights of these terrorist or prisoners is more important than certain other national security issues such as preventing the next 9/11 and the American's publics right to safety and security, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree. For me, a few potentially wrongful detentions is nothing compared to the death of 3,025 people in 90 minutes.

"But while you argue the point of National Security remember the fact that as we keep and treat more and more brothers and sons in this fashion we're creating more and more enemies."

Where is your evidence for this? How many terrorist attacks have occured inside the USA since 9/11?

Lax? Wow, I'm not sure where you got that from. I've seen the photos and in many articles that I've seen the journalist described it exactly how I stated, in fact I excluded certain items because I felt them to be too biased and somewhat circumstantial.

I also believe you to be putting words in my mouth. I nor anyone else in this thread have stated we believe the rights of these individuals to be more important than the security of others. I'm saying they are not 100% exclusive of each other. I think the government is completly removing and denying certain rights by giving them this new "illegal combatants" title and using National Security as their excuse. How would a fair trial endanger National Security? You haven't answered that question.

Where is the evidence of this?! Look at history. I didn't say any attacks have happened between now and then. But a gross negligence of the international law for human rights is not going to win us any friends. Look at history and tell me you've never seen anyone make enemies due to human rights violations. We've already had issues with Britian over some of there citizens. If you don't think this adds fuel to the fire for those who already do not like us then I think you're sadly mistaken.
 
BonoVoxSupastar,

"Lax? Wow, I'm not sure where you got that from. I've seen the photos and in many articles that I've seen the journalist described it exactly how I stated, in fact I excluded certain items because I felt them to be too biased and somewhat circumstantial."

The Journalist who went inside the Camp and reported what they saw last week really interested me. I thought it would be far more restrictive considering that at any time, one of these people could attack a guard. But perhaps they have the situation under control by some other means.

"I also believe you to be putting words in my mouth. I nor anyone else in this thread have stated we believe the rights of these individuals to be more important than the security of others. I'm saying they are not 100% exclusive of each other. I think the government is completly removing and denying certain rights by giving them this new "illegal combatants" title and using National Security as their excuse. How would a fair trial endanger National Security? You haven't answered that question."

First, no trial should be conducted while the services are actively getting intelligence from the prisoners which is preventing attacks and saving lives around the world. Just as military commanders would not return prisoners during a war, nor should terrorist be set free or have that potential when there are a part of ongoing intelligence operations which are saving peoples lives.

When the time comes for a trial, the problem is that individuals in which there is borderline evidence could get out, and then conduct more terrorist activities killing thousands of people. Such an event cannot be allowed to happen. National Security is the #1 priority.

"Where is the evidence of this?! Look at history. I didn't say any attacks have happened between now and then. But a gross negligence of the international law for human rights is not going to win us any friends. Look at history and tell me you've never seen anyone make enemies due to human rights violations. We've already had issues with Britian over some of there citizens. If you don't think this adds fuel to the fire for those who already do not like us then I think you're sadly mistaken."

Where is the evidence that the USA has grossly violated international laws and human rights, and that the USA has been attacked specifically because of that?
 
My problem is that we are not at war with a nation, we are at war with a concept, terrorism. I suppose Al-Qaeda, but the President did not declare War on Al-Qaeda, he said we were at war with terrorism.

I am concerned that this is so vague, we are not going to ever see them put on trial.

Thanks for answering my questions.

PEace
 
STING2 said:


The Journalist who went inside the Camp and reported what they saw last week really interested me. I thought it would be far more restrictive considering that at any time, one of these people could attack a guard. But perhaps they have the situation under control by some other means.

The articles and photos I've seen all show prisoners shackled at hands and ankles with mittens on their hands. Kinda hard to attack a guard this way.

STING2 said:

First, no trial should be conducted while the services are actively getting intelligence from the prisoners which is preventing attacks and saving lives around the world. Just as military commanders would not return prisoners during a war, nor should terrorist be set free or have that potential when there are a part of ongoing intelligence operations which are saving peoples lives.

When the time comes for a trial, the problem is that individuals in which there is borderline evidence could get out, and then conduct more terrorist activities killing thousands of people. Such an event cannot be allowed to happen. National Security is the #1 priority.

So interogating ends once one is found guilty? If there is borderline evidence on an individual and two years hasn't produced any further evidence, than maybe our system has failed or there really isn't any real evidence. What's the time span of holding someone until further evidence comes about?



STING2 said:

Where is the evidence that the USA has grossly violated international laws and human rights, and that the USA has been attacked specifically because of that?

Not allowing a mechanism of justice is evidence that the US has grossly violated international law. And if you don't think we're pissing off others by keeping these individuals in this fashion than I can't help you.

Dreadsox is right. We're fighting an idea. An idea that may never die. Bush is creating new definitions, definitions that don't work in the real world.
 
The American Prison Camp

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/opinion/16THU1.html?th

The International Committee of the Red Cross recently took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the United States over the confinement of the roughly 660 detainees at the Guant?namo naval base in Cuba. After visiting the base, Red Cross officials said there was a "worrying deterioration" in the mental condition of the detainees, largely because they have no idea how long they will be held or what will happen to them.

Other reports are equally dismaying: there have been 32 suicide attempts by 27 detainees. And while it is true that there have been recent, worrying reports about infiltration ? three staff members, a Muslim chaplain and two Arabic interpreters, have been charged with crimes ranging from disobeying orders to espionage ? this does not relieve the administration of the obligation to treat the detainees with justice.

Why are the men still without trial, still without rights? The Bush administration has two justifications. One is, in essence, self-defense: in the war on terrorism, in which the security of the United States is in mortal danger, normal rules cannot apply. The other, more narrow, is about legality: the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not combatants in traditional or legal terms, and are therefore not eligible for the protections due to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

Both arguments miss the point. The men held at Guant?namo are prisoners of the United States. While they may not have the same rights as American citizens, they should be treated in the highest tradition of American justice. That means they must be given some forum in which to contest their imprisonment, and there must be reasonable rules and some individualized proof for the detentions to be upheld.

That the Pentagon should be allowed to run this prison camp in total secrecy and in utter disdain of what America stands for should be heavy on the conscience of all Americans, whether libertarian or liberal, Republican or Democrat. For this reason alone, the detainees should be brought to justice or released.

The justifications offered by the administration are equally unpersuasive. The argument that the detainees are not prisoners of war because they are not uniformed members of a regular armed force has no foundation in the Geneva Conventions.

As for the claim of self-defense, it simply cannot be applied indefinitely. We accept that there are extraordinary times ? Sept. 11 was one of them ? when a government must take extraordinary measures to protect the nation. But with Guant?namo, the administration has gone far beyond the needs of the moment, seeking to ensure in every way possible that the prisoners remain indefinitely beyond the reach of law or scrutiny.
 
Dreadsox said:
I am concerned that this is so vague, we are not going to ever see them put on trial.
personally it seems to be that it's vague enough that when the trials do take place it will be almost impossible to see whether they really couldn't have taken place earlier

maybe it is a professional dysfunction that I have
but I don't like vague guidelines
 
Rono said:
Than please stop thinking that the western moral is better than moslim moral,..

How can someone say that he believe in justice for all humans and put people without any chance of a fair trail in camps. ( 103 people are under 15 years old )
Correction,...3 people under the age of 15
 
Supreme Court will hear first appeals involving Guantanamo detainees
From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, November 11, 2003 Posted: 1:27 AM EST (0627 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the first test of the Bush administration's sweeping anti-terrorism policies, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear two appeals over whether hundreds of terrorist suspects in secret custody are being held unlawfully.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/10/scotus.detainees/index.html
 
An initimate look
Please read it before you make a decision (ie Conserv vs Guardian). A veery interesting look. This is not to say that serious terrorists are not included in Gitmo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098604,00.html

People the law forgot

It is almost two years since the Guantanamo prison camp opened. Its purpose is to hold people seized in the 'war on terror' and defined by the Bush administration as enemy combatants - though many appear to have been bystanders to the conflict. Images of Camp Delta's orange-jumpsuited, manacled detainees have provoked international outrage. But the real horror they face isn't physical hardship, it is the threat of infinite confinement, without trial or access to legal representation. James Meek has spent the past month talking to former inmates and some of those involved in operating the Pentagon's Kafkaesque justice system. He has built an unprecedented picture of life on the base, which we present in this special issue

Continued in part two

Wednesday December 3, 2003
The Guardian

One summer's day in Cuba in 2002, a 31-year-old Pakistani teacher of English named Abdul Razaq noticed something unusual in the familiar patterns of movement among the orange-suited figures in the mesh cages on either side of him. Two or three cages along from his own, a fellow Pakistani prisoner, Shah Mohammed, was silently going about trying to hang himself from a sheet lashed to the mesh. He had the cloth around his throat and he was choking.
Other prisoners in neighbouring cells had noticed and, as they usually did when a detainee in the United States prison camp in Guantanamo Bay tried to kill himself, they raised a hue and cry in their many languages.

"First we shouted at Shah Mohammed to stop, but when he didn't, we called the guards," says Razaq, who was released from Guantanamo in July, and returned to his home town in October after three months' detention by the Pakistani authorities. "The guards came in and saved him. It was the first time he attempted this in my block, then he was taken to another place. He appeared to be unconscious."

It was one of four suicide attempts by Mohammed while he was in Guantanamo. He was released in May and lives in the Swat Valley, on the far side of the Malakand Hills from Peshawar, a few dozen miles from Razaq's home. It is a district of God-fearing, conservative, cricket-loving yeomen, who are passionate about their land and liberty, and protective of their right to bear arms; the fields of sugar cane and tobacco are well tended, and prices in the gun shops are more reasonable than their counterparts in America. In the mornings, a crocodile of small boys in black berets, walking to school, stretches for miles.

Mohammed, who is 23 and a baker by trade, is 5ft 3in and light on his feet. He has been having nightmares ever since he came back. His face peers out from behind a lustrous black beard and long hair like a child hiding between the winter coats in a wardrobe. In Kandahar and Guantanamo, he was interrogated 10 times.

His face only lights up when you ask about fishing. He has been doing a lot of it - mostly for trout - since his return. The other day he caught a five-pounder with his Japanese rod. "The biggest damage is to my brain. My physical and mental state isn't right. I'm a changed person," he says. "I don't laugh or enjoy myself much."

Asked why he tried to commit suicide so often, Mohammed is vague. He talks about worries over troubles at home; his mother's health, his brother's business, and "my own problems". But his attempts at self-harm at Guantanamo began after he was confined, without explanation, in a sealed punishment cell for a month - not, it seems, because he had broken camp rules, but because the American authorities had nowhere else to put him while they were finishing new facilities.

In India Block, as the block of punishment cells is known, "there were no windows. There were four walls and a roof made of tin, a light bulb and an air conditioner. They put the air conditioning on and it was extremely cold. They would take away the blanket in the morning and bring it back in the evening. I was kept in this room for one month. We'd ask them: 'Is this a sort of a punishment?' And the translator would say, 'No, this is being done on orders from the general.'"

...
 
You know, it's a good they've got those volleyball courts. I am sure they've got a good round robin going. Are the volleyball rules in Afganistan different from the rules in America? If so, which rules do you think they use, did a journalist ask the players?

Maybe they'd like a curling rink put in.
 
Back
Top Bottom