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.

 

Who is at Guantanomo anyway?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
So a bunch of lawyers representing Gitmo prisoners file habeas corpus petitions, making it necessary for the Defense Department to file court documents on 132 of these prisoners.

Check out what was found out, and can anyone explain how this has pretty much been ignored by the mainstream US media?

nationaljournal.com...


The first thing that jumps out of the statistics is that a majority of the detainees in both groups are not Afghans -- nor were they picked up in Afghanistan as U.S. troops fought the Taliban and Al Qaeda, nor were they picked up by American troops at all. Most are from Arab countries, and most were arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities.

Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are -- like Farouq Ali Ahmed, the subject of National Journal's accompanying story -- not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.) Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; Farouq lived in a house associated with the Taliban....

The government's documents tie only eight of the 132 men directly to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan.

One of the eight, an Australian fundamentalist Muslim, admitted that he trained several of the 9/11 hijackers and intended to hijack a plane himself; another of the eight, a Briton, is said to have targeted 33 Jewish organizations in New York City. Both men were released to their home governments in January 2005. Neither one is facing charges at home.

...One hundred and fifteen of the files also note where the detainees were captured. Only 35 percent of the 115 were arrested in Afghanistan; 55 percent were captured by Pakistani forces in Pakistan.



More here:

nationaljournal.com...


"There is no smoking gun," said John Chandler, a partner in the Atlanta office of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. One of his Guantanamo clients, picked up in Pakistan, is designated an enemy combatant in part because he once traveled on a bus with wounded Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan. The prisoner denies it, saying it was only a public bus. But then there's the prisoner's Casio watch. According to the Defense Department files, his watch is similar to another Casio model that has a circuit board that Al Qaeda has used for making bombs. The United States is using the Qaeda-favored Casio wristwatch as evidence against at least nine other detainees. But the offending model is sold in sidewalk stands around the world and is worn by one National Journal reporter. The primary difference between Chandler's client's watch and the Casio in question is that the detainee's model hasn't been manufactured for years, according to the U.S. military officer who was his personal representative at the tribunal.


Don't buy Casio, I guess?


More here:

www.cjrdaily.org...


Another study (468K PDF) published earlier this month by a professor at Seton Hall and an attorney for two of the detainees came up with similar findings. Looking at the Department of Defense's own analysis of the detainees, prepared for the "enemy combatant" tribunals, they discovered that "Eight percent are detained because they are deemed 'fighters for;' 30 percent considered 'members of;' a large majority -- 60 percent -- are detained merely because they are 'associated with' a group or groups the government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2 percent of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified."


The Seton Hall study also provides some insight into how most of these prisoners were captured -- they were turned over to the military in exchange for cash. Look at this flier, dropped in Afghanistan at the time of the sweeps, and included in the study: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams ... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al Qaeda and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your tribe, your village for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books."



jako



[edit on 23-2-2006 by Jakomo]

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Jakomo]




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   


Who is at Guantanomo anyway?


You have to ask?


Murderers, terrorists, plotters, deviants, religious radicals, extremists, sadists, racists, anti Semites, enemy combatants, saboteurs, liars, cheats, cutthroats, traitors, political dissidents...



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Depends who you talk to.

If you talk to the Washington Times, Gitmo is the holding place for a group of innocent muslims who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you talk to the Pentagon, Gitmo is the holding place for a large group of suspected terrorists who have connections or information of Al Qaeda and it's members.

I think it's probably a good mix between the two with the majority of detainees leaning towards the Pentagons perspective.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Hey, feel totally free to give your own personal opinion, I only put links there because they're pretty.

The question is rhetorical, and is answered in the links. Was looking for people's reactions to the info on the links, what was I thinkin.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
From Jak's post:


The Seton Hall study also provides some insight into how most of these prisoners were captured -- they were turned over to the military in exchange for cash. Look at this flier, dropped in Afghanistan at the time of the sweeps, and included in the study: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams ... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al Qaeda and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your tribe, your village for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books."


It reminds me of a woman in Abu Gharib. She wasn't tortured, thank goodness, but her case became public because the tortures brought greater scrutiny upon those inside.

She was there because a translator told her to pay him, or he'd tell the US that she was a terrorist. She didn't believe the US would believe such a lie about a good family, so she didn't pay guy. She ends up in Abu Gharib. Months later the US let her go with an apology.

That is why we need to accuse these people with a crime and give them a trial. That way we know who is guilty, and who is innocent. Why would anyone be against that? Unless they were afraid all of the innocent people would make the US look foolish. I wonder how many of those innocent people will actually turn into terrorists, to avenge their false imprisonment and possible torture?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Hey, feel totally free to give your own personal opinion, I only put links there because they're pretty.

The question is rhetorical, and is answered in the links. Was looking for people's reactions to the info on the links, what was I thinkin.



Actually, the question isn't answered in your link at all. It's a bunch of documents that put a innocent spin on detainees - he's only there because of his watch. Let's run this on 60 minutes and show the awful abuse these innocent men have to endure. After all, the documents don't show 100% concrete evidence for their actions.

Bull#.

I have a difficult time believing that these guys were in the 'wrong place at the wrong time'. The U.S is quikcly learning their lesson when releasing 'innocent' