Connect with us




Guantanamo is easily the biggest violator of human rights

US elites often attack Cuba for breaches of human rights, overlooking the most extreme violations that occur at the US-run Guantanamo facility.

Shane Quinn




The Guantanamo military prison, in south-eastern Cuba, has violated human rights at will since established by US President George W. Bush in 2002 – during his administration’s declared war against terrorism.

The Guantanamo “detention centre” has in reality served as a torture chamber with inmates suffering various abuses. By comparison, Guantanamo makes the once notorious Alcatraz prison today seem like a modest labour camp.

Many of Guantanamo’s prisoners have been held without charge or trial, on mere suspicion of guilt, and subjected to widespread use of torture – which has done nothing but further aid the cause of extremist fundamentalist groups like Al-Qaeda. The principles of assumption of innocence, originating over 800 years ago with the creation of Magna Carta, have long been cast to the wind.

Magna Carta was drafted in England in 1215 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, to settle a vicious dispute between the unpopular King John and a group of revolutionary barons. The Great Charter – as it is also known – safeguarded the rebellious barons from wrongful imprisonment, granted them access to swift justice, promised to protect Church rights, and so on. It became a cornerstone of English political life, being customarily renewed by each monarch.

Magna Carta heavily influenced early American colonists (“part of Americans’ birthright”), was a driving force behind the US Constitution’s signing in 1787, later entering sections of the US Bill of Rights. In the 21st century its values have particularly been thrown to the wayside.

An extract from Magna Carta declares, “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed, or outlawed or exiled, or in any way destroyed – nor will we go upon him, nor will we send against him except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land”. These words appear to have been lost on past US Presidents like George Bush, Barack Obama and their British counterpart Tony Blair.

Blair’s predecessor Winston Churchill was not unacquainted with warfare – having overseen major operations in both the world wars. Nor was Britain’s renowned wartime leader a stranger to controversy in a career stretching across decades.

Yet Churchill said shortly after World War II, “We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom, and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence”.

Churchill further described Magna Carta as “the charter of every self-respecting man at any time in any land”, while saying separately that “the power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law… is in the highest degree odious”.

One can but guess at his thoughts if he were here to witness “the great principles of freedom” deprived of those sitting without charge at prisons like the US-run Guantanamo. The leader of the Free World hasn’t quite been living up to its title.

It would be interesting to note Churchill’s reaction too to the first Guantanamo case that came to trial under Obama – that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen and former child soldier. When age 15, a wounded Khadr was captured in 2002 as he defended his Afghan village from attack by US forces – that is, trying to protect his homeland from an illegal invasion force. By the standards of US justice, Khadr’s actions were deemed a serious crime.

Khadr was imprisoned at Bagram in Afghanistan, and later, at Guantanamo. In October 2010, he was brought before a military court and handed two options: plead not guilty and stay in Guantanamo forever, or plead guilty and serve another eight years. Khadr chose the second option, being released early in 2015 under “strict conditions”, after having spent a decade at Guantanamo. Earlier this year, the Canadian government was forced to award Khadr a settlement of around $8 million for various constitutional rights violations.

There is the likelihood those that do leave Guantanamo remain permanently affected by their treatment. Kuwaiti citizen Abdallah al-Ajmiwas sent to Guantanamo in 2003 for participating in “two or three fire-fights with the Northern Alliance [Afghan military organisation fighting the Taliban]. After release in 2005, Al-Ajmi made his way onto a devastated Iraq. In March 2008 he drove a truck weighed down with bombs into an Iraqi military facility, blowing himself up along with 13 Iraqi soldiers.

Al-Ajmi’s lawyer said this terrorist act was a consequence of his appalling treatment at Guantanamo. Jenifer Fenton of CNN reported in 2011 that “two people who knew Al-Ajmi described him as unstable when he returned from Guantanamo”.

Guantanamo has even come under heavy criticism from such figures as John Brennan, future Director of the CIA [2013-2017], when he said in 2011 as US Homeland Security Advisor that, “our nation will be more secure the day when that prison is finally and responsibly closed down”.

Despite all this, in July US Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that Guantanamo was a “very fine place for holding these kinds of dangerous criminals”. Sessions revealed that, “We’ve spent a lot of money fixing it up… And I think the fact is that a lot of the criticisms have just been totally exaggerated”. Based on Sessions’ views, not exaggerated enough it would seem.

