As reported by the Irish Times and Andy Worthington, one of two Uzbeks released from Guantanamo to settle in Ireland over the weekend had been a juvenile taxi driver in Afghanistan at the time he was detained. Worthington provides us with the story of the juvenile, Shakhrukh Hamiduva:
All that is known publicly of Shakhrukh Hamiduva is that he was born in Kokand, Uzbekistan in December 1983 (and that he was, therefore, probably under 18 years of age at the time of his capture), that he was one of the first prisoners to arrive at Guantánamo in January 2002, and that he gave the following account in December 2004 to his Combatant Status Review Tribunal…
/snip/
In his tribunal, Hamiduva explained that he left Uzbekistan because of religious persecution, and added that his father and five uncles had been jailed, and that another uncle had been killed. Nevertheless, he had to contend with a number of allegations whose provenance was not disclosed, but which were almost certainly produced as a result of the interrogations of other prisoners (or of Hamiduva himself), in circumstances that may well have involved coercion or bribery. One allegation was that he had spent a year and a half in a training camp run by the Islamic Movement of Tajikistan, but he explained that he had spent that time at a refugee camp, which contained around 300 refugees.
/snip/
In a statement provided to his Personal Representative (a military officer assigned to the prisoners for the tribunals instead of a lawyer), he explained that he had initially wanted to go to Turkey, but that he couldn’t get a passport because he was too young, so he decided to work with the Tajik authorities at the refugee camp instead. This, he said, involved helping the refugees, and he added that the Tajik government then provided transportation to take him and other refugees to Afghanistan (actually deporting them, as they did with hundreds of Uzbek refugees in 1999, including Oybek Jabbarov and his family), where he helped some of them “to fix up things like cars or roofs” at a place in Kabul. He also explained that, after five or six months, he hooked up with an Afghan “mentor,” who owned a garage and taught him to drive, and added that, after working for him for a while, he bought a car and started to work as a taxi driver, which was his occupation when he was captured.
Hamiduva was captured while returning to Afghanistan from Pakistan, where he had gone seeking a passport for a return to Uzbekistan. He had a carload of Afghanis from Mazar-e-Sharif, whom he was carrying in return for directions for the trip. The car was stopped by Afghan forces, the passengers were allowed to leave and Hamiduva was turned over to a leader whom Worthington suspects was Rashid Dostum.
After being detained for over a month in Afghanistan (and being told by US personnel that they would assist him in getting home) Hamiduva was shipped to Guantanamo, where he appears to have been among the first prisoners shipped there.
Sadly, even though he was under 18 at the time he was captured, he reported that he was tortured. Quoting Worthington’s piece again:
He added, “I just want to let you know that they torture me a lot here at the camp. They would not let me sleep through the night; they were tak[ing] me to interrogations. I saw them beating other detainees, breaking their arms and legs.”
At least Hamiduva did not suffer the same fate as Dilawar, a fellow taxi driver who was tortured to death at Bagram and became the subject of the Oscar-winning film Taxi to the Dark Side.
Hamiduva’s case is far from unique. As Worthington also reported previously, there were at least 22 Guantanamo detainees who were juveniles at the time of their capture. As Worthington reported, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has specific requirements in such cases:
This imprecision seems to reflect the Pentagon’s lack of concern for whether prisoners were juvenile at the time of capture. Under the terms of Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (on the involvement of children in armed conflict), the U.S. administration is required to promote “the physical and psychosocial rehabilitation and social reintegration of children who are victims of armed conflict,” but in May 2003, when the story first broke that juvenile prisoners were being held at Guantánamo, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a press conference, “This constant refrain of ‘the juveniles,’ as though there’s a hundred children in there — these are not children.”
It seems Ireland has a much better sense of justice than the United States. From the Irish Times article linked above:
Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern has requested that their privacy be respected. “The resettlement of the two individuals is a humanitarian gesture. They should be allowed time and space to rebuild their lives,” he said. “Ireland is a welcoming country and we are pleased to play our part with President Obama in assisting in the closing of this centre.”
Welcoming the development, Amnesty International said it hoped other countries would follow suit. “Today the Irish Government has brought us one step closer to shutting down Guantánamo Bay,” said Amnesty’s Ireland programmes director Noeleen Hartigan.
