The "Other" Guantanamo: Report of the Center for Constitutional Rights

Related Post: Text of Pentagon Review of Conditions at Guantanamo Bay
Related Post: Everyone OK at Guantanamo Now. Leave Us Alone.

On the same day that the Pentagon released its report on conditions at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the Center for Constitutional Rights has issued far different results from its investigation:

The majority of the men being detained are in isolation. They go weeks without seeing the sun. Fluorescent lights, however, remain on 24 hours a day in Camp 5. According to the report, “improvements” cited by the military are, by and large, public relations activities rather than meaningful improvements in detainees’ conditions....The report details multiple cases of abuse occurring in the last month and a half.

The CCR's summary of its report follows. The full report is also available on-line.

Center for Constitutional Rights Experts Dispute Government Assertion That Guantánamo Complies With Geneva Conventions

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released a report on the current conditions in Camps 5, 6, and Echo following the press conference today of Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, who delivered his own report on conditions to the White House on Friday. Adm. Walsh determined in his report that conditions at the base meet the standards of the Geneva Conventions, an assertion the attorneys dispute.

CCR’s report, “Conditions of Confinement at Guantanamo: Still in Violation of the Law,” covers conditions at Guantánamo in January and February 2009 and includes new eyewitness accounts from attorneys and detainees. The authors address continuing abusive conditions at the prison camp, including conditions of confinement that violate U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution and international human rights law.

“The men at Guantánamo are deteriorating at a rapid rate due to the harsh conditions that continue to this day, despite a few cosmetic changes to their routines,” said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei. “They are caught in a vicious cycle where their isolation causes psychological damage, which causes them to act out, which brings more abuse and keeps them in isolation. If they are going to be there another year, or even another day, this has to end.”

Despite President Obama’s executive order of January 22, 2009, requiring humane standards of confinement at Guantanamo and conformity with “all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement,” including the Geneva Conventions, attorneys assert that detainees at Guantanamo have continued to suffer from solitary confinement, psychological abuse, abusive force-feeding of hunger strikers, religious abuse, and physical abuse and threats of violence from guards and Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) teams.

The majority of the men being detained are in isolation. They go weeks without seeing the sun. Fluorescent lights, however, remain on 24 hours a day in Camp 5. According to the report, “improvements” cited by the military are, by and large, public relations activities rather than meaningful improvements in detainees’ conditions.

In a declaration made February 13, 2009, Col. Bruce Vargo, commander of the Joint Detention Group at Guantánamo, stated that, “There are no solitary confinement detention areas at JTF-GTMO…Detainees typically are able to communicate with other detainees either face-to-face or by spoken word from their cells throughout the day.” By this, say attorneys, he means that the men can yell through the metal food slot in the solid steel doors of their cells when it is left open and through the crack between the door and the floor.

The report details multiple cases of abuse occurring in the last month and a half. For example, “On the afternoon of January 7, 2009, Yasin Ismael was in one of the outdoor cages of Camp 6 for “recreation” time. The cage was entirely in the shade. Mr. Ismael asked to be moved to the adjoining empty cage because it had sunlight entering from the top. The guards, who were outside the cages, refused. One guard told Mr. Ismael that he was “not allowed to see the sun.” Angered, Mr. Ismael threw a shoe against the inner mesh side of the cage; which bounced harmlessly back onto the cage floor. The guards, however, accused Mr. Ismael of attacking them and left him in the cage as punishment. He eventually fell asleep on the floor of the cage, but hours later he was awakened by the sound of an IRF team entering the cage in the dark. The team shackled him, and he put up no resistance. They then beat him. They blocked his nose and mouth until he felt that he would suffocate, and hit him repeatedly in the ribs and head. They then took him back to his cell. As he was being taken back, a guard urinated on his head. Mr. Ismael was badly injured and his ear started to bleed, leaving a large stain on his pillow. The attack on Mr. Ismael was confirmed by at least one other detainee.”

