My cliff notes on this subject would read: They were at terrorist training camps, captured and imprisoned. They received legal counsel, were found innocent but not sent back to their homeland to protect their lives. Following an intense diplomatic effort by the American gov't, they were sent to Albania to live out their lives in peace and freedom.
I don't think you can argue that there was lack of oversight or a failure to follow law/protocol in this case, based on the words of the detainee.
Let me start with an apology. I don't have time to address all the points with the depth and thought I would prefer.
Your reading of the selected quotations is stretching some points. For example, lawyers attempting to free individuals in the black op sites does not mean they have legal representation in the intended sense. All it means is that someone got wind of what was going on and a group of civil right advocates didn't like it. Besides, what good is legal representation when you are held without charge?
Same goes for a training camp, learning to use guns and being in Afghanistan, even in a group, does not necessarily mean the individual was part of a terrorist group. Rash judgment lead to the wrongful imprisonment of these individuals with no legal charge. If this happened on US soil under any other context the individuals in charge would lose their job. In this case propaganda wins and it is labeled as making our country safer - the war on terror.
In both of these examples it is hard to know what the actual circumstances were due to ambiguity in the answers. (I may be mistaken as I can't remember every aspect of the article, I just skimmed it long ago).
The only reason such diplomatic effort was needed by the US government was due to its own mistakes. If these people were not wrongfully imprisoned they would not have become pariahs within virtually all countries. Lets also not forget that they were found to no longer be enemy combatants yet were still held in captivity for over a year because of this mistake. This is time in their lives that they shall never get back. That is a perfect example of failure of oversight.
As far as torture goes there is circumstantial evidence that it has happened, from other detainees who have been released and their statements to public records. The problem is the documents which contain the relevant information are classified and no court order to release them is valid because of "state security issues." Articles
Waterboarding being admitted to Others:
1 2 3 4 5. I even included that terrible place fox news in there
. Does this mean torture occurred? Depends on your definition. That is one of the games being played, of course.
The creation of a legal limbo through use of foreign soil is a dangerous one. Rather than following the rules, regulations and laws that dictate how prisoners of war or potential criminals/terrorists are being treated the government is sidestepping the law for the sake of expediency. The laws, international treaties and regulations are in place for a reason - for the safety of the prisoners and the countries hold them.
A democratic government is
supposed to answer to the people, despite this seeming like a diminishing ideal. Techniques such as black op sites is another method of circumvention of public opinion and thought in the name of protection. Despite this guise there has been no actual evidence that such legally dubious creations are making us safer. All the do is present another method of infringement on freedom, the very thing they were created to protect.
If there was a real reason to imprison these individuals why hide it? There could have easily been court cases created or military tribunals. Instead, their capture and continued arrest was kept secret from the population and much of the world. Knowledge of these sites was not fully intentional.
I realize we are in a war unlike those we have ever had. The enemy is hard to spot, realize and defend against. This does require a change in tactics. At the same time it does not mean breaking treaties and law through manipulation of what torture is and is not. It does not mean detaining individuals who could potentially have useful information in secret bases throughout the world.
In the end it is a hard situation considering the circumstances of the war, but I don't see an excuse for hidden sites across the globe used for torture and permanent detainment of individuals who have not been charged. Such actions go against the ideals of the nation who is supposed to be in the right all because of fear mongering.
The claim that there have been fascist movements within American politics gains more credence when both sides of the coin are accepted. Bush started them in the social realm with the patriot act and other similar agendas. Meanwhile, Obama is continuing the trends and expanding fascism to the realm of economics. The large difference? Which party complains first it was the democrats, now it is the republicans - in the end we all lose. The point here is that we cannot sacrifice either our social or economic freedom.