“Amnesty International strongly welcomes the announcement that two former detainees will be allowed to stay in Ireland and we hope that other countries, particularly in the EU, will follow our Government’s courageous example,” she added. “We would like to commend the political leadership shown in making this possible by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern and Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin.”
Along with the stories of the disappearances of the children of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and Aafia Siddiqui, the treatment of juvenile prisoners at Guantanamo forces the conclusion that the US has no respect for the rights of children if they are sold as war prisoners or are the children of suspected terrorists. When will the US return to recognizing children’s rights?





23 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Even if you’re under 18 you can still kill a lot of people.
Yeah, as a volunteer helping his fellow countrymen in a refugee camp, this young man was definitely a threat to us all, wasn’t he? Your attitude, when confronted with the evidence that this young man was tortured even after it was established that he posed no threat and was detained under false circumstances, is just as abhorrent as that of Rumsfeld in the quote above.
I have no problem with investigating and arresting those who are planning real terrorist attacks. We all lose a bit of our humanity, however, when our country tortures and murders innocent civilians in a fit of blind rage.
Or not.
This person’s arrest is reflective of the original policy that opened Camp X-Ray, not as a place to put the worst of the worst terrorists in the world, but as an intelligence gathering facility concentrating on interrogation and human intelligence. Simply put, our allies in Pakistan were instructed to detain anyone crossing the border and then to separate them into two groups: Afghans and Pakistanis, who started at Haripur, and ‘foreign fighters’ who started at Kohat. The assumption was that anyone who was in Afghanistan who was not from either Afghanistan or Pakistan was in league with al Qaeda and therefore knew something about international plots.
At the time when the Taliban were toppled, there were 3.5 million externally and a large number of internally displaced persons, otherwise known as refugees, and many, many people from other Muslim nations there as relief workers to them. But they were foreign, and they were crossing the border, so guess where they ended up?
A 17 year old can also aid a refugee as well as an adult can.
Thank you for this Jim. And thanks to both you and Ondelette for continuing to spotlight the disappearance of the Aafia Siddiqui’s children.
And heartfelt thanks to civilized nations like Ireland. We would take a step closer to being civilized ourselves, if we held US leaders accountable for their war crimes.
Thanks for adding the perspective of the “mosaic” approach to intelligence gathering that contributed to the detention of many innocents in the area.
More Andy Worthington on a different case:
This of course also points out the hypocrisy of the government’s claim of Guantanamo (and Bagram along with the other sites in Afghanistan and Iraq) housing only the “worst of the worst”.
It’s interesting to note, too, this week the number of apologists climbing out of the walls to speak up for Polanski. Justice? It’s too late for that… the case is so old (forgetting that Polanski fled justice). Of course, the Law did not actively pursue his extradition for many years, either.
A thirteen-year-old [American] girl’s history of being assaulted, raped, and sodomized (despite saying no each and every time), and after being given a quaalude and champagne, is considered of less import than the artistic career of Polanski. And the delights of his audience.
The victims in your case, Jim, are not white, American or female (except perhaps for some of the detainees’ children), and so deserve even less consideration. According to our current norms.
I need a new word. Disgusted doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Does anyone have any news on the Uighurs’ case that the SCOTUS was to have discussed today? The story of the brothers who will not be going to Pulau because one of them (Arkin) was driven crazy by his captivity and his brother (Baktiyar) will not leave him alone at Guantanamo is one that keeps me awake. These stories need wider coverage.
I just took a peak over at SCOTUSblog and didn’t see anything there yet. Maybe they will have something tomorrow. Thanks for the reminder.
He is a worthless troll, and not a particularly bright one either. Pitches the same simplistic drivel at our place too.
Nice post Jim.
This young man is the same age as my dear older son. Thank you Ireland for taking this young man in, markfromireland (edit: Ondelette)please give him my best wishes if you get to meet him.
Thanks, bmaz.
Yes, I’ve seen the tin woodman around the lake quite a bit. He’s just as heartless as his namesake.
We love our celebrities don’t we?
If you’re big enough you can even get away with murder!
One set of rules for the rich, one set of rules for the rest of us
Yes, Karen, the multi-level standards for humans are disgusting. We were supposed to have left those behind generations ago, but they still linger.
It’s nice that someone is trying to get these people free, but where’s the outrage that another 75 people are being released without charge after years of torture and illegal confinement? After each round of releases, we were told that those who remain are the “worst of the worst.” And now at the end of it we will have confined, tortured and released about 800 people and we’ll be left with, what, five???
