Contrary to what has been widely reported and suggested in the domestic and foreign media outlets the U.S. actually exceeds Geneva Convention requirements for detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, a former U.S. Army JAG (Judge Advocate General) Corps. captain informs readers in a recently released book.
Allegations of intense mistreatment and torture do not square with the reality Kyndra Miller Rotunda experienced during her deployment to the prison camp at the outset of the War on Terror. In fact, the privileges extended to prisoners are so generous to the point where they actually comprise the safety and security of U.S. guards working at the detention facility, Rotunda explained in an interview.
At one point the U.S. military even went so far as to consider sacrificing a goat for detainees at the end of Ramadan but decided against it only because officials did not want to upset animal rights groups such as PETA, she tells readers.
There are no legal stipulations enshrined in Geneva or any other treaty that compels the U.S. to furnish religious articles to prisoners, she points out. Even so, the U.S. provides each detainee with a Quran and other basic items such as a prayer cap, prayer beads and prayer oil at taxpayer expense, according to the book.
"I think we are right to accommodate the religion of detainees as best we can," Rotunda said. "But the Geneva Conventions do not require us to put soldier's lives at risk. This is what happens when you make any item and any area off limits to the guards."
"Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials" describes previous security breeches Miller attributes to overly generous policies. This occurred, most notably, in Camp Bucca, a detention camp located in Southern Iraq near the Kuwait border.
Within the prison grounds the U.S. military set up a "makeshift mosque" that was declared off limits to U.S. personnel, Rotunda recounts. Instead of devoting their time to religious studies the prisoners dug out an escape tunnel that was detected just before a break out occurred, she tells readers.
Worse still, the prisoners had also built up a "primitive, but effective weapons cache" that was turned against U.S. officials during a riot that last for days before a Black Hawk helicopter was called in for backup, according to the book.
"The U.S. military did not mention the Camp Bucca debacle, and kept the American public in the dark," Rotunda wrote.
Remarkably, even in the aftermath of Camp Bucca certain items such as Qurans remained "off-limits, to guards in Guantanamo, she said in the interview. This policy should be changed to allow for guards to check Qurans for contraband and to check other "off limit" areas for possible weaponry, Rotunda argued.
By comparison the U.S. domestic prison system operates with more restrictions and provisos than what is currently in place in Guantanamo, she points out. In a 2005 Supreme Court case Rotunda cites in the book all nine justices ruled unanimously in favor of rigid, even harsh, conditions at an Ohio super-max prison.
Media critics who repeatedly describe Guantanamo as the "Gulag of our Time" would do well to take a careful look at a report filed in 2005 by an independent committee led by Vice Admiral Albert Church, Rotunda suggested. The committee was set up to examine interrogation techniques within the Defense Department.
"In our view it [Guantanamo] is a model that should be considered for use in other interrogation operations in the Global War on Terrorism."
The report investigators concluded there were a total of 71 cases of abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. But, at the same time, they could only identify three cases of abuse connected with interrogation at Guantanamo and even these were debatable, Rotunda maintains.
With so much focus and attention on the treatment of detainees very little is said and written about the mistreatment of U.S. soldiers on guard at Guantanamo. "What am I suppose to do when detainees throw urine on me and spit in my face?" one soldier asked Rotunda.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Army does not have a disciplinary system that holds prisoners accountable during their detention time, she explained. "There is no disciplinary system at Gitmo even though the Geneva Convention recognizes the need for prisoners to be subjected to military discipline," she said.
Rotunda's book also tells the story of Staff Sergeant Matt Maupin, an army reservist captured by terrorists when his convoy was attacked in April 2004. He was body was eventually discovered in March 2008.
"His should have been a household name," Miller said. "Where is the outrage from the international community for our service members when they are taken and held? My heart goes out to him. All Americans should know his story."
Instead of focusing attention on the mistreatment and abuse of its own the U.S. government has allowed media critics to shift attention over to Guantanamo Bay with misinformation, Rotunda argued.
The U.S. government experienced another significant setback last week when the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush Administration policy of holding military trials in Guantanamo. The case Boudmediene v. Bush (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html)"is a troubling decision," Rotunda said.
The majority opinion falls back on "flawed reasoning" that is not "cut and dry" and involves " a lot of acrobatics" as way of departing from a long line of legal precedents, she asserted.
Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent has it right in her estimation.
"It [Boudmediene v. Bush] breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad...And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The nation will live to regret what the court has done today," Scalia wrote.
—Kevin Mooney is a freelance investigative reporter specializing in environmental and government corruption issues.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
War: Under DEM power no complaints from media
June 16, 2008 - 09:52 ET by MaximusBraveheartWar: Under DEM power no complaints from media. If King Clinton had done the same thing & had been in power this entire time the media and Dem activists would not have complained about a thing. They would have crowned him king touting he is brilliant and the best war ever; LOL.
They would have said
June 16, 2008 - 16:30 ET by ChiefE9It's the best thing since sliced bread.
Halal anyone?
June 16, 2008 - 09:57 ET by kufir77I just spoke this weekend with a girl who was posted at Guantonomo a couple years back, and basically what she said was the same as this woman. She said that often times, the prisoners were served better meals than the soldiers guarding them.
And big surpise here, she said the media depiction of what is going on there is nothing at all like what is REALLY going on. The media? Slandering the military? Imagine that!
The media does not like to
June 16, 2008 - 10:03 ET by jay_1975The media does not like to report that the Red Cross and other international agencies regularly visit these facilities to ensure that the detainee's right are not being violated. They are fed three full meals a day (sometimes four if they work details like clean up) and do not have to worry about much. I wish the media would look at some of our friends in the world and see how they treat petty criminals, let alone terrorists, and compare that to how we treat our detainees.
Priorities please
June 16, 2008 - 09:59 ET by jay_1975I worked at two detention facilities in Iraq and we not only gave them each a Quran but we also were not allowed to interfere with prayer time for each of the five prayer times a day. We even had a detainee who had a nocturnal emission who was allowed an extra shower by himself so that he could be clean for prayer. We are more sensitive to the religious needs of our enemies over that of our own citizens. If after two weeks the detainee is found to by of little to no intel value, we sent them home. If they were worth further interview, we shipped them to a larger facility and would often get them back after a few more weeks then release them. Only the worst of the worst are kept. The rest are sent home and told to play nice. Of course they usually end up back in detention and the process runs again and they are released yet again. Iraq doesn't have enough jail room and neither do we. Pretty sad.
Political Correctness will be the death of us
June 16, 2008 - 10:08 ET by theduck6and that is not just hyperbole.
It already has been. With
June 16, 2008 - 10:25 ET by jay_1975It already has been. With the rules of engagement (ROE) stating that you pretty much have to be shot at before you can shoot back, you lose all of your first strike ability and become a sitting duck. Unless you see an actual activity that is threatening the lives of others you could end up in deep doo-doo for firing first. Case in point: A US Navy warship docked at a country that most would classify as "hostile" towards the US is refueling. A small vessel carrying two men approach. They are told to stop several times and are even threatened with a weapon. The two men continue to approach the vessel and detonate themselves. Several Sailors die as a result. Now if the Sailors had fired first and killed the two men before they accomplished their task, would the media cheer them for saving the lives of those crewman or would they crucify them for being over aggressive and not finding another way to stop those terrorists? Regular people cannot even imagine the kind of stress those decisions bring on someone.
I agree.
June 16, 2008 - 18:54 ET by mjgI agree.
So do I. Thank you Jay
June 16, 2008 - 19:06 ET by bigtimerSo do I.
Thank you Jay for your service to us out here in the real world...God Bless You.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
jay... Just curious...
June 16, 2008 - 10:30 ET by Clear thinkerjay...
Just curious... would you have been reprimanded if you had given them a Bible instead?
"Abstain from McCain"
Hell, I would have liked to
June 16, 2008 - 10:41 ET by jay_1975Hell, I would have liked to given them a Bible, make them eat bacon every day and teach them the words to "Silent Night" but I don't think that would have gone over well. Seiously though, to answer your question, yes I would have been most likely relieved of duty and recieved a "Needs Improvement" block on my evaluation report for the year which would hinder, if not completely end, my chance at the next promotion.
Contrary to what has been
June 16, 2008 - 10:06 ET by NewsbusterbrownContrary to what has been widely reported and suggested in the domestic and foreign media outlets the U.S. actually exceeds Geneva Convention requirements for detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp,
Only leftist extremists would think otherwise.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
When people lie to us and cheat us in business...
June 16, 2008 - 10:30 ET by ThalpyWhen people lie to us and cheat us in business, they often go to prison and make restitution. What will be the consequences for what our MSM have done to us? It is difficult to obtain restitution for irreparable damage.
I am so happy to
June 16, 2008 - 11:55 ET by allamericangirlI am so happy to read your article Mr. Mooney. I will never see these type of facts in my local liberal newspaper
The headline from my local newspaper yesterday was, Jailed, Abused and Often Innocent. Written by Tom Lasseter, It is the first of a 4 part series (gag) on the abuse toward prisoners at Guantanamo. The article states as fact that our American soldiers routinely beat and abused these innocent prisoners. He claims most prisoners are innocent.
Most of the statistical data in this article proving prisoners innocence and that they were abused was derived from the prisoners themselves . There were also quotes from a couple unnamed sources that were used to prop up the abuse claim.
You'd have to be as gullible as a liberal in an election year to believe my newspapers Guantanamo article
If Mr. Lasseter believes these enemy prisoners are going to tell him the truth I've got some ocean front property in the desert I want to sell him.
Just more proof that the
June 16, 2008 - 13:41 ET by CortillaenJust more proof that the men and women of the US military are head and shoulders above any other group on the planet. Not that anyone with a whit of sense needs to be reminded of this, mind you.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Choices
June 16, 2008 - 13:52 ET by ScrapironThey should have been executed on the spot the were captured, but weren't, so now we have choices:
1. Return them to the spot they were captured.
2. Release them on the streets of America.
3. Scatter them among the 'super max prisons' in the U.S. and feed them bologna sandwiches for the rest of their lives.
The SCOTUS has 'taken command' of the United States and ordered this done, so get on with it.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
I still fantasize about
June 16, 2008 - 15:44 ET by BDI still fantasize about taking a handful of detainees, the worst of the worst, and transferring them to New York City, specifically to the ACLU headquarters and the Editorial Boardroom of the New York Times.
Then they would be released after having all the weaponry seized during their capture returned to them.
Naturally, the US Army and US Marine Corps would cordon off the buidlings to prevent anyone who is not associated with the builidng from either entering or those who are associated with those groups from exiting.
Add to that the rooms of the five Supreme Court Jurists who seem to see war fighting as a judicial exercise.
They even get gourmet food
June 16, 2008 - 16:28 ET by ChiefE9Better food than our troops get at GITMO!
I'm so confused!
June 16, 2008 - 18:34 ET by UndercoverConservativeplease help me get my brain wrapped around this. these prisoners are supposed prisoners of war, which is why the Geneva Convention applies-the GC only applies to uniformed soldiers, but we'll waive that and say that the targetting of civilians and the screaming warcry is their uniform. Now as prisoners of war, their trials would be held by military tribunal.
But wait, the Supreme Court says these guys are civilians and will be tried in American civilian courts! So these prisoners can't be soldiers then, which means the GC no longer applies. Which makes them terrorists and not "insurgents".
which one is it? why do these @rseholes get the best of both worlds? Is it one definition or the other? My brain hurts trying to keep up with the pandering and the anti-American sentiment of our own *non-elected* officials....
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
Rotunda's book also tells
June 17, 2008 - 08:54 ET by Dan The Man 2Rotunda's book also tells the story of Staff Sergeant Matt Maupin, an army reservist captured by terrorists when his convoy was attacked in April 2004. He was body was eventually discovered in March 2008.4
This illustrates the one big problem with this modern day war against terrorism. The GC was written when countries were identifiable and soldiers were identified with a country. The GC basically says if the combatant is not identified with a country and is not a civilian of the country you are in and additionally is not fighting then they are spies and sabatuers.
Futhermore the country the spies are fighting against can do anything they wish with them. The normal rules of combat or being a normal POW do not apply. Why more people do not point this out is problimatic to the explanation of the situation.
The USA, and in particular President Bush, has made the mistake of being PC and treating these prisoners more like regualr POW's. If we would have stated the idea of the GC saying these people were spies in the first place we would have made inroads. But we left it up to others to define what rights an enemy combatent has.
I would like the President to stand up and say no to SCOTUS by way of his executive right as CIC of the USA in a time of war to conduct a war how he sees fit. But, he will not, because he is a politician trying to get teh GOP elected.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.