I, Moazzam Begg, demand to be freed

[Pure]

Published on Sunday, October 3, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times

I, Moazzam Begg, Demand to Be Freed From Guantanamo

By Moazzam Begg

Moazzam Begg, 36, arrested in Islamabad, Pakistan, is one of four British citizens held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This uncensored letter addressed to U.S. officials, dated July 12, 2004, was made public by his attorneys. The Pentagon would not comment on the letter but said that "all the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo are within the standards accepted internationally."

* * * * *

I, Moazzam Begg, citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, attributed the number 00558 (camp Echo), have felt it necessary to augment … my grievances and intentions.

After over 2 1/2 years in the custody of the U.S. military without charge, and by extension, without jurisdiction, I have yet to be afforded basic rights normally granted under the constitution of the U.S.A., and international law. I therefore demand, unconditionally and irrevocably, that I be released immediately and returned to my family and domicile in the U.K., together with all possessions, including all items and monies confiscated by U.S./Pakistani "agents" from my residence in Pakistan on 31st January 2002.

In the likely event that these demands are outrightly rejected or unnecessarily procrastinated, I demand the following rights under U.S. law:

1. A thorough and peremptory explanation of all statutory rights available within U.S. legislature, particularly with respect to foreign nationals.

2. Any and all charges/allegations be presented unambiguously and written.

3. Full access to international phone calls in order to communicate with family and lawyers.

4. Full access to legal representatives of my own choice and appointment.

5. A fully inventoried list detailing all property seized (as mentioned above).

6. Regular and timely access to postal communication with family and a halt to the obscuring and withholding of mail from home.

In addition to the aforementioned rights, I make it known that I expect … reasonable answers for the following violations and abuses and intend to seek justice and accountability:

i) The exact purpose for my abduction, kidnapping and false imprisonment of [Jan. 31] 2002, under the auspices of U.S intelligence and law enforcement.

ii) Subsequently, what legal jurisdiction they had for taking me forceably to Afghanistan.

iii) By what legal authority was property and money confiscated, leaving my wife and young children destitute and penniless, in their wake.

iv) Why I was brought into a designated war zone, and my life put at risk.

v) Why I was physically abused and degradingly stripped by force, then paraded in front of several cameras toted by U.S. personnel.

vi) The reason for being held in Bagram [Afghanistan] detention facility for a year, and consequently, being denied natural light and fresh food for the duration.

vii) The exact purpose for my incarceration in solitary confinement since 8th February 2003.

viii) Why all news pertaining to my own situation has been barred from me.

ix) The justification for withholding most of my family mail and incongruent obscurance of what little amounts have trickled through — even from 8-year-olds.

x) Why phone calls and legal representation have been continually denied, despite several reassurances to the contrary.

xi) Why despite copious requests, I have yet to meet with a chaplain during all this time.

xii) What was the legality and purpose of extracting my signature on a statement in early February 2003, by FBI and [other] agents, under threats of long-term imprisonment, summary trials and execution — all without legal representation.

I state here, unequivocally and for the record, that any documents presented to me by U.S. law enforcement agents were signed and initialed under duress, thus rendered legally contested in validity. During several interviews, particularly — though unexclusively — in Afghanistan, I was subjected to pernicious threats of torture and death threats — amongst other coercively employed interrogation techniques. Neither was the presence of legal counsel ever produced or made available.

The said interviews were conducted in an environment of generated fear, resonant with terrifying screams of fellow detainees facing similar methods. In this atmosphere of severe antipathy toward detainees was the compounded use of racially and religiously prejudiced taunts. This culminated, in my opinion, with the deaths of two fellow detainees, at the hands of U.S. military personnel, to which I myself was partially witness.

In spite of all the aforementioned cruel and unusual treatment meted out, I have maintained a compliant and amicable manner with my captors and a cooperative attitude. My behavioral record is impeccable, yet contrasts immensely to what I have experienced, as stated.

I am a law-abiding citizen of the U.K. and attest vehemently to my innocence, before God and the law, of any crime — though none has even been alleged. I have neither ever met Usama bin Laden, nor been a member of Al Qaidah — or any synonymous paramilitary organization, party or group. Neither have I engaged in hostile acts against the U.S.A., nor assisted such groups in the same — though the opportunity has availed itself many a time, and motive.

Regardless of the outcome of all my appeals to sanity, and protestations over the years, I reiterate my intention to seek justice at every possible level available to me….

[Signed] Moazzam Begg

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

###

 

[Guest]

This was quite a big news story here, and I'm sad to say that I wasn't at all surprised by it.

Lou

 

[R. Richard]

Recently, a Danish citizen was released from Guantanamo. He signed documents promising to refrain from war and violence. He was returned to Denmark.

The same individual is now agitating for violence against the US and trying to get to Afghanistan to conduct jihad against US interests there. He has publically repudiated the documents he signed to get out of Gauntanamo.

The man quoted in the start of the thread is not an Afghan citizen. He is also not a citizen of the United States. He is not entitled to the guarantees set forth under the US Constitution.

The man quoted in the start of the thread is entitled to justice under the US Code Of Military Justice. He was an armed combatant in a war zone. He did not wear a uniform or display symbols of military affiliation and/or rank. His status under the CMJ is bandit. Banditry is punishable by death, usually as a result of a drumhead Court Martial. He got off easy.

