It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shut Down Guantanamo Prison Now!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   


UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday said the United States should close the prison at Guantanamo Bay for terror suspects as soon as possible, backing a key conclusion of a U.N.-appointed independent panel.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected the call to shut the camp, saying the military treats all detainees humanely and “these are dangerous terrorists that we’re talking about.”

Source


It seems like the U.N wants U.S to shut down Guantanamo Prison. I agree that the Prison should be closed down without question. The prisoners that are kept there are restricted from rights and justice. Yeah, sure that they are not being abused (from what I read) but the fact that they don't know how long they are going to be there just makes it all frustrating for them.

Though if you read through the article it says that Annan does not really support the report to shut down the prison to a full extent. However, he believes civil rights and liberty should be taken into account first.

Here's another report to show you why it should be shut down :




MIAMI - The majority of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base are not accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies, and only a small percentage were captured by U.S. forces, a review of government documents has found.

"The large majority of detainees never participated in any combat against the United States on a battlefield," concluded a report compiled at Seton Hall University's law school, in New Jersey, and given to Reuters on Thursday.

Source 2


Just because of a few bad apples you imprison all of them? Yes, we cannot detect who is innocent and who is guilty but detaining everyone you capture just ain't right.

What's your two cents on this?




posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
OK, I have a problem with this claim that most people in Gitmo are innocent. Just because you can't legally prove they did anything doesn't mean they didn't. Imagine for an instant how difficult it is to prosecute somebody for attempting to kill a soldier by firing a shot while hidden in some dirthole- what's the chance that you could stick somebody like that in jail? I know, sounds like a sleazy argument, but I'm positive that though you can't prove that those people belong in Gitmo most of them do. After all, O.J. was "innocent", we can't afford that crap during war time. How the problem can be solved, I don't know, but just letting everybody in Gitmo out obviously isn't the solution.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
The United Nations is who?
As such, Kofi Annan is who?
They can enforce such an effort how?
Nothing that the United Nations passes in condemnation, suggestion, or in resolution form is binding.
Such a declaration would be enforced by who or whom?

Furthermore, the answer/response was already given, and I concur with it: "NO".

Accordingly, the next move of the defunct United Nations and Kofi Annan will be what exactly in regards to this matter or issue?
Not a damn thing....nada.
Simply spitting into the wind....someone please tell Kofi to wipe his face.

Btw, here is a direct and educational response to that so-called UN Report on Gitmo:
No first hand knowledge
Seems that UNINFORMED claims and assertions can be placed in any type report and be declared informed, accurate, and functionally worthy of advocating a stance. How quaint, huh?






seekerof

[edit on 19-2-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I'm sure David Hicks would agree that the prison should be shut down. He has been held for over 4 years, and to my knowledge, still has not been charged with a crime!



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Just because you can't legally prove they did anything doesn't mean they didn't.


Isn't that what the whole justice system is based on? Proving legally someone is guilty before handing out a sentence?

You don't punish someone because you 'feel' they may be guilty, or just in case they're guilty. You have to prove legaly that they are guilty, no?

And if the U.S. miltary wasn't in Iraq, then nobody there would be shooting at them. What do you expect? What if Russia decided they wanted to liberate us from our government? Would you just sit and let it happen, or would you fight back? Ask yourselfs that question before you jump up and down saying they deserve it for shooting at U.S. troops.
The U.S. troops shouldn't be there in the first place, period!

And no I'm not blaming the troops, they do as told, as did I during the first Gulf War. The government, the corporations and good old capitilism are the reasons our troops and Iraqi civilians are dying.

We need to do more than just close these concetration camps.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
David Hicks is a POW, a enemy combatant who was captured in military operations on an operational battelfield in Afghanistan.

You can argue the moral and ethics of "enemy combatant" till your blue in the face, but remember that those who were caught and captured in past wars and conflicts were considered prisoners of war (POWs) and thus spent the entire war or conflict in a security holding or prison, just as dear ole David Hicks.

Talk to some former POWs and ask them if they received any type trials determining if they were to be set free......






seekerof

[edit on 19-2-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The United Nations is who?
As such, Kofi Annan is who?
They can enforce such an effort how?


And by saying the above you're implying :

1) U.N is a joke (That I agree)
2) Nobody can stop U.S (That is BS
)


Originally posted by Seekerof
Nothing that the United Nations passes in condemnation, suggestion, or in resolution form is binding.
Such a declaration would be enforced by who or whom?


True, by no one but voices are out to shut down such detention camps for what? For what civil rights and liberty--the very thing that U.S supposedly stands for.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Btw, here is a direct and educational response to that so-called UN Report on Gitmo:
No first hand knowledge


The URL suggest something but I'm not going to go into that but the about the report. Yes, it's true the U.N inspectors did not go to Guantanamo Prison. Let me reiterate the reason why : U.N inspectors are not allowed to communicate with the prisoners.

Now to tell me this, which legal system in the world forbids the defendant from talking to his/her lawyer?

Furthermore, there's more to be done than just closing the prison down and by that I don't mean letting the prisoners go.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Seekerof:
The only difference is there was no war.