The American claims to Guantanamo have always been illegitimate to begin with – dating back to 1903 when Guantanamo was taken“under duress” by the US military. After independence from US domination in 1959, the Cuban government made repeated requests to relinquish what also contains their major port. Perhaps the principle reason behind American control of the island’s south-eastern part, is to hamper Cuba’s economic development while giving the US a foothold in the region.

Western politicians often cry foul over Cuba’s supposed “violations of human rights”, with no mention that easily the most extreme “violations” in the country occur at Guantanamo.

There are indeed minor concerns over infringements of human rights in Cuba – these cannot even compare to the practices of American client states and allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia – not to mention the crimes perpetrated by US-backed dictatorships in Latin America, Africa and so on.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of
samo war
samo war

S.M. De Kuyper
S.M. De Kuyper

9/11, known to being prepared for by Saudi Arabian ji-hadists at the highest level one year in advance, the US Government cabal at the time led by Richard Cheney prepared to allow 9/11 to happen as planned in order to remove all US law by declaring a world war on terrorism, the goal to remove all Islam. President Bush 1 agreed this was a fine idea although he may have had no choice.

samo war
samo war

millky way ?


US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”





Via RT

Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career



Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.


Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Why Joe May be Courting Stacey

Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Patrick J. Buchanan



Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:

Of 895 slots in the freshman class of Stuyvesant High in New York City, seven were offered this year to black students, down from 10 last year and 13 the year before.

In the freshman class of 803 at The Bronx High School of Science, 12 students are black, down from last year’s 25.

Of 303 students admitted to Staten Island Technical High School, one is African-American.

According to The New York Times, similar patterns of admission apply at the other five most elite high schools in the city.

Whites and Asians are 30 percent of middle school students, but 83 percent of the freshman at Bronx High School of Science, 88 percent at Staten Island Technical and 90 percent at Stuyvesant.

What do these numbers tell us?

They reveal the racial composition of the cohort of scientists and technicians who will lead America in the 21st century. And they tell us which races will not be well represented in that vanguard.

They identify a fault line that runs through the Democratic Party, separating leftists who believe in equality of results for all races and ethnic groups, and those who believe in a meritocracy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed anger and frustration at the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics in the elite schools. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have ignored his pleas to change the way students are admitted.

Currently, the same test, of English and math, is given to middle school applicants. And admission to the elite eight is offered to those who get the highest scores.

Moreover, Asians, not whites, are predominant.

Though 15 percent of all middle school students, Asians make up two-thirds of the student body at Stuyvesant, with 80 times as many slots as their African-American classmates.

The egalitarian wing of the Democratic Party sees this as inherently unjust. And what gives this issue national import are these factors:

First, the recent scandal where rich parents paid huge bribes to criminal consultants to get their kids into elite colleges, by falsifying records of athletic achievement and cheating on Scholastic Aptitude Tests, has caused a wave of populist resentment.

Second, Harvard is being sued for systemic reverse racism, as black and Hispanic students are admitted with test scores hundreds of points below those that would disqualify Asians and whites.

Third, Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Here are Biden’s quotes, unearthed by The Washington Post, that reflect his beliefs about forced busing for racial balance in public schools:

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with.

“What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!

“Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

“I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”

That was 44 years ago. While those views were the thinking of many Democrats, and perhaps of most Americans, in the mid-’70s, they will be problematic in the 2020 primaries, where African-Americans could be decisive in the contests that follow Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden knows that just as Bernie Sanders, another white male, fell short in crucial South Carolina because of a lack of support among black voters, he, too, has a problem with that most loyal element in the Democratic coalition.

In 1991, Biden failed to rise to the defense of Anita Hill when she charged future Justice Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a law-and-order champion responsible for tough anti-crime legislation that is now regarded as discriminatory.

And he has a record on busing for racial balance that made him a de facto ally of Louise Day Hicks of the Boston busing case fame.

How, with a record like this, does Biden inoculate himself against attacks by rival candidates, especially candidates of color, in his run for the nomination?

One way would be to signal to his party that he has grown, he has changed, and his 2020 running mate will be a person of color. Perhaps he’ll run with a woman of color such as Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia.

An ancillary benefit would be that Abrams on the ticket would help him carry Georgia, a state Donald Trump probably cannot lose and win re-election.

Wrote Axios this morning:

“Close advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden are debating the idea of packaging his presidential campaign announcement with a pledge to choose Stacey Abrams as his vice president.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter