Aimee Howarth brings you an interview with The Yorker directors on the final day of the advent articles
Aimee Howarth speaks to YUSU's sabbatical officers about their Christmas Day routine for day 17 of the advent calendar
For the final time this term, Vicky Morris updates you on this weeks film news
50 years after the publication of 'James and the Giant Peach', the works of Roald Dahl continue to celebrate success.
Guantanamo is the most notorious prison on earth, but not by any means the worst prison on earth.
This was the beginning of Moazzam Begg’s journey to Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, where he was held for over three years accused of terrorism. It was a series of circumstantial events that led to Begg’s arrest, the catalyst probably being his move to Kabul, Afghanistan, with his wife and children in mid 2001.
He has always insisted that his move was to fulfill his dream of being a teacher, and he became a charity worker at a school. But with the war raging in Afghanistan, the family decided to temporarily move to neighbouring Pakistan.
However, when an al Qaeda training camp was captured that November, a copy of a money transfer was found that credited an account for Begg. He was seized in Islamabad in February 2002 by the CIA, which his family always insisted was a case of mistaken identity.
Begg was held at Bagram Airforce Base in Afghanistan for one year before being transferred to Camp X-Ray, one of the camps at Guantanamo. On his journey to Guantanamo Begg was ‘rendered’, a process known as ‘extraordinary rendition’ where detainees are moved from one place to another incarcerated, a method by which Begg draws parallels with slavery.
Surprisingly, he said he was looking forward to going to Guantanamo: "To know sometimes what is really bad, you have to know what is worse,” Begg told a lecture filled with York students on Thursday.
Chillingly, he claims to have seen the torture of prisoners, including ‘waterboarding’, a process by which the detainee is tied, laid on their back with a cloth blocking their airways, and water is then poured continually on their face to simulate the experience of drowning. The CIA have acknowledged use of this controversial method on three suspected terrorists in 2003.
“From this position, anyone will relent,” Begg said.
Life in Guantanamo was, needless to say, tough. Begg tells a grim tale of camp life, but it is an experience which he finds hard to recall: “It’s almost like an out of body experience. It’s hard to think of the daily monotony as it gets me depressed. You take 1, 2, 3 steps and there’s a wall; you turn around and it’s the same.”
“You resign yourself to your fate – something you thought you never would.”
Prisoners, he describes, are only given literature from the previous century, and have no knowledge of current affairs in the ‘outside world’. Daily life for Begg involved reading 19th century novels, memorising the Qur’an, making lists of things to do, and writing poetry.
“People detained in this place, unlike the worst criminals on this planet, are not given access to family visits, phone calls, knowledge or current affairs, nothing,” he said.
Despite his ordeal, Begg insists he is not bitter, but is clearly critical of the US prison system. Inside Guantanamo he says prisoners are known as ‘enemy combatants’, ‘sub-humans’ or ‘enemy aliens’. Terms used to describe those people who are so different, “dehumanising them is part of the process of keeping them detained," he said.
He especially remains critical of 'Operation Enduring Freedom', the name used by the US Government for its involvement in the War in Afghanistan.
“Freedom isn’t something you endure, it is granted to a person the day they are born, it is a given right, something to cherish. It would have been more apt to call the operation 'End Your Freedom'.”
Begg drew upon the antithesis of this, which he believes is embodied in plaques outside each camp in Guantanamo, which displaya picture of the Pentagon, a bald eagle, and the words ‘Honour Bound to Defend Freedom’. And yet, he says, the freedoms of the prisoners are being compromised: “The people inside are not protected."
The exposure of abuse by American soldiers in 2004 is something he claims to be not isolated incidents, and were only brought to the world's attention through a leaked source.
"People are now looking at Guantanamo Bay for what it is - the tip of the iceberg."
Yet to receive an apology for his incarceration, Begg says it is something which he does not anticipate. However, he admits some of his former gaolers have contacted him to apologize. He said he is "ready to forgive 1,000 times over" for what they did to him, "but what I can't forgive them for is what they did to others."
When asked how his life is after his release, Begg remains unclear:
“I don’t know. Life is not normal - it has changed. It is the ability to adapt to that change which is important.”
