I express my appreciation of the work of Clive Stafford Smith; those of us who still believe in old-fashioned values of human decency owe him and his team a great deal.

The problem is that our government continues to be at the beck and call of the US; it lacks the guts to oppose and criticise. This behaviour led us into the Iraq catastrophe and continues to erode our historic values.

When we become an independent nation again, perhaps things will change; but not until.

"The BBC's revelations about prisoner abuse at the US prison at Bagram airforce base in Afghanistan are the latest in a long line of revelations about abuse at US prisons around the world."

Once again, this author distorts the facts in propagandistic manner.

The BBC makes it clear that these are allegations only.

The BBC article goes on to say:

The Pentagon has denied the charges and insisted that all inmates in the facility are treated humanely.

Why does Clive Stafford-Smith so completely distort the BBC's article in this manner? One gets the idea that he is not interested in the truth and obtaining justice at all.

Clive

Thank you for this and for your valuable work.

B

PresidentD

.

## The BBC article goes on to say: The Pentagon has denied the charges ##

.

Well that f***ing confirms it doesnt it? I was swithering ..but now ... :)

B

Why does Clive Stafford-Smith so completely distort the BBC's article in this manner?

At a guess itd be...

We saw the pictures from Abu Ghirab
We saw pictures from Guantanamo
We read the torture memos
We heard the accounts of the people who were tortured.

And suddenly it seems a fair bet that these 'accusations' are right on the money.

Parts of the US military and intellegance services have behaved abominably. Dont be so shocked when people beleive the worst of them.

Why is Britain conniving? When the big dawg barks, the poodle jumps. Or else, it can't hang out with the big dawg.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

'U.S. abuses prisoners allegation'. Stand by for more compensation claims against the U.K.

Why is Britain conniving at the evil work of the US's secret site in Afghanistan where rendered prisoners are routinely abused?</

Why would Britain behave any differently? The interests of Britain are in line with the interests of American imperialism. It has nothing to do with a lack of ethics or morals. People should stop acting shocked and start getting angry.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

@ Why is Britain conniving? When the big dawg barks, the poodle jumps. Or else, it can't hang out with the big dawg.

And don't you forget it!

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Are you two foolish enough to automatically believe the statements of the Taliban?

You really are gullible, aren't you?

Egad! The Taliban has infiltrated the government of the USA!

The bastards have faked photos of torture, had it published and then had the government confirm that it happened!!!

Does their villany know no bounds?

There have been reports of torture at Bagram for years.Given whats happened under US jurasdiction for the past few years are you really so surprised that these accusations have a ring of credibility to them?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Well the guys doing the alleging don't appear to have had their hands or feet cut off. Don't appear to have been hung from a crane and stoned to death. Don't even appear to have suffered a public flogging.
All policies they advocate, not as criminal excesses, but as the legal norm.
Far be it from me to question their concern for human rights, but do I detect just a hint of hypocricy here?
Perhaps CSS will act as the advocate for the next poor bugger captured by the Taliban and report back on how their experiences compare.

On the other hand, he could read Conor Foley's little missive from yesterday, in which he opined that we shouldn't judge other societies by our supposed standards of rights. Since both he and CSS have consistently argued that violence is endemic to US culture, any violence they might have perpetrated is simply the cultural norm, which we have no right to criticise.

The left learned long ago that if you repeat a lie often enough, some gullible people will start to believe that lie.

So... no answer then?

Just a cheap smear?

Good chap.

Its very clear now that Obama is not the rescuing angel many still believe he is. On many issues he is an improvement on Bush, but on maintaining the American Empire and World hegemony he is hardly better. He delivers lots of huff and puff, but his behaviour is simply continuity, and that is especially where torture, detention without trial, killing civilians with drones, and illegal occupation of other countries are concerned. His withdrawal from Iraq is a con. More than half the forces will remain, redefined as "trainers", which is obviously a lie, and the US will maintain the largest military base in the world in Iraq. He agrees with the use of military tribunals. The fact that torture is continuing unabated in Guantanemo was exposed weeks ago by Jeremy Scahill. The Obama continues the policy of extraordinary rendition (sending victims to be tortured overseas). He refuses to release the torture photo catalogues. He has assured the torturers in the CIA that he will protect them from prosecution. He refuses all efforts to have an inquiry into the Iraq invasion. He defends Bush, Cheney et al from all investigations and prosecutions. He refuses to release secret Bush papers. In other words, on all these issues he is a Prime Shit, and he has offended millions of progressives who voted for him.

So why should we be surprised to hear today that the Obama regime is proud of the Bagram Prison, just after these horrible revelations leaked through. What many people dont know is that Rumsfeld set up hundreds of these prisons in puppet states around the world, and Obama is keeping all of these secret...meaning they are still open and torturing god knows how many people, most of whom were handed over to the US by bounty hunters.

But Labour has never apologised for its adoration of George Bush and all his works. So why should it distance itself from Obama's continuation ? The Labour Government of the United Kingdom is the only regime in the world, other than Israel and the Marshall Islands that has been consistently supportive of Bush's foreign policies and their continuation under Obama. They have never once distanced themselves unambiguously from this disgusting association, and that is why Labour will be obliterated at the general election, and that is the only acceptable outcome. I hope they emerge smaller than the Lib-Dems. When the left in Labour rediscover their testacles and do something about their party, there may be hope. But, my god, they have done precious little in the last ten years and their credibility is seriously compromised, and they will go the way of the leadership they have appeased.

Bagram and Guantanamo are just the tip of the iceberg.

Closing down Bagram will simply involve another flight of detainees to another location.

Choosing between Bagram and some dungeon in Egypt is no choice at all.

If i'm hanging upside down by my testicles, i don't suppose i'd give a toss where i was.

i don't see how closing Bagram will make any difference whatsoever. There are hundreds of these hideous places, and dozens of governments more than happy to facilitate them.

The policy needs to be scrapped. The locations are neither here nor there.

Berchmans

"Clive

Thank you for this and for your valuable work."

Amen to that.

So how long will I have to wait before we'll have CIFers who will defend unlawful detention and a spot of torture ("these people will do it to OUR troops, so they totally deserve it!").

Now, despite what some here might think (and I define the word "think" rather loosely here, since it implies some degree of intelligence), this is not a "left" or "right" issue; the key principle is, should the United States adhere to the foundations of international law - right of habeas corpus and a fair trial?

I remember during the days of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was reviled -- and rightly so -- for their treatment of prisoners in gulags. Why is the United States repeating the mistakes of its ex-arch-enemy?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

"...the key principle is, should the United States adhere to the foundations of international law - right of habeas corpus and a fair trial?"

Vetinari, there is no "international law" which guarantees the right of habeas corpus and a "fair trial".

VETINARI --Fair trial presumes a violation of criminal law. The law regarding the current situation is still evolving. If your question was posed in the form of should the United States be subservient to what you call "international Law" which on Cif includes the ICC which is less relevant to America than Mr. Potatohead, my answer would be no. By the way can you provide me with the legal citations requiring writs of Habeas Corpus and Fair trials? As far as your comments about using the term "think" loosely? Boo f'in hoo.

Vetinari, there is no "international law" which guarantees the right of habeas corpus and a "fair trial".

By the way can you provide me with the legal citations requiring writs of Habeas Corpus and Fair trials?

Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"

Article 5 of the same: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention"

Fair trial presumes a violation of criminal law

Pretend I'm not a lawyer or a law student. Explain this to me in terms that an average person can understand.

@Robofluffer
I'd have more sympathy for Stafford Smith if he was taking the government to task over the two British contractors butchered in Iraq, and the remaining hostages.

Clive Stafford Smith is a Lawyer specialising in Miscarriages of justice and human rights violations NOT hostage negotiations.

God Clive you are sounding like a mad mullah yourself, evil America? Let's look at some really evil regimes and get some balance into the anaylsis..............state murdering people on the street in Iran, genocide in Rwanda....Political prisoners in China.... the US might be full of chumps and far too comfortable for their own good but evil???? Obama would be most offended, give the bloke a break.

