MyFox
 

caseyjones38's Blog - Just a Good Ol` Boy

by caseyjones38 from Vermilion,Oh

Last Post 1 day, 15 hours Ago


TRUTH, LIBERTY, AND JUSTICE  FOR ALL ?

By MOHAMED OSMAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 32 minutes ago

An Al-Jazeera cameraman was released from U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay and returned home to Sudan early Friday after six years of imprisonment that drew worldwide protests.

Sami al-Haj, who had been on a hunger strike for 16 months, grimaced as he was carried off a U.S. military plane by American personnel in Sudan's capital, Khartoum. He was put on a stretcher and taken straight to a hospital.

Al-Jazeera showed footage of al-Haj being carried into the hospital, looking feeble and with his eyes closed, but smiling. Some of the men surrounding his stretcher were kissing him on the cheek.

"Thank God ... for being free again," he told Al-Jazeera from his hospital bed. "Our eyes have the right to shed tears after we have spent all those years in prison. ... But our joy is not going to be complete until our brothers in Guantanamo Bay are freed," he added.

"The situation is very bad and getting worse day after day," he said of conditions in Guantanamo. He claimed guards prevent Muslims from practicing their religion and reading the Quran.

"Some of our brothers live without clothing," he said.

The U.S. military says it goes to great lengths to respect the religion of detainees, issuing them Qurans, enforcing quiet among guard staff during prayer calls throughout the day. All cells in Guantanamo have an arrow that points toward the holy city of Mecca.

Al-Haj was released along with two other Sudanese from Guantanamo Thursday. He was the only journalist from a major international news organization held at Guantanamo and many of his supporters saw his detention as punishment for a network whose broadcasts angered U.S. officials.

The military alleged he was a courier for a militant Muslim organization, an allegation his lawyers denied.

Al-Haj said he believed he was arrested because of U.S. hostility toward Al-Jazeera and because the media was reporting on U.S. rights violations in Afghanistan.

Al-Haj was detained in December 2001 by Pakistani authorities as he tried to enter Afghanistan to cover the U.S.-led invasion. He was turned over to the U.S. military and taken in January 2002 to Guantanamo Bay, where the United States holds some 275 men suspected of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban, most of them without charges.

Reprieve, the British human rights group that represents 35 Guantanamo prisoners including al-Haj, said Pakistani forces apparently seized al-Haj at the behest of the U.S. authorities who suspected he had interviewed Osama bin Laden.

But that "supposed intelligence" turned out to be false, Reprieve said in a news release.

"This is wonderful news, and long overdue," said Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's director, who has represented al-Haj since 2005. "The U.S. administration has never had any reason for holding Mr. Al Haj, and has, instead, spent six years shamelessly attempting to turn him against his employers at Al-Jazeera."

Sudanese officials said al-Haj would not face any charges.

The U.S. Embassy in Khartoum issued a brief statement confirming the detainee transfer with Sudan and saying it appreciated Sudan's cooperation.

Al-Haj's lawyers said the 38-year-old has been on hunger strike since January 2007 to protest conditions and indefinite confinement at the prison.

Attorney Zachary Katznelson of Reprieve, who met al-Haj at Guantanamo on April 11, said he was "emaciated" because of his hunger strike. and had recently been having problems with his liver and kidneys and had blood in his urine.

"Sami is a poster child for everything that is wrong about Guantanamo Bay: No charges, no trial, constantly shifting allegations, brutal treatment, no visits with family, not even a phone call home," Katznelson said Thursday.

"Sami was never alleged to have hurt a soul, and was never proven to have committed any crimes. Yet, he had fewer rights than convicted mass murderers or rapists. What has happened to American justice?"

Al-Jazeera is based in Qatar and is funded by the royal family of the Persian Gulf nation. Its Arabic channel has been excoriated by the Bush administration as a mouthpiece for terrorists including Osama bin Laden.

Wadah Khanfar, managing director of Al-Jazeera Arabic, said of al-Haj's release: "We are overwhelmed with joy."

Al-Haj was never prosecuted at Guantanamo so the U.S did not make public its full allegations against him. But in a hearing that determined that he was an enemy combatant, U.S. officials alleged that in the 1990s, al-Haj was an executive assistant at a Qatar-based beverage company that provided support to Muslim fighters in Bosnia and Chechnya.

The U.S. claimed he also traveled to Azerbaijan at least eight times to carry money on behalf of his employer to the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a now defunct charity that U.S. authorities say funded militant groups.

The officials said during this period that he met Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a senior lieutenant to Osama bin Laden who was arrested in Germany in 1998 and extradited to the United States. Officials did not provide details.

Reprieve identified the two other Sudanese Guantanamo detainees who were released as Amir Yacoub Al Amir and Walid Ali.

