CJR’s July/August issue featured a long story on Sami al-Haj, an Al Jazeera cameraman imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay with only the barest of legal review since June 14, 2002. Rachel Morris closed her piece by describing al-Hal’s decision to go on hunger strike protest the prison’s conditions, and his lack of a fair trial.
Today his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, writes in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that even though al-Haj (who once weighed 284 pounds) is looking “very thin,” the strike is still on.
Sami’s strike began 271 days ago. Medical ethics tell us that you cannot force-feed a mentally competent hunger striker, as he has the right to complain about his mistreatment, even unto death. But the Pentagon knows that a prisoner starving himself to death would be abysmal PR, so they force-feed Sami. As if that were not enough, when Gen. Bantz J. Craddock headed up the U.S. Southern Command, he announced that soldiers had started making hunger strikes less “convenient.” Rather than leave a feeding tube in place, they insert and remove it twice a day. Have you ever pushed a 43-inch tube up your nostril and down into your throat? Tonight, Sami will suffer that for the 479th time.
More on Guantanamo force feeding here, if you can bear it.
As Morris pointed out, Al-Haj, like 55% of Guantanamo inmates, has not been publicly charged—let alone found guilty—of “committing any aggressive acts against the U.S.”
It never fails to amaze me just how much “benefit of doubt” we give these shitbags. As for the force feeding, yes its terrible to read about it, they should let him starve to death.
Posted by TDC
on Fri 5 Oct 2007 at 02:39 PM
First W kills off as many "militant insurgents" as he can....
And NOW that damned Chimpy Bushitler is keeping too many peace-loving "freedom fighters" alive!...
It's enough to make me spill my iced mocha latte all over my new Che t-shirt...
How much you wanna bet that Halliburton makes the feeding tubes?...
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 5 Oct 2007 at 07:29 PM
By all means, we should take the government's word that he's guilty. If wasn't guilty, he wouldn't have been charged. Right?
One can only hope that in some way you get to experience the treatment you blow off as trivial.
Posted by AhmNee
on Sun 7 Oct 2007 at 04:39 PM
AhmNee Wrote
By all means, we should take the government's word that he's guilty.
padikiller responds
He's not "guilty" of anything...
He's our E-N-E-M-Y during a W-A-R.
That's why he's being held as a P-R-I-S-O-N-E-R O-F W-A-R
POW's do NOT get trials. They get released when the war is over.
I can't understand why moonbats can't absorb this reality.
Posted by padikiller
on Mon 8 Oct 2007 at 02:43 PM
Are you really that obtuse? So if the government declares me or you an enemy of the state for no particular reason we had it coming? It's little different than the Japanese Inturnment Camps that existed in the US during WW2. For most prisoners in them their only crime was having Japanese parents.
By your definition the government can lock away any inconvenient person for any reason during a time of war. Protesters, journalists, conspiracy theorists, anyone for nearly any reason and there's absolutely no way or need to challenge it. Being held without the ability to challenge your imprisonment is unconscionable.
Let me ask you something else. If POW's get released when the war is over ... what type of timeframe are we talking about? We're not talking about POW's of the Iraqi war. These are POW's of the "War on Terror" that's a war with no end. So, what ... 10 ... 20 years down the line when they finally get to these people ... what of the people who were mistakenly imprisoned? It happens, people make mistakes. You're alright with imprisoning someone indefinitely and then at some point saying "Oops. We made a mistake. Sorry about taking most of your life away. Off you go now."
No. People and Governments make mistakes. There must be a way for people to challenge their imprisonment because there are cases that fall through the cracks and no one deserves to sit indefinitely behind bars until someone happens to figure out there was a mistake or forbid that no one ever does and that person dies behind bars for no reason.
If you can't absorb that, it's you that needs to pull your head out of the sand and deal with reality. Even if you trust the government to do the right thing. People make mistakes and bureaucracy moves slowly if it's not pushed.
Posted by AhmNee
on Wed 10 Oct 2007 at 03:53 PM
You know what makes stories like this bullshit, is that they play only emotional strings, and they go out of their way to ignore or at best minimize the factual state of affairs.
