Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: WoT |
WND : No more 'forced' interrogations at Gitmo |
2006-11-04 |
![]() Harris told visiting journalists this week that interrogations had been optional since midsummer because coercion was ineffective. The need to interrogate foreign captives who may have information about terrorist activity has been one of the chief reasons given by the U.S. government for holding – without charge or the right of appeal – suspected al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners at the Guantanamo base in Cuba since 2002. President Bush signed a law last month permitting aggressive interrogations under new rules, but they won't be used in Guantanamo because Harris says they don't work. "We don't make them talk," he said. "In fact, we don't make them go to interrogations. If you make a detainee go to interrogation, then that already is going to create an environment of potential non-cooperation." Harris, who took command at the prison camp in March, said, "They might have done it when I first got here but we don't do it now." He said interrogators relied only on "rapport building" to elicit information from detainees, some of whom had only recently begun to talk after refusing to do so during more than four years of captivity. Harris said the military had also posted notices in several languages throughout the camp informing the 430 Guantanamo captives that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions protects them from inhumane and degrading treatment and "outrages on personal dignity." Congress ordered such notices posted at detention centers "where applicable" in 2005. They were not posted previously because the Bush administration considered Guantanamo prisoners to be unlawful enemy combatants not entitled to protections granted prisoners of war under the Geneva treaties. The Supreme Court ruled in June the basic Article 3 protections applied to all detainees and the notices were posted, to considerable interest, Harris said. "Some of the detainees have told us that it's interesting I guess or they want to see more or they want to debate it, that kind of stuff – just what it is that we're posting, what does it mean," Harris said. |
Posted by:anonymous5089 |
#3 My 2 cents - the prisoners at Gitmo have either been there for a couple years or are transfers from "secret prisons" where they were ineveitably milked dry of info. In either case, I doubt there is current actionable intel that any of these drones are hiding in their lil pea brains. The CIA and Mil has learned not to send recent high-profile captures to Gitmo til they're wrung out in a black op prison somewhere else (I like that). This is strictly for PR. Sad that they have to say this shit, but ineveitable in the current "please kill us - we'll prosecute you in a court of law" attitude among the MSM, Donks and assorted leftist trash. When the big attack comes, pull out that list of enemy collaboraters |
Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-04 15:00 |
#2 I would say to Adm Harris, if you're going to be a total pussyfoot and not extract information, we don't really need Guantanamo. This thing must cost hundreds of millions per year. If we are no longer going to have ROI, shut it. We will stop taking prisoners. By far the best policy. Do whatever is needed to get them to talk, then dispose of them. No prisoners. |
Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-11-04 11:02 |
#1 No forced interrogations until legislation allows it. Could be hard after the elections, but not impossible if some Dem centrists accept the "failed state" status of Taliban Afghanistan, and don't apply any rights regime to terrorists. Frankly, protection from self and other incrimination should not be enjoyed by terrorists. |
Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-11-04 10:49 |