A Torture Debate Among Healers

Email Print Share

Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo

Posted on Apr 9, 2008

By Amy Goodman

Imagine, a candidate for president who, a year or so ago, no one would have considered electable. Now the person is the front-runner, with a groundswell of grass-roots support, threatening the sense of inevitability of the Establishment candidates. No, I’m not talking about the U.S. presidential race, but the race for president of the largest association of psychologists in the world, the American Psychological Association (APA). At the heart of the election is a raging debate over torture and interrogations. While the other healing professions, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, bar their members from participating in interrogations, the APA leadership has fought against such a restriction.

Frustrated with the APA, a New York psychoanalyst, Dr. Steven Reisner, has thrown his hat into the ring. Last year, Reisner and other dissident psychologists formed the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology in an attempt to force a moratorium against participation by APA members in harsh interrogations. During the initial phase of this year’s selection process, Reisner received the most nominating votes. He is running on a platform opposing the use of psychologists to oversee abusive and coercive interrogations of prisoners at Guantanamo, secret CIA black sites or anywhere else international law or the Geneva Conventions are said not to apply.

The issue came to a head at the 2007 APA annual convention. After days of late-night negotiations, the moratorium came up for a climactic vote. We saw a surreal scene on the convention floor: Uniformed military were out in force. Men and women in desert camo and Navy whites worked the APA Council of Representatives, and officers in crisp dress uniforms stepped to the microphones.

Military psychologists insisted that they help make interrogations safe, ethical and legal, and cited instances where psychologists allegedly intervened to stop abuse. “If we remove psychologists from these facilities, people are going to die!” boomed Col. Larry James of the U.S. Army, chief psychologist at Guantanamo Bay and a member of the APA governing body. Dr. Laurie Wagner, a Dallas psychologist, shot back,

“If psychologists have to be there in order to keep detainees from being killed, then those conditions are so horrendous that the only moral and ethical thing to do is to protest by leaving.”

The moratorium failed, and instead a watered-down resolution passed, outlining 19 harsh interrogation techniques that were banned, but only if “used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm.” In other words, this loophole allowed, you can rough people up, just don’t do permanent harm.

Immediately after the vote, Reisner spoke out at a packed town hall meeting:

“If we cannot say, ‘No, we will not participate in enhanced interrogations at CIA black sites,’ I think we have to seriously question what we are as an organization and, for me, what my allegiance is to this organization, or whether we might have to criticize it from outside the organization at this point.”

Reisner and others began withholding dues. Prominent APA members resigned, and the best-selling author of “Reviving Ophelia,” Mary Pipher, returned her APA Presidential Citation award. After several months of bad publicity and internal negotiations, an emergency committee redrafted that resolution, removing the loopholes and affirming the outright prohibition of 19 techniques, like mock executions and waterboarding.

When I asked Dr. Reisner, the son of Holocaust survivors, why he would want to head the organization that he has battled for several years, he told me: “If I have this opportunity to make a change, I have a responsibility to do it. I never had the intention of being involved, but the only way to ensure this be changed was by claiming the democratic process in the name of human rights and social-justice issues. I was hoping that mass withholding of dues and mass resignations would shame the APA to come to its senses. It made them take a big step but didn’t go far enough.”

He expanded: “American people are sick of the reputation of the United States as torturers, as people who abuse prisoners. American people want to see a restoration of values from war to health care. I think what happens in the APA should point to a direction for the whole country.”

The APA’s annual meeting is this summer, in Boston. Expect interrogation to be the major issue confronting the members gathered there. Final voting for the APA president starts in October. The APA and the United States will determine their next presidents at about the same time. In both elections, a thorough debate on torture should be central.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 650 stations in North America.

Meet Amy and co-author David Goodman as they speak about their new book, Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times. See tour.democracynow.org for tour dates and details.

© 2008 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate

Denial of Food & Medicine - a WAR CRIME

INDICTMENT AGAINST SRI LANKA

Sri Lanka's Genocidal War - '95 to '01

Denial of Food & Medicine - a War Crime says Professor Paust

"...Under human rights law, there is a recognised right to adequate and available food......whatever the full contours and permeations of the right to food might be, it is clear that it constitutes a violation of the human rights law to deny adequate food to a given population. Moreover, it would be especially unlawful and egregious to deny the right to adequate food as government tactic to control certain persons or as a weapon of war. The most egregious violations include denials of food and medicine or medical supplies, especially for children.… If food is likely to be used by both the general population and enemy combatants, the destruction or denial of food, in circumstances where one can reasonably foresee that the general population will suffer, will necessarily involve the indiscriminate use of food as a weapon. [these] denials also violate related prohibitions under the laws of war, and constitute serious war crimes... Fear of food falling into the hands of enemy combatants is not an excuse for denying food to the civilians... starvation even of enemy combatants, seems necessarily inhumane because it involves unnecessary and lingering death and suffering.."

---

Professor Jordan J. Paust in an Essay published in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law in May ’98 (titled 'The Human Rights to Food, Medicine and Medical Supplies, and Freedom from Arbitrary and Inhuman Detention and Controls in Sri Lanka') stated:

Introduction

"Are the denial of adequate and available food and the denial of adequate and available medicine and medical supplies violations of human rights law? This Essay demonstrates that such denials are not only violations, but are quite serious violations of basic human rights.

Such denials of food or medicine and medical supplies tend to be among the most egregious types of human rights violations, since those who can least afford to suffer tend to be victims. Usually only the poorest of the poor, the displaced, the infirm, the disabled, and children suffer from such calculated or foreseeable inhumanity. The denial of food or medicine and medical supplies can lead to slow, painful, inhumane deaths - not among enemy combatants and official elites, but among the poor, the disadvantaged, and children. It is particularly egregious for any person to use the denial of food or medicine and medical supplies as a governmental tactic or political weapon. All such denials must be exposed and opposed. ..

In a given context, denials of these types also violate related prohibitions under the laws of war termed "human rights in times of armed conflict. and constitute serious war crimes. It has long been recognised that there is a Civil war occurring in Sri Lanka that has reached at least the level of an insurgency"- thus implicating common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention ... (Indeed).. It is more appropriate to consider that the armed conflict (in the island of Sri Lanka) lasting more than a decade in which the Tamil people are fighting for self-determination has reached beyond an insurgency as such and implicates Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions...

Common Article 3 reflects customary international law, and several tenets of customary international law are mirrored in Protocol II.. Human rights norms are also mirrored in the Geneva Conventions. For example, common Article 3 requires that the government treat "humanely" all those "taking no active part in the hostilities. Moreover, common Article 3 expressly provides that it shall be prohibited "at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons" to engage in cruel treatment" of such persons as well as "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The protections found in common Article 3 and in Protocol II reach a state's own nationals....

In case of an armed conflict of an international character, common Article 3 continues to apply as a customary set of minimum standards....As explained below, there are several allegations and recognitions with respect to the denial of food, the denial of medicine and medical supplies, and the denial of freedom from arbitrary and inhumane detention and controls, implicating common Article 3 and Articles 16, 23, and 24, as well as various articles in Protocol II.

Moreover, if specific intent to commit these types of denials is shown, the denials can even constitute international crimes of genocide. These international crimes implicate not merely individual responsibility, but also the duty of the government to seek out, arrest, and initiate prosecution or extradition of those reasonably accused of such crimes...

As demonstrated in this Essay, there are serious allegations and significant recognitions of human rights violations in Sri Lanka relating to the right to adequate food, the right to adequate medicine and medical supplies, and the right to freedom from arbitrary and inhumane detention and controls. Such denials are sustained by governmental censorship, denials of access to certain areas for investigative purposes, and intimidation of non governmental organisations (NGOs), which in turn involve violations of the human right to transnational freedom of speech. Moreover, these denials are sustained by the lack of adequate governmental investigations, arrests, and prosecutions of alleged perpetrators - patterns that facilitate an air of impunity...

---

Denial of Adequate Food

"There are several serious allegations and significant recognitions of failures of the government of Sri Lanka and its officials, officers, and agents to provide adequate and available food to populations in northern regions, including allegations that crops have been intentionally destroyed.