@morpork

British citizens being decapitated while the government looks on passively. Isn't that an infringement of their human rights then ?

Away and bile yer heid.

"Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention"

vetinari, none of that applies to POWs or unlawful combatants, which is what we're talking about here.

Is that simple enough for you?

@Robofluffer
Total infringement of human rights but wtf can a lawyer do about it?
And as we have a govt that will not compromise with hostage takers(and are you asking them to?) what is the point in a lawyer lobbying our govt? As if Twat Brown can do anything!

God Clive you are sounding like a mad mullah yourself, evil America? Let's look at some really evil regimes and get some balance into the anaylsis..............state murdering people on the street in Iran, genocide in Rwanda....Political prisoners in China.... the US might be full of chumps and far too comfortable for their own good but evil???? Obama would be most offended, give the bloke a break.

"Yeah what we did is bad, but the other guy is even worse" is not a moral or valid excuse. I can't steal someone's wallet and go, "I may be a thief, but THAT guy is a rapist, so you should totally let me off"

Besides Vetinari, the US ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with reservations, meaning that it really doesn't apply to the US, or if it does it applies with caveats that US specifies.

But even that's a moot point, because the US holds the US Constitution superior to that of any so-called "international law".

Great article. Thank you Mr Stafford-Smith. And for those suggesting that since the Taleban are evil bastards, our coming down to their level and just arresting anyone we suspect of being on their side and torturing them, as well as doing away with such fripperies as evidence or trial, is fine and dandy, is that the standard we hold ourselves to? So when do we introduce compulsory burqas and stoning for adultery? I thought we had things like habeus corpus because we were slightly more advanced than theocratic and other thugs, but apparently not.

And since we're going after nasty regimes, when are Obama or Gordon going to speak out against Mubarak in Egypt rather than cosying up to another of the most odious regimes around? But then I keep forgetting, our tyrants are okay, it's the other guys who are evil baddies.

"I thought we had things like habeus corpus because we were slightly more advanced than theocratic and other thugs, but apparently not."

Habeas corpus does not apply to POWs or enemy combatants, Clunie.

And there is no credible evidence whatsover that these men have been "tortured". Are you one of those gullible enough to accept the Taliban at their word?

British citizens being decapitated while the government looks on passively

So tell me, the people that are being held in Bagram, which one of them are the ones that are doing the head-chopping?

How do you know they did it? Customarily, someone accused of murder is put to trial to determine guilt -- and of course, the trial have to be fair, which includes access to lawyers and not dunking people's head in water.

And even if you can point the one or two guys that did it, why keep the other 598 people with them? Are they all head-choppers?

vetinari, none of that applies to POWs or unlawful combatants, which is what we're talking about here.

I'm pretty sure the quotations that I put up says "everyone" not "everyone except POWs or illegal / unlawful combatants". You might think it's a minor point, but legal texts are awfully specific about these things.

But even if I'm wrong about that, consider these:

Now, if these people are POWs, they are entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention, which means no torture, visits by the Red Cross, et. al.

As for "illegal combatants", I assume you mean "someone who dresses up like civilians but behaves like a soldier, i.e., shooting and bombing and whatnot". Now, that is a crime, and I'm not denying that. But if it's a crime, then put him to trial to assess the extent of his guilt -- after all, if the Taliban is holding his family hostage and goes, "go kill the Americans or we'll kill your parents", you can't hardly blame the guy for doing it, can you?

Allow me to pose a question completely devoid of sarcasm (yes, surprising, I know) - what is the point of detaining someone without trial? I mean, really, does it serve a particular useful purpose?

VETINARI -- In America the right of a fair trial only applies in criminal cases. The military has its own code of justice for soldiers and enemy combatants. Foreign combatants don't fall into either category under our law. The UN declaration of rights seems to have exceptions, most notably capital punishment. In additon, rights can and are often forfeited.

Now of course being a conservative American I am not as wonderful as y'all on the left over on the continent, but the torture issue doesn't make me lose sleep at night, probably because my concerns in life tend towards the tangible and mundane - staying safe and winning as opposed to the intangible - being morally superior.

the US holds the US Constitution superior to that of any so-called "international law".

Interesting for you to say that, because as I remember it, the Bill of Rights does mention the right of habeas corpus, speedy trial and the prhobition of "cruel and unusual punishment".

Now before you say, "oh, the US Constitution does not apply to non-citizens", consider this:
1. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does the word "citizen" appear, and
2. the jurisdiction of the US Consitution applies to everyone within US soil. That is why you can't lock up illegal immigrants in your basement if you catch them sneaking over the border.

But even if we were to ignore such legalistic niceties, consider this: habeas corpus and right to trial are all very good things. They are the cornerstone of any civilization -- Western or otherwise. Why would we deny them to these people -- and then condemn human right abuses of other countries with a straight face?

I can understand suspension of these rights in times of grave emergencies -- and last time I checked, the Taliban hasn't established a beachhead in the US yet.

In additon, rights can and are often forfeited.

I agree with that. But suspension of rights require a strong cause.

So what's the reason we're suspending the rights of these detainees? Or to put it in a more specific way, what is so important about these detainees that we can't handle them via normal channels?

probably because my concerns in life tend towards the tangible and mundane - staying safe and winning as opposed to the intangible - being morally superior.

Didn't your own statesman once said, "those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither, and will lose both"?

Well, to each his own, although personally I think being frightened of an "enemy" with no air force, navy or decent infantry is a bit childish.

@Vetinari no, that is not what I am saying at all.

This constant snipe snipe sniping and suggestion the US is the only villain on the block is what I object to. This blog is filled with anti US hatred. War is a nasty business, roadside bombings, terrorists using civilians as human shields, people having heads lopped off, innocent people kidnapped, innocents slaughtered in car bombings. Please don't expect the British public to have a hand wringing session over the treatment of enemy combatants, when the very same people wouldn't think twice about blowing you and yourfamily sky high if they got back on the streets.

This is not like any war we havefought before and with an enemy that follows a death cult and has no respect for humanlife, yet on the other hand squeals human rights when their country of origin want them back to meter out tradition justice, even Sharia(I bet Clive balks at Sharia, no words about limb amputation and what an affront to human rights that is????)

Let's just get some balance here. To me Clive seems to be a one man crusade against America, exposing miscarriages of judgement is one thing, but fraternising with known killers and trying to suggest they are really good guys just a little misunderstood is sickening

PresidentD: Gosh, I didn't realise that Clive Stafford-Smith was a member of the Taliban - he had us all fooled there. Thanks for the tip-off. And of course, what we should do is take our leaders' at their word, especially when they tell us about WMDs, 45 minutes till they hit Britain, etc. since they would never ever lie to us about anything, heaven forbid. Oddly enough I tend to be sceptical about leaders on all sides - silly sceptic I am.

I thought the Geneva Convention prohibited torture even for PoW's - or aren't we signatories any more? And since torture's fine and dandy for us and we shouldn't hold ourselves to any higher standards than other regimes and gangs of thugs that use it, even simply on the grounds of suspicion, well, it must be fine and dandy for other nations too, I guess. So I suppose we'll see no more whining and moralizing about other countries' unjust imprisonment of opponents, dissidents, etc since heck, we apparently aren't any better and such treatment is perfectly fair as long as whoever's in charge says it is, on our side or any other.

@leftleast

I don't think (and I'm just making assumptions here, but it sounds reasonable to me) that Clive is saying, "the US is evil, hurr durr". I think Clive's point is this: the US is part of the civilized world. Therefore, it should always uphold itself to higher moral standards. And when it slips, we should raise hue and cry until it corrects itself. As the saying goes, "all it takes for Evil to triumph is for Good Men to do nothing".

As soon as Clive starts advocating attacks on US civilians and other nasty things, then I'll join you in condemning him.

