15 April 2013

Shame on America

Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel has been a prisoner at Guantánamo Bay since 2002.  He told this story, through an Arabic interpreter, to his lawyers at the legal charity Reprieve in an unclassified telephone call:
I’ve been on a hunger strike since Feb. 10 and have lost well over 30 pounds. I will not eat until they restore my dignity. 

I’ve been detained at Guantánamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial

I could have been home years ago — no one seriously thinks I am a threat — but still I am here. Years ago the military said I was a “guard” for Osama bin Laden, but this was nonsense, like something out of the American movies I used to watch. They don’t even seem to believe it anymore. But they don’t seem to care how long I sit here, either...

I am still being force-fed. Two times a day they tie me to a chair in my cell. My arms, legs and head are strapped down. I never know when they will come. Sometimes they come during the night, as late as 11 p.m., when I’m sleeping. 

There are so many of us on hunger strike now that there aren’t enough qualified medical staff members to carry out the force-feedings; nothing is happening at regular intervals. They are feeding people around the clock just to keep up. 
The rest of his statement is published in the New York Times.

I know there are readers of this blog who feel that America has an intrinsic right to treat perceived enemies in this fashion.  I don't think anyone should be imprisoned for eleven years without a trial.  I will continue to speak out here; there's nothing else I can do.

27 comments:

  1. I absolutely agree! It is wrong to keep someone for ELEVEN YEARS without a charge. Even if they are evil incarnate, we owe it to DECENCY to at least make it official.

    This is little less than burying someone in an unmarked grave.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But...but...we're the good guys!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said Stan. Even Nazis got a trial.

    ReplyDelete
  4. rule of law is only for good people. and as americans, we can tell without legal nonsense who the good people are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Flask:

      How do we know who are the good guys without a trial? You can't really tell using the old movie standard where the Good Guys always wear white hats and the bad guys wear black, because sometimes the good guys wear black hats and the bad guys wear white. And sometimes the bad guys look like good guys.

      DaBris

      Delete
  5. All of those being held should have a hearing. If there is no evidence against them, they should be released. If they are convicted of a crime they should get credit for time served and should be released back to their native country. If they have more time to serve, they should be transferred to the U.S. to serve the remainder of their sentence. These men have been treated very shabbily and all Americans should be ashamed that these men are being held in this manner.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeh..he is a real nice guy he is...just listen to him.

    Detainee remains deceptive during interrogations. He admitted lying to his interrogators in previous sessions in which he originally claimed to have traveled to Afghanistan for humanitarian purposes.

    He was UBL's military commander in the field.

    Detainee Threat: a. (S) Assessment: Detainee is assessed to be a HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies. b. (S//NF) Reasons for Continued Detention: Detainee is a member of al-Qaida.

    It is official. A tribunal has been held. He is an admitted member of al queda who has sworn to kill Americans.

    You have posted one side of the story (the fluffy feel good side) and here is the rest. My opinion is that he needs to be held indefinately.

    Here is the rest of the story, the rest that you did not publish in your article:

    http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/43-samir-naji-al-hasan-moqbel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Stan posted "the feel good side" of the story. If you are so certain that the man is guilty of crimes you shouldn't object to him being tried in a court of law. If/when he is found guilty he should pay for those crimes.

      He shouldn't rot in a cell just because the president, some generals, and some spooks from the intelligence agencies say he is a bad guy. If they know he is a bad guy let them prove it in front of a judge. Then his punishment will be justified and you won't have to listen to people like me speak out about it.

      Delete
    2. No he just used "Shame On America" as the title of his post and quoted Mr. Moqbel without any other information or sources as to the veracity of his claims. It took me 2 minutes to find his tribunal testimony. It was a feel good post made to evoke sympathy for someone who may not deserve it.

      I am not certain if he is guilty or not. But the evidence speaks to the facts that he an al queda higher up and also would kill you in a heartbeat.

      It certainly "looks" bad to keep someone in indefinate detention I will agree with you on that but when you look at the facts and also consider that if released he has a very high probability of killing other including Americans it doen't look quite as bad..
      By parroting his claims that are designed to envoke sympathy in gullible or should I say not questioning citizens you turn this post into a mouthpiece for some of the most unreasonable people on the planet.

