By JAKE TAPPER, KAREN TRAVERS, and STEPHANIE Z. SMITH
June 08, 2009 “ABC News”
For 7½ years, Lakhdar Boumediene was known simply by a number: “10005.”
These were the digits assigned to him when he arrived at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, swept up in a post-Sept. 11 dragnet and accused of plotting to blow up the U.S. and British Embassies in Sarajevo.
Detainee Speaks Out After Being Freed – June 8, 2009
June 08, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009 Lakhdar Boumediene speaks out after being held 7.5 years in the U.S. Torture Camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ”Gitmo”
Vodpod videos no longer available.more about “Detainee Speaks Out After Being Freed…“, posted with vodpod
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Boumediene said the interrogators at Gitmo never once asked him about this alleged plot, which he denied playing any part it.
“I’m a normal man,” said Boumediene, who at the time of his arrest worked for the Red Crescent, providing help to orphans and others in need. “I’m not a terrorist.”
The 43-year-old Algerian is now back with his wife and two daughters, a free man in France after a Republican judge found the evidence against Boumediene lacking. He is best known from the landmark Supreme Court case last year, Boumediene v. Bush, which said detainees have the right to challenge their detention in court.
Countdown-Still Bushed!: tortured prisoner Lakhdar Boumediene of Red Crescent speaks
June 08, 2009
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Lakhdar Boumediene Talks About Torture At Guantánamo
Life After Guantánamo: Lakhdar Boumediene Speaks by Andy Worthington
Guantánamo And The Many Failures Of US Politicians by Andy Worthington
My Message To Obama: Great Speech, But No Military Commissions and No “Preventive Detention” by Andy Worthington
Obama Proposes Swift Execution of Alleged 9/11 Conspirators by Andy Worthington
from the archives:
Guantánamo detainees have constitutional right to habeas corpus: Supreme Court Checks and Balances in Boumediene
Pingback: Former Gitmo detainee describes prison ordeal « Dandelion Salad
I somewhat agree with you on that – though we probably differ in our opinions of what constitutes “torture.”
My point was that Boumediene’s claims are meaningless. If he is truly an innocent victim, he will say these things. If he is guilty as the darkest sin, he will say them as well.
We’ll likely never know the truth.
Ok jonolon, the Boumediene v. Bush case was not about torture, the journalist above mentions it briefly at the beginning of his report but then talks about torture. I can see how that would be confusing. The writ of Habeas Corpus means you have the right to confront your accusers on why you are being imprisoned. That’s it.
To elaborate, the writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ is one of the few safeguards mentioned in the Constitution itself. Its not a amendment to the Constitution like the Bill of Rights (the freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or right to peacefully assemble, etc.). This writ is in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution itself, it is a core American value. If you do not believe that people have the right of habeas corpus, then you are the one that has anti-American values.
When in the case of Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court held that the review of habeas corpus applied to those people being held at Guantanamo Bay. The US government could not produce any reason WHY he was being held so he had to be released. Boumediene in his 7 years of imprisonment was never charged with a crime.
Now the dissenting opinions of on the Supreme Court held that the naval base in Guantanamo Bay was not in the US jurisdiction, it is actually Cuban soil so we did not have to grant the writ of habeas corpus.
I’ve read the entire ruling, both Roberts and Scalia wrote separate dissenting opinions. And they are listed back to back you can check them out here:
Its rare to have such a public ranting like the Scalia dissent, its full of insults, rhetorical questions, he refers to the law of Kings and rights of the Crown. While Roberts ends his argument with ” I respectfully dissent.” Scalia ends his with ” The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.” I both laugh and am stunned at the lunacy of that Supreme Court justice sitting on the highest court in our nation. Also, if you apply that argument to naval bases on foreign soil, it does create a problem:
Now as far as what OPINIONS are of torture. Your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. The law is very clear on what is and what is not torture. That’s why the Bush administration has changed that definition twice, the current definition is here as of 2008:
Signed US treaties are also US law, while the Bush administration can change these domestic term, they cannot change our treaty law. And torture use would of course apply to the law that was current at the time.
Part 1, Article 1 of the UN Convention of Torture:
The term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
As you can see jonolan, the definition of torture is absolutely clear. If your argument is that the President if above the law of the people, that since he is President he can do whatever he wants to whoever he wants, then you are holding Anti-American values and you literally hate America.
Jonolan, you are the anti-American crowd.
Yes, he says a lot of things. Of course we’ll likely never know how much of what he says, if anything at all, is true.
It’s good propaganda – truth or lie – for the anti-American crowd though; I’ll give you that.
Torture is Anti-American!
I beg to differ my friend, for torture is anti-human before it is anti-American. It’s repugnant, vile, unethical, immoral and unjustifiable, no matter how the morally misguided and ethically bankrupt right-wing republicans try to justify it. Can you imagine the jungle we’d be living in if we all believed the sickening flawed reasoning that torture saves lives, and practiced it? You might as well throw out every progress we made in terms of all kinds of rights and liberties outside the window, and just torture people to get them to give information or confess to crimes, which they will confess to whether they did it or not in order to stop the pain of torture. We can’t, out of fear, stoop to such low values and standards, or even believe that argument, for if we did, we’d be selling out our most valued and cherished principles and our very own way of life, liberty, dignity and most importantly respect for ourselves.
Walid, of course, I agree with you, I was just using Jonolan’s terminology “Anti-American” as he brought it up in his responses.