One-sided and anti-american

The International Committee of the Red Cross is criticized by conservative circles as biased; the Pentagon is said to have known about abuses at Abu Ghraib as early as late December

The report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which accuses the Pentagon of having set up a system at Guatanamo that would have "Form of torture" The fact that the government’s support for the refugee deal and economic relations was more important than supporting oppositional forces. Although the ICRC did not publish the confidential report, but the New York Times received it, the international organization is now accused of one-sidedness and anti-Americanism.

The ICRC accuses the U.S. government in the report, which was written after one of the visits to the camp, of having set up a system in which detainees were forced to testify under psychological and physical duress (A system of torture in Guantanamo). similarly the ICRC had already criticized the conditions in Abu Ghraib. The Pentagon had initially denied the organization access there, just as it had to Guantanamo. Auch der Umgang mit den Gefangenen in Guantanamo wurde von der Organisation schon mehrmals gerugt, allerdings taucht nun erstmals der Begriff der Folter explizit in dem Bericht auf.

The International Committee is committed to neutrality. Post-visit reports on prisoners of war, as required by the Geneva Conventions, are provided confidentially only to the governments concerned. The ICRC will continue to adhere to this principle, which is why it does not confirm or deny the statements made in the report that has been made public.

In a press release, the Committee stated that since 2002, inspections of the Guantanamo camp have taken place to verify that detainees are being treated in accordance with international agreements. The purpose of the visits was also to enable the detainees to establish contact with their families. Confidential reports, in which the respective governments are informed of grievances, continue to be used, as this is also the best way for the prisoners. This is the only reason why it was possible to have repeated access to the prisoners in Guantanamo and to talk to them. The Pentagon has recently established a Detainee Affairs Division with which the ICRC can discuss the problems. However, they do not seem to be entirely satisfied with this. Although the ICRC does not address individual allegations, it does generally express concern once again that "important ies regarding the conditions of detention and treatment at Guatananmo Bay have not been adequately addressed".

Conservatives and Republicans are now using the release of the confidential report to discredit the international organization as well as the United Nations, saying it is one-sided. Andrew Apostolou of the conservative, shortly after the 11.9. Foundation for Defense of Democracies, founded in 2001, accuses the ICRC of allegedly never having criticized another government so harshly before. The Geneva-based organization applied a "double stick" and had never opposed such measures "obvious human rights violators" deployed. The ICRC has been under prere from human rights organizations since 11.9. to the "very much opposed to what the U.S. has done".

The conservative Washington Times, also sympathetic to the Bush administration, took up the ie, quoting one of the usual Pentagon advisors, who must never be named. There is an attitude at the Red Cross, he said, that "al-Qaida is morally equivalent to the U.S. They never trusted what we said." And of course he believes that anti-Americanism is present in the organization, equating criticism of the Bush administration with anti-Americanism.

Also Frank J. Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy, which also belongs to the conservative network of foundations and think tanks, explains that the ICRC has a "has for some time become an agitational operation against American interests". It is not surprising, therefore, that in its work "American security clearances" rejects or even condemns. It is ironic, he said, that the ICRC, of all things, is "defended the rights of al-Qaida terrorists, although it is the Red Cross’ job to protect civilians in wartime". The ICRC, according to Frank J. Gaffney, "protects and demands the interests of people who themselves are not interested in the fate of civilians".

The Pentagon also continues to reject all accusations. It points to the dangerousness of the detainees. Some of those released had fought again against the Americans in Afghanistan. And Brigadier General Jay Hood asserts:

We have not taken hundreds of innocent civilians off the battlefield. If you listen to any story, you’ll hear a normal whine from this person who tells you he was just a carpetbagger or something like that. I think it’s all part of the intent to mislead and misrepresent others.

Officially, the Pentagon claims that "No credible evidence of mistreatment of detainees" give. In particular, it is denied that medical personnel were involved in ill-treatment during interrogations, which the ICRC has alleged. The staff did not withhold medical treatment from prisoners in order to force them to testify, nor was there any medical treatment "credible information" about the fact that medical information was used by Pentagon employees in order to "to put a prisoner under psychological or physical prere during detention or interrogation. The Pentagon was going to take such allegations seriously, and "all credible reports" check.

Apparently the ICRC report is not credible to the Pentagon. This is also confirmed by Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman. Regarding the ICRC report, he said: "That is their view." He also denied that there was any credible evidence of the abuses complained of. He would not go into details, saying the report was, after all, confidential. He also emphasized that the U.S. government has the right to investigate suspected technical "enemy combatants" until the end of the war on terrorism. They also did not stand under the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

The Pentagon’s defensive strategy, however, was not allowed to be demanding, which the Washington Post reports today. Even before the Abu Ghraib torture scandal came to light, retired Colonel Stuart A. Herrington had said that the methods used were illegal. Herrington indicated in a confidential report to the Pentagon that Special Forces Task Force 121 was mistreating prisoners in Iraq and running a secret detention facility. At the very least, the methods used could, Herrington cautiously, "technical" illegal. This was in December 2003, while the Pentagon allegedly did not know about the Abu Ghraib incidents until late January.

After his report, it must have been known to the Pentagon that abuses did not only occur in Abu Ghraib. The Pentagon has always tried to blame the scandal on some "bad apples" and to be limited to Abu Ghraib. detainees had had injuries caused by beatings, Herrington wrote in the report leaked to the Washington Post. The special unit had to be limited in its handling of prisoners, Herrington recommended.