There are also allegations that these failures are often deliberate: that the failure to provide adequate food is used as political tactic or weapon of war against non-combatants in the northern regions for various purposes. Such purposes allegedly include the intent to break down civilian support processes so that the civilians are forced to move to detention centres or government controlled areas; the intent to assure suffering, insecurity, and thus, instability in various regions; the intent to engage in punishments or reprisals against unsympathetic civilians and the intent to keep food out of the hands of insurgent forces.

There are also allegations that, if not deliberate, the government's failures to provide adequate and available food are the result of government policies pursued in the context of known starvation and malnutrition, despite the high likelihood that such polices will result in further starvation and malnutrition....

Under human rights law, there is a recognised right to adequate and available food......whatever the full contours and permeations of the right to food might be, it is clear that it constitutes a violation of the human rights law to deny adequate food to a given population. Moreover, it would be especially unlawful and egregious to deny the right to adequate food as government tactic to control certain persons or as a weapon of war. The most egregious violations include denials of food and medicine or medical supplies, especially for children.…"

"If food is likely to be used by both the general population and enemy combatants, the destruction or denial of food, in circumstances where one can reasonably foresee that the general population will suffer, will necessarily involve the indiscriminate use of food as a weapon."

"[these] denials also violate related prohibitions under the laws of war, and constitute serious war crimes... Fear of food falling into the hands of enemy combatants is not an excuse for denying food to the civilians... starvation even of enemy combatants, seems necessarily inhumane because it involves unnecessary and lingering death and suffering.."

---

Denial of Medicine and Medical Supplies

"There are several serious allegations -and significant recognitions of failures of the government of Sri Lanka and its officials, officers, and agents to provide adequate and available medicine and medical supplies to populations in northern regions. As in the case of the denial of food, there are allegations that these failures are often deliberate and constitute a political tactic or weapon of war. Similarly, there are allegations that even if the government's acts are not deliberate, some of these failures are the result of governmental policies pursued in the context of inadequate supplies of medicine and medical supplies and, thus, with highly foreseeable consequences that these policies will result in greater shortages and the denial of medical care...

... within the 1997 (US State Department) Sri Lanka Country Report, however, one finds a shocking confirmation of war crime policies and activities with respect to medicine and medical supplies… War crime policies are further documented in the 1998 (US State Department) Sri Lanka Country Report…

More shocking is the (US State Department) recognition that, ‘the government refused to permit relief organisations to provide medical attention to wounded LTTE fighters.

....Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, in addition to its general duty of humane treatment and prohibition of cruel treatment" noted above, contains the specific requirement that "the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for." The government's refusal of medical treatment of wounded insurgents is a violation of common Article 3

Moreover, the intentional failure to provide adequate medicine, other medical supplies and medical treatment or a policy of denial and neglect involving similar and foreseeable consequences would violate the prohibition of "cruel treatment" and the duty to treat civilians "humanely."

Further, these government actions would constitute humiliating and degrading treatment" of those forced to suffer the lack of adequate health care, and they would constitute a clear violation of the duty to collect and care for those who are wounded or sick.

As the authoritative commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC} adds, the duty to respect and protect the wounded and sick is "a categorical imperative which cannot be restricted. Therefore, the intentional withholding of medicine and medical supplies from LTTE controlled areas, as recognised by the State Department, is a clear violation of common Article 3 and a war crime.

This is true whether or not medicine and medical supplies were foreseeable destined solely for use by enemy combatants or enemy wounded and sick. Medicine and medical supplies are neutral and protected property in time of armed conflict, and may not be withheld.

In the case of an armed conflict of an international character, additional protections relating to medicine, medical supplies, and medical treatment and facilities are recognisable. For example, Article 38 of the Geneva Civilian Convention recognises the right of protected persons "if their state of health so requires, [to] receive medical attention and hospital treatment."

Article 23 adds the general duty of signatories to the Geneva Convention to allow, the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores."

