Revealed: the full story of the Guantanamo Britons

[Khornet]

What's wrong with this picture?

Americans hold suspects, then conclude they don't have sufficient evidence, and so they RELEASE THEM.....and this is somehow proof that we're unethical? What would you have them do, snuff 'em? Seems to me like the US went after likely suspects and is sparing those whose guilt they're not sure of. That's the act of a just society. But for the Left, there is noway any Bush admin. action can be right. Keep 'em and kill'em if they're not useful....evil. Keep 'em and release 'em if you're not sure.....evil. The only thing which would justify either option in the eyes of the Left is if they were done by a liberal.

 

[ojibweindian]

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

I would have shot the lot of them, no questions asked. I don't like having to watch my back.

 

[buzz_knox]

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.

No, but the US criminal justice system doesn't apply to those bearing arms against the US in a foreign combat zone. That is a military operation, not criminal. Completely distinct and trying to merge the two represents an effort to cloud the issues.

You will note, please, that many others who have been released from Gitmo have had far different stories as to treatment, as did the Red Cross. But hey, the truth doesn't support vendettas, right?

As for Clinton and Gore doing a better job, let us all remember that Clinton had multiple chances to capture/eliminate Bin Laden. He let him go each time, even in 1998 when Sudan was going to hand him over to us without any strings. AQ could have had its primary money backer/fund raiser eliminated then, but didn't as the direct result of Clinton's actions.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I was waiting for a report like this the moment I heard some Britons were being released, and I was not disappointed.

When I read them I considered them to be "incredible", which is to say, NOT credible, and left it at that.


Summary:

Jihadi leaning guys snagged from battle field spends 2 years in hard incarceration while his story gets sorted out weaves unlikely tale. The original report I read linked off Drudge, which appears to have been sanitized, included wild claims that only began with "beatings", but also included "excessive" amputations, forced drugging, and some ridiculous claims of being forced to watch live porn acts.


Motive: They're pissed. Who wouldn't be?

Means: Revenge via press.

Opportunity: EuroPress willing to pony up the bux for the interview, eager to hear spectacular, lurid detail with which to bash America.


Updated!

I found the link!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnew...eadline=-MY-HELL-IN-CAMP-X-RAY-name_page.html

 

[VNgo]

All in all, everything would have been much simpler if they'd just ordered the Marines to take no prisoners. Then you don't get terrorist scumbags being defended by equally contemptible anti-war/anti-America activists.

 

[DTLoken]

I would have shot the lot of them, no questions asked. I don't like having to watch my back.

Holy ????, I don't even know how to respond to this.

Well, maybe.


Get the ???? out of my country you ignorant redneck trash. Yeah man, lets set up death camps to arbitrarily execute possibly innocent people (Such as those already released). I mean seriously, this is something Hitler or Stalin would've done.

You will note, please, that many others who have been released from Gitmo have had far different stories as to treatment, as did the Red Cross. But hey, the truth doesn't support vendettas, right?

Dude, it's not about the treatment, that they're probably being treated well is a great thing, but the real problem lies in that they're being held indefinately with no legal recourse.

All in all, everything would have been much simpler if they'd just ordered the Marines to take no prisoners. Then you don't get terrorist scumbags being defended by equally contemptible anti-war/anti-America activists.

Being against people being held for years with no rights or legal recourse != being anti-war.

We did the right thing in Afghanistan, Saddam needed to go (But I disagree with the lies and what not involved in going to war).

For being the supposed defenders of Liberty, some of you people are proving in opinion to be quite the opposite. People like the ones quoted in my post are why non-right wing conservative people shy away from firearms in general. It's a huge turn-off.

 

[buzz_knox]

Get the ???? out of my country you ignorant redneck trash. Yeah man, lets set up death camps to arbitrarily execute possibly innocent people (Such as those already released). I mean seriously, this is something Hitler or Stalin would've done.

You sure showed your true colors. Using redneck like it was the N word. Any credibility you had just went out the window.

As for being ignorant, you showed yours. Legally, we could have shot many of those "possibly innocent people" on sight as they were carrying weapons in support of an enemy group, but were not in uniform. Alternatively, we could have (and probably should have) left them to be judged by the people of Afghanistan for the crimes committed therein. Even the "possibly innocent people" would have been killed then. But hey, your sensibilities wouldn't have been offended then because it would have been legal.

 

[J Jones]

Get the ???? out of my country you ignorant redneck trash.

People like the ones quoted in my post are why non-right wing conservative people shy away from firearms in general. It's a huge turn-off.

Some of your quotes are a turn-off too.

 

[DTLoken]

I'm on debating if they're innocent or guilty.

TRY THEM IN A COURT, it's up for a jury to determine if they're innocent or guilty, not some person in the US Govt. (Such as Dubya).

If they're guilty, lock them up. If they're innocent, release them and be done with it. It's not hard folks.

 

[MicroBalrog]

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.

How do you know?

 

[J Jones]

What does one try POWs for?

Isn't it SOP to hold them until the end of hostilities?

 

[buzz_knox]

What does one try POWs for?

Nothing. Trial of POWs during war for anything other than actions committed during their internment (i.e. killing another POW or a guard) is prohibited. They are held until the end of the war and either repatriated or tried for war crimes.

 

[J Jones]

That's what I thought.

So why do they need counsel, according to some?

 

[DTLoken]

Because they're not being held as POWs?

 

[J Jones]

Neither are they held as criminals.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I think some are under the impression that ANY person in the entire WORLD is afforded protections under our civil justice system. Wrong answer.

Foreign nationals without uniform taking arms against US troops and interests. Not a POW. No flag, no nation-state, no uniform. Not covered under Geneva Convention.

THEY WERE RELEASED. They were not "disappeared" or held in perpetuity.

