“We have received your letter dated January 16, 2006, enclosing an advance unedited copy of the report of four Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on the situation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay (“Unedited Report”). Your letter asked for any factual clarifications regarding the Unedited Report by January 31 and noted that “changes made will not be of a substantive nature.”
The United States Government regrets that it has not received sufficient opportunity to provide a fuller response to the factual and legal assertions and conclusions in the Unedited Report. Despite the substantial informational material presented by the United States to the Special Rapporteurs in 2005 regarding Guantanamo and the offer to three of the Special Rapporteurs to visit the facility to observe first hand the conditions of detention, there is little evidence in the Unedited Report that the Special Rapporteurs have considered the information provided by the United States. We offered the Special Rapporteurs unprecedented access to Guantanamo, similar to that which we provide to U.S. congressional delegations. It is particularly unfortunate that the Special Rapporteurs rejected the invitation and that their Unedited Report does not reflect the direct, personal knowledge that this visit would have provided. Rather, the Unedited Report is presented as a set of conclusions -- it selectively includes only those factual assertions needed to support those conclusions and ignores other facts that would undermine those conclusions. As a result, we categorically object to most of the Unedited Report’s content and conclusions as largely without merit and not based clearly in the facts.
An example of this problematic approach is how the Unedited Report deals with the force-feeding of detainees. The U.S. Government has provided information that in the case of detainees who have gone on hunger strikes, Guantanamo authorities have authorized involuntary feeding arrangements, monitored by health care professionals, to preserve the life and health of the detainees. Rather than reporting the factual information provided by the United States on when and how involuntary feeding is authorized and how it is carried out, the Unedited Report simply states categorically that “excessive force was used routinely” for this purpose and that “some of the methods used for force feeding definitely amount to torture.” This is untrue, and no such methods are described in the Unedited Report. Moreover, it is bewildering to the United States Government that its practice of preserving the life and health of detainees is roundly condemned by the Special Rapporteurs and is presented as a violation of their human rights and of medical ethics.
We are equally troubled by the Unedited Report’s analysis of the legal regime governing Guantanamo detention. Nowhere does the report set out clearly the legal regime that applies according to U.S. law. The United States has made clear its position that it is engaged in a continuing armed conflict against Al Qaida, that the law of war applies to the conduct of that war and related detention operations, and that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by its express terms, applies only to “individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction.” (ICCPR Article 2(1)). The Report’s legal analysis rests on the flawed position that the ICCPR applies to Guantanamo detainees because the United States “is not currently engaged in an international armed conflict between two Parties to the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.” This, of course, leads to a manifestly absurd result; that is, during an ongoing armed conflict, unlawful combatants receive more procedural rights than would lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions. Numerous other discussions in the Unedited Report are similarly flawed.
The United States is a country of laws with an open system of constitutional government by checks and balances, and an independent judiciary and press. These issues are fully and publicly debated and litigated in the United States. To preserve the objectivity and authority of their own Report, the Special Rapporteurs should review and present objective and comprehensive material on all sides of an issue before stating their own conclusions. Instead, the Special Rapporteurs appear to have reached their own conclusions and then presented an advocate’s brief in support of them. In the process they have relied on international human rights instruments, declarations, standards, or general comments of treaty bodies without serious analysis of whether the instruments by their terms apply extraterritorially; whether the United States is a State Party -- or has filed reservations or understandings -- to the instrument; whether the instrument, declaration, standard or general comment is legally binding or not; or whether the provisions cited have the meaning ascribed to them in the Unedited Report. This is not the basis on which international human rights mechanisms should act.
The Special Rapporteurs have not provided a meaningful opportunity to the United States to consult on the draft report or to rebut factual and legal assertions and conclusions with which we fundamentally disagree. The United States reserves the opportunity to reply in full to the final Report, but in the meantime requests that this letter be attached to the Report as an interim reply.
Regards,” Signed: Kevin Edward Moley Ambassador Permanent Representative of the United States of America
MEMO
RE: GITMO
Piss off.
Regards,
The US.
And I tell the UN to STFU, mind your own business and drop dead.
Do you spank your kids when they're being naughty? Do you send them to their room without any supper? Do you put them in time out and make them sit in a corner and be quiet?
Stop now because you're guilty of torture.
Kofi Annan presided over the greatest scam in history, and did it in partnership with Saddam Hussein.
If there were justice, he would be occupying one of those cells in Guantanamo, along with half his upper management.
Guantanamo probably makes him nervous. Watching Saddam hang might make him even a little more nervous.
Cuban prison camp tells U.S.
to shut down the U.N.
Here is a link to the full report (last word in 2nd paragraph is the link):
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17523&Cr=Guantánamo&Cr1=Bay
DROP DEAD!!
Commision members include human-rights champions Cuba, Sudan, China, Pakistan, etc.
That was a great response in that letter. The UN just does not get it.
The UN would no doubt have us release them, apologize profusely, and provide them lifelong compensation for their "ordeal". No doubt if JFK had gotten himself elected that's just what would be happening right now. Kofi and his crew of merry appeasers can kiss my grits.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Memo to UN blue helmet Child rapists;
Clean your own Dam filthy corrupt house.
US Tells UN To Go Pound Sand
Fine. The price for this request will be to reduce our annual stipend to the UN to $0.00. In the meantime, we will happily abandon Gitmo, and move our detainees to a new camp in Antartica. Thanks for the suggestion.
They must have mentioned 10 times in a minute that most of the prisoners "have yet to be charged"
Given a choice, who would prefer an absolute withdrawal (every freakin' nickel's worth) unconditionally from the U.N. for the next five years, or the absolute closure of the border for the next five years if you were assigned the power to do so?
Just curious.
I think that we do need to shut down a camp, but it's on the lower east side of Manhatten. I think that it would make good public housing.
Mark
You know I was trying to think of joke that went like; "Having Cuba on the human rights committee of the UN was like..." and then I remembered, that IS the punch line!