JMHO.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Recently, a Danish citizen was released from Guantanamo. He signed documents promising to refrain from war and violence. He was returned to Denmark.

The same individual is now agitating for violence against the US and trying to get to Afghanistan to conduct jihad against US interests there. He has publically repudiated the documents he signed to get out of Gauntanamo.

The man quoted in the start of the thread is not an Afghan citizen. He is also not a citizen of the United States. He is not entitled to the guarantees set forth under the US Constitution.

The man quoted in the start of the thread is entitled to justice under the US Code Of Military Justice. He was an armed combatant in a war zone. He did not wear a uniform or display symbols of military affiliation and/or rank. His status under the CMJ is bandit. Banditry is punishable by death, usually as a result of a drumhead Court Martial. He got off easy.

JMHO.

The problem with that interpretation is that even under the Uniform Code a defendant has legal counsel. Even a drumhead court martial will not proceed against a defendant without an officer present to represent that defendant.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

R. Richard.

Who decides if someone is a 'bandit'?

Cite the relevant portion of the UCMJ.

If said 'bandit' is held under the UCMJ is he entitled to know the charges?

May say 'bandit' be held indefinitely without review by millitary tribunals or judges?

Cite the relevant portion of the UCMJ.

You seem quite confused about rights of non US citizens, Geneva conventions, etc.

I suppose you're of the Cheney school of thought, that the US may do whatever it pleases with captives (through declaring them unlawful combatants), and disregard the Geneva
conventions.

No doubt, in your opinion the Abu Ghraib prisoners got off easy too. Even the ones who died.

------


R. Richard said

The man quoted in the start of the thread is not an Afghan citizen. He is also not a citizen of the United States. He is not entitled to the guarantees set forth under the US Constitution.

The man quoted in the start of the thread is entitled to justice under the US Code Of Military Justice. He was an armed combatant in a war zone. He did not wear a uniform or display symbols of military affiliation and/or rank. His status under the CMJ is bandit. Banditry is punishable by death, usually as a result of a drumhead Court Martial. He got off easy.

 

[TheEarl]

R.Richard: He's a UK citizen, living in Pakistan (which is not a war zone) and therefore is neither a combatant, not a bandit. The only descriptions are either innocent or a spy/member of terrorist organisation. If the US government can prove the latter, then they should. Otherwise, he should be treated with the same rights that every UK citizen is allowed, a fair trial bbased on the principles of habeas corpus.

The Earl

 

[R. Richard]

R.Richard: He's a UK citizen, living in Pakistan (which is not a war zone) and therefore is neither a combatant, not a bandit. The only descriptions are either innocent or a spy/member of terrorist organisation. If the US government can prove the latter, then they should. Otherwise, he should be treated with the same rights that every UK citizen is allowed, a fair trial bbased on the principles of habeas corpus.
The Earl

He was captured in Afghanistan, not Pakistan (that's how you get to Guantanamo). He was either armed or a member of an armed group (that's how you get to Guantanamo). From your description, he had no right to be in a war zone. As a UK citizen (presumably of Pakistan), he would be presumed to be a combatant fighting for the Taliban or an Afghani militia. Neither ooperation uses regular uniforms, any distinctive unit or rank signs and mingle with the civilian population when not actually fighting (that's how you get to Guantanamo). Each of the activities is a violation sufficient to deny 'protected person' status.


CONVENTION (IV) RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME
OF WAR
Signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949

Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and
in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the
hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.
Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and
nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the
State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in
whose hands they are

[Note: In practice protected persons include members of other militias and
members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if
this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such
organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being
commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of
conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Else such
persons are not protected persons.]


Article 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an
individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile
to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such
rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or
saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security
of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military
security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under
the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of
trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present
Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person
under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or
Occupying Power as case may be.


820 ART. 20. JURISDICTION OF SUMMARY COURTS-MARTIAL
Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), summary courts-martial have jurisdiction to
try persons subject to this chapter, except officers, cadets, aviation cadets, and
midshipman, for any noncapital offense made punishable by this chapter. No person with
respect to whom summary courts-martial have jurisdiction may be brought to trial before
a summary court-martial if he objects thereto. If objection to trial by summary court-martial
is made by an accused, trial may be ordered by special or general court-martial as may
be appropriate. Summary courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may
prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dismissal,
dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than one month, hard labor
without confinement for more than 45 days, restrictions to specified limits for more than two
months, or forfeiture of more than two-thirds of one month's pay.

821. ART. 21. JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL NOT EXCLUSIVE
The provisions of this chapter conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial do not deprive
military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction
with respect to offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by
military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals.

824. ART. 24. WHO MAY CONVENE SUMMARY COURTS-MARTIAL
(a) Summary courts-martial may be convened by--(1) any person who may convene a general or
special court-martial; (2) the commanding officer of a detached company other detachment of the
Army; (3) the commanding officer of a detached squadron or other detachment of the Air Force;
or (4) the commanding officer or officer in charge of any other command when empowered by the
Secretary concerned. (b) When only one commissioned officer is present with a command or
detachment he shall be the summary court-martial of that command or detachment and shall
hear and determine all summary court-martial cases brought before him. Summary courts-
martial may, however, be convened in any case by superior competent authority when
considered desirable by him.