One detainee in Camp 6 wrote to his attorney in January 2009, “As I told you, we are in very bad condition, suffering from aggression, beating and IRF teams, as well as the inability to sleep except for a few hours. Soldiers here are on a high alert state and if one of us dares to leave his cell and comes back without any harm, he is considered as a man who survived an inevitable danger.

Hunger strikes continue among a large number of men at Guantanamo. Hunger strikers are brutally force-fed using a restraint chair and often unsanitary feeding tubes, and are beaten for refusing food, a practice that continued within the last month and a half. Force-feeding hunger strikers is considered by the World Medical Association to be a violation of medical ethics and has continued unabated since President Obama’s Executive Order.

Detainees are still denied access to communal prayer: military officials continue to classify hearing a call to prayer through a food slot as communal prayer, which does not comport with the requirements of Islam. There has been no Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo since 2003, despite repeated requests. In addition, the report found that then men are also subject to body search procedures that require the men to subject themselves to a scanner that visually strips the men naked each time they leave their cells for attorney meetings or recreation. This humiliating and degrading experience, particularly given the men’s strong religious background, has led them to stay in their cells all day, refusing attorney meetings and recreation entirely.

The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a series of recommendations to ensure the conditions at Guantanamo satisfy legal standards for the humane treatment of the detainees during the interim period while its closure is being implemented. They are, in brief,

* Close Camps 5, 6 and Echo immediately, end solitary confinement, and move the men there to facilities with lawful and humane conditions of confinement.
* End religious abuse of detainees, including the violations of detainees’ right to practice their religion freely and the use of routine strip scanning and strip searching.
* Cease the use of IRF teams and all other physical abuse of detainees immediately, including ending temperature manipulation and sleep deprivation.
* End the feeding of individuals against their will or under coercive circumstances.
* Allow detainees immediate access to independent medical and psychological professionals and cease the practice of forcible medication of detainees.

“If President Obama is going to uphold the law and enforce his own Executive Order, he must close Camps 5, 6, and Echo and improve conditions immediately,” said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. “He should quickly remedy and end the Guantánamo created by his predecessor, not embrace a whitewash of it. I hope Attorney General Eric Holder has a freer hand to report the true conditions at the base from his visit there today than did Adm. Walsh, whose boss has overseen Guantánamo for the last two years.”

CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for the last six years – sending the first ever habeas attorney to the base and sending the first attorney to meet with a former CIA “ghost detainee” there. CCR has been responsible for organizing and coordinating more than 500 pro bono lawyers across the country in order to represent the men at Guantanamo, ensuring that nearly all have the option of legal representation. In addition, CCR has been working to resettle the approximately 60 men who remain at Guantánamo because they cannot return to their country of origin for fear of persecution and torture.

War on Terror Watch: Everyone OK at Guantanamo Now. Leave Us Alone.

Related Post: The “Other” Guantanamo - Report of the Center for Constitutional Rights
Related Post: Text of Pentagon Review of Conditions at Guantanamo Bay

Headlines will be devoted to the US Department of Defense's review of the Guantanamo Bay facility today: "Guantanamo detainees treated humanely, Pentagon report says". There will be highlighting of pleasant recommendations such as "more human-to-human contact, recreation opportunities with several detainees together, intellectual stimulation, and group prayer".

Insofar as an accused agency can investigate itself --- sort of the equivalent of Bernard Madoff telling the worlds that his accounts balance up quite nicely now --- this is welcome to hear. It will bolster the public show of President Obama, who requested the report last month, of putting Guantanamo above board even if it cannot be closed in the near-future.

But, how shall we put this? Horse Gone. Stable Door Bolted. Nothing in this report will meet the requirement of an investigation not of Guantanamo Now but Guantanamo Then. Until and unless there is an enquiry into the abuses that took place between 2002 and 2009, until and unless there is an admission by the US Government that it carries responsibility for those abuses, until and unless there is an assurance that this will not happen again, Camp X-Ray/Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay will be a reminder that America's leaders were prepared to jettison law and morality and the values they put forward.