In occupied territory, as recognised in Article 55, there is a "duty, of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population" and, "in particular, [to] bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate. Article 56 adds: "To the fullest extent of the means available to it . . . [there is a] duty of ensuring and maintaining . . . the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory. Again, medicine and medical supplies are considered neutral property and may not be diverted even from enemy hands.

Among the fundamental guarantees listed in Article 75 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions is the prohibition of "violence to . . . health, or physical or mental well-being of persons. Among the fundamental guarantees listed in Article 4 of Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, applicable in case of an armed conflict not of an international character, one also finds the prohibition of "violence to . . . health and physical or mental well-being of persons. The use of medicine and medical supplies as a weapon of war would certainly thwart the policies that lie behind the prohibition of violence to health and wellbeing.

---

Conclusion

"...The pattern of behaviour established by the government’s refusal to allow non-governmental and HRTF investigations, as well as the refusal to adequately investigate denials of human rights, coupled with evidence of government impunity, constitute circumstantial evidence of the policy of denial of rights noted in all three sections of this Essay...

Serious violations of basic human rights and humanitarian law occur in Sri Lanka when food, medicine, and medical supplies are used as political weapons.

Those least able to cope, especially children, are the primary victims of such criminal tactics. Such details must be exposed, and the (US) Country Reports should address the misuse of food and medicine, and medical supplies in Sri Lanka and wherever else such illegal weapons are employed...

Under Article 56 of the U.N.Charter, members have a legal obligation to respect and ensure respect for human rights such as the rights to food and basic medical care. Similarly under the common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, signatories have an obligation to respect and to ensure respect for Convention precepts "in all circumstances".

It is time for the international community to recognise that, in addition to medicine and medical supplies, food should always be treated as neutral property during an armed conflict. Because of highly predictable consequences, both short term and long term, food should never be used as a weapon of war.

Moreover the international community should strive to assure that corridors for the free passage of food and medicine and medical supplies are negotiated or imposed during any armed conflict. For the children and others who suffer, criminal and civil sanctions are inadequate and come too late, if at all." (Courtesy: Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 31;Number3:May 1998)

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, at its 25th meeting held on 13 May 1998 declared:

"7.The Committee expresses its grave concern regarding the situation of an estimated 800,000 displaced persons, many of whom have been living in temporary shelters for the past 15 years, because of the armed conflict, and who lack basic sanitation, education, food, clothing and health care. It is reported that Tamil families who were forced by the military to leave their ancestral villages in the Welioya region are among these displaced persons.

8. The Committee is alarmed by the results of an independent survey estimating the incidence of under nourishment of women and children living in these shelters to be as high as seventy percent.... ." (Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the Report submitted by Sri Lanka under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant - E/C.12/1/Add.24, 13 May 1998)

Urgent Activism!! Dieing Guantanano man needs our help!

As in Germany during the Holocaust, the United States is determined to destroy all evidence of WAR CRIMES through the systematic destruction of human beings.

Speak out NOW, enough people have died at Guantanamo already.

YOU can make a difference. Please do not turn away and do nothing. This man and his family deserve your support. The US presidential candidates do NOT, not any of them. Please try to keep your focus on the targets where you can make a difference; this is just such a case. DON'T let the abusers get away with this - write today.

Virginia Simson

AL-GHIZZAWI AND A PERSONAL CALL FOR ACTION (updated)

(I have had requests for a fax number for the judge so that letters can be more timely... as that number is in the public domain I have added it at the end of this post...)

Many of you have asked me for an update after that horrible news that Al-Ghizzawi was told by a doctor at the base that he has AIDS. I had a Reply due today in the District Court in DC and I have spent the week focusing on that document. It is now filed and I am waiting for "clearance" by the government before I can post it.

Immediately after I received Al-Ghizzawi's letter I sent an email to the government attorney who refused to tell me whether or not the report was correct. I filed with the Supreme Court but Chief Justice Roberts denied my emergency motion... I still had no word from the Government on the AIDS report... I filed back in the District Court (where this battle for medical treatment began more than 18 months ago). District Court Judge Bates ordered the government to respond by February 15th and asked them to update the Court on Al-Ghizzawi's medical condition. Finally in a typically snide response the government admitted that Al-Ghizzawi does not in fact have AIDS (the fact that the governmen waited this long to admit the truth...if it is the truth... only convinces me that this was a psychological game being played on Al-Ghizzawi... ) but anyway if it is true the good news is that Al-Ghizzawi does not have AIDS.

I say "if it is true" because what came out in the governments response is the fact that they have admitted in this same response that they have known for 18 months that Al-Ghizzawi's liver condition (from hepatitis B) is worsening... perhaps dramatically (they will never say anything directly) and they have not treated him... The affidavit makes clear that the medical staff at guantanamo does not have a clue how to diagnose or treat hepatitis and liver damage.... at the cost of Al-Ghizzawi's health.

Soon I will be able to post my response and even though much of it is legalize and many of you are not lawyers.... you can figure it out.

And now it is time for Judge Bates to understand that many people are concerned with Al-Ghizzawi's health. Will you write him?

Please keep your letters polite and to the point...

but let him know that this is not just about one person....

but about the dignity of a nation of people who care about what is being done in our name...

and how this reflects on our nation as a whole...

And if you are so inclined to write please do it soon...

all of the documents are in this very capable judge's hands as of right now....

and I am off on Monday to visit with Al-Ghizzawi for for two days and how nice it would be to tell him that there was a groundswell of support for his cause by the people of the world.

The Honorable John D. Bates
United States District Court Judge
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse
333 Constitution Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 354-3433 fax)

Posted by The Law Office of H. Candace Gorman

The Law office of H. Candace Gorman is a small civil rights/human rights law firm in Chicago that is representing two Guantánamo Bay detainees pro bono. This weblog will provide updates on developments concerning the plight of the detainees and the ongoing injustice of current U.S. detention policies in the "War on Terror."

ABDEL AL GHAZZAWI aka Al Ghizzawi

By dazeylin 0 Comments

Categories: "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", Afghanistan, Bagram, Bounty, Detainee, Guantanamo, Military Tribunal and URGENT Health Issue Tags: Afghanistan, Detainee, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, Guantanamo, Health issue, URGENT.

• Nationality: Libyan
• Residence: Afghanistan
• Married, one young daughter
• Arrested December 2001 (Sold to US Troops) in Afghanistan
• Currently Held: Guantanamo Bay

URGENT UPDATE (health)

NEW UPDATE: 2/21/2008 Judge Bates to rule on emergency motion - WRITE TO JUDGE BATES! (Click for letter & Address/Fax)

NEW UPDATE: 1/30/2008 Judge Roberts refuses an emergency motion for health records for Mr. Al-Ghizzawi… see article (end)

Click here to read the rest of ABDEL AL GHAZZAWI aka Al Ghizzawi

ShareThis

Sphere: Related Content

Background

Abdel Al-Ghazzawi was born on November 8, 1962. He is just 45 years old, from Tripoli, Libya. He is married to an Afgani woman and has one daughter who does not remember him. He was trained as a meteorologist, but at the time of his arrest he and his wife ran a small shop in Jalalabad that sold honey and spices, and which they expanded to include a bakery.

In the fall of 2001 when U.S. Forces began bombing near his city, he took his wife and young child and fled their home and shop to go to seek safety in a rural area of Northwest Afghanistan where his in-laws lived. Not long after they arrived, around December of 2001 armed men came to his in-laws door and demanded the “Arab”. Abdel A-Ghazzawi cooperated in order to avoid any harm toward his family. At that point he was sold to U.S. Forces in return for a bounty under a program that the U.S. Government commenced which provided large sums of money (bounty) for “terrorists and murderers”. See photograph top.

Al-Ghazzari is neither a murderer nor a terrorist but was a victim of greed in an impoverished nation. He has been held in Guantanamo Bay since 2002.

He is in very poor health, which deteriorates day after day (details to be discussed with u in person). He has a family that is in desperate need of him.” - from another detainee and the only word coming out of Guantanamo about Mr. Al-Ghazawwi in his first four years.

