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.”
Terrorism is not new. The IRA bombed London heavily from the 1970s to the mid-90s and, as far as I'm aware, the only impingement on civil liberties was the removal of bins from train stations (if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me).
Mr. Taylor seems quite happy expressing quite controversial views; his right thanks to "freedom" of speech. I just wonder whether he'd feel the same about Guantanamo Bay if it was his views that were seen as radical, "inciting hatred" and he, a potential terrorist. If yes, then good luck to him and he is fully entitled to that opinion. If not, perhaps it's a litte naive.
I'm glad that people are finally discovering that most of Dan's arguments are copied and pasted from wikipedia!
Id love to see how Dan references one of his History essays!
Despite all of his bravado, I bet someone like Joanna De Groot would destroy his essays!
If a white Christian had been found to have funded Combat 18 and collected neo nazi propaganda ‘Unite Against Fascism’ would no doubt have protested against this lecture so as to remove the ‘platform’ to speak, on the off chance he / she may say something offensive. Why is this different for a Muslim?
We may need to learn more about Guantanamo but should we really be learning from a terrorist funding criminal?
The context was from Wikipedia. There is nothng but academic snobbery that renders this source useless. Are you saying that the context I gave behind Mozzam in untrue? If so, I would suggest you are wrong. Incidentally, I tend to do rather well in my degree- not that I wish to boast, but as you mention it I have my right to defence and am well on course for well above a 2:1. Cut the mindless and unfounded comments about that.
Steph H: What have I said that is controversial? And if so, why does that bother you so? I would actually rather call it realistic. I want to steer this debate back to Guantanamo, because that's what it's about. Not bashing me, as much as some spineless anon. posters enjoy it. We should maybe do it face to face some time...
My argument is this: Whilst the detention of individuals without trial is unpalletable it is by no means the humanitarian outrage that many claim. What is it Mozzam says himself, "Guantanamo is the most notorious prison on earth, but not by any means the worst prison on earth". These people are not all innocent. To believe they are is naive at best and downright narrow-minded and delusional at worst. No one so far inspite of how much has been written has commented on the context I gave behind Mozzam's character and past record and circumstances. Let's face it, he was not going on a family holiday to Kabul, was he. In an ideal world, these people would undergo trial and be found guilty of their crimes, but due to the logistics of the situation explained many times over by the US government, it is impossible to do so. This whole debate boils down to US bashing from the liberal left and right of British politics. You have no creditable arguments against Guantanamo Bay. In my eyes, it is down to any government of any nation state to protect the fundamental safety of their civilians. This is not radical. This is basic IR. Good on the USA for doing that and placing the rights of their own people (Muslim, black, white, Jew, Christian) above those who seek to destroy that very way of life.
Dan, I very rarely judge people, much less based on their political opinions, I like to think I try to get along with most people, but every now and then, no matter how many excuses I make for someone in my mind, I encounter a special case. Your unrelenting position and dismissal of any counter argument without any considered reason other than repeating your original position is startling, bordering on closed-minded arrogance. I don't expect you to change your mind, but the approach you take to debate once you've run out of stock answers is in my mind only paralleled by the repetition of rhetoric employed by young members of the BNP - not that I suggest you share any of their opinions. You're obviously an intelligent chap, all I ask is that you allow yourself to properly consider the arguments of others before simply repeating your stance and supposedly justifying it with assumptions, generalisations and circumstantial bullshit that frankly I'd think anyone would struggle to swallow. Your opinions on criminal justice border on the Orwellian.
- Anon
P.S. Quit Anon bashing. Your arguments against anonymity amount only to macho bullshit.
Fantastic, your jumping through hoops may possibly (although i doubt it) see you get above a 2.1. im sure that you attribute a significant amount of worth to that ideal (which sums you up in many ways). as for your arguments, *26 says it all. Its interesting how many times that you can post on the yorker, yet even someone as right wing as Julia Heaton disowns you. I feel sorry for you. Your views are disturbing, and you simply do not live in the real world.
"Your unrelenting position and dismissal of any counter argument without any considered reason other than repeating your original position is startling, bordering on closed-minded arrogance".
How about the people on this wall that take the opposite stance to mine and don't consider anything of what I say? Your argument to this would be because their views are somehow 'more legitimate' than mine and I don't believe you have a right to say that. We all stand up for what we believe in and against things we believe to be mindless rubbish (as you probably think my points are).
Anon 27: I'm afraid you create a false interpretation of my relationship with Julia. We are very good friends, have been for drinks and any rumour that I was 'kicked out' is utter rubbish. I would ask you to speak to her regarding that. You might then stop prancing around ridiculous ideas that are merely figments of your wishful imagination. Judging by the quality of your posts, I'd probably spend less of your time on The Yorker furthering your dislike for me and knuckle down to your degree. You seem like an individual whose opinions come from the mouths of lecturers...
"Quit Anon bashing. Your arguments against anonymity amount only to macho bullshit."