And who is to say that the same process cannot and will not play out in another case? Perhaps four, eight years from now the Pentagon can give us the same assurances over a Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, even as today more detainees are being put into a facility which has also had its share of abuses and tortures but which --- for the moment --- remains out of the public spotlight.

Analysis: Josh Mull on "Mr Obama's War" in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Related Post: Mr Obama’s War - US Special Forces Training Pakistani Units, US Military Pressing Pakistani Allies
Related Post: Mr Obama’s War - Ceasefire in NW Pakistan; More on US Drone Strikes
Related Post: Mr Obama’s War - Expanding the Enemies in Pakistan

I was trying to write a full analysis, based on our revelations of US political and mililtary activity in Pakistan over the last week, when Josh Mull, a.k.a. "UJ", posted this comment on yesterday's entry "Mr Obama’s War: Expanding the Enemies in Pakistan".

The comment rightly corrects me on several points but, more importantly, I think it offers the answers I was seeking: "What we are witnessing is a long-term, wide-ranging strategy of creating international legitimacy and political credibility for an escalation of violence by the US, Pakistan, and NATO against religious and tribal insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Excellent analysis but…come on now…Obama is “happy” to expand the war in Pakistan? How could you possibly know something like that? Maybe he was outraged or furious to expand the war.

I agree with you that “the media” does often misuse the term “Taliban” but US Military literature as well as relevant trade/industry publications are quite specific about the differences between Big T Taliban, that is the Afghan Mullah Omar-led insurgency and al-Qa’eda militants, and little t taliban, or the Pakistani (Sirajuddin Haqqani, Baitullah Mehsud, etc.) insurgency and tribal militants. As long as we’re picking at the mainstream press, they also like to lump in everyone from Jundallah (Iranian People's Resistance Movement) to the Baloch National Democratic Party as “Taliban,” so really, what are we hoping for from them?

You said: “Thus it is unclear whether the US strategy co-exists with Islamabad’s effort, reaching accommodations with some local groups while striking at others, or whether it is in direct conflict with an effort to defuse tensions with insurgents.”

The synergy of these two strategies becomes a bit more clear with the inclusion of more data.

For instance, describing one strategy as “Islamabad’s effort, reaching accommodations with some local groups while striking at others” is a bit misleading. For one thing, the specific machinations of “Islamabad” have to be made apparent. The Pakistani Military is in charge, and it uses the popularly elected civilian government as a credible tool for diplomatic negotiations with insurgent/militant factions throughout Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, and India. This alone tells us that the strategy is much broader in scope than simply Afghanistan, or even the Global War on Terror, but it also helps clarify the second part of the statement, “reaching accommodations with some local groups while striking at others.”

Since we’re clear that the entire Pakistani National Security strategy is based on relations with “some” militants and hostility to “others,” let’s focus exclusively on Pakistan’s small t taliban. Since 2002, the Pakistani government has been striking deals with the militants. Each time, the violence increases, and the US and Pakistani military are forced to crack down. What’s absent from your analysis is that each time the US and Pakistani military crack down, including the recent drone strikes against Mehsud ordered by President Obama, they come with much more international credibility and political legitimacy.

Domestically, the Pakistani military was seen as brutal and thuggish bullies for invading the tribal areas unilaterally. Once they cooperated with the insurgents, and the Pakistani civilian population was rewarded with bloody kidnappings and suicide bombings, public demand for a violent crack down was solidified. The international community is also given a stark moral choice: live with the human rights black hole of Sharia Law or provide more support to the effort to quash the insurgency. Even President Obama was able to openly campaign on promises of increased violence against Pakistani insurgents on the foundation of failed Pakistani government truces and increased Afghan attacks, and he was rewarded with a 9+ million vote mandate from the American electorate.

