Red Cross Criticizes Indefinite Detention in Guantánamo Bay

Red Cross Criticizes Indefinite Detention in Guantánamo Bay


Angel Franco/The New York Times
The United States is holding more than 600 detainees at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in southeastern Cuba.


By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: October 10, 2003

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, Oct. 9 — A senior official of the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Thursday that the holding of more than 600 detainees here was unacceptable because they were being held for open-ended terms without proper legal process.

Christophe Girod, the senior Red Cross official in Washington, said on Thursday in an interview at the United States Naval Base here, "One cannot keep these detainees in this pattern, this situation, indefinitely."

Mr. Girod spoke as he and a team of officials from the international organization were completing their latest inspection tour of the detention camp. Although he did not criticize any physical conditions at the camp, which houses 660 detainees, most of them captured in the Afghan conflict, he said that it was intolerable that the complex was

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/10/national/10GITM.html?ex=1066363200&en=84261f050f6adf72&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

They have released anything on the horrorshow at Gitmo. It's ABOUT TIME! Good on you, Girod!

SNIP

Under longstanding procedures, the committee agrees that in exchange for access it will not generally publicize its findings but rather take complaints or criticisms to the government in charge in the hope that they can be addressed. Only when the Red Cross decides that its views are not being heeded does it publicize its concerns.

the ICRC does NOT go public, they have gone public TWICE
this year... this is a record and not one to be proud off

should just let the US have its way then. Let them continue the illegal torture and detention of hundreds of people without representation.

This is a gross violation of the the Geneva Convention and its rules concerning 'enemy combatants'.

I find your comment strange.

I used to be a red Cross worker.

One no-no is going public.

the fact that the ICRC has gone public is very significant.

For those of us who have worn that Red Cross and been shot at
upholding the ideals of the Red Cross this will only send shivers
down our collective backs.

I know what this means better than most Americans... it only means
the conditions in GITMO are so bad that they are going public.

the last time they had a chance to stand up... was 1942, and they
chose not to.

Sorry, but that is all I can tell you publicly... I just know that
there are many things I saw over the years that I cannot talk about.

Thank you. Now I understand. Something must be seriously wrong with Gitmo.

Most of us have heads why not use them.

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Tuesday March 25, 2003

One rule for them
Five PoWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul. What about Guantanamo Bay?
By George Monbiot

Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them".
He is, of course, quite right. Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity". This may number among the less heinous of the possible infringements of the laws of war, but the conventions, ratified by Iraq in 1956, are non-negotiable. If you break them, you should expect to be prosecuted for war crimes.
This being so, Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life.
His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

Read more.

Although one may argue that the detainees at Guantanamo are not entitled to Prisoner of War status, the fact is that they are still protected under the Third Geneva Convention. There are very few rights to which POWs are entitled that would be denied the Guantanamo detainees under the Geneva Convention.

It's so terribly unAmerican, I hope that at least one of 'em would have the guts to close it down.

Great minds....