[Note: It is normal for a “drumhead” Summary Courts-Martial to be conducted by
an officer. However, it is not entirely unknown for a senior NCO to conduct a drumhead.
The normal case for an NCO to conduct a drumhead would be in conjunction with a
LRRP.]

825. ART, 25. WHO MAY SERVE ON COURTS-MARTIAL
(a) Any commissioned officer on active duty is eligible to serve on all courts-martial for the trial of
any person who may lawfully be brought before such courts for trial.
(b) Any warrant officer on active duty is eligible to serve on general and special courts-martial for
the trial of any person, other than a commissioned officer, who may lawfully be brought before
such courts for trial.
(c) (1) Any enlisted member of an armed force on active duty who is not a member of the same
unit as the accused is eligible to serve on general and special courts-martial for the trial of any
enlisted member of an armed force who may lawfully be brought before such courts for trial, but
he shall serve as a member of a court only if, before the conclusion of a session called by the
military judge under section 839(a) of this title (article 39(a)) prior to trial or, in the absence of such
a session, before the court is assembled for the trial of the accused, the accused personally has
requested orally on the record or in writing that enlisted members serve on it. After such a request,
the accused may not be tried by a general or special courts-martial the membership of which does
not include enlisted members in a number comprising at least one-third of the total membership
of the court, unless eligible enlisted members cannot be obtained on account of physical
conditions or military exigencies. If such members cannot be obtained, the court may be
assembled and the trial held without them, but the convening authority shall make a detailed
written statement, to be appended to the record, stating why they could not be obtained. (2) In this
article, "unit" means any regularly organized body as defined by the Secretary concerned, but in
no case may it be a body larger than a company, squadron, ship's crew, or body corresponding
to one of them. (d) (1) When it can be avoided, no member of an armed force may be tried by a
court-martial any member of which is junior to him in rank or grade. (2) When convening a court-
martial, the convening authority shall detail as member thereof such members of the armed forces
as, in his opinion, are best qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experience,
length of service, and judicial temperament. No member of an armed force is eligible to serve as
a member of a general or special court-martial when he is the accuser or a witness for the
prosecution or has acted as investigating officer or as counsel in the same case. (e) Before a
court-martial is assembled for the trial of a case, the convening authority may excuse a member
of the court from participating in the case. Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may
prescribe, the convening authority may delegate his authority under this subsection to his staff
judge advocate or legal officer or to any other principal assistant.

 

[Pure]

R. Richard.

It's apparent you dont know the facts of the case, but are guessing.

As to the voluminous material, it's far from clear if he could be tried by summary court martial, and in any case, it specifically excluded a death penalty, contrary to your claim.

You did not reproduce the Geneva conventions applying to this particular case, but rather the descriptions of 'protected persons.'


BUT, there was no court martial, simply indefinite detention without charges, first in Afg'n, then Guantanamo. You've produced no laws that would allow this. Indeed the Supreme Court is busy curtailing the sort of 'trust us' approach to indefinite detention, including of non citizens.

Cutting and pasting a few thousand words does not constitute making an argument; indeed it may be calculated to obfuscate.

 

[Pure]

In case anyone wants to know the basic facts about the Geneva conventions, and not just what R.Richards is parroting of Cheney and Rumsfeld, the extreme faction of the Bush administration, see the following. Note the direct quotation at the end.

Note that Colin Powell, a Republican and career military person, leader of Desert Storm, does not agree with Bush's extreme faction, nor with their self appointed spokesperson, R. Richard.

Council on Foreign Relations, a well known, non partisan, and distinguished body.

Terrorism: Q and A


http://cfrterrorism.org/responses/detainees_print.html


What is the difference between a prisoner of war and an “unlawful combatant”?

Put simply, prisoners of war (POWs) are members of organized armed forces who are entitled under international law to certain protections. "Unlawful combatants," by contrast, are members of informal armed groups rather than members of a regular army, and they do not qualify for the same treatment. For many American military thinkers, the prime past example of a force of "unlawful combatants" is the Vietcong.

Are the current detainees considered prisoners of war?

Experts and U.S. officials disagree. To be protected by the Geneva Conventions, one must belong to an organized military force fighting in a given conflict. To qualify, such forces must:


have a chain of command,
be identifiable, usually by wearing uniforms,
follow the laws of war (which usually means not targeting civilians), and
carry arms openly.

What are the Geneva Conventions?

These four documents, passed in Switzerland in the aftermath of World War II, are international treaties setting rules about the conduct of war. They form the centerpiece of humanitarian law and seek to protect people and property from the sorts of assaults endured in the fight against Nazism. Almost every country has ratified all four of the conventions, including both the United States and Afghanistan.

What do the Geneva Conventions say about the treatment of prisoners of war?
The third Geneva Convention lays out rules for dealing with POWs, who it has determined must be treated humanely at all times. This includes receiving adequate medical care and being free from physical or mental torture. POWs are obliged to give interrogators only their name, rank, date of birth, and serial number. They are also entitled to, among other things, medical attention, adequate food, sanitary quarters as favorable as their captors', the free practice of religion, mail, and release without delay after active hostilities have ended.

Do the Geneva Conventions apply to the detainees from the Taliban?

Experts disagree—largely because the Geneva Conventions were designed to cover the classical, WWII-style situation of wars between countries, rather than today's unusual campaign against shadowy terrorist networks. The Taliban's forces might still qualify as POWs, experts say; they followed a chain of command and essentially amounted to a somewhat disorganized army, though the Taliban did repeatedly violate the rules of war by attacking civilians.

Do the Geneva Conventions apply to the detainees from al-Qaeda?

Terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda normally would not meet these standards, most experts say. Al-Qaeda's militants wear no uniforms, defy the rules of war by targeting civilians, often operate independently of a direct chain of command, and often conceal their weapons. Most experts say al-Qaeda detainees would be considered "unlawful combatants," not POWs.

What happens when it’s unclear whether someone is a POW or just a detainee?

That person is to enjoy POW protection until their status is formally determined. If there's a factual question about whether the Geneva Convention applies to someone, the issue is to be decided by a "competent tribunal"—in practice, usually a panel of military officers from the capturing country. {see excerpt at end}

Do detainees who aren’t formally POWs have rights under international law?

Yes. Such detainees are still entitled to fundamental guarantees of humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions and may not be tortured or degraded, according to international law. For example, while captured mercenaries or “unlawful combatants” are not entitled to formal POW status, they still must be treated humanely. The Bush administration says that its treatment of the detainees on Guantanamo easily meets those standards, but some human rights groups and some European allies have expressed concern about conditions in the jails. An April 2002 Amnesty International report accused the United States of violating international law by confining detainees to tiny cells and preventing them from communicating with their families or lawyers.

Was the Bush administration split on how to handle the detainees?

Yes. On February 7, however, President Bush announced that the Geneva Conventions would be applied to Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan but not to al-Qaeda terrorists. Neither will be regarded as POWs. Some in the administration, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Vice President Dick Cheney, had argued that the detainees are "unlawful combatants," not formal POWs. The Geneva Conventions, they said, were never designed to apply to terrorist attacks. Granting POW status to captured al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters would mean that they would have to give U.S. questioners only their name, rank, and serial number—which could dangerously inhibit America's ability to crack open terrorist cells. If released, many of the captured terrorists would immediately seek to attack Americans, they added, so the administration should hold on to as much flexibility as possible in dealing with them.

But others in the Bush administration, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that failing to acknowledge that Geneva Convention procedures apply in this case would set a bad precedent; U.S. soldiers captured in future operations could be told that, like the prisoners at Guantanamo, they too would not receive the protection of the Geneva Conventions. Several of America's European allies have said that international criticism of America's handling of the Guantanamo detainees could erode the global coalition against terrorism, and they have urged the administration to apply the preexisting Geneva framework for treating detainees to the war on terrorism.

====
Article 5 of the Third Geneva

Convention provides:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having
committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of
the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article
4 [defining POWs], such persons shall enjoy the protection of
the present Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal.

 

[Pure]

US Court of Appeals,
9th Circuit
Opinion and Dissent

Gherebi -v- Bush & Rumsfeld

(filed Dec 2003)

Opinion by Judge Reinhardt


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/new...0005FEB65/$file/0355785final.pdf?openelement


We wish to emphasize that the case before this Court does not require us to consider a habeas petition challenging the decisions of a military tribunal–a case that might raise different issues.

Unlike the petitioners in Johnson, and even in Yamashita and Quirin, Gherebi has not been subjected to a military trial. Nor has the government employed the other time-tested alternatives for dealing with the circumstances of war: it has neither treated Gherebi as a prisoner of war (and has in fact declared that he is not entitled to the rights of the Geneva Conventions, see supra note 7), nor has it sought to prosecute him under special procedures designed to safeguard national security. See U.S. v. Bin Laden, 2001 WL 66393 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2001) (limiting access to confidential information).

Instead, the government is following an unprecedented alternative: under the government’s theory, it is free to imprison Gherebi indefinitely along with hundreds of other citizens of foreign countries, friendly nations among them, and to do with Gherebi and these detainees as it will, when it pleases, without any compliance with any rule of law of any kind, without permitting him to consult counsel, and without acknowledging any judicial forum in which its actions may be challenged.

Indeed, at oral argument, the government advised us that its position would be the same even if the claims were that it was engaging in acts of torture or that it was summarily executing the detainees. To our knowledge, prior to the current detention of prisoners at Guantanamo, the U.S. government has never before asserted such a grave and startling proposition.

Accordingly, we view Guantanamo as unique not only because the United States’ territorial relationship with the Base is without parallel today, but also because it is the first time that the government has announced such an extraordinary set of principles–a position so extreme that it raises the gravest concerns under both American and international law. [Opinion pp 45-47]
====

I believe this case has gone on to the Supreme Ct.--pure. I've not yet found that update.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As I recall, the UCMJ stands for Uniform Code of Military Justice, and is a set of laws pertaining to what is legal and not legal for members of the US armed forces to do. What does it have to do with detainees who were members of the Taliban or Al Queda?

Either the man is an unlawful combatant or a POW. In either case, the normal practice is to hold such persons until the fighting has ended. Exceptions to this practice are seriously injured persons who are returned to their homeland or prisoners who are exchanged. Neither exception fits this case.

He is obviously not being held incommunicado because he has been able to communicate. Whatever the conditions under which he is being held, they are vastly better than the conditions imposed by the Taliban or Al Queda on their prisoners. This is based on the assumption that he hasn't been beheaded.

Activities at Abu Ghraib were disgraceful and intolerable. However, they pale in comparison with what was done to prisoners held by al Sadr in what is supposed to be one of the holiest places in Islam.

 

[Guest]

... Whatever the conditions under which he is being held, they are vastly better than the conditions imposed by the Taliban or Al Queda on their prisoners. This is based on the assumption that he hasn't been beheaded.

Activities at Abu Ghraib were disgraceful and intolerable. However, they pale in comparison with what was done to prisoners held by al Sadr in what is supposed to be one of the holiest places in Islam.

So, you're talkin' "Relativity of Torture"? "Relativity of Human Rights"?

Perdita

 

[patrick1]

<< He is obviously not being held incommunicado because he has been able to communicate. >>

Moazzam Begg has been held for almost three years. No-one knows why this, the first uncensored letter to emerge from Guantanamo Bay, got through. This man has been driven half-mad by solitary confinement, yet still clings to his dignity.

I don't understand the vehemence with which some people defend the ruthless treatment of men at Guantanamo Bay. To me, if we are fighting for values, we should honour those values in our own actions. Otherwise our cause will be seen to be manifestly unjust.

patrick

 

[TheEarl]

He was captured in Afghanistan, not Pakistan (that's how you get to Guantanamo). He was either armed or a member of an armed group (that's how you get to Guantanamo). From your description, he had no right to be in a war zone. As a UK citizen (presumably of Pakistan), he would be presumed to be a combatant fighting for the Taliban or an Afghani militia. Neither ooperation uses regular uniforms, any distinctive unit or rank signs and mingle with the civilian population when not actually fighting (that's how you get to Guantanamo). Each of the activities is a violation sufficient to deny 'protected person' status.

R.Richard: I think you're missing an important coda there. He was captured in Afghanistan according to the US. He was either armed or a member of an armed group according to the US. He says he was taken to Afghanistan by the US military on trumped-up charges because they needed people to blame after September 11th.

I'm not saying the US government is necessarily lying and that this is fit-up. What I'm saying is that there is a possibility that he's innocent. There's an equally strong possibility that he's guilty, but if he is, then the US should produce some evidence.

Do we put murder suspects in prison because the police say that they killed someone? No, we give them a trial and allow evidence to decide. Habeas corpus - the basis of the English legal system.

If he's guilty, lock him up and throw away the key. But until you prove that he's guilty, then he remains an innocent man. Innocent until proven guilty - a base of the US legal system.

The Earl

 

[Boxlicker101]

So, you're talkin' "Relativity of Torture"? "Relativity of Human Rights"?

Perdita

No, Dita. I am asking why the UCMJ is being cited or even mentioned because the subject of this thread is not a member of the US armed forces.

I am also asking: Why are the US and our allies held to a standard so much higher that anybody else? Am I the only person in this forum that is even aware of the atrocities committed by al Sadr? He had his minions kidnapped Iraqi people who had displeased him, and they were taken to a very holy Islamic shrine where they were tortured and and murdered but nobody seems even aware of this. Why should this be? Why is this butcher not held to account?

I find it hard to believe that the subject of this thread was captured in Islamabad. As RR says, Gitmo is being used for prisoners who were captured in the fighting in Afghanistan. I totally don't believe he was captured elsewhere while peacefully going about his business, and then taken to Afghanistan. Whatever you think of the veracity of the US military channels, they are certainly more honest and reliable than Islamic militants who will say anything and tell any lie they think might help them kill Americans.

Assuming he was captured in the fighting in Afghanistan, he is exactly where he belongs, in a POW camp. Whether he is a POW or an illegal combatant, and probably the latter because he is not an Afghan, remains to be seen. Either way, he is not being denied mail, although it is being censored.

As for legal representation, he is not charged with a crime. He is being held as a prisoner until the combat has ended, which is the usual treatment of POW's. Are the POW's allowed to talk with representatives of the Red Cross or Red Crescent or similar organizations? They are entitled to that, but not a lot else.

Whatever the situation, I like to mention again that the conditions of this man are much more humane than any he or his cohorts would have afforded, or did afford to persons they may have captured. I realize that should not be relevant but I mention it to keep things in perspective.

 

[TheEarl]

Why are the US and our allies held to a standard so much higher that anybody else?

Because, like it or not, your government has walked into Iraq and said - this is the way that things should be done. Ignore the fact that Saddam was a genocidal fuckhead for a second and look at it in terms of bare bones. The USA have taken a look at the situation in Iraq and decided that they could do better. They have overthrown the Iraqi leadership and installed themselves as a benevolent dictatorship with the view to installing the American way of government (by which I mean a Presidential democracy).

If you are setting yourselves up as a paradigm which the Iraqis should aspire to, then you should obey the rules of that paradigm, whether you are forced to by law, or not.

Britain has been given a hell of a lot of grief over the years because of the Empire, despite the fact that British influence improved the quality of life in a lot of the colonies (not defending imperialism! Just pointing this out). Sure we killed people and crushed their cultures, but we installed proper British-style rule and improved their lot.

Is the USA doing anything different to the Imperialist 'Old-Europe.' You walked in, using superior technology to crush the previous leaders and are attempting to convince the populace that your way is better.

Just a thought.

As for legal representation, he is not charged with a crime. He is being held as a prisoner until the combat has ended, which is the usual treatment of POW's. Are the POW's allowed to talk with representatives of the Red Cross or Red Crescent or similar organizations? They are entitled to that, but not a lot else.

And when does this 'combat' finish? The war in Afghanistan ended a while ago. If the combat is GWB's 'War On Terror,' then it could last longer than his lifetime. Are we tell him that he is sentenced to indefinite imprisonment until every Islamic nation that GWB considers a threat is an American-style democracy? I'd regard that as no better behaviour than the terrorists who take hostages to try and force the US out of the Gulf.

If he is a POW, the war in which he was allegedly captured is over and he should be released. If he is a criminal, then charge him and punish him. Maybe he is guilty. Maybe he isn't. Either way, it is 'cruel and unusual punishment' to submit him to indefinite imprisonment away from his family and his home without proving a crime or allowing any chance of appeal.

The Earl

 

[patrick1]

<< find it hard to believe that the subject of this thread was captured in Islamabad. As RR says, Gitmo is being used for prisoners who were captured in the fighting in Afghanistan. I totally don't believe he was captured elsewhere while peacefully going about his business, and then taken to Afghanistan. >>

To the best of my knowledge it's uncontested that Begg was arrested at his family home in Islamabad, Pakistan, while peacefully going about his business, in front of his wife and children, by Pakistani and American forces, as has been frequently reported.

Here for instance is a link to a USA Today report.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-09-guantanamo-usat_x.htm

Here is an old BBC story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3072529.stm

He was then held at Bagram airbase before being flown to Guantanamo Bay. Nobody in the US or UK administrations has disputed frequent references to this course of events in reputable newspapers and journals like the ones I've quoted. He had previously been in Afghanistan, though he maintains he had been there to teach children.

patrick

 

[Pure]

Thanks Patrick, (note to R. Richard and Boxlicker)

I suspected that R. Richard more or less made up the 'facts' he presented. Took lessons from Cheney, or is it Rush.


RR The man quoted in the start of the thread [Begg] is entitled to justice under the US Code Of Military Justice. He was an armed combatant in a war zone.

False, he was in Pakistan, in Islamabad. Not armed. See link below.

He did not wear a uniform or display symbols of military affiliation and/or rank.

No shit. What do *you wear around the house, Sherlock?

His status under the CMJ is bandit. Banditry is punishable by death, usually as a result of a drumhead Court Martial. He got off easy.

Utter tripe.

====
He was captured in Afghanistan, not Pakistan (that's how you get to Guantanamo).

Bull shit. You're sadly misinformed. Prisoners (alleged terrorists; 'unlawful combatants') are shunted around in various secret camps, and are taken from several sources.


He was either armed or a member of an armed group (that's how you get to Guantanamo).

False. Or entirely unproven.


From your description, he had no right to be in a war zone. As a UK citizen (presumably of Pakistan), he would be presumed to be a combatant fighting for the Taliban or an Afghani militia. Neither ooperation uses regular uniforms, any distinctive unit or rank signs and mingle with the civilian population when not actually fighting (that's how you get to Guantanamo). Each of the activities is a violation sufficient to deny 'protected person' status.

I guess he was presumed to be a lot of things. Where are the charges and evidence?

R. Richard is utterly ignorant as to the facts and the laws applicable to this case.

The BBC link already posted refutes all his main factual contentions (issuing from utter ignorance of the case).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3072529.stm

----
Box,
Your paragraph below issues from what's at best woeful naivety.

I find it hard to believe that the subject of this thread was captured in Islamabad. As RR says, Gitmo is being used for prisoners who were captured in the fighting in Afghanistan. I totally don't believe he was captured elsewhere while peacefully going about his business, and then taken to Afghanistan. Whatever you think of the veracity of the US military channels, they are certainly more honest and reliable than Islamic militants who will say anything and tell any lie they think might help them kill Americans.

Right on, Box. BBC is run by Islamic militants, and its up to you and R Richard to get out the truth.

 

[Pure]

Here are some parts of the Newsweek story, which give some of the grounds for suspicion, but corroborate the claims about his arrest in Islamabad.

Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe,

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...story/08-03-2003/0001994113&EDATE=Aug+3,+2003

NEWSWEEK: 'This Is The Hardest Test I Have Ever Had to Pass in My Life, and I Hope I Have Not Caused You Too Much Distress,' Suspected Terrorist Writes to Family


Newsweek's Wolffe Traces Grade School Classmate's Journey From BritainTo
Guantanamo BayNEW YORK,


Aug. 3 [2003] /PRNewswire/ --

In a Newsweek exclusive, Diplomatic Correspondent
Richard Wolffe traces the journey of his classmate Moazzam Beggfrom Muslim student at a Jewish grade school in England to Camp Delta, wherehe is one of six detainees heading toward a military trial among 680 suspected Al Qaeda foot soldiers held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Wolffe reports in the August 11 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands August 4) that Begg, along with his wife and three young children, went to live under Taliban rule in Afghanistanin the summer before the 9/11 attacks. His family says he just wanted to help his impoverished fellow Muslims by opening a school there, but the U.S.government believes he was a part of something far more sinister. [large part snipped]



A year after the raid[in Britain], Begg flew to Iran with his wife and children before crossing into Afghanistan in July 2001. Their dream was to open a school. Once the war began in late 2001, Moazzam moved his wife and children out of Kabul to Logar province, more than an hour's drive south of the capital. When the Northern Alliance closed in on Kabul, Begg disappeared as he wasdelivering supplies in his large truck.