Thus we have an answer to your final question, whether or not these strategies are “in direct conflict with an effort to defuse tensions with insurgents.” The answer is yes, these strategies are directly opposed to any effort to “defuse tensions with insurgents,” and for that matter, it has never been the stated goal of anyone relevant to the conflict to defuse tensions with the militants. Instead, what we are witnessing is a long-term, wide-ranging strategy of creating international legitimacy and political credibility for an escalation of violence by the US, Pakistan, and NATO against religious and tribal insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr Obama's World: Sunday Update on US Foreign Policy (22 February)

Latest Post: Mr Obama’s War - Expanding the Enemies in Pakistan
Latest Post: War on Terror Watch - British Officials “Colluded with Torture” of Detainees



7:15 p.m. Pakistani militants have released a senior Government administrator and his six guards, who were abducted earlier today in the Swat Valley.

5:30 p.m. GMT: NATO and Afghan forces have killed 14 militants in battles and airstrikes outside Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.

In Iraq, a Sunni  member of parliament has been accused of ordering an April 2007 suicide bombing in the Parliament canteen that killed eight people, including a fellow Parliamentarian.

12 p.m. GMT (7 a.m. Washington): Pakistani Taliban leader Maulana Fazlullah has said that his forces will only extend a 10-day cease-fire this week if the Pakistani Government introduces "practical steps". The announcement undercuts Saturday's announcement by the Government that a permanent cease-fire had been agreed.

Meanwhile, the cease-fire has been further dented by the abduction of the top government official and six of his guards in the Swat Valley.

US and Iraqi troops have launched a new offensive against insurgents in Nineveh province. The province includes Mosul, where bombings and shootings have continued despite the general downward trend in violence in Iraq.

A US soldier has died in a combat patrol near Baghdad.

The US military has belatedly admitted that 13 civilians died last week in Herat province in Afghanistan in an attack which also killed three militants. US spokesmen held out against any admission until video of a dead child prompted an investigation.

Al Shahab insurgents in Somalia have attacked African Union peacekeepers. Al Shahab claimed that two suicide bombers had been sent; African Union spokesman said there was mortar fire but no suicide bombing.

Mr Obama's War: Expanding the Enemies in Pakistan

Saturday's New York Times offers confirmation that, even as he holds back from the full "surge" requested by the US military in Afghanistan, President Obama is happy to widen the battle across the Pakistan. Two missile strikes in the last week have been aimed not at Al Qa'eda or Afghan Taliban but Pakistani insurgents led by Baitullah Mehsud.

The distinction is important, especially as the media's easy label of "Taliban" across a number of religious groups obscured the distinction between Mehsud and Afghans in a Pakistan "sanctuary". The Bush Administration never authorised missile strikes against Mehsud's camps, even though, after his alleged ordering of the assassination of from Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, he was included on a list of opponents whom the CIA was authorised to capture or kill.

The Times notes that the expanded American operations are occurring even as the Pakistani Government is seeking cease-fires with Pakistani "Taliban" movements in the region, but it makes no connection between the American military effort and Pakistan's political initiative. Thus it is unclear whether the US strategy co-exists with Islamabad's effort, reaching accommodations with some local groups while striking at others, or whether it is in direct conflict with an effort to defuse tensions with insurgents. That key issue becomes even murkier in The Times' account:

According to one senior Pakistani official, Pakistan’s intelligence service on two occasions in recent months gave the United States detailed intelligence about Mr. Mehsud’s whereabouts, but said the United States had not acted on the information. Bush administration officials had charged that it was the Pakistanis who were reluctant to take on Mr. Mehsud and his network.

We are left with a footnote to watch: as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton holds a joint meeting on Thursday with Afghan and Pakistani foreign ministers, the head of the Pakistani Army, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and the head of Pakistani military intelligence, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, will meet Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Oh, yes, another little quibble with The Times story and, possibly, the Obama strategy. For The Times, the only consequences of the missile strikes are the death of 2a number of senior Qaeda figures". Nowhere does the article mention the tiny consideration that lobbing missiles at Mehsud and his followers might take out a few bystanders, as has repeatedly been the case in Afghanistan.

And, far from