Reprieve also said Moroccan detainee Said Boujaadia, 39, was also released. He was flown home on the same plane as al-Haj, which made a stop in Morocco. The group said he was taken into custody in Morocco.


Bush and Iraqi Prisoner on Leash


Bush Cartel in Jail


Restoring Honor and Dignity


Fraternity Hazing

27 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 27
Page 1 of 2
1
Last
hdrider read my blog
May 3, 2008 | 8:51 AM

You make all of the Jihadist appear human. You make me sick to my stomach. I can only HOPE??

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 3, 2008 | 10:57 AM

In the eyes of God we are ALL human. You make me sick to advocate such inhumane treatment to a human being. That just reinforces their` view of us as " The Great Satan ". We are not Gods. When we treat others like this, this is NOT God`s work.

hdrider read my blog
May 3, 2008 | 3:47 PM

Let's take care of America First and let GOD sort out the other!

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 3, 2008 | 6:01 PM

Then we are not being obedient to our` God. We are not doing God`s work.

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 1:54 AM

Torture and Inhumane Treatment: A Deliberate U.S. Policy

International human rights law contains no more basic prohibition than the absolute, unconditional ban on torture and what is known as “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” Even the right to life admits exceptions, such as the killing of combatants allowed in wartime. But torture and inhumane treatment are forbidden unconditionally, whether in time of peace or war, whether at the local police station or in the face of a major security threat. Yet in 2005, evidence emerged showing that several of the world’s leading powers now consider torture, in various guises, a serious policy option.

Any discussion of detainee abuse in 2005 must begin with the United States, not because it is the worst violator but because it is the most influential. New evidence demonstrated that the problem was much greater than it first appeared after the shocking revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Indeed, the sexual degradation glimpsed in the Abu Ghraib photos was so outlandish that it made it easier for the Bush administration to deny having had anything to do with it—to pretend that the abuse erupted spontaneously at the lowest levels of the military chain of command and could be corrected with the prosecution of a handful of privates and sergeants.

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 1:58 AM

cont: As Human Rights Watch noted in last year’s World Report, that explanation was always inadequate. For one thing, the abuse at Abu Ghraib paralleled similar if not worse abuse in Afghanistan, Guantánamo, elsewhere in Iraq, and in the chain of secret detention facilities where the U.S. government holds its “high value” detainees. For another, these abuses were, at the very least, the predictable consequence of an environment created by various policy decisions taken at the highest levels of the U.S. government to loosen constraints on interrogators. Those decisions included ruling that combatants seized in the “global war on terrorism” were unprotected by any part of the Geneva Conventions (not simply the sections on prisoners of war); adopting a definition of torture that rendered the prohibition virtually meaningless; not prosecuting offenders until the Abu Ghraib photos became public, even then refusing to permit independent scrutiny of the role of senior policy makers; and making the claim, still not repudiated, that President Bush had commander-in-chief authority to order torture.

Still, it is one thing to create an environment in which abuse of detainees flourishes, quite another to order that abuse directly. In 2005 it became disturbingly clear that the abuse of detainees had become a deliberate, central part of the Bush administration’s strategy for interrogating terrorist suspects.

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 2:01 AM

cont: President Bush continued to offer deceptive reassurance that the United States does not “torture” suspects, but that reassurance rang hollow. To begin with, the administration’s understanding of the term “torture” remained unclear. The United Nations’ widely ratified Convention against Torture defines the term as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” Yet as of August 2002, the administration had defined torture as nothing short of pain “equivalent…to that…associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will likely result.” In December 2004, the administration repudiated this absurdly narrow definition, but it offered no alternative definition.

The classic forms of torture that the administration continued to defend suggested that its definition remained inadequate. In March 2005, Porter Goss, the CIA director, justified water-boarding, a sanitized term for an age-old, terrifying torture technique in which the victim is made to believe that he is about to drown. The CIA reportedly instituted water-boarding beginning in March 2002 as one of six “enhanced interrogation techniques” for selected terrorist suspects. In testimony before the U.S. Senate in August 2005, the former deputy White House counsel, Timothy Flanigan, would not even rule out using mock executions.

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 2:07 AM

cont: Moreover, President Bush’s pronouncements on torture continued to studiously avoid mention of the parallel prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. That is because, in a policy first pronounced publicly by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2005 Senate testimony, the Bush administration began claiming the power, as noted above, to use cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so long as the victim was a non-American held outside the United States. Other governments obviously subject detainees to such treatment or worse, but they do so clandestinely. The Bush administration is the only government in the world known to claim this power openly, as a matter of official policy, and to pretend that it is lawful.