After all, according to all the reporting on poor persecuted journalist Sami Al Haj, he has been imprisoned and starved on false charges cooked up in Cheney’s basement baby eating lair, where they render the flesh of Muslim children to make paper for copies of their evil plans … or so people like Clive Stafford Smith would like us to believe.
But the reality of the situation is that the publicy available evidence against Al Haj is quite strong.
# Sami Al Haj worked as an executive secretary for Abdul Al-Latif Al-Imran, general manager for the Union Beverage Company (UBC). The Union Beverage Company has been associated with Bosnian/Chechen mujahid.
# Sami Al Haj traveled to Azerbaijan at least eight times to courier money to the Al-Haramayn non-governmental organization (NGO) on behalf of his boss, Abd Al-Latif Omran.
# Al-Haramayn has been designated under Executive Order 13224 as an organization that has provided support to terrorist organizations.
# During the winter of 1997, Sami Al Haj delivered $7,000 USD to Al-Haramayn.
# During the winter of 1998, Sami Al Haj visited Al-Haramayn’s summer camp, and delivered $13,000 USD to Al-Haramayn.
# During November 1999, Sami Al Haj delivered $12,000 USD to Munir Al-Barguoni for a new factory in Azerbaijan; he also delivered $100,000 USD to Jamal, the Director of Al-Haramayn.
# Sami Al Haj wwas detained in Azerbaijan for the transport of $220,000 USD. The money was destined for Chechen rebels and not for humanitarian support as Sami Al Haj was told.
# After serving as the Al-Haramayn Director in Baku, Azerbaijan from 1997 to January 2000, Jiman Mohammed Alawi Al Muraai, aka Abu Wafa, took a job operating the Wafa offices in Karachi, Pakistan.
# Al Wafa has been designated under Executive Order 13224 as an organization that has provided support to terrorist organizations.
# While working at the Union Beverage Company, Sami Al Haj met Mamdouh Mahmoud Salem. Mamdouh Mahmoud Salem Abu Hajir was arrested in Germany in September 1998 and extradited to the United States. He was a senior al Qaeda lieutenant and Bin Laden’s deputy in Sudan.
# Sami Al Haj founded a company on 20 May 1999 in Azerbaijan named “SAMICO Services.”
# SAMICO documents were found during a raid of locations occupied by suspected extremists affiliated with Muhammad Rabi’a Abdul Halim Sha’ib (an Egyptian extremist).
# To register a company in Azerbaijan, authorities required that a registree have a registered business in another country. Because Sami Al Haj did not have a registered company elsewhere, he used falsified documents to register his company.
# According to Sami Al Haj, the falsified documents showed him as a co-owner of Rumat International.
# According to a Foreign Government Service, Sami Al Haj and Mamduh Muhammad Salim Ahmad, aka Abu Mu’izz, are both affiliated with Rumat International.
# Ahmed was subsequently arrested on suspicion of participating in the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
# While in Azerbaijan, Sami Al Haj came into contact with Ashraf, who ran the juice distribution business for the Union Beverage Company in Azerbaijan.
# Between 1994-1998, Ashraf Abdulrahim Ayub worked for the Kuwaiti Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS), a non-governmental organization.
# The Revival of Islamic Heritage Society has been identified under Executive Order 13224 as a terrorist affiliated organization.
# As of late March 2003, a foreign government was investigating Ashraf for possible ties to terrorism.
# On 4 January 2000, Sami Al Haj attempted to reenter Azerbaijan, but was detained and then deported from the country.
# The deportation was due to his alleged activities supporting Chechen rebels.
# In March or April 2000, Sami Al Haj left the Union Beverage Company and went to work for Al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar.
Now, I know its tough to believe any of this information is correct, after all most of it has come form the fascist foot soldiers for the ChimpHitler Reich Co’s minions, but to ignore it, as Al Haj’s sycophants have, doesn’t do much to advance this argument.
Posted by TDC
on Wed 10 Oct 2007 at 04:31 PM
AhmNee Wrote
Let me ask you something else. If POW's get released when the war is over ... what type of timeframe are we talking about?
padikiller answers
Until there's a V-I-C-T-O-R-Y..
or capitulation to the Islamofascists...
Posted by padikiller
on Wed 10 Oct 2007 at 07:09 PM
TDC wrote
You know what makes stories like this bullshit, is that they play only emotional strings, and they go out of their way to ignore or at best minimize the factual state of affairs.
padikiller notes
And THIS is the "good" reporting...