Thank you for this post and thanks to Ireland for taking the Uzbeks.
It says something when we are reliant on Dostum for “proof” of someone else’s evil actions.
Then you hear the stories of how we are staying in Iraq and Afghanistan to “win hearts and minds” and you have to wonder how the same policy gurus who refuse to admit the evil of what was done to so many can expect to “win” hearts and minds of their friends, tribal contacts, relatives, religious communities, etc.
It’s not just an abuse of those who were detained and tortured, but also an abuse of every member of the service of the several nations in Afghanistan and Iraq to send them on a mission that our leaders arrogantly undermine without accountability.
Thanks Jim. I guess it’s good that he’s been released. Of course, that doesn’t make up for much…
This part can’t be emphasized enough. By maintaining and even trying to defend a program of systematic torture of detainees, our government is virtually guaranteeing the torture of our forces who are captured. That alone is enough reason not to torture, even if weren’t wrong on so many other levels.
Forgive this off-topic comment. I’m repeating it from the previous FDL thread re the failure of Schumer’s “Level Playing Field” Public Option Amendment.
I was going to send them some money anyway, but I have now DONE it because you provided the link. Thanks
Contribute to Democracy for America and Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) via ActBlue!
http://www.actblue.com/page/ba….._baucus-e2
That may be true, but what’s your point?
What an appalling story, Jim and thanks for telling it. It’s amazing sometimes what a “free” country will accept.
There is hope of getting that hell hole closed.
*******
“A group of retired military officers is launching a campaign in support of closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison, amid opposition to the plan among lawmakers and the public.
The retired officers, who met with Attorney General Eric Holder and other senior administration officials in Washington this week to discuss the issue, are planning a series of events, including appearances at universities and local community groups across the country, to make the case for closing Guantanamo.
“We’ve been disturbed by the disinformation that is out there, that is playing on fear, and that is leading people to be diverted from the issue of closing Guantanamo,” retired Army Gen. David Maddox said Tuesday, in an interview with the group. “
http://online.wsj.com/article/…..sNewsThird
In November 2008, when the Obama transition team first said they would announce the closing of Guantanamo, I was surprised to learn that the ICRC initially would oppose the move. They were, in fact, then followed by Human Rights Watch and others, as they pointedly stated that they wanted to know to where the prisoners would be moved, and a commitment of equal or greater access to them and other prisoners under U.S. control. I remember this whole sequence very well, because I remember mentioning it here at FDL in a live chat with ACLU lawyer Hina Shamshi, and being told I must be mistaken. I wasn’t.
Then in early 2009, the Obama administration, announced that they were going to ban torture, and unilaterally provide access to all prisoners within U.S. control to the Red Cross. The situation was oddly reversed, with lawyers for various prisoners very guarded and not convinced of any changes, but with the ICRC delegation cautiously ecstatic. No government voluntarily makes those kind of changes, they explained, this marked a historic moment in international humanitarian law.
Now we are facing the reality that both groups had reason for their caution, and the outcomes have not been easily won, nor is there as firm a commitment in the political establishment as people would wish for accomplishing them. These military officers also reflected as much, opining that the deadline had served a purpose even if it had not been met.
So what do all these indicators, these suspicions and elations, really mean? Back in February, I had opined that the torture crisis was perhaps the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War tore the country apart over another jus cogens crime, slavery. It really is that bad. As the trials of terror suspects, and their coverage in the papers shows, it runs very deep, this notion of dual standards of justice, dual standards of safety, and dual standards of humanity.
As the victims rights, NIMBY, 9/11 families, and other groups that spoke up when the debate on where to put the prisoners from Guantanamo demonstrated, there is still a lot of the deep-seated social framework that causes torture in place. As the current use of the Hamdan and Boumediene trials to justify poor treatment, rather than to speak in favor of the rights of prisoners (seen in Judge Bates’ decision on the Bagram detainees), the Geneva Conventions have been reduced by American courts to one single article (common Article 3) and its customary interpretations. And the social obsession with complete safety that leads to interrogation torture is still firmly in place.
There are many signs for hope, but this is not going to be any easier than the debate that took four score and seven years.
Thank you, bmaz!!! At last tinman is branded for what he is (IMO).