Freed Swede Says He Was Tortured in Guantanamo

CoffeeMug · 2004-07-14T21:03:59

Quote:Original post by RaduprvI think that is an urban legend.Not the particular case I'm talking about. It's not about "some guy", coming from "some other guy", so this story isn't just hearsay but comes from first hand account. I'm pretty sure that person wouldn't lie.Quote:Original post by RaduprvNo one that I know was tortured in Romania (which had pretty much the same regiem as USSR) for not paying their bills.If someone is picked up by the cops in russia, they're legally allowed to hold him for 48 hours (I think they can get a 48 hour extension by the judge). From hundreds (even thousands) of first hand accounts, people ARE being tortured, regardless of their crime in question.Quote:Original post by RaduprvAlso, even if this is true, most likely the guy invented a crime just to get away from the torture.No, he brought them to the body and showed them the crime scene. This crime was definetly not made up.

GDNet Lounge Community

Started by ManaStone July 14, 2004 03:14 PM

48 comments, last by CoffeeMug 19 years, 10 months ago

Michalson

1,657

July 14, 2004 03:54 PM

Quote:Original post by Avatar God
Quote:Original post by CoffeeMug
Well, he's probably not lying about the tortures (although if they're really used against terrorists I think they're farely humane). He probably is lying about his innocence. I just refuse to believe our military is dumb enough to waste resources on obviously innocent suspects.
And I should like to add that I find it hard to believe that the military didn't at least *think* that he was not innocent. I really really hope they wouldn't knowingly detain and torture an innocent man or woman.

Look at Abu Ghraib. According the army's won estimate after an investigation, more then 50% of the thousands of Iraqi's held and tortured there where completely innocent. What was happening there, and at other US prisions, was that soldiers where broadly picking people up at night (neighbor doesn't like you? He just tells the America's your bad and they take you away without question). Once they got to the prison no one bothered to check out peoples cases. Many of the thousands now released simply rotted in a cell for months - no one bothered to question them once or check out why they where there.

CoffeeMug

852

July 14, 2004 04:02 PM

Quote:Original post by Michalson
The guy in field picks up someone or the person is transfered to them from a corrupt local. That guy in the field has no way to judge whether the person is a terrorist or not, he's a soldier, not an investigator. So he just signs thinking that now the higher ups will figure out if the guy should be held.

Considering the situation, this seems very reasonable.

Quote:Original post by Michalson
The guy is recieved at Guantanamo, where they assume he must be a terrorist to have gotten there, and try and extract information. If they get none, they assume its because the guy is holding out and so they simply push harder.

I don't know... You're talking about professional interrogators. I've heard from first hand accounts that Russian interrogators are capable of cracking almost everyone in less than three days without the use of especially elaborate torture methods. Furthermore, they say 99% of the time it's painfully evident if someone is guilty of crime in question or not but they go through the interrogations anyway. Oftentimes much older, long forgotten crimes come out that way (one guy was picked up for not paying his bills and at the end he ended up confessing he murdered someone many years ago: a murder nobody knew about).

Considering it takes the russians about three days (from what I heard that doesn't hold true if the suspect is especially trained, but then they use other techniques that give very quick results), I can't believe americans would torture someone for over two years trying to extract information. Either A) the US military is a worthless piece of crap B) americans torture innocent people for fun or C) all suspects are lying. To me all three choices seem equally improbable, so I guess I missed something...

defmacro.org

Zorodius

259

July 14, 2004 04:17 PM

It's better to torture ten innocent civilians than let one guilty man go free!

... wait, that's not the rule of thumb at all, is it?

I don't have any reason to doubt the man's story, when considered in conjunction with all the other things I've heard about Guantanamo, like the account of someone who was placed inside as an informant.

You don't need to be "professional" to be sicced on someone as an interrogator in the US Army. The yokels from Abu Ghraib are proof of this.

You don't need to vote for the "lesser of two evils"! Learn about Instant Runoff Voting, the simple cure for a broken democracy!

Raduprv

997

July 14, 2004 04:31 PM

Quote:Original post by CoffeeMug
Oftentimes much older, long forgotten crimes come out that way (one guy was picked up for not paying his bills and at the end he ended up confessing he murdered someone many years ago: a murder nobody knew about).

I think that is an urban legend. No one that I know was tortured in Romania (which had pretty much the same regiem as USSR) for not paying their bills. Also, even if this is true, most likely the guy invented a crime just to get away from the torture. That happens a lot, which is why the torture is innefficient.

On Topic: If this isn't a violation of the international law, then wtf is?

Eternal Lands (free, Open Source MMORPG)

Drewish

300

July 14, 2004 04:36 PM

The use of torture doesn't really surprise me, I mean, I wasn't under the impression that they were handing out lollipops over there. This story just further proves our military's incompetence in the war on terror.

Raduprv

997

July 14, 2004 04:38 PM

This is not just incompetence, this is a violation of the Geneva Convention, so they are guilty of warcrimes (killing, torturing and raping civilians).

Eternal Lands (free, Open Source MMORPG)

Drewish

300

July 14, 2004 04:42 PM

Quote:Original post by Raduprv
This is not just incompetence, this is a violation of the Geneva Convention, so they are guilty of warcrimes (killing, torturing and raping civilians).

Indeed, but that's not a new developement. You'd think that the military would at least accomplish something while they're breaking these laws, but no, they just dig themselves into a deeper hole.

thebolt00

181

July 14, 2004 05:01 PM

Even if he wasn't tortured (although i cannot see any resonable motive he would have to lie about that), and independent of if he was guilty or innocent USA broke the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Article 10 and 11 says

Quote:
Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

There are extemptions from this in Geneva Convention related to prisoners of war. However, the geneva convention also says that there must be an official declaration of war (from at least one of the parties), or otherwise the whole concept of PoW is void.
One bigger problem here is that USA use the term "illegal combatant", a term that does not exist in any international threaty..

So at least as far as i can see the international law that applies is "the UN Declaration on Human Rights" and thus Guantanamo is illegal (independent of if the people there is inocent or not)

To make a conclusion.. my view is that
Guantanamo is illegal, and the people there should be brought to trial. If they are guilty of crimes, as USA says, of course they should be sentenced, however nobody is guilty before a _court_ says so. Those who cannot be brought to trial, or not found guilty by a court must be released.

-Mårten

honey

156

July 14, 2004 05:01 PM

Quote:Un-fucking-believable. One would think that they would want a little evidence before they start locking people up and torturing them for over two years.

don't forget, US Americans don't need evidence or anything other nations need - they are superior to the rest of us, they determine what is right or wrong, they make the rules, they torture around and say if we do it, it is alright, it is only bad if other nations do that to Americans ....

balla_the_king

100

July 14, 2004 05:13 PM

Just a question: What did Ghezali do in Afghanistan during a war if he is a swede?

Freed Swede Says He Was Tortured in Guantanamo

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Freed Swede Says He Was Tortured in Guantanamo

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines