The Guardian is reporting something we probably should have suspected: According to the human rights watch group Reprieve the United States has been, and continues to operate floating prisons to extrajudicially interrogate and house suspected terrorists:
Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.
Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.
The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped. [Link]
<
p>I think that as G.W. Bush’s term ends we will be seeing ever more skeletons (pardon the pun) fall out of the closet. Traditionally, as soon as the Democrat and Republicans have chosen a nominee, they begin to receive briefings from the CIA on a host of national security topics and current operations. This is done to assure some degree of continuity by keeping the potential president elect informed. A transition is also a time when you’d expect increased leaking of information as new people look under the hood.
Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans. [Link]
<
p>We have previously written about Diego Garcia here and here (where the use of the island as a secret detention center was discussed).
<
p>For anyone who has watched the CBS show The Unit, all of this may sound familiar. The third season premiere was an episode about the CIA illegally operating a floating prison for terrorists:
The woman tells Bob that “rogues” in her agency are not happy that Jonas and the boys have found their “floating prison.” “A terrorist cruise to nowhere,” Bob observes. [Link]
<
p>Some of the statistics associated with what we’ve done during our “war against terror” are staggering:
Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s legal director, said: “They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.“By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been ‘through the system’ since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them.” [Link]
<
p>One of the ships suspected of being a “floating prison” is the U.S.S. Bataan. If true I find this to be slightly ironic considering the chapter in U.S. History for which the Bataan was named:
“Hell ships.” As General MacArthur’s forces approached the Philippines late in 1944, the Japanese loaded the Prisoners of War into cargo ships and sent them to Japan and Manchuria to work in coal mines and factories. The men of Bataan and Corregidor were packed into the holds of the ships so tightly that there was no room to sit or to lay down, and they had to take turns sleeping. They were given little food or water and no medical attention. The heat was so bad in the stifling, dark holds that men suffocated to death standing up. There were virtually no sanitary facilities and in some instances the Japanese would not even let the dead bodies be removed from the holds. [Link]
Holy shit, it’s literally an archipelago.
I like your scare quotes around war on terror. Say, do you also believe 9/11 was an inside job?
Gopes, permit me to educate you on the uses of quotation marks in the English language. Traditionally, when something is known by several names depending upon your perspective, quotation marks are used. I am sure you can appreciate the fact that the Vietnamese do not call what we know as “The Vietnam War” by that name. Likewise, depending upon who you ask, what the U.S. has been engaged in over the last several years would not be called “a war on terror” by a great many people. Its a great name choice for propaganda though as you have clearly demonstrated with your second sentence above. Is your next question to me going to be about whether or not I wear a flag pin on my lapel? Oh, goodie.
I’m not sure that floating or on-land detention is that interesting of a distinction (not saying that you do, either), but– boy, I must say I am really shocked that the US has been torturing people. Call me naive, but when I think back to my childhood, I thought that was one of the big differences between the USSR (they did) and the US (we didn’t). It does really shake me up and make me wonder whether I really know what the real power structure is.
i guess what’s good for casinos in mississippi is good for kangaroo courts in the us.
rob @4 said:
I had that moment when they bombed Libya and targeted the head of state. I’m still really naive but not where the US is concerned.
I don’t think the US has a monopoly on war time torture. Just look at the amount of torture that took place in World War II on both the Allied and the Axis sides and all other wars after WW2. Whenever torture gets reported and documented, it is shocking to the civilian public but not surprising to the military folks. Man’s inhumanity to man has been around as long as our species has been in existence and (most likely) will not diminish.
4 · rob said
Of course you are naive. And ignorant as hell. Why pretend to be shocked? Didn’t you ever hear about the nuclear holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or the numerous other war crimes?
Abhi, I could be wrong, but I’ve heard that part of the reason for holding people in ships (or basically, floating prisons) is also to avoid legal regimes. I know that sounds nuts, but the impression I’ve gotten is that a mixture of American and non-American prisoners (or suspects, since they aren’t charged with anything) are held indefinitely on these ships, subjected to similar torture techniques as we see in Gitmo, but that they are also so “off the grid” that it is nearly impossible for their families to locate and free them. I think the decision to do this out in the ocean indicates an understanding that there’s a fundamental wrong here — it’s an attempt to avoid specific court systems, due process, etc. While I know some of this stuff has existed covertly, the sheer scale and the public nature of this insanity under this administration is mind-boggling.
well, wasn’t that the entire point of the gitmo fancy footwork too – within the us vs. us administered territory etc.? and what i was attempting to identify in #5.
Dude, way to be a buzzkill.
9 · Camille said
You are 100% correct and your explanation is very logical. This (taking the evil business of torture to the seas) is a very creative way to get away with torturing people. Are there any (international) law experts out there who can tell if this legal or any internation rules against this type of activity?
In my last post my sentence should have been – Are there any international law experts who can tell if this activity is legal or if there are any international rules against it? Sorry for the confusion.
Perhaps if they had been a little more diligent on using ‘torture’ prior to 9/11, twin towers might still be standing, and Iraq war may not have been necessary. Criticize Bush all you want, he has kept the country safe from attacks after 9/11. Life under either of the two presidential choices we have will make us ‘long’ for the Bush years. We are headed towards a socialist cesspool of double digit unemployment, inflation and a stagnant or declining economy.
In reply to gm (#13) above, the US has its own criminal laws against torture and has also signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture which strictly prohibits torture in any “territory” under the signing states’ jurisdiction. A U.S. ship is floating U.S. territory, just as military bases and embassies are legally recognized as the territory of that country. Here is a link that details some of the applicable laws. There is also a principle in international law of peremptory norms or actions that are illegal under all circumstances and these included genocide, piracy, slavery and torture.
There is therefore no question that torture is a crime. However Guantanamo and ships at sea pose the question of who has jurisdiction to enforce the law. Additionally, and unsurprisingly, the US has not admitted to a policy of torture but rather only “enhanced interrogation techniques”. A lot of information is available on the web, but you might want to start with the Center for Constitutional Rights whose lawyers are among those trying to hold the Bush Administration accountable despite the secrecy and legal gymnastics (such as the infamous Yoo Memorandums) surrounding the administrations actions. There is also this campaign to make rejection of torture an issue in the presidential campaign.
I’d also recommend these books.
Thanks to Former Krishna Kid for providing excellent background info.
14 · Vic said
Who are you referring to when you say “they” in the first sentence? Who are “they”? Just wondering. Should the Bush administration been a little more diligent (on using torture, etc) since Bush was in office during the tragic events of 9/11/01?
I think Bush and his folks like Cheney, Bernanke etc. are responsible for giving the US economy a great head start toward a “socialist cesspool of double digit unemployment, inflation and a stagnant or declining economy.” The US economy/job situation under Bill Clinton was way better, even though he (and others) intially had to deal with a messed up economy courtesy of the older Bush administration. I actually “long” for the last 2 years of the Clinton Presidency. Jobs were plentiful, food and fuel prices were reasonable for most Americans during those times. Now, the media is drowning us in headlines like “Homes in Foreclosure Top One Million” (Cnnmoney.com), one trillion dollars unaccounted for or “lost” in the Pentagon, and food, fuel & oil prices skyrocketing and so on. Obama, McCain or even Senator Clinton will be much better than what we have now. Personally, now I am leaning towards McCain but keeping an open mind on Obama.
The next President and his/her administration will probably not have the time or resources to deal with the issue of floating Guantanamos in the Indian Ocean. Don’t count on Bush and his guys seriously investigating cases of land or sea or interplanetary etc torture, either. Unfortunately, most Americans are apathetic and don’t worry about war/torture issues unless it affects them personally. (The average American is probably struggling with an uncertain economy and job situation and tightening their belts, and so forth.) There may be a few morally correct and ethical groups like the CCR lawyers that Former Krishna Kid mentioned in Post #15, but again, challenging these atrocities/torture cases may not get much media attention. Thank goodness for sites like Sepia Mutiny who are bold enough to cover a wide variety of important topics not covered in the usual media outlets like CNN, FOX etc. I am not trying to be depressing but this is what I have observed. Most likely, the next US administration will concentrate on economic issues.
Torturing innocent people may not be the best way to get allies on our side. It can cause resentment in the people treated inhumanely. There is no easy solution since it is difficult to determine who is a terrorist, and who is just a regular law abiding person.
I’m actually pretty hopeful that either Obama or McCain will stop this torture nonsense. Maybe I’m still being naive, though I think I’m right.
I sincerely hope you are right, too. (#18)
Yes!