      Delete
    3. Cliff, I don't care if he is an enemy combatant or a Nazi pedophile Yankee fan. It think it's a basic human right for the accused to be put on trial within a reasonable period of time.

      Delete
    4. We try serial killers in this country that would kill me in a heartbeat too. How is this different? Should we lock people in indefinite detention and never allow them a trial because some executive branch official or law enforcement officer says they are a serial killer? Or should a court weigh the evidence and determine if that charge is true?

      I honestly don't care how it "looks". I care if it is just. America is powerful enough to be fair even to her enemies. Even when her enemies don't play fair.

      Delete
    5. I don't care how it looks either. As long as he cannot kill Americans or anyone else for that matter I am satisfied.

      He was put on trial, it was a military tribunal. That is the only human right he has because he was an enemy combatant and found in a war zone.

      I don't suppose you think prisoners of was deserve a trial do you? They are held until hostilities are over without a trial of any sort much less a military tribunal as Mr. Moqbel.

      When you set out to be part of an organization that enforces it's views under the barrel of a gun and take lives when disagreed with you take what you get in life.

      Life can suck but war is even worse.


      Delete
    6. Cliff Howard's right. Trial by media just makes everything so simple, saves time and is effectively managed by the private sector. Just imagine the taxes we could save if we adopted this strategy for domestic crimes as well.

      Delete
    7. What exactly is an enemy combatant? In fact, Enemy combatant was a term created under the Bush administration with the sole purpose of allowing the US government to sidestep international law governing the treatment of prisoners of war. So we have one set of laws for everyone else and one for the United States. If you truly want Peace in the world then you have to have justice. There is no other way.

      Delete
    8. The concept was not created under the Bush administration it was created under the Geneva conventions.

      http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Unlawful_combatant.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Combatants_who_do_not_qualify_for_POW_status

      The concept of an illegal combatant was concieved way before the dreaded George W Bush.

      BUT don't let me confuse you with facts...

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous, you must be new here. Ad hominem attacks on the person making a comment results in immediate deletion. Challenge the viewpoint, but do not insult the person.

      Delete
  7. No one has mentioned that Obama promised to close Guantanamo as soon as he was sworn in. Keeping those men detained this long without charging them or trying them really is a blot on the honor of America. This is another form of torture, and it's simply wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The entire criminal Bush administration should be sent to Gitmo. Waterboard some "truth" out of them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Barbwire:No one has mentioned that Obama promised to close Guantanamo as soon as he was sworn in.

    He tried. Congress would not let him. Now, this is not surprising from Republicans who created Gitmo. But it is surprising from Democrats, who appeared too weaselly to let these prisoners come to US soil. They are cowards.

    Another problem with putting the real bad guys on trial is that many were tortured, and that not even military tribunals will allow tortured testimony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would love to see any evidence that Obama tried to close Gitmo. Or that Bush the Lesser tried to make health insurance affordable. Or that Clinton imposed corporate responsability. Or that Bush the Worst wanted to be the education president... these are just campaign promisses.

      Delete
    2. @Nepkarel

      The administration tried to buy an Illinois prison to move detainees to and aid in the close of Gitmo. It was backed by IL Senators Durbin (D) and Kirk (R) but right wing members of congress fought against it.

      Delete
    3. Evidence for Paulo.

      "In 2011, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011 which prohibited the use of funds to construct or modify U.S. prison to house detainees from Guantanamo. It also barred any spending on transferring detainees to the U.S. and put in place onerous requirements on transferring any detainees to another country. As we noted in our last update, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives used the power of the purse to keep the prisoners solely in Guantanamo."

      Delete
    4. Is this evidence of the intention of closing Guantanamo? You and I must be from different planets.

      Delete
  10. Could we do this to the bankers who trashed our economy: The one's whose banks have had to pay "big" fines because what they did was illegal? We aren't ever going to try them in a court of law, so could we please just send them to Gitmo? Please. Pretty please!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anyone else find it ... convenient ... that we had another terr'rist incident within 24 hours of the day this went public?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I find the loss of lives decidedly inconvenient.

      Delete