Just a little bit of context behind Mozzam Begg as unsuprisingly, this article neglects this entirely, painting the man as a victime of "American/British imperialism" or indeed racism as he would have you believe.
He was first arrested in 1994 for alleged involvement in a benefit fraud case. The leader of The Lynx gang, syed murad meah known as niaaz, now residing in scotland, pleaded guilty and served 18 months in jail. Charges against Begg were dropped, but a police search of his home found night vision goggles, a bulletproof vest, and extremist Islamic literature. His family insist that he was collecting such items as a hobby. He had travelled to Afghanistan and Bosnia and attempted to travel to Chechnya, and fully acknowledges giving financial support for Muslim combatants, but insists that he never took a combat role for himself. He was again arrested in 2000 under British anti-terrorism laws during a raid on the Maktabah Al Ansar bookshop in Birmingham, which he had founded. The government retrieved encrypted files from his computer and ordered Begg to open them, but Begg refused and a judge ruled in his favour. He was released without charge.With his wife Zaynab and three young children, Begg moved to Kabul, Afghanistan, in mid 2001. He has always insisted that his move was to fulfil his dream of being a teacher, and he became a charity worker at a school. With the war in Afghanistan in 2001, the family decided to wait out the hostilities in neighbouring Pakistan.
When al Qaeda's Derunta training camp was captured that November, a copy of a money transfer was found that credited an account for Moazzam Begg. He was seized in Islamabad in February 2002 by the CIA.
The point is that he is by no means as innocent as either he or his human-rights lawyers would have anyone believe. He should have been held as a prisoner of war and detained for as long as the geneva convention allows. He is guilty, only the logistics of international terrorism have not allowed him to be tried under these accusations. Please don't start on about the UK/UK being the bad guys in this scenario, budding self-flagelators out there.
While the context you add is interesting, Dan, I've got a one-phrase retort for you: "innocent until proven guilty."
Just because there may be reason to suspect a person, prior convictions or even some evidence against them, unless they are charged and convicted by a recognised court of law (not any US kangaroo court) then there is no just (or dare I say, moral) reason to subject anyone to such an ordeal for 3 years.
Furthermore, to be considered a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention, someone must "have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a 'fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance', and bear arms openly". By this definition Moazzam Begg could not be considered a prisoner of war, hence the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" by the United States administration.
Ultimately the Guantanamo Bay detention camp holds a distinctly dubious legal status with reports by the UNHRC & HRW casting serious doubt over the legality of the detentions and practices carried out there.
P.S. I assume you mean "UK/US" as opposed to "UK/UK"
P.P.S. Let battle commence! 
I'm afraid we will agree to disagree on this. I accept that Guantanamo Bay is a necessary evil, brought about not by the US/UK but by terrorists themselves. You will go on and on about the 'rights and traditions' you claim Guantanamo impinges but when you finish you will realise these very values are no longer in existence because the very evil you are indirectly protecting will have overwealmed them.
I'd like to meet whoever it is who taught Dan Taylor the skill of 'rhetoric'. I think Mr Taylor is a very sick man indeed - it's a shame that there is someone on campus whose views are so despised that his reputation actually precedes him.
The only thing scarier is that he actually believes the views that he writes on the yorker. If he's like this now, imagine what he's going to be like in 15-20 years time!!!
He makes the Daily Mail seem left-wing.
To say that Guantanamo Bay is brought about by terrorists themselves is unsound. The existence of terrorists may be a necessary cause for Guantanamo bay (i.e. Guantanamo would not exist if there were no terrorists) but it is clearly not a sufficient one as there could obviously be a reality in which terrorists existed but Guantanamo Bay did not. There seems to be little or no evidence that Guantanamo has done anything to hinder terrorism or accomplish anything more than to degrade and debase the US in the eyes of the world, unfairly besmirching the citizens of that nation (many of whom have also rallied against Guantanamo) and creating hatred against them.
Further, it's not only unsound but highly morally dubious. I hope it's not a completely bankrupt principle to maintain that a person or a nation is responsible for what they do, independently of what others are doing. Unless terrorists literally manipulated the hands of US officials as they signed approvals for Guantanamo, those officials have to take responsibility for their part in bringing Guantanamo about. Ultimately it was their decision and if any justification could be made for Guantanamo (I believe it is completely unjustified), it would need to focus on what could justify such a decision and not merely shift the blame for it.