Please don't expect the British public to have a hand wringing session over the treatment of enemy combatants

I don't know if that is true or not, but they (the British public) should. After all, if you allow the Government unprecendented power to brand someone as an "enemy combatant" without giving them a chance to prove their innocence, what makes you think they (the Government) will not use this power to get rid of "inconvenient" citizens? Remember the old poem, "first they come for the Communists..."

but fraternising with known killers and trying to suggest they are really good guys just a little misunderstood is sickening

I hardly think you can call someone a "known killer" when it hasn't been proven yet (which are the point of trials). Clive didn't say, "give Osama a hug"; what I'm getting from him is, "don't just throw someone in jail and let him rot there for no reason"

Please don't expect the British public to have a hand wringing session over the treatment of enemy combatants, when the very same people wouldn't think twice about blowing you and yourfamily sky high if they got back on the streets.

Yet you have no evidence of this. And that is why your defense of these fascist tactics is incoherent. You have taken the position that if a government suspects an individual of wrong-doing then the matter is settled. Charges need not even be brought against that person. It is enough for the state to deem someone dangerous. Due process is not required.

This is not like any war we havefought before and with an enemy that follows a death cult and has no respect for humanlife, yet on the other hand squeals human rights when their country of origin want them back to meter out tradition justice, even Sharia(I bet Clive balks at Sharia, no words about limb amputation and what an affront to human rights that is????)

We are fighting a war? At what point was this war declared? Against what state is this war being fought? This is not war at all, but calibrated slaughter fueled by ignorance and hysteria. Its success depends on your willingness to remain manipulable.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Guiteau

You talk about evidence. Prove this stuff happened. All I see are a bunch of allegations from the BBC. You accept 'evidence' that supports your prejudices but not that which does not. BTW - CSS (like the BBC) is not reputable as he, like you, is already biased.

Pantou

We have had British residents and citizens found on battlefields who are not members of the legitimate Armed Forces or accredited charity workers. They should have been tried for treason and imprisoned. No torture no limbo just 10--20 .

Vetinari If ones ass is in AfG and one is not Afghan how much proof is needed?
No it is not OK to go on jihadi gap years. That is also being a treasonous w*****
Conflict zones are not holiday destinations. It is absurd anyone should think they were and that going to them is anything like acceptable.

Vetinari If ones ass is in AfG and one is not Afghan how much proof is needed?

They could be aid workers? You know, not all aid agencies are Western-based.

Or they could be worried about their relatives, and needs to check up on them?

Or they could be Afghans, but they don't have the identification papers because Afghnistan doesn't even have a functioning government, so who can issue them?

Or they are merchants and traders?

The point is, there are plenty of reasons to visit Afghanistan. Just being there does not imply guilt. If someone is killed and the cops found me on the scene, I'll be brought in as a suspected murderer, but they can't convict me until they found proof that I actually did it.

Or are you implying that the burden of proof for Middle Easteners should be lowered?

I am amazed that there are still people who peddle the "war is a nasty business" apologetic. It has always been pathetic, and it was finally buried at the Nuremberg Trials. So it would be a good idea if those caught in this historical time warp, would try to engage with the 21st Century. There is no acceptable defense for torture. That's it. Simple. No exceptions. Ever.

And what you are denying is torture, IS torture and you know that.

Time to be counted

Ladies, gentlemen, and other cifers.

The purpose of this article is to highlight/ ask the British government to behave and to be seen to behave in line with its commitments.

While I and many others have a long standing love affair with PresidentD, we occasionally have it in us to ask our beloved to stick to the question, and maybe, just maybe allow the Brits to talk amongst themselves.

For those who say that US society is basically violent , please bear in mind that UK society is similar. And that is why both have some level of education, some structure of laws that recognise this and that attempt to go some way toward stopping us from imploding in a selfish bloodbath of gun, fist and knife toting selfishness spurred on by the abuse of whisky, drugs, poverty, the inability to express ourselves, post battlefield syndrome, computer ware games, and darwinian politics/economics.

ou talk about evidence. Prove this stuff happened. All I see are a bunch of allegations from the BBC. You accept 'evidence' that supports your prejudices but not that which does not. BTW - CSS (like the BBC) is not reputable as he, like you, is already biased.

In the absence of the cooperation of the state how can any allegation be proven? You see the problem here?