Peter Jan Honigsberg

  • January 11, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Peter Jan Honigsberg, Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco and Founder and Director of Witness to Guantanamo

    Today marks the fifteenth anniversary of the opening of the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is an anniversary I had hoped would never happen. Most people thought Guantanamo would close after President Obama announced on his second day in office that he would shutter the prison within a year. He repeated his pledge to close the prison three more times during his tenure. Yet, today, Guantanamo continues to be a black stain on America and negates our claim to be a global leader in human rights and the rule of law. When America accuses other countries of human rights violations, their leaders point to Guantanamo in response.

    Over the past fifteen years, public interest and information about Guantanamo has been scarce. Since Donald Trump announced that he will “load [Guantanamo] up with some bad dudes,” the prison has been back in the news.

    For the past nine years, “Witness to Guantanamo” has created the world’s most comprehensive collection of filmed stories about the prison camp at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. We have interviewed 146 people in 20 countries. Fifty-one of the interviewees are former detainees. We have also filmed interviews with prison guards, interrogators, interpreters, medical personnel, lawyers and high-ranking military and government officials who have worked in Guantanamo or on Guantanamo issues. We are the only organization in the world recording the voices and faces of one of the most important events in the 21st century for history.

    Fifteen years ago today, on Jan. 11, 2002, the first 20 (out of 780) men were dragged and marched onto an American military jet wearing orange jumpsuits, blackened goggles, earmuffs, masks, mittens and woolen caps. Ruhal Ahmed, a former detainee from England, described how their legs and arms were shackled in what was called a “three-piece suit,” with a belly chain and leg irons digging into their legs, their hands tightly shackled to their waists. Their chains were padlocked to the floor and a strap was put over their chest so that they could not move forward. Some of the lucky men were given drugs to manage the brutal 18-hour ride to Guantanamo.

  • March 25, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Peter Jan Honigsberg, professor of law at the University of San Francisco and Director of the Witness to Guantanamo project and author of Our Nation Unhinged, the Human Consequences of the War on Terror

    Damien Corsetti was an interrogator at the Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan in 2002, where, according to The New York Times, he was known as the “King of Torture.”  In 2006, he was prosecuted for alleged abusive treatment he committed while an interrogator, but was acquitted.  Nevertheless, he told our Witness to Guantanamo project that he had mistreated his prisoners.

    When he began working in summer 2002, Corsetti believed in what he was doing.  He thought they were all guilty and, like most Americans, he was angry.  He explained how he had obtained information regarding several alleged plots through his interrogations in time for the U.S. to intervene and prevent the incidents from occurring.  He saved American lives.

    In the months that followed, however, he and other interrogators began to have doubts about their work. They asked a Judge Advocate General, or JAG lawyer, for advice.  The JAG attorney assured them that their actions were legal because the Bush administration had decided not to adhere to the Geneva Conventions. After hearing the JAG assessment, Corsetti felt obligated to follow orders.

    Corsetti told us how he would hood prisoners, tighten the cord at the neck, and then pour water over the hood.  The process wasn’t quite the same as “waterboarding,” but the detainees did experience the sensation of drowning or suffocating.

    He forced prisoners into extremely uncomfortable and awkward “stress positions” for hours.  He noted how the military later renamed the term “stress positions” to “safety positions,” explaining that the safety positions were for the safety of the interrogators and the military personnel on the base, not the detainees.