I accept David T that the concept of Guantanamo Bay is not something particularly pleasant but it is a sign of the times in which we live. Clearly, it gives lots of ammunition to those who seek the bash the US time and time again and may arguably have done them more harm than good in the long-run, but neither you or I know what or how much intelligence has come from prisoners detained there that may have saved us from attacks on a vaster scale. It is a scale on what we work; the unpleasant detention of a few individuals (not particularly pleasant themselves) or potentially the security of an entire country at stake.
Anon, your post is mindless and spineless. You are very good with your soundbites and name-calling, no doubt combined with a flailing of arms and screeches of "but you can't say that", but you fail to address any one of my points made here. Mitch and David might disagree but at least in doing so they provoke some quality debate rather than mindless statements that only make you look like a complete ejit. Incidentally, if we let the people detained in Guantanamo Bay have their way in how they wish to see the world ordered, I nor you will even be here in 15-20 years time, so thank your lucky stars there is someone out there protecting it. Oh and don't post anonymously. You might not like what I have to say, but I say it as myself. Man up.
I find that the problem with Guantanamo Bay is the dubious legal position that it occupies. The democratically elected US government have decided that some of the techniques employed at Guantanamo bay is illegal under US law if they were undertaken on US soil, however the legal limbo that having them detained in Cuba gives them the ability to do these things.
Waterboarding is illegal on US soil (in 1983 a Texas sheriff was imprisoned for using the technique), but the status off US soil is ill-defined. This I find is the problem with Guantanamo Bay, the fact that the democracy of the US is ignored there. I accept that we do need to deal with the terrorist threat, however we should deal with them in the same way that we deal with other matters - in a democratically decided and legal way. In the UK we're in a better position to decide this than the States as we've been dealing with terrorism from the IRA for years, so we should be in a good position to deal with terrorism from a different source, i.e., Islamic extermists, but we're still finding our rights slowly eroded away. For example, on the night of our group project (TSP) deadline, one of our team members was detained at York rail station under the Terrorism Act, for no given reason.
These erosions of our individual rights, combined with farces being made of democratic processes (as has happened with Guantanamo in the States) is something that scares me, probably more than the threat from Islamic extremist terrorists.
With regards post number 4, and Dan#s response:
Dan - what difference does it make whether he/she posts with their actual identity or not?! You probably won't know of them anyway, and if you do know them, then what are you going to get out of actually knowing who it is?! Are you going to incessantly 'facebook-stalk' them?! I love your final two words - 'man up' - what a load of rubbish!!!
It's ironic that you state that *4 does not answer any of your points - to be honest, I don't think that was the aim of their post. What is funny is that you indulge in the sort of nationalist 'rhetoric' that *4 attacks you for with your comment:
" nor you will even be here in 15-20 years time, so thank your lucky stars there is someone out there protecting it."
In that sense, well done Dan for living up to your stereotype.
comment deleted by a moderator "if we let the people detained in Guantanamo Bay have their way in how they wish to see the world ordered, I nor you will even be here in 15-20 years time"
This sort of demented apocalyptic rant is simply hilarious. Dan, I don't agree with the arguments but you're better off trying to win people over via debate on short-term safety and intelligence gains instead of trying to convince people that crazy Muslims will take over the world and kill us all unless we put a handful of arbitrarily arrested prisoners into a torture camp.
comment deleted by a moderator Whilst I'd agree partly with #10 that Taylor's scaremongering is more typical of the tabloid press and the far right than reasoned debate, Dan never actually mentioned Muslims specifically: he's not that stupid.
I reiterate: I do hope no-one including myself is unfortunate to fall victim to one of these "scare-mongering" acts of terrorism that you all seem to diminish as something from the tabloid press and neo-con school of thought. Your own mumblings about global warming in 50 years time will be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things if the people that threaten us on a dailt basis get their way. It's not scaremongering. It's a simple reality of life. Intelligence services allegedly have tabs on over 3,000 potential terrorists within the UK. If each of those were to kill just 5 people each, the death toll would be on a scale never seen before in this country. Just because these attacks do not happen as regularly as terrorists would like (in the main thanks to the superb job our security and intelligence services do) it does not mean there is not the will amongst some people to cause as much havolk and mayhem, death and destruction as possible.
Back to Guantanamo: It is encouraging that people in the US administration take your ideas in the manner in which they should be taken. Chris, the only erosion of 'freedoms' is going to come from achieving what the terrorists seek to achieve. Not what the US or British government seek to do to prevent that. Guantanamo is neither nice or pretty, but it is necessary I am afraid to say. Incidentally, read my first post about this chap in particular. That is not scaremongering. It is plan black/white fact.
comment deleted by the author When questioned Moazzam has always been open about his past - especially in relation to his thoughts about the Muslims of Chechyna (see John Snow's documentary) But the point is less about this one individual and more that Guantanamo is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of ghost detention camps. Terrorist or not no one deserves (not even, as Moazzam pointed out, our most hated murderers, child molesters etc) torture and detention without trial.
He is hoping to do a tour next year with the young American guard that he discussed in his lecture. If this does take place then the University of York Law Society will be inviting him again so you could ask him these questions in person.
Tamar, with respect it's pretty hard for him to deny his past when it's scriptured in black and white. I think people forget what Chechen Muslim extremists are responsible for sometimes. Remember the Moscow theatre siege? Remember the school held up by Chechen terrorists where over 300 innocent Russian school-children died? I'm afraid that to accept he is "open about his past" in relation to such brutal murderers does not somehow do his cause 'more justice'.
I would like to see any evidence that Guantanamo is the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of detention camps. What 'neutral source' does this come from? Mozzam himself? He is the same person what claims he took a trip to Afghanistan, post liberation to undertake 'charity work and teach' and then had bank records seized from him proving he exchanged money from top Al Qaeda operative's bank accounts. Forgive me for being mildly sceptical of his testament. He also claims that the 'war on terror' is racist. Well since has Islam been a race? I was always under the impression it was a religion. I am also well aware that acts of terror do not discriminate between religions; they target the societies where all religions reside in such as 7/7 and 9/11.
I do understand the complexities morally of Guantanamo bay. I understand people find 'waterboarding' hard to tolerate and its dubious position in US law regarding where/where not it can be practised. However I'm sure people at the time were sceptical of incendary-bombing Dresden during the latter part of WW2. I'm afraid that this is war, and during war one must do the unsavoury at times to preserve what we hold dear in the long-run, and Guantanamo Bay is a prime example of that. We must put our consciences to one side in this instance and realise that doing good and doing what is right and necessary are rarely ever the same.
"If we let the people detained in Guantanamo Bay have their way in how they wish to see the world ordered, I nor you will even be here in 15-20 years time"
"It is plan black/white fact."
"black/white fact"
"fact"
"FACT"
News just in: Dan Taylor can unequivocally predict the future.
I'm afraid your hopes are in vain since you already seem to have fallen for the scaremongering of misquoted or exaggerated statistics piled on top of the ifs, buts and whats of extremely unlikely, hypothetical future situations.
Also, I love how you put the word freedoms in quotes, like it's some kind of theoretical concept, although from what you're spouting, it seems you'd very much like some of them to be so.
PS no-one's mumbled about global warming on this page. Do I sense sweeping generalisations about the other beliefs of people who believe in human rights?
PPS Any comparison between this "war" and WWII is completely irrelevant in my eyes.
Dan Taylor and 'scaremongering' = synonymous.
Also, isn't that context copied and pasted from wikipedia-...factual! Any historian should know better...
In what way was the firebombing of Dresden necessary for victory?! The historical lesson of Dresden seems to have completely flown over your head Dan, it was by no means necessary and was a deeply regrettable action, if it teaches us anything it should serve as a reminder that not everything is justified in wartime.
As you're knowledge of World War II seems to be a little hazy i'd like to remind you that the nazis captured by the British such as Rudolf Hess were not waterboarded and the majority of enemy combatants were treated rather decently.
If you want to find a World War II power which practiced similar tactics to those of the Americans today, I'm afraid you'll have to look to the Nazis.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report