Email This to a Friend
Dubious UN ‘Expert’ Misrepresents Guantánamo — Again
Is the United States holding enemy combatants or just those who were "in the wrong place at the wrong time"?
The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, last week called for his own country, Austria, and other European countries to take in Guantánamo detainees as refugees. In fact, Nowak has been campaigning to have the Guantánamo Bay prison camp shut down for years now and his proposal that EU countries should accept detainees as refugees is nothing new. Nonetheless, it was for some reason deemed newsworthy by the Associated Press, which devoted an article to Nowak’s demands under the title “UN envoy: Nations must take Guantanamo inmates.”
The article refers to an interview that Nowak gave to the Austrian public radio broadcaster ORF [German link]. In the interview, Nowak insisted that it was a misconception to regard the detainees in general as dangerous. “Very, very many” of them, he said, were simply “in the wrong place at the wrong time” when they were taken prisoner in Afghanistan or Pakistan during the first stages of the war in Afghanistan.
One particularly well-informed commentator who does not agree with Nowak’s assessment happens to be none other than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the former Osama bin Laden lieutenant who is widely reputed to have been the “mastermind” of the 9/11 plot. In a Combatant Status Review Board hearing held at Guantánamo Bay on March 10, 2007 (transcript here), Mohammed –- or “KSM,” as he is commonly known -– willingly embraced his own designation as “enemy combatant.” Using terms remarkably similar to those employed by the UN official, however, he contested the appropriateness of this designation for many of his fellow detainees and pleaded for their release. “…[W]hen we say we are enemy combatant, that right. We are,” KSM said. “But I’m asking you again to be fair with many detainees which are not enemy combatant. Because many of them have been unjustly arrested. Many, not one or two or three.”
Unlike Nowak, however, KSM did not say that the Guantánamo detainees in question had simply been “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” On the contrary, he explicitly states that they had come to Afghanistan for the purpose of fighting against American forces.
When America invaded Afghanistan, they just arrive in Afghanistan cause the[y] hear there enemy. They don’t know what it means al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden or Taliban. They don’t care about these things. They heard they were enemy in Afghanistan. They just arrived. As they heard first time Russian invade Afghanistan. … [T]hey don’t know what is going on. They just hear they are fighting and they help Muslim in Afghanistan.
In other words, KSM denies that the “unjustly” detained inmates are members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. He does not deny that they were in Afghanistan to fight. As opposed to the longstanding al-Qaeda or Taliban members, these were recent volunteers who came to Afghanistan in order to fulfill their religious duty to join the jihad against the American invaders. KSM also suggests that some unaffiliated Afghanis and Pakistanis joined the battle on the spur of the moment.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
John Rosenthal’s writings on European politics and transatlantic relations have appeared in English, French, and German in such leading publications as Policy Review, Les Temps Modernes, and Merkur. He holds a PhD in philosophy and he taught political philosophy and classical German philosophy before turning to journalism. More of his work can be found at Transatlantic Intelligencer.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
18 Comments
1. BERLET98:GWB, WATERBOARDING, AND AMERICA’S FUTURE
And so the end is near for George W. Bush’s two terms as President of the United States, after eight years of uneasy peace and bloody war, of unprecedented economic success and financial meltdown, of consolations and controversies, of applause and derision.
All in all, and regardless of distorted and biased reports from the liberal mass media, Bush 2 hasn’t had all that bad a run.
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard listed Bush’s ten greatest achievements, citing as his first accomplishment his refusal to buy into the Kyoto Accords on the man-made global warming fraud, a policy which our new president will no doubt reverse to the great detriment of the United States. That Bush decision must be considered a very notable if only temporary accomplishment because of that anticipated reversal.
However, Bush’s second great success, according to Barnes’ estimation, should be at the top of any list of GWB’s great deeds.
As Barnes writes of Bush’s second great achievement, ”Second, enhanced interrogation of terrorists. Along with use of secret prisons and wireless eavesdropping, this saved American lives. How many thousands of lives? We’ll never know. But, as Charles Krauthammer said recently, ‘Those are precisely the elements which kept us safe and which have prevented a second attack.’ ” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp).
One of the few who were subjected to waterboarding was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “mastermind” of 9/11, . . .
(Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)
Jan 13, 2009 - 10:22 am 2. BackwardsBoy:Our enemies a laughing at us while we debate the status of foreign fighters who do not adhere to the rules of the Geneva Covention.
Jan 13, 2009 - 10:48 am 3. Craig:Their stated goal is using our own assets to defeat us. After finding and utilizing “useful idiots” in the media to twist the truth and make us doubt ourselves, their next goal will be to use our own legal system against us in the prosecution of war.
Weak-willed politicians will let them invade our court system, encouraged by the army of lawyers’ lobbyists who stand to make a great deal of money defending foreign fighters who just happened to be in “the wrong place at the wrong time”, on the battlefield, shooting at our troops.
“UN Expert”?
