quote:Mr Kellenberger met US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Friday to press them to allow access to all detainees of the war on terror, an issue the ICRC says was first raised with US authorities two years ago.
In a strongly worded statement following the meeting, the ICRC said the US had moved no closer to permitting access to prisoners in undisclosed locations.
"No matter how legitimate the grounds for detention, there exists no right to conceal a person's whereabouts or to deny that he or she is being detained," Mr Kellenberger said.
This is practically unprecedented for the ICRC to openly criticize a government. They were on record a few months back saying that they would not, could not go to that extreme because it was feared that governments would then bar them from visiting prisoners in general.
I wonder what has changed their minds.
I believe they must be exasperated with the lack of access. But if they are going to start blasting sitting governments, against all precedent, they must be both really ticked off, and, ready for a change in mission.
Frankly, I'm in shock. I didn't see this coming at all.
Gentle prodding, sure.
Chiding, maybe.
But open criticism in the press. Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I agree with Mr Kellenberger. Someone has to make sure we're doing what we should for those we've detained.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is practically unprecedented for the ICRC to openly criticize a government. They were on record a few months back saying that they would not, could not go to that extreme because it was feared that governments would then bar them from visiting prisoners in general.
I wonder what has changed their minds.
Little, I'm sure. One of the great things about America is that we ARE by and large a decent country, and so the scandal that would erupt if we denied access to the Red Cross is probably sufficient to prevent us from retaliating in, say, the way Iran would.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, and I too agree with Mr. Kellenberger. I also understood and agreed with the ICRC's reasons for NEVER openly criticizing a sitting government.
In a way, it does seem as if they're willing to make an exception in our case. And I think Tom is right that they run less risk of doing so with us than they would with other governments in the world. We WILL NOT boot them out, and we might just end up being shamed into giving them access.
I know I'm ashamed of the whole extraordinary rendition thing. And I'd be a lot less upset if the ICRC did have access to those people we've "disappeared" (as well as full access to the detainees and Guantanamo).
I'm anxious to see if this changes anything.
And, really, I hope that this coming forward does not damage the ICRC's access to our troops when they are held in other countries. If governments fear that the ICRC is going to act as "spies" they won't let them in at all.
So...this is still sounding like a huge gamble to me. And one that I was convinced (by the ICRC's website) that they would not take.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
It is one thing to publically criticize governments for how they treat prisoners that ICRC is allowed access to and another to condemn lack of access. It is the former that the ICRC doesn't do. Even so, the statement does indicate a significant degree of frustration.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Perhaps the gamble was made on our behalf as well. Quiet protestations didn't seem to make any difference to our government. Perhaps the ICRC realizes with elections coming up, the public relations side of this might push the administration a bit towards opening up.
But it isn't going to happen. It just isn't making big news in the US, as far as I can tell.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That's because of that old liberal press bias wanting to smear the Bush Administration at every turn.
Oh...wait...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I missed this thread and posted one, so I'll move that here.
quote:"No matter how legitimate the grounds for detention, there exists no right to conceal a person's whereabouts or to deny that he or she is being detained," Kellenberger said.
He said the ICRC would continue to seek access to these people "as a matter of priority" despite the "the disappointing lack of results and the current U.S. position."
quote:Prisoners in this category "have been afforded treatment that is consistent with our international obligations. And all the people that are held by the U.S. government are treated humanely," McCormack said.
Does it really hurt so much to exceed our international obligations a little and give them at least the names of people we are holding? If all I ever did was meet my minimum obligation to people, I don't think they would like me very much. (Or, "Who is my neighbor?")
I understand the whole national security thing. But considering the whole "wrongfully detaining people" thing that's been going on and the fact that even I'm not sure that we actually have "met our obligations", considering the recent track record on treatment of prisoners, I think it might be a good idea to at least let the ICRC in to see them on a supervised inspection, give them an inspected care package, make sure they show no signs of abuse. I can understand not passing letters, but a list of names and assurance that they're being fed and not tortured might give families some comfort. (And if they are being treated inhumanely, someone ought to know so it can be stopped.)
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I could see witholding the names and locations for a period of time, but for so long? If some of these really are Al Qaeda operatives, don't you feel that Al Qaeda probably already knows they are missing? Wouldn't they have already taken steps to make anything those operatives knew obsolete at this point?
In some cases, I believe it would be more distruptive to Al Qaeda to release some of the names.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Call me cynical (others have), but I can think of only one reason why the Bush administration is not allowing the Red Cross access to the all the "detainees" (that term bugs the heck out of me, by the way, since it is just the administration's way of getting around having to live up to the Geneva conventions on prisoners of war). That reason is that there is something about either the condition of the prisoners or the conditions in which the prisoners are being held (or both) that is objectionable to human rights and dignity, and that the administration's reputation would be further destroyed it those conditions came to be known.
Or does the administration honestly believe that the Red Cross would try to break them out or something? Sheesh.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)