[edit on 19/2/06 by mytym]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   

It seems like the U.N wants U.S to shut down Guantanamo Prison.


And by "UN" you mean, Saudi Arabia and Syria.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Now to tell me this, which legal system in the world forbids the defendant from talking to his/her lawyer?


This isn’t a civil issue, its a military one. Did Nazi POW’s get lawyers? Did Nazi POW’s get to sue the US in civilian courts? Don't think so.
The US military was already holding military tribunals to determine who was guilty, that is the proper way to do thing. Since when does a POW get access to our civil courts?
They have always been tried by military courts.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
European Union jumps in too.


EU Parliament urges US to close Guantanamo

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Parliament urged the United States on Thursday to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and give a fair trial to all prisoners.

EU member states are not obliged to back the symbolic call, which adds to mounting international pressure on Washington to close the camp. On Thursday United Nations investigators said detainees there faced treatment amounting to torture.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Guantanamo Bay - Diabolical camp must be shut down
Blair Calls Guantánamo Camp an 'Anomaly'


White House waves white flag
Grim consequences mean the Bush administration's rhetoric no longer matches the reality

THEY say the military are always fighting the last war - but the media are worse. To read the press on both sides of the Atlantic, you'd think George W. Bush was still an evil idiot Crusader, leading his fundamentalist warriors in a futile charge at ever more elusive targets of terrorism and tyranny.

The image of reckless White House disregard for international law and common decency is reinforced by the focus of most of the news coverage -- more horror pictures from Abu Ghraib, damning UN reports on the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, secret wiretapping of US citizens.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Bush's Little Shop of Horrors is coming home to roost. He best hope it's not quail.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I love the opinion given that Git-Mo should be shut down without question. Without question. Question American authority at all turns and even if it endangers the lives of the citizens, but never question the word of the corrupt U.N.
WE know that the U.N. members never even as much as inspected the joint. They were given the offer, but they preferred to make their determination without first-hand knowldege. Taking the word of those trained to lie is better. But, I suppose there is no reason to waste money that could later be skimmed for personal use on a silly trip to Git-Mo when the mind is already made up.

The other thing that I find troubling is that so many people really think that POW's have rights as criminals in the States do. So many here think they have the right to an attorney, for example. It doesn't work that way. The idea is not to pick them up for a criminal trial, unless they are suspected of war crimes, but to remove them from the battle field until the war is over, thereby taking away fighting forces from the enemy without having to kill them. A more humane way of fighting, than sawing heads off, I think we should all agree.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

The idea is not to pick them up for a criminal trial, unless they are suspected of war crimes, but to remove them from the battle field until the war is over, thereby taking away fighting forces from the enemy without having to kill them.



Uhhhh....the wars are over.

The STATES of Afghanistan, and Iraq were overthrown.

Supposedly sovereign governments were elected in each.

There is a continuing partisan resistance movement in each nation, but that does not make a war.

War is a legal condition between two states, and there is no war in either Iraq, or Afghanistan.

So, since the war is over, its time to let them go, or hand them over.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
That would be a great thing, but it is obvious thatthe war is not over.

The attacks are still coming against us in both countries. Because the attacks are low-level does not mean that the war is over. If you would like to look at it that way, you know that the enemy has not formally surrendered, have they?

The enemy is not a simple government that is being fought, as normal, conventional wars are, and this is also obvious. The enemy we now fight is not bound by national I.D. or borders, as we see with the flow of fighters from places like Syria.

The war is not over, not by a long shot. My question is this: This war, because of the way the enemy is, is difficult to guage, difficult to say when it is over. This being the case, how do we determine who is to be let go and when? Clearly, your way, AA, is a danger to America. Still there needs to be some way of releasing people before there are 2nd generation people in Git-Mo!



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Several issues:

1. With a war such as the war on terror that is essentially endless, when will those detained be released?

2. I understand the reasons for keeping prisoners of war. However, these detainees are not considered prisoners of war as they are "unlawful combatants" and are not granted the same rights as "lawful combatants". It would be foolish to not detain prisoners of war, however I believe "unlawful" combatants should be treated the same as "lawful" combatants. Interrogation is fine, but I'm harshly opposed to their uses of mental and physical torture. And yes, it is torture.

3. Many of these prison camps are off U.S. soil, which allows them to bypass certain protections given when on U.S. soil.

4. When we are paying people in various countries to turn in terrorists, we will always end up with at least a portion that are completely innocent because someone wants some easy cash and grabs a random person off the street. This has happened - several people who were released after several years in Guantanamo Bay had this done to them.

5. The trials that have taken place are unfair. I saw an interview of a U.S. military officer who is representing one of the individuals in Guantanamo Bay. He says his client was told he had to either work with the officer to plead guilty or he would get no representation at all.

6. I don't remember what 6 was going to be.

This is a quick summary of what I propose be done. The location of all facilities are made public to Congress if not the public. Congress is allowed physical access to all parts of the facilties whenever they want and a congressional oversight committee is formed to monitor it. Cameras are put in all areas of the facilities that can be monitored for any form of abusive behavior to ensure it does not take place.