The administration was so committed to this policy that, in October, Vice President Dick Cheney presented the sad spectacle of the nation’s second highest ranking official imploring the Congress to exempt the CIA—the part of the U.S. government that holds the “high value” detainees—from a legislative effort to reaffirm the absolute ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 2:15 AM

cont: While proclaiming the power to subject some detainees to “inhuman” treatment, President Bush somehow managed with a straight face still to insist that his administration would treat all detainees “humanely.” He never publicly grappled with this obvious contradiction, and in August, it became clear why. The former deputy White House counsel, Timothy Flanigan, revealed in Senate testimony that, in the administration’s view, the term “humane treatment” is not “susceptible to a succinct definition.” In fact, he explained, the White House has provided no guidance on its meaning.

The Bush administration’s effort to prevent Congress from unambiguously outlawing abusive treatment was hardly an academic matter. Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence and one of those who oversees the CIA, explained to human rights groups in August that U.S. interrogators have a duty to use all available authority to fight terrorism. “We’re pretty aggressive within the law,” he explained. “We’re going to live on the edge.”

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 2:20 AM

source - http://www.hrw.org/wr2k6/introduction/2.htm

dprin339 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 5:19 AM

if any of these "jihadists" that we "have" are terrorists that have injured even ONE American, in any way shape or form for their idiotic "holy war", then they DESERVE to be tortured over and over.

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 5:38 AM

But the key word is "IF". I agree that proper punishment including death should be administered. But I don`t agree that torture to obtain a confession is proper or humane. Under these conditions, a confession may be coerced to make the torture stop. This does NOT fit American values or standards, or God`s law. Will we allow their` barbaric actions to instill barbarism in us ?

dprin339 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 11:07 AM

yes casey IF, but remember, alot of these guys are there because we KNOW what they've already done & we just want more info from them.

and honestly, if torture is what it takes to get the info that will eventually protect US on OUR soil, then so be it.

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 11:26 AM

Princess - Is that anything like "We KNOW Iraq is responsible for 9/11"? And again I say,"Will we allow their` barbaric actions to instill barbarism in us ?" Did God destroy the world for it`s torture and subsequent death of his` son ?

polarbear_88 read my blog view my photos
May 4, 2008 | 9:36 PM

DPRIN, you're kidding right? Am I on that hidden camera show or did you just seriously say you're OK with torture? Not only is torture of ANY human being reprehensible but do you actually think that information is ture? If someone is torturing you, are you honsetly going to tell them the truth?

girlscout read my blog view my photos
May 5, 2008 | 6:37 AM

I don't know what faith dprin is, but if she is a Christian, Christianity teaches us to love everyone and turn the other cheek. Christ teaches, Love your neighbor as yourself, he does not cite any exceptions to this rule, including torture for purposes of obtaining information.

polarbear_88 read my blog view my photos
May 5, 2008 | 1:36 PM

Exactly GS!! The Christ you and I like(the Christ that helped the poor, treated others how he'd want to be treated and accepted others) would be appalled at torturing other human beings. We as human beings should be appallled that something that was once done to our own people in WWII that was called a "war crime" is now being done BY us.

Hacksaw read my blog
May 11, 2008 | 10:50 PM

I really like how all the leftists view us here in America as the villains no matter what we do or how humane we try to be in our military operations, despite the fact that many of our troops have been killed or wounded just tying to avoid or limit causing collateral damage….

But the folks who intentionally target civilians and attack our troops from hospitals, schools, mosques & other illegal places and who play dead just to ambush our forces, not to mention the same folks who will saw off an innocent non-combatant’s head, film it happening and release the gruesome video over the internet just for the shock value are all somehow viewed as helpless victims in this whole deal…..

I ask you in complete sincerity, what exactly has this country ever done to make some of you hate it so much?

caseyjones38 read my blog view my photos
May 12, 2008 | 12:22 AM

It isn`t the country we hate Hacksaw. It`s our` leaders who are making our` country something it`s not.

Hacksaw read my blog
May 13, 2008 | 5:09 AM

B.S!

As often as our brave troops who serve in harm’s way are being accused of intentionally targeting & terrorizing civilians, and committing brutal war crimes, you can’t really say that our leaders are the only ones who you folks truly despise…

After all, this country’s leadership is constantly changing, but the “blame America first” attitude of many on the left never does.

Page 1 of 2
1
Last


Write your comment below:




caseyjones38

I am 69 yrs. old and I have never seen our country in such dire straits as it is today. I was born in W.Va., Grew up in Pa. with Bobby Vinton, and ended up in Oh. Back then, when you graduated from high school in W.Va.,Pa.,or Ky., you received a diploma and a road map to Ohio. I grew up in the 50`s and 60`s, so I know what really good times in our` country were. GOD BLESS AMERICA AGAIN !

Member Since: 11/20/2007