GET OVER IT ALREADY.

 

[316SS]

DTLoken, might I suggest that we keep this civil?

buzz_knox wrote:

the US criminal justice system doesn't apply to those bearing arms against the US in a foreign combat zone. That is a military operation, not criminal. Completely distinct and trying to merge the two represents an effort to cloud the issues.

GeekWitha.45 wrote:

Summary:

Jihadi leaning guys snagged from battle field spends 2 years in hard incarceration while his story gets sorted out weaves unlikely tale.

My comment about the criminal justice was regarding the morality and principle thereof, and nothing more. But the real point is that you fellows are accepting as a foregone conclusion that every single person in Guantanamo Bay was apprehended where and how the government says. How could you know that? It is utter folly to accept evidence as true when it comes from a single source, uncorroborated, and the source has the mother of all vested interests.

"bearing arms against the US in a foreign combat zone," "Jihadi leaning guys snagged from battle field." If its true, prove it!

Khornet wrote:

Americans hold suspects, then conclude they don't have sufficient evidence, and so they RELEASE THEM.....and this is somehow proof that we're unethical?

After over two years in the detective's-wet-dream atmosphere of Guantanamo Bay, insufficient evidence could be found to try these detainees, even in a military tribunal. If you think all should be forgiven, let's put you down there for two years, away from you family, under constant interrogation, for what turns out to be no good reason, and see how pissed you are. How quick we are to condone the trampling of others' rights.

I'm amazed to be in the minority on THR, when all I'm suggesting is that this process conducted in our name see the light of public scrutiny. Ah, but that would interfere with the relationship of trust and dependence between interrogators and the terrorists, ahem, detainees.

316SS

 

[Cosmoline]

My biggest problem with the secret detentions at Gitmo is that we will NEVER know what is true and what isn't. These folks are able to use the DOD's security against it, since it is impossible for the DOD to prove anything. They can deny that tortures took place, but frankly there's no way any of us would know if they did! The whole thing is misguided. It will end up aiding our enemies.

If someone is a terrorist, charge them, try them and punish them. If they are not, question them and let them go. But do it all in an Article III court using proper law enforcement. Not in Cuba in the shadows.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

insufficient evidence could be found to try these detainees

Invalid assumption. Where does it say we were going to try them? Rules of evidence? What charges? We "detained" them during combat operations to prevent them from furthering the goals of the enemy AND to collect information from them (re: intelligence). They are no longer valuable. Done.

 

[316SS]

7.62FullMetalJacket wrote:

I think some are under the impression that ANY person in the entire WORLD is afforded protections under our civil justice system. Wrong answer.

Foreign nationals without uniform taking arms against US troops and interests. Not a POW. No flag, no nation-state, no uniform. Not covered under Geneva Convention.

THEY WERE RELEASED. They were not "disappeared" or held in perpetuity.

GET OVER IT ALREADY.

I'm under the impression that every human being is afforded inalienable rights. I'm also offering reasonable alternatives to you views, in good faith. Do me the courtesy of not condescending to me. I'll "get over it" when I feel that my government, acting in my name, is acting in a morally acceptable manner.

Substantiate your claim that every individual held at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere are "Foreign nationals without uniform taking arms against US troops and interests." The kicker: do it without appealing to statements made by the US government. Good luck.

316SS

 

[Cosmoline]

Good point, there. It disturbs me GREATLY (though it does not surprise me) that the feds dump the Bill of Rights at the border. Technically they may be in the right, but the fact that they view fundamental rights as a terrible encumbrance to law enforcement tells me a lot about them. You trust the DOD and the feds in general at your peril. If they could, they would send us all to Gitmo. Only the Constitution stops them.

 

[316SS]

7.62FullMetalJacket wrote:

quote:insufficient evidence could be found to try these detainees



Invalid assumption. Where does it say we were going to try them? Rules of evidence? What charges? We "detained" them during combat operations to prevent them from furthering the goals of the enemy AND to collect information from them (re: intelligence). They are no longer valuable. Done.

Good point, as far as it goes. But active combat operations ended months ago. I don't accept that the "War on Terror" is analogous to a conventional war for which the rules applied were developed, so I don't accept that a war is ongoing. Also, no oversight is allowed on the assigning of enemy combatant status.

316SS

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

My position has not changed. I apologize if I seemed a little intense.

Yes, all people should have inalienable rights, but their rights stop where they are attacking US solidiers or interests.

Out of the 6 billion persons walking this earth, why did DOD detain 800 persons? Is there some large conspiracy? Doubtful. These persons were either thought to be a continuing threat, enemy combatant leaders, or had valuable intelligence (or any other number of reasons).

I do believe that what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is positive. Generations beyond our own will benefit greatly. Gitmo was used for only the most hardened or worthy detainees. Most were stored in-country, evaluated and released.

 

[ojibweindian]

Get the ???? out of my country you ignorant redneck trash.

It's interesting to see the amount of squeamishness (sp?) concerning this. My position is simple; we're at war, and as such we should fight to win. Winning means killing your enemy before they kill you.

 

[316SS]

7.62-

I'm pickin' up what your layin' down, but a conspiracy is not required for innocents to be caught up in this business. I think sacrifices can be demanded of people, especially people who have put themselves in very suspicious circumstances, in the fight against terrorism. But let's not use the tools of tyranny to fight for the cause of freedom. I detect that you have faith that the government is doing the right thing with the enormous power they hold over the people at Guantanamo Bay. I'm not arguing to the contrary, I'm arguing that it is wrong, per se, to hold such power unchecked. Our country is based on the rule of law, not the rule of men. May we never lose our suspicion of our government, on pain of losing all we hold dear. (oooh, that was good, I'm writing that one down )

316SS