Pentagon reveals Guantanamo names

[Matt W]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4771774.stm

The US defence department has released the names and nationalities of some of the inmates detained at its Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. However, the names do not appear as a simple list - they are buried within 6,000 pages of documents posted on the Pentagon's website. They are transcripts of tribunals in which the 500 detainees were screened and their combat status assessed. The transcripts have been released before, but with the names blacked out. The files have been released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Associated Press. It is the first time most of the names have been made public.

[rmnunez]

I think its interesting the US high command allegedely defered on publication out of concern for the welfare of the families of captives and note only about 60 wanted to have their names published and divulged. Hopefully the military's concern is without basis and no harm will come to the kin of identified suspects of terrorism, but some of these kin live in fairly inhospitable places for terrorists. Chalk one up for Human Rights Watch and the similarly-challenged.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Which poses an interesting question to me.

If what we have accomplished is such a big blow to "secrecy" by the government, is this withheld information so great it becomes dangerous?

I detest the idea of torture for the lack of good results produced from it, but I do not call force-feeding a sign of torture.

WWJT?

[rmnunez]

There is a genuine possibility adverse consequences could flow from releasing the names of suspects held as terrorists. Presumably these suspects would have evidence relating to their comrades at arms, both at home and possibly with Al Qaeders in Afghanistan or wherever they got caught. Some governments have even less respect for human rights than even the US. Maybe in one of those emirates, Pakistan, China, the ex-Soviet stans... reprisals or vengance could be taken against relatives of people suspected of terrorism. Likely afiliation with a terrorist group means something different to neighbors, police, members of the military, local authorities, government officials and functionaries, who could seek some intelligence of their own from next of kin. We've been led to believe the US has withheld this information to difficult the captives' legal defense, we can only hope that was the only reason.

[Scribbler1]

According to my paper this morning the information is coming out little by little and when enough of it does come out there may be a good deal of damage control involved. I read where one guy was picked up because he wore a watch that was also used as a bomb timing device and another fought with the Taliban but had no problem with the US. I'm guessing that a LOT of these prisoners will be innocent and sue the hell out of the US in the near future. Unless Rummy figures a way to keep them quiet of course.

[rmnunez]

Would the US be "amenable" to a suit from a wrongfully held former captive, maybe a "class action"? Would the basis of such claims be constitutionally-defined (US) jurisdiction? What would happen if a claim were brought by some former captive before the ICJ? I'd expect the US would reject jurisdiction and that's all there's to it. If the claim were brought before the ICC, the US withdrew its ratification of their charter and would also reject jurisdiction. Would the US Supreme Court take the claim?

[Scribbler1]

I'm sure that possibilty has been discussed in the administration. Bush is probably the only one who doesn't know what he will do if it comes down to lawsuits.

[rmnunez]

Seems the possibility the US would defend against a claim from ex-captives depends on the US Supreme Court taking a case. If it is held the Supreme Court is part and parcel of the Bush administration, then no real risk emerges. If the Supreme Court is autonomous and not in lockstep with Bushian stormtroopers, then enough justices might get together to accept a claim.

Terrorist suspects or political refugees?

Fearing militants or even their own governments, some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay from China, Saudi Arabia and other nations do not want to go home, according to transcripts of hearings at the US prison in Cuba. Uzbekistan, Yemen, Algeria and Syria are also among the countries to which detainees do not want to return. The inmates have told military tribunals that they or their families could be tortured or killed if they are sent back. Inmates have told military tribunals they worry about reprisals from militants who will suspect them of cooperating with US authorities in its war on terror. Others say their own governments may target them for reasons that have nothing to do with why they were taken to Guantanamo Bay in the first place.

Released captives face reprisals at home for several reasons; some governments might be complicit with the US, some might seek to gain US favour by demonstrating their harshness against suspects, some have domestic terrorist concerns and apply their own dynamic. If the governments receiving them were models of political tolerance, there remains a likelihood former comrades wouldn’t be as accepting, particularly if they viewed release with suspicion.

A man from Syria who was detained along with his father pleaded with the tribunal for help getting them political asylum -in any country that will take them. "You've been saying 'terrorists, terrorists.' If we return, whether we did something or not, there's no such things as human rights. We will be killed immediately," he said. "You know this very well."

Which country would volunteer to take ex-detainees as political asylees? Doing so would look like a slap in the face to the US government. Saying people the US regards as terrorist suspects are actually political refugees also suggests there is merit to whatever is held to animate terrorist conduct.

In the case of one group of prisoners, Muslims from western China known as Uighurs, the US has struggled to find a solution. A military tribunal has determined that five are "no longer enemy combatants" and can be released from Guantanamo Bay. The US agrees they could face persecution back in China but so far has not found a third country to take them. For now, the Uighurs are being kept at Camp Iguana, a privileged section of the prison with televisions, stereos and a view of the Caribbean. A Uighur told a military tribunal that he feared going back to China so much, he considered trying to convince the panel that he was guilty, according to a hearing transcript. "If I am sent back to China, they will torture me really bad," said the man, whose name did not appear in the transcript. "They will use dogs. They will pull out my nails." Two of the Uighurs are appealing a federal judge's rejection of their request to be released in the US, where a family in the Washington suburbs has offered to take them in.

The Uighur case seems a bit different to me. Here there could be an argument terrorist suspects are part of a struggle for self-determination which is recognized as a fundamental human right. I doubt any of the suspects from China could successfully advance this claim since none were caught in China and self-determination, when pursued internationally by force is terrorism.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/06/D8G6CJV03.html