His wife and children slipped acrossthe Pakistani border at the end of 2001. A month later the family was reunited in Islamabad. On the night of January 31, 2002, Begg's wife Sally told him she was pregnant with their fourth child. A few hours later, Pakistani police burst into their four-bedroom house with Kalashnikovs to arrest her husband.

It would take a month before his father heard from the Red Cross that his son was in U.S. custody. Begg will now be one of the first detainees to face a military trial.

FBI documents suggest that new evidence has emerged from Begg's own confessions. "You get these things by beating him and depriving him of food," his wife Sally scoffs. "I don't believe any evidence. If they say he's a terrorist, then I'm a terrorist."

Begg's family -- including his wife and children, now back in Britain --can only communicate with him through censored letters that take four monthsto be delivered. His letter of May last year is perhaps the most honest."This is the hardest test that I have had to pass in my life, and I hope Ihave not caused you too much distress," he writes. "But I will pass this testby the will of Allah and your prayers."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here are some parts of the Newsweek story, which give some of the grounds for suspicion, but corroborate the claims about his arrest in Islamabad.

Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe,

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...story/08-03-2003/0001994113&EDATE=Aug+3,+2003

NEWSWEEK: 'This Is The Hardest Test I Have Ever Had to Pass in My Life, and I Hope I Have Not Caused You Too Much Distress,' Suspected Terrorist Writes to Family


Newsweek's Wolffe Traces Grade School Classmate's Journey From BritainTo
Guantanamo BayNEW YORK,


Aug. 3 [2003] /PRNewswire/ --

In a Newsweek exclusive, Diplomatic Correspondent
Richard Wolffe traces the journey of his classmate Moazzam Beggfrom Muslim student at a Jewish grade school in England to Camp Delta, wherehe is one of six detainees heading toward a military trial among 680 suspected Al Qaeda foot soldiers held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Wolffe reports in the August 11 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands August 4) that Begg, along with his wife and three young children, went to live under Taliban rule in Afghanistanin the summer before the 9/11 attacks. His family says he just wanted to help his impoverished fellow Muslims by opening a school there, but the U.S.government believes he was a part of something far more sinister. [large part snipped]



A year after the raid[in Britain], Begg flew to Iran with his wife and children before crossing into Afghanistan in July 2001. Their dream was to open a school. Once the war began in late 2001, Moazzam moved his wife and children out of Kabul to Logar province, more than an hour's drive south of the capital. When the Northern Alliance closed in on Kabul, Begg disappeared as he wasdelivering supplies in his large truck.

His wife and children slipped acrossthe Pakistani border at the end of 2001. A month later the family was reunited in Islamabad. On the night of January 31, 2002, Begg's wife Sally told him she was pregnant with their fourth child. A few hours later, Pakistani police burst into their four-bedroom house with Kalashnikovs to arrest her husband.

It would take a month before his father heard from the Red Cross that his son was in U.S. custody. Begg will now be one of the first detainees to face a military trial.

FBI documents suggest that new evidence has emerged from Begg's own confessions. "You get these things by beating him and depriving him of food," his wife Sally scoffs. "I don't believe any evidence. If they say he's a terrorist, then I'm a terrorist."

Begg's family -- including his wife and children, now back in Britain --can only communicate with him through censored letters that take four monthsto be delivered. His letter of May last year is perhaps the most honest."This is the hardest test that I have had to pass in my life, and I hope Ihave not caused you too much distress," he writes. "But I will pass this testby the will of Allah and your prayers."

OK, so now we know this much: In July 2001, Begg went to live under the Taliban in Afghanistan, via Iran, allegedly to operate a school. He took his wife and children with him but after the fighting started, he moved them away from Kabul. I would assume his wife is also a UK citizen. Somehow, I can't imagine any woman willingly going to live under the rule of the Taliban.

Just before the Taliban were beaten in Kabul, Begg disappeared as he was delivering supplies in his large truck. We don't know where he was or what he was doing for the next few months or what kind of supplies he was delivering. They may have been school supplies or that may have just been a cover.

His family excaped to Pakistan and he joined them in Jan. 2002. A few days later he was arrested by Pakistani troops. I can easily concede that he was actually apprehended in Islamabad but the charges against him, whatever they are, stemmed from his activities in Afghanistan during the preceding three or so months. The location of the arrest is not really relevant.

Apparently he had a high enough opinion of the Taliban to join them in July 2001. Would he have aided them in their battle against the Northern Alliance and the American coalition? Very likely but I don't know for sure, and neither does anybody else on this forum or the writer of the Newsweek article. If he was using his truck to transport men and military supplies for the Taliban, that would make him a combatant, and an illegal one, since he was a citizen of the UK.

There are other possibilities, of course. The Taliban may have taken him captive and commandeered his truck. I haven't seen any claim of this but, if that is the case, he is an innocent victim. However, given his apparent devotion to the Taliban, I believe he was a willing participant. That is strictly my HO.

I don't know all the facts of the case, and neither does anybody else here but I prefer to believe the US military over what a member of the Taliban or a sympathizer of the Taliban has told the BBC

Earl, the war in Afghanistan is not over. There are still armed Taliban at large and Mullah Omar and Bin Laden are still at large. Until the fighting stops in Afghanistan, the troops captured there, including Begg, should be held prisoner.

 

[TheEarl]

However, given his apparent devotion to the Taliban, I believe he was a willing participant. That is strictly my HO.

That's a hell of a reach Boxlicker. For a start, it says nowhere in that report that he was helping either the Taliban or the NA with his delivery of supplies. More than likely he was trying to get the fuck out of a war zone. Understandable behaviour.

Devotion to the Taliban. That's a stretch. Are Peace Corps volunteers in China devoted to Totalitarian Communism? His story (assuming that it is true) makes him a philanthropist, opening a school in one of the most poorly educated states in the world. Doesn't mean he liked the Taliban. I don't like Tony Blair and I live here.

Earl, the war in Afghanistan is not over. There are still armed Taliban at large and Mullah Omar and Bin Laden are still at large. Until the fighting stops in Afghanistan, the troops captured there, including Begg, should be held prisoner.

That's terrorism. Unfortunately you can't get away from that. However George Dubya has declared peace in Afghanistan and they are allies with the new Afghanistani government. The war is over. Now all there is are brainless lunatics with bombs.

Neither Bin Laden nor Omar are Afghanistani and I'll strongly suspect that they don't live there anymore. So why's their absence relevant?


I'm not saying that he's innocent. I'm not saying he's guilty either. I'm just saying it seems a little unfair when he is a effectively a forgotten person. The USA can dowhatever the hell they like to him. Hell they can hang, draw and quarter him and tell us that they did it for any reason. This is why there is a justice system that's open and free, so that someone can't get shafted by the system. I thought the war on terrorism was to protect freedoms and democracy.

The Earl

 

[Boxlicker101]

You are right, Earl. You don't know all the facts; I don't know all the facts and neither does anybody else who has contributed to this thread. It is entirely possible that this is an altruist who went to Afghanistan to help the children learn to read and write. The writer of the Newsweek article knew the man twenty or more years ago so he doesn't really know much about him either.

Whether you like Tony Blair or not is moot because you haven't traveled thousands of miles to serve him.

It is entirely possible that Begg went to Afghanistan to help the children there learn to read and write. It's also possible that he went there to teach and help enforce the Taliban's corrupted version of Islam. It's also possible that he was a mole in the UK who went to see Bin Laden to show him the best way to hijack airplanes so they could do the same in London as they did in New York. I am not going to say that last was his reason but I am also not going to say it wasn't, because I don't know. Neither does anybody else who could be trusted to tell the truth. I do not denigrate the veracity of the BBC but sometimes all they can do is pass along reports they receive without being able to check on their accuracy.

The remnants of the Taliban forces are more than just a few terrorists. They still have enough strength to pose a threat to any elected government. Whether Omar or Bin Laden are there or not, and we don't know that either, they still have a considerable following.

George Dubya has declared peace with Afghanistan? This is the same man who declared "Mission accomplished" over a year ago in Iraq. Since when have you believed his optimistic pronouncements?

I'm not saying he is guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm also not saying Begg is innocent. We do know that he had a large truck that would have been suitable for transporting military material or men but we don't know if it was used for that purpose. Very likely it was, and that's how the Pakistani government got onto his trail, but we don't really know anything.

 

[TheEarl]

You are right, Earl. You don't know all the facts; I don't know all the facts and neither does anybody else who has contributed to this thread. It is entirely possible that this is an altruist who went to Afghanistan to help the children learn to read and write. The writer of the Newsweek article knew the man twenty or more years ago so he doesn't really know much about him either.

Whether you like Tony Blair or not is moot because you haven't traveled thousands of miles to serve him.

It is entirely possible that Begg went to Afghanistan to help the children there learn to read and write. It's also possible that he went there to teach and help enforce the Taliban's corrupted version of Islam. It's also possible that he was a mole in the UK who went to see Bin Laden to show him the best way to hijack airplanes so they could do the same in London as they did in New York. I am not going to say that last was his reason but I am also not going to say it wasn't, because I don't know. Neither does anybody else who could be trusted to tell the truth. I do not denigrate the veracity of the BBC but sometimes all they can do is pass along reports they receive without being able to check on their accuracy.

The remnants of the Taliban forces are more than just a few terrorists. They still have enough strength to pose a threat to any elected government. Whether Omar or Bin Laden are there or not, and we don't know that either, they still have a considerable following.

George Dubya has declared peace with Afghanistan? This is the same man who declared "Mission accomplished" over a year ago in Iraq. Since when have you believed his optimistic pronouncements?

I'm not saying he is guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm also not saying Begg is innocent. We do know that he had a large truck that would have been suitable for transporting military material or men but we don't know if it was used for that purpose. Very likely it was, and that's how the Pakistani government got onto his trail, but we don't really know anything.

Very true Boxlicker, I agree. I just think that if the USA have grounds for holding him, then they should declare them. At the moment they've held him for 2 years on suspicion without providing any evidence of anything either way. They're holding him just because they want to and that's one step away from removing habeas corpus altogether.

I'll agree with Dubya being overtly optimistic about the war being over. But fact remains that he declared it over and so did the leader of Afghanistan. Therefore, technically speaking, there is no war in Afghanistan anymore. Only terrorism.

The Earl