Isn’t that like: Jumbo Shrimp, Only Choice, Deafening Silence & Boneless Ribs?
Jan 13, 2009 - 11:38 am 4. Leatherneck:The U.N. is full of secular humanists Globalist who hate these United States. They should be moved to Europe where their agenda of Global government, lack of morality, and their New Age Lucis Trust religion belongs.
The building could be turned into apartments for the poor.
The U.N. calls for Americans to be disarmed. I say come and get them.
THIS IS SPARTA!
Jan 13, 2009 - 2:46 pm 5. ReConUSMC:63 OUT OF 512 HAVE BEEN KILLED IN COMBAT THAT HAVE RETURNED TO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTIAN ….. MORE COULD BE KILLING OUR MEN BUT WE DON’T KNOW WHO THEY ARE SINCE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN KILLED OR CAPTURED (AGAIN ) …
Jan 13, 2009 - 3:16 pm 6. Maverick:Every soldier who served and engaged enemy combatants will tell you, whoever is holding a weapon and is in a battlefield area is an enemy combatant. There are no site seeing tours. Anyone wanting to play war and then puts their weapon down is considered an enemy combatant. There are no I just want to go home when an enemy combatant is captured on the battlefield. Nor are there anyone just walking around out to get a breath of fresh air. No innocent civilians remain in areas where they know there’s going to be an engagement with American troops. Our troops know who the fleeing civilians are and who remains to engage our troops. Without giving it away, we are there before they hear us coming. Like my TI told me, get in and get out without them knowing you were there. Believe me if they’re in Gitmo, they deserve to be there. Once on the move, our troops don’t have time to pick up innocent civilians.
Jan 13, 2009 - 6:01 pm 7. Leatherneck:Hey pretty boy ReconUSMC, and Maverick!
Thanks for your service to our country!
Jan 13, 2009 - 6:15 pm 8. Kathy L.:If Obama closes Gitmo, I think he should take the terrorist criminals presently confined there to Chicago. They would feel at home there with the terrorists, criminals, and miscreants he surrounds himself with.
Jan 14, 2009 - 5:56 am 9. Paul - Indiana:Re #8. Nice thought, Kathy. Alternately, Hawaii
Jan 14, 2009 - 7:50 am 10. shandee:Paul & Kathy L. I vote San Francisco.
Jan 14, 2009 - 8:04 am 11. FC:Maverick:
Believe me if they’re in Gitmo, they deserve to be there.
So why has the Bush Administration released 500 of them ???
Jan 14, 2009 - 8:09 am 12. Jude:I’ll say it again that the military base at Guantanamo should be closed and moved to the United States Airforce Base in Greenland. Problem solved!
Jan 14, 2009 - 8:38 am 13. Are you kidding me?:Why is the option not being explored that they be tried by a military court for their crimes and then punished accordingly…possibly put to death? That way the burden of their “care” is no longer an necessity and no other country has to worry about having to “welcome” them.
Jan 14, 2009 - 9:32 am 14. DonJoe:They are not American citizens, why are we so worried about giving them all the advantages that come with that status? Why don’t the people that are so worried about these terrorists be forced to welcome them into their own homes and we’d see how quickly they would change their minds!
I find it ridiculous that the American people have become so squeamish in the name of political correctness – the most effective message we could send to the rest of the people that think blowing up the U.S. is a good idea would be to just start killing the ones we capture – who cares if they think it will get them 70 virgins in Shangri la or wherever, at least we wouldn’t have to worry about them trying to kill Americans anymore. Or maybe we should just widely publicize the idea that those who are captured will be treated in the same way that our P.O.W.’s are treated, I’m sure that would make a few them think twice.
You don’t offer someone tea and cake bent on murdering you in your home, you kill them first – seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Close Gitmo and stop “torturing terrorists by water boardings?” Hmmmm………..
Well here are some of the tactics of those who are being sooo… mistreated in geitmo.
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/beheadings-r-us/
Jan 14, 2009 - 9:33 am 15. Pat J:Maverick:
Jan 14, 2009 - 1:37 pm 16. ThinkingPerson:Believe me if they’re in Gitmo, they deserve to be there.
——————————–
So why are some of them not charged with anything?
Pat J….It will be obvious the crimes that the detainees committed when Obama opens the gates and gives them their freedom to do it AGAIN to the US and other victims around the planet. Shouldn’t take long I’d think. Once they hit the ole sands of home, hand ‘em a gun and see how long they stay “innocent” once again.
Jan 15, 2009 - 7:50 am 17. Paul - Indiana:On second thought I think the bums should be incarcerated closer to home. Turn them loose on an island in the West Aleutians and let them compete with the local wildlife. I’m sure that Allah will help them.
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:49 am 18. Pat J:It seems Nowak just today urged the U.S. to pursue former President Bush and former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld on charges they authorized torture and harsh interrogation techniques. Wow.
Jan 21, 2009 - 10:50 am