I've seen worse... The deliberate mistatement and misrepresentation of the facts to further the moonbat agenda.
Posted by padikiller
on Wed 10 Oct 2007 at 07:13 PM
Funny. Freedom and due process used to be an American agenda. Now that someone wants to play Emperor President it's up to others to see reason.
Insert Benjamin Franklin quote here.
I just don't understand how blindly someone can follow. Let me ask you something ... seriously. What would have to happen before you'd finally cry foul.
Patriot act exchanges liberties for security. Administration claims the right to lock up anyone they feel is a threat. Administration claims the right to listen in on any communications it wishes without warrants or oversight. Use of signing statements to selectively change the meaning of laws.
When does it become too much? You trust that the powers won't be misused. Alright. I'll accept that for the sake of argument. Do family members need to disappear before you think anything is wrong?
Dubya got us into a war to overthrow a totalitarian regime in a foreign country all the while turning ours into more of one.
Posted by AhmNee
on Thu 11 Oct 2007 at 12:56 AM
Let me ask you something ... seriously. What would have to happen before you'd finally cry foul.
padikiller answers
The Islamofascist bastard terrorists who are trying to take over the world would have to win the war...
And...
Some moonbat somewhere would have be to able to provide a single example of a so-called "lie" from President Bush regarding the war on terrorism (in QUOTES and in its ENTIRETY)....
You let these two things happen and I'll be pulling a Kerry-Murtha "cut-and-run" surrender call in a New Yark a minute....
Until then...
I'll have to stand behind the mission...
I was for the war BEFORE Kerry was against it (before he was for it, of course)...
And for it I remain....
Till victory....
Call me funny... But when I commit to send troops to put their lives on the line.... I stick with it...
Unlike your "Purple Heart of the Month Club" pal...
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 11 Oct 2007 at 01:16 AM
Padkiller states:
I'll have to stand behind the mission...
I was for the war BEFORE Kerry was against it (before he was for it, of course)...
And for it I remain....
Till victory....
Call me funny... But when I commit to send troops to put their lives on the line.... I stick with it...
AhmNee responds:
No matter what the cost is, apparently. American freedoms, American credibility, Trillions in wasted taxpayer dollars, privacy of American citizens and the lives of the troops you claim to care about.
I'll let you in on a secret. I was for the war to begin with, too. America put Sadam Hussein into power. I thought it was our mess to clean up. I believed the lies about the WMDs. I had heard stories about convoys leaving the areas where UN inspectors were shortly to inspect. I figured it was only a matter of time and the evidence would be found. That never came though I held onto the pipe dream longer than most people I know. I still didn't want to believe that the man I voted for in 2000 lied or led us into a war and then had no plan for what to do after. But the simple fact is he lied and you can make excuses for his doubletalk and his ommisions of truth all you want. Even if you want to believe he didn't lie himself (though he did) he's ultimately responsible for the actions of those under his command. So point fingers at whoever else you want. The responsibility for it is his as commander in chief.
We've spent millions on contractors that build a police academy that drips sewage. We've spent millions on mercenaries that murder innocent Iraqis. We've extended tours of duty and surged till we're blue in the face ... and for what? There may indeed be a way to salvage this fiasco, a way to stabilize Iraq and leave the theater in a better state then we found it. One thing is certain, however. This administration has NO idea what that way would be and wouldn't accept the sound advice on how to do so if it was given to them (and it was).
Posted by AhmNee
on Thu 11 Oct 2007 at 12:08 PM
The cost of a "cut and run" in the war on terror would greatly exceed the expense of finishing the job. As it is, all indications point to turn for the better in Iraq.
If George H. Bush or Bill Clinton had done it, it would have been even cheaper than it is now.
But the financial cost of the war is largely irrelevant. Islamofascism must be dealt with. Islamic terrorists are actively plotting to kill us and only the silliest moonbat could attempt to deny this reality. How can you put a price tag on protecting American citizens from murderous plots?
Iraq is a hotbed of Islamist terrorism and it makes a HELL of lot more sense to kill terrorists in Baghdad or Mosul than in New York or London.