All prisoners are treated fairly and kindly, no matter what they may have done. What they have done will be judged in a trial. And when they have a trial that will be fair as well. They won't be forced to plead guilty, they'll be tried properly.

And there need to be more effective methods to determine whether the detainees are real terrorists or combatants at all and pull out the ones who are not and send them back home. Imagine being a man who lives out in the country and minds his own business, staying out of politics and just enjoying life. Then some day a bunch of men with guns come and take you to sell to the Americans. You spend four years in Guantanamo Bay with no explanation as you are beaten and tortured to admit you're a terrorist. Then they let you go with no apology. That has happened to people. And, honestly, even if they didn't before, they now have a very legitimate reason to hate America and might possibly go to fight against them. And I don't blame them if they were treated that way.

America stands for freedom and justice for all. That means we treat our prisoners as fairly as possible as well. As long as prisoners of war are continually abused, it will only be serving to prolong the war on terrorism even more.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I dont think that we are just picking up regular Joes in Iraq and Afghanistan and shipping them off to gitmo. Isnt there some screening process that they would have to go through before geing sent out of country? Its way to expensive to just pick up random people, fly them accross the world, and feed them for years ' if they havent done anything. I'd be willing to bet that there are no "innocent" people at gitmo.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

A report based on data supplied by the Defense Department showed that 86% of the prisoners were handed over by local bounty-hunters rather than as the result any American investigation or collection of intelligence.

en.wikipedia.org...


Here's the link (pdf) to that report.

173 prisoners have been released, which would indicate to me that they were unable to find any indication they should be kept there. And when bounty hunters are the ones turning them in, it's hard to know whether they are telling the truth.


MEF

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I don't think closing Gitmo is the solution. I believe remanding non-critical detainees back to their home country is.

I served in Al-Anbar, Iraq, with the MNF and will return to Iraq within the year. I sense that most of the prisoners in Gitmo are of little value. I've taken prisoners in Iraq that clearly had forged documents, IED materials in their homes or had links to insurgents. I've raided homes where one guy says his name is Ali yet everyone else has a difference name for this guy and denies that he's a family member. We handed all of them over to Iraqi authorities whose policy was to hold all prisoners for a maximum of 6 months. 8-9 months later they're back in business.

If we're not holding confirmed Iraqi insurgents for extended periods, why hold detainees in Gitmo indefinitely? Gitmo has become a lightning-rod for global public opinion; its in our best interest to mitigate this. Non-critical prisoners should be remanded to Iraq and Afghanistan for extended incarceration.

However, prisoners who may still retain intelligence value or pose a threat should be kept as long as necessary at Gitmo. As long as the international public sees that the US has a system of identifying guilt and innocence at Gitmo, the issue will begin to fade.

There's no shortage of insurgents willing to fight us. 70-100 more won't make much of a difference.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uni_Brow
I dont think that we are just picking up regular Joes in Iraq and Afghanistan and shipping them off to gitmo. Isnt there some screening process that they would have to go through before geing sent out of country? Its way to expensive to just pick up random people, fly them accross the world, and feed them for years ' if they havent done anything. I'd be willing to bet that there are no "innocent" people at gitmo.


How much you wanna bet?

I'd be happy to take your money.


12 year old released from Guantanamo

Khuja Angoor, Afghanistan -- A single day forever changed the life of 12-year-old Asadullah Rahman.

Struggling to remember the exact date he was captured by American soldiers, or when he was flown to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where the United States holds "enemy combatants" without charges, he presses his fingers to his temples to conjure memories that have grown fuzzy after months in detention.

He was just 10 years old when American soldiers stormed the compound of the local Afghan commander who was holding him captive, he says. They grabbed his gun. There were handcuffs and blindfolds. Since then, he has seen the inside of three separate interrogation rooms.

On Jan. 29, after being released with two other young detainees, he returned to this village in eastern Afghanistan, a three-hour drive along dirt roads from Kabul. He was free but burdened with the uncomfortable distinction of being the youngest person ever jailed in America's war on terror.

"They should have arrested al Qaeda, not me," he said in the first interview since his release. "I was just innocent."

Continued....


Several others have been released, and the ten year old Enemy Combatant held without charge for a year and a half is the iceing on the cake.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The United Nations is who?
As such, Kofi Annan is who?
They can enforce such an effort how?

That is probably Exactly the Same thing that Saddam Hussein was speaking when under UN Sanctions.

The United Nations is who?

Which means, that the current US Goverment is on the Same Level as Saddam, the Evildoer was - for Denying the United Nations.

And he probably chose thse exact words as You did,

The United Nations is who?

It's Funny isn't it!

And when you look at the Situation in Iran, and listen to HARDLINE president not allowing the UN Inspectors in his Nuclear Research Fascilities;

But then you have the US Goverment, not Allowing UN Inspectors inside their Military Detention Fascilities.

And both of them have many more Secret ones scattered - some at home, other in all possible foreign countries around the World.

And I guess he is also saying those words You used mister Seekerof:

The United Nations is who?

As such, Kofi Annan is who?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join