Gitmo: 5 Star Resort

Last week TIME magazine had an article about Gitmo. At least a dozen were found to just be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or turned in to the US for reward money. They were released while the US continues investigates more the incarceration of innocent people. Some different prisoners were released and was reported to return to a life of terrorism, but after being imprisoned and tortured for nothing, wouldn't you be a little bitter too? That doesn't make it right, but it helps to understand the US's policy of creating more terrorists than it stops.

There was the case of this woman at Abu Gharib. I can't find it now, but I remember it because she was one of the few women there. She was never tortured or abused, but still being innocently imprisoned is enough. She was blackmailed by an Iraqi. Pay him money, or she'd tell the Coalition that she was a supporter of terrorists. She refused, thinking that the US would not believe it, but, the US did, and she was put in jail. Months later, after the Abu Gharib scandal, her case was reviewed; she was apologized to, and set free.

How many more cases of blackmail are there out there? How many were just turned in for the reward money? Shouldn't we try to find out?

ferretman: I just said this in another thread but here goes:


If the USA feels it has enough evidence that a person is a terrorist that they feel they are justified in holding them incommunicado for up to three years at a time, then why don't they simply CHARGE the person with the crime they are RIGHT NOW being held for and punished for.

If the evidence is sufficient to hold them indefinitely, why is it not sufficient to TRY and eventually CONVICT these so-called terrorists?


Capiche?

We already did that, its called Military Tribunals, there were military tribunals on all of the 558 terrorist at Gitmo and out of those 558 38 were deemed safe and released. These military tribunals are held annually to determine if the detains should be continued to be held longer.

Capiche?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Capiche?

Proof? Source? What determines how long we hold them? Why were those 38 held at all if they were deemed safe enough to release later?

In a statement responding to the release, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which has been at the forefront of the legal struggle to gain access to American civil courts and lawyers for the Guantánamo detainees, said: "The men were held without charge. Their friends and family endured news of their torture and deteriorating health. They were branded international terrorists and ‘bad men.’ Yet, after three years of legal battles and public outcry, they have been released without charge, confirming once again the morally and legally bankrupt detention policy of [the Bush] Administration."

3 years to determine innocence? Some tribunal...

Just so you know, your "military tribunals" were also struck down by a US court a while ago and the administration has taken no action to change their current system.

Though the US Supreme Court ruled last June that the prisoners should have access to US civilian courts to challenge their detentions, and a US District Court ruled that at least part of the administration’s system of military tribunals violates international and US law, the Bush administration has continued a policy of holding captives without transparent hearings that meet internationally recognized legal standards.

Source newstandardnews.net...

as posted by CaptainJailew
What determines how long we hold them?

I can answer one aspect: if they are classified or determined to be enemy combatants they can be held till this "war" on terrorism is deemed over or to a point to warrent releasing those combatants.

They are like POWs. During a "war", seen any POWs released prior to the end of that war? I thought not,but let me know if you find otherwise.




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
I can answer one aspect...

What about the innocent ones? Is 3 years about the norm you think?

Oh yea, whats the timetable for this whole "war on terrorism" thing ending? right.

Originally posted by CaptainJailew

Originally posted by Seekerof
I can answer one aspect...

What about the innocent ones? Is 3 years about the norm you think?

Oh yea, whats the timetable for this whole "war on terrorism" thing ending? right.

we can keep them as prisoners of war until the war is over, it depends on if Al Qaeda decides to surrender or is destroyed until then we keep them.

Originally posted by CaptainJailew
Is 3 years about the norm you think?

Dunno, how long did WWII last?




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Dunno, how long did WWII last?

seekerof

There is an obvious end to WWII, Germany was defeated, Japan surrendered. You really think there will be such an obvious end to a "war on terror"?

Originally posted by CaptainJailew

Originally posted by Seekerof
Dunno, how long did WWII last?

seekerof

There is an obvious end to WWII, Germany was defeated, Japan surrendered. You really think there will be such an obvious end to a "war on terror"?

who knows, the Cold War ended. so it depends if u have the patience, if u and i had a staring contest i probably beat ya.

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by CaptainJailew
What determines how long we hold them?

They are like POWs. During a "war", seen any POWs released prior to the end of that war? I thought not,but let me know if you find otherwise.

seekerof

How about the 'war on drugs'?

Originally posted by curme
[
How about the 'war on drugs'?

o yeah we still fighting arent we? its kinda like North Korea and South Korea where there is no truce but we still technically at war.

Originally posted by deltaboy
who knows, the Cold War ended

. so it depends if u have the patience, if u and i had a staring contest i probably beat ya.

There will be no end to terrorism, why?
Because the US is fighting only one section.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
... that they were held in isolation in freezing cold cells, that their beards and heads were shaved......
[edit on 16-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

Freezing cold????
At Gitmo???
You gotta be kidding me.
Sounds like detainees are doing what they are supposed to do, lie about the conditions.

Originally posted by deltaboy
who knows, the Cold War ended

. so it depends if u have the patience, if u and i had a staring contest i probably beat ya.

Cold War was obviously against Russia. Name a single war in which we battled a faceless enemy and came out victorious, or even that the war ended?

War on Crime? Nope.
War on Poverty? Nope.
War on Drugs? Nope.
War on Terror? Nope.

So......when are they going to be released? Right....

Originally posted by CaptainJailew

Originally posted by deltaboy
who knows, the Cold War ended

. so it depends if u have the patience, if u and i had a staring contest i probably beat ya.

Cold War was obviously against Russia. Name a single war in which we battled a faceless enemy and came out victorious, or even that the war ended?

War on Crime? Nope.
War on Poverty? Nope.
War on Drugs? Nope.
War on Terror? Nope.

So......when are they going to be released? Right....

faceless enemy the Phillipines.

Originally posted by deltaboy
faceless enemy the Phillipines.

lol

Name me any other war or instance where POW’s were tried in civilians courts and were given the rights the citizens of the county that's holding them? Yup, military tribunals have always been used in the past for POW’s. The supreme court was probably talking about U.S. citizens who were held as POW’s, if not then they must have been high on some good stuff.

Originally posted by Pyros
Show me proof that they were not. Show me evidence that any of these people were simple innocent bystanders who were randomly and for no good reason swept up by our military, carted 1/2 way around the world, questioned, and imprisioned because we simply did not like the way they parted their hair. If it comes down to a "he said, she said" contest between the people of our military and these people, I'll take our boys every day. I am familiar with the society that raised these people, and I trust them to make good decisions. A also know of the societies that raises our enemies, and judge them accordingly. Show me proof that they are innocent.

Judging from your attitude, whatever I come up with won't suffice. I could give you some testimony of people that have been released or just the plain fact that some weren't apprehended by US troops but handed over by the Northern Alliance, but I doubt that would do.

Originally posted by Pyros
Well, just as soon as Al Qaeda starts wearing uniforms, starts their own state, has a well-defined land mass and populace, and is represented in the international community, we will go to Congress and ask for a formal declaration. Will that make you happy? Why don't you tell us the last time there was a "real" war, anyway, just we can all be enlightened?

The Iraq war and Afghanistan war. Both are over, Saddam and the Taliban are gone.

Further, just to clear up misunderstanding: I am not saying these people are innocent and/or should be released. I do say that there should be a transparent way in which these people are dealt with: a competent tribunal should determine their status if there is doubt about that within a certain timespan, 1-3 years for all I care as long as it is not indefinite and arbitrarily. If they are indeed determined to be unlawful combattants in a fair trial, you can shoot them or hang them by their balls for all I care.