Urgent: An Innocent Man is Dying [Updated]

I cannot improve on what was written on this page. Please visit the page for the full story of Abdul Al-Ghazzawi.

Combatant Status Review Tribunal (From Wiki)

Initially the Bush administration asserted that they could withhold all the protections of the Geneva Conventions to captives from the war on terror. This policy was challenged before the Judicial branch. Critics argued that the USA could not evade its obligation to conduct a competent tribunals to determine whether captives are, or are not, entitled to the protections of prisoner of war status.

Subsequently the Department of Defense instituted the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The Tribunals, however, were not authorized to determine whether the captives were lawful combatants — rather they were merely empowered to make a recommendation as to whether the captive had previously been correctly determined to match the Bush administration’s definition of an enemy combatant.

Al Ghazzawi’s pro bono attorney, H. Candace Gorman, reports that Al Ghazzawi had two Combatant Status Review Tribunals.[2] According to Gorman, when she acquired a copy of his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, she learned:

1. His first Tribunal unanimously determined there was no evidence that he had ever been an “enemy combatant”.
2. A second Tribunal was convened in Washington DC, five weeks later, in the absence of Al Ghazzawi and his Personal Representative, which unanimously determined he was an “enemy combatant”, based on secret evidence.
3. When Gorman visited the secure site where the attorneys of the Guantanamo detainees can review the classified evidence she found that his secure file did not contain any new evidence. All the documents in his classified file had already been made public. The only difference between the classified and unclassified versions was that names that had been redacted in the unclassified version, were in the clear in the classified version.

When captives participated in their Tribunals their transcripts were normally included among the body of documents that Department of Defense was under court order to release.

Earned mention in the “No-hearing hearings” study

According to the study entitled, No-hearing hearings, Al Ghazzawi was one of the captives who had new Tribunals convened, in his absence, when the initial Tribunals determined that they should never have been determined to have been enemy combatants”.[3]

The study quoted from the Legal Sufficiency Review from James R. Crisfield, the Tribunal’s legal advisor:

“On 24 November 2004, a previous Tribunal [unanimously] determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Detainee #654 was not properly designated as an enemy combatant.
On 25 January 2005, this Tribunal, upon review of all the evidence, determined that detainee #654 was properly [unanimously] designated as an enemy combatant.

URGENT NOTE: Mr. Al-Ghazawwi is suffering from Hepatitis B, Tuberculosis and needs proper medical treatment immediately.
US Supreme Court rejects request for health files of ailing Guantanamo detainee

2008-01-29 23:26:56 -

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court turned down a lawyer’s request Tuesday for immediate access to the medical files of a Guantanamo prisoner who says he has AIDS.

Chicago attorney H. Candace Gorman said she needs access to her client’s records as she wages a legal fight to make sure he gets adequate medical treatment at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo, Cuba.

The court rejected the request without comment. Gorman had said earlier this month that her client, Libyan prisoner Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi, told her in a letter that a Guantanamo doctor had diagnosed him with AIDS.

Gorman said Al-Ghizzawi, who has been held at Guantanamo without charges since June 2002, appeared seriously ill when she visited him in December but has not been able to confirm whether he has AIDS. She said she previously confirmed he had tuberculosis and Hepatitis B.
The U.S. military has declined to comment on Al-Ghizzawi’s health, citing privacy restrictions, or to say whether any detainees have AIDS. Officials insist, however, that all prisoners have access to complete medical treatment.

The U.S. holds about 275 men at Guantanamo on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida or the Taliban and says it plans to prosecute about 80.

A 68-year-old Afghan detainee died from cancer at the prison Dec. 30, and four prisoners have committed suicide.

John Lennon and Mr. Al-Ghizzawi: Two Peas in a Secret Pod

A Legal Limbo

‘Ask Me About Guantánamo’ …by H. Candace Gorman

Suicide and Spin Doctors

Candace Gorman’s Guantanamo Blog

PROJECT TO ENFORCE THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS Please subscribe to them to keep abreast of the issue. [action]

Andy Worthington’s Guantanamo Files Blog

!!WRITE TO JUDGE BATES! (Click for letter & Address/Fax)!!