Revealed: the full story of the Guantanamo Britons

[w4rma]

The Republican leadership is weak on terrorism and weak on the Bill of Rights. These three are British civilians. There are many many folks in this place that were picked up right here in the U.S.A. (and are *American* citizens) and you can bet are being treated exactly like these three British citizens were.

A few folks seem to think that the anti-Constitutional slippery slope will stop, or maybe they don't think that the slippery slope will stop and they WANT Americans treated the same way that these British citizens were.

And one more thing, this is not an anti-American article. This is an anti-Bush policy article. Bush policy is not always right (in fact, imho, it has not often been right) and when the folks in power in America screw up, we tell them that they are screwing up. That's the American way. Our government is not beyond criticism as governments in totalitarian countries are. That is the American way.

 

[Bigjake]

The Republican leadership is weak on terrorism

huh?? i suppose you think clintoon or gore would've done better?

 

[w4rma]

Heck yes I do and by far.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Heck yes I do and by far.

Clinton didn't do anything for the entire 8 years he spent in the White House. When exactly was he planning to start "doing better"?

 

[HunterGatherer]

Heck yes I do and by far.

 

[HunterGatherer]

Clinton didn't do anything for the entire 8 years he spent in the White House. When exactly was he planning to start "doing better"?

On reflection, I think w4rma means that we would have been destroyed by the death-cult psychotics by now. I think that's what he means by "better".

 

[MicroBalrog]

Probable cause equals detained until the investigation is complete and individual is sent to trial (military in this case) or released.

A)A release would mit that you cannot prove guilt.

B)For non-POW's, you need a judge to confirm the "keeping" of a prisoner about 48 hours IIRC.

 

[Bigjake]

then your country murders "not guilty", wrongly displaced arabs all the time.

 

[HunterGatherer]

B)For non-POW's, you need a judge to confirm the "keeping" of a prisoner about 48 hours IIRC.

 

[Dannyboy]

then your country murders "not guilty", wrongly displaced arabs all the time.

But, but, that's self-defense. Really, it is...I swear.

 

[SaguaroFox]

Strange

It baffles me how some folks are so ready to believe the worst of our own but the best of someone else.

 

[J Jones]

Where's the part where these guys claimed the US brought prostitutes to perform sexually suggestive acts that they were "forced" to watch as a means to "corrupt" their faith?

I heard this a few days ago on the radio, so I'm waiting to hear more. Until I do, I consider all the rest of the statements these guys made as equally believeable.

 

[Bigjake]

DannyBoy

most certainly not. The displaced arabs in question were not read thier miranda rights, treated to a fair, speedy trial or given an atty. they were just shot down and blown up by helicopters. thier guilt was never proven.



FYI, these last 2 posts of mine are dripping with sarcasm...

 

[MicroBalrog]

I most certainly oppose the human rights violations committed by Israel. Killing the leader of an opposing military force (Alquaed or Hamas) is one thing, limitless imprisonment of "suspects" by the executive branch (be it the US Army or the Israeli GSS) is quite another, don't you think?

 

[Sean Smith]

A few folks seem to think that the anti-Constitutional slippery slope will stop, or maybe they don't think that the slippery slope will stop and they WANT Americans treated the same way that these British citizens were.

Somebody needs to read up on their logical fallacies.

By the way, you ever read the purpose of this forum, w4rma? HINT: It doesn't involve inviting people to join coincident with a presidential election so they can do nothing but post links to asinine news stories.

Welcome to The High Road, an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership. It is the declared mission of this board to achieve and provide the highest quality of firearms discussion on the Internet, a standard set by the discussion board The Firing Line from 1998-2002.

 

[MicroBalrog]

they WANT Americans treated the same way that these British citizens were.

Too late: there already are some American citizens in Gitmo IIRC.

 

[Dannyboy]

BigJake

I was being facetious. I gotta use this, , more often.

 

[Bigjake]

i got ya

 

[HunterGatherer]

Killing the leader of an opposing military force (Alquaed or Hamas) is one thing

Oh! I see. If Israel says someone is a "leader of an opposing military force" and KILLS them, it's one thing. But if the U.S. captures death-cult barbarians IN COMBAT, and subsequently detains them/interrogates them, and then let's them go. That is heinous and wrong.

well, geez, they had THREE years to find the evidence, and if the FBICIAMI5MI6 couldn't find the evidence in THREE years, it probably doesn't exist.

As has been pointed out, it was 2 years 2 months. Be that as it may, do you really think that if they were completely innocent, that if they had no intelligence value, that they would have been kept for questioning anyway? Are you kidding me?

Some of the prisoners at Gitmo who complain of sleep deprivation would probably sleep better if they only knew that you support them with such passion.

Methinks that someday - just maybe - when one of them explodes in close proximity to you, that you will then have a lucid moment and rethink your illiberal need to jump to the defense of those who have made plain their undying desire to KILL YOU! Just hope it isn't too late.

 

[Sean Smith]

Killing the leader of an opposing military force (Alquaed or Hamas) is one thing, limitless imprisonment of "suspects" by the executive branch (be it the US Army or the Israeli GSS) is quite another, don't you think?

Yes. Killing suspects outright is much less ethical than detaining them.

 

[DTLoken]

You people who support detaining people in GITMO indefinately, without access to a lawyer, and without trials make me sick.

So if these people are so guilty as you say they are, why the hell were they released? Care to answer that one?

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

 

[Preacherman]

DTLoken, let's look at this dispassionately for a moment, shall we?

1. The detainees were captured -
(a) In a war zone;
(b) Most were actively engaged in combat;
(c) On behalf of organizations (Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban) who were fighting the US;
(d) Those who weren't involved in combat were all involved in supporting those organizations so that they could prosecute their offensive against US and allied forces.

2. If the detainees had been uniformed personnel of regular armed forces, they would have been classified as "prisoners of war", and incarcerated as such. The fact that they did not wear uniforms, and were not representing a legitimate government (the Taliban was recognized as such by only one country, Pakistan) meant that they did not even have to be taken POW, if those who captured them felt so inclined.

3. Something over 100,000 people were detained in Afghanistan during and after the fighting there. The vast majority - something like 90% - were speedily processed and released to their homes. Only those who were suspected of involvement in atrocities, war crimes, or active support of the most extremist Taliban and/or Al Qaeda elements were detained for longer periods. Most of these have been dealt with through the Afghan justice (?) system.

4. The USA detained some 800 in all (as far as I'm aware - please correct me if my figures are wrong) of the most extreme, and/or most suspicious, individuals. They have spent their time since then interrogating them, gathering evidence, and preparing to try those guilty of more serious offences. In the process, they've established not the innocence of all those released - rather, they've established a lack of evidence to proceed against them. Under the circumstances, they've sent them home. This seems just and appropriate to me.

5. None of these individuals was entitled to legal representation, either under the laws of war or under the Constitution of the United States. Those few detainees who are US citizens, and therefore guaranteed some Constitutional rights, now have their cases going through the court system, and the Supreme Court will decide the issue. For the rest, the US didn't even have to let the Red Cross in to Guantanamo, as these were not "prisoners of war" in the legal sense of the term.

Now, tell me again how unjustly and unfairly these detainees have been treated...

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

No one despises Bush more than me. And I think there's a lot wrong about how we're handling the POWs, er enemy combatants, in Guantanamo.

But w4, get a new tune, dude.

 

[Bigjake]

BRAVO! ^ (preacherman puts it far more eloquently than i ever could)

 

[316SS]

Preacherman wrote:

1. The detainees were captured -
(a) In a war zone;
(b) Most were actively engaged in combat;
(c) On behalf of organizations (Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban) who were fighting the US;
(d) Those who weren't involved in combat were all involved in supporting those organizations so that they could prosecute their offensive against US and allied forces.

This claim gets at the heart of the matter. Obviously, you have greater access to much more direct evidence than I, if you are confident to make this claim this without qualification. Were you there? All I know about why any given individual is detained at Guantanamo Bay is what has been reported by the US government. Historically, we know that the US government is infallible, so there is no need for the detainees to have any legal recourse, right? When the government says "trust us", I say "OK"?

5. None of these individuals was entitled to legal representation, either under the laws of war or under the Constitution of the United States. Those few detainees who are US citizens, and therefore guaranteed some Constitutional rights, now have their cases going through the court system, and the Supreme Court will decide the issue. For the rest, the US didn't even have to let the Red Cross in to Guantanamo, as these were not "prisoners of war" in the legal sense of the term.

I thought rights were inherent, not "entitlements" granted by the US Constitution to US citizens only. Otherwise, it is implied that it is morally acceptable to hold detainees indefinitely, without the ability to show whether their detention is justified. The US criminal justice system is based on the premise that it is better to exonerate a guilty person than to punish the innocent. This must be a privilege of US citizens only.

If the claims against these individuals can be demonstrated to be true, I support the most grave punishments. But I refuse to accept the claims of the US government at face value that "we only have terrorists down here." Blind faith in the government makes a mockery of the values on which this country is based.

316SS