To an outsider, it doesn't quite seem cricket to remain anonymous when the debate seems to revolve around one participant's personality and beliefs. (Although your palate generally does the tasting, Dan.)
(off-topic) I find the problem with Anonymous posting is that it ruins the flow of conversation, as it's difficult to know who's saying what, and all the Anonymous users mass into one user. Numbered anonymous accounts, ala 4chan, would be an improvement on this.
This does seem to have become a bit of a Dan bashing thread.
Anyway, back on-topic:
Okay, perhaps that excuse works for short period of times (we do the same with our detaining without trial system), but we're talking about people being held for years without trial.
Chris, frankly most of these threads become 'Dan bashing' from the same old people. Caring is another matter.
You will recognise that the US has actually begun trying certain individuals that had previously been detained at Guantanamo Bay. There are logistical problems with this though, as the US government has pointed out. In many cases, the reason the US has NOT extradited these people to their country of origin is because of the concern of the US government that they will be tortured and executed back in their country of origin. In a sense, these people have been abandoned by their own governments (I use Jordanians and Algerians as prime examples where this is the case). On the flip side, were the US to deport Iranians and Syrians back to their homelands from Guantanamo, it is highly unlikely they would be monitered in the necessary fashion, seen as both countries are open supporters of insurgency and terrorism. In the case of Mozzam, the US were secure enough in the knowledge that British authorities would keep tabs on him and thus saw his release as workable.
My point is that no-one sees Guantanamo as nice. Not me, not Dick Cheney nor George Bush. The difference is that we and clearly many others, see it as necessary. Do you not think that if it was AT ALL possible, the US would gladly charge and try these people through US courts, taking all the moral high-ground and saving them a massive embarassment in a perfectly legitimate war? Of course they would. I already commented that it has probably done the US more harm than good in their international standing. What I respect however is an administration that is able to wake up to very real threats from Islamo-fascism. It's not scaremongering. 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali etc are not figments of my imagination. They are real events against a real enemy that requires tough and at times, unpalletable solutions. Ultimately, if terrorists stopped targeting innocents around the world, Guantanamo would not even exist.
'Ultimately, if terrorists stopped targeting innocents around the world, Guantanamo would not even exist.'
Even MORE rhetoric! He really doesn't get it does he?! What a world Mr Taylor lives in.
I understand that a place in which suspected terrorists are ketp must exist. What I DON'T understand is:
a) why the use of methods of torture is used. Surely ,if these people are a risk, it would be better to imprison them in maximum security prisons, obviously apart from other prioners? Why exactly do the US feel the need to torture them?
b) Why are they US ALLOWED to torture them? I understand that the use of torture methods such as waterboarding is not illegal in Guantanamo, but surely, as this IS illegal within the US the prisoners detained under the US should be treated as if they were on US soil?
c) Why some of the people in Guantanamo are never given a trial. I know that some people may be detained up until their trial in normal court cases, but how can we classify these people as guilty if the evidence is never assessed in court. They have no chance to defend themselves, and as we know, people can make mistakes when it comes to arresting people.
Murderers, paedophiles and rapists are just as evil as terrorists and cause just as much suffering, and yet we have never seen the need to bring in a system of extended detention without trial for any of these appalling criminals. Further, as Stephanie H pointed out, there was no equivalent of Guantanamo for IRA terrorists. 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali etc are indeed atrocities but they are not so inexplicable and wholly removed from the acts of other criminals that they require an entirely different response and they certainly should not cause us to abandon our moral convictions. Even the Nazis received a trial at Nuremburg and it is difficult to imagine anyone capable of such atrocious acts as them. If we allow terrorists to force us to shirk the responsibilities entailed by our most basic moral convictions then, in a sense, we have already let them win.
It is probably correct that some of the inmates of Guantanamo have committed the crimes they are suspected of but this does not excuse failing to afford them their right to a fair trial any more than it would for murderers etc. The rights to a fair trial and to not be subject to detention without charge are not conditional upon being innocent or upon being a nice person. Further, although some Guantanamo inmates may be guility, some are probably not. The protection of the innocent amounts to much more than imprisoning those that would harm them; it must also involve all possible means being taken to avoid imprisoning innocent people. A system of detention without trial or charge, little or no legal representation for the accused and rendition between secret prisons is not conducive to the protection of the innocent.
I'm sorry to jump back in this thread, but I'd like to address Dan's points he made to me.
I did not intend to criticise your character; I don't know you and you're entitled to your opinion. I made a poor attempt to address three comments at once and if I offended you, I apologise. The controversy to which I was alluding is that you continually suggest that guilt should be assumed. The phrase was mentioned in post #2, I was brought up to believe that people are "innocent until proven guilty" and that there are no circumstances under which it is necessary to do otherwise.
Why does it bother me? Because it's a dangerous way to think. Go and read Zimbardo's, The Lucifer Effect. There are a number of flaws of the Stanford Prison Experiment as even Wikipedia will point out but it does show that people will readily dehumanise "prisoners", even innnocent ones.
I suppose that begs the question, do you believe torture is necessary too, Dan?
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report