This Islamist terrorism is nothing new, by the way.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had to deal with head-lopping Islamist terrorists- and the ONLY thing that worked then (and the only thing that will work now) was force. Treaties didn't work. Bribes and ransom didn't work. Capitulation and calls for enlightened engagement didn't work.
Whoop ass, on the underhand, the Islamists seem to understand. And respect.
History is the best teacher.
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 11 Oct 2007 at 08:57 PM
"Whoop ass, on the underhand, the Islamists seem to understand. And respect."
Are you showing your true colors here? Whoop ass on the Muslims (Islamists)?
Islamic terrorism may be nothing new but neither is the idea that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Notice the word Liberty there? Notice created equal? The idea is that everyone be treated with human dignity in an equal manner. "Do unto others" and all that jazz conservatives claim to be their guiding star. Thing is, this administration seems to want to dig us in and make us crawl in the dirt until we're little better than the "evil" we're fighting. Disavowing the Geneva Conventions, torturing prisoners and holding people who may or may not be enemy combatants indefinitely without charges. It's an abuse of power, morally and ethically reprehensible. Plain and simple. The government owes it to it's people to embody the best of what America stands for, not the worst of what's wrong with the world at large.
Posted by AhmNee
on Fri 12 Oct 2007 at 05:42 PM
Nobody in the Bush administration has "disavowed the Geneva Conventions"..
Nor is their a single shred of evidence to indicate that there is any policy condoning the torture of prisoners.
You must have the American military confused with Al Quaida....
Posted by padikiller
on Sat 13 Oct 2007 at 10:18 AM
"Since 2002, the administration has contended that the Geneva Conventions would be respected as a matter of policy but that they did not apply by law to terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in U.S. military custody elsewhere. Administration officials have voiced concern that the conventions are too vague and could expose the military to second-guessing about appropriate treatment.
But the Supreme Court rejected that view in a 5 to 3 decision last month, ruling that a Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo Bay could not be tried by a special military commission established by the Bush administration. The court held that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html
Play semantics all you want. The Bush administration was ready to ignore the Geneva Conventions until they were forced to by the Supreme Court.
"Nor is their a single shred of evidence to indicate that there is any policy condoning the torture of prisoners."
Other than the photo evidence from Guantanamo Bay, right? Sure the administrations says it doesn't torture. That's because they don't use that term anymore. Now it's "enhanced techniques" they use, they won't confirm or deny using blows to the head, extremes in temperature or waterboarding, and in fact, they won't even say how they themselves define torture, but we must trust that they are doing only what is necessary to protect us.
No-no. We don't torture. It'd be un-P.C. to call it that.
Posted by AhmNee
on Mon 15 Oct 2007 at 12:02 PM
AhmNee Wrote
"Since 2002, the administration has contended that the Geneva Conventions would be respected as a matter of policy.... The Bush administration was ready to ignore the Geneva Conventions..."
padikiller rings the Reality Bell
Only in McLearyland can "respecting" something as a "matter of policy" be construed as being "ready to ignore" it!...
Moonbat Math, Illustrated...
If you want to see a documented policy of REAL torture...
Here it is...
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,1783,00.html#1_0
Posted by padikiller
on Mon 15 Oct 2007 at 07:20 PM
Did you miss the contention that they didn't apply by law to the 'terrorism' suspects in custody? You pick and choose your reality pretty carefully so it doesn't conflict with your preconceptions. Instead of selective hearing, you've got selective understanding.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/carter.torture/index.html
Posted by AhmNee
on Tue 16 Oct 2007 at 11:10 AM
padikiller reiterates
Only in McLearyland can "respecting" something as a "matter of policy" be construed as being "ready to ignore" it!...
Nobody in the Bush administration has "disavowed" the Geneva Conventions...
PERIOD...
That's just the reality here...
Deal with it.
Posted by padikiller
on Tue 16 Oct 2007 at 06:47 PM
Sure, and they said that emergency spying wouldn't get abused either. Guess those cases of FBI spying abuse never really happened either.
What does "respecting as a matter of policy" mean anyway when the rules you're supposedly respecting don't "apply by law" to the prisoners you're busy "respecting"? You're either incredibly obtuse or naive. Not sure which ... but I have my theories.
Posted by AhmNee
on Wed 17 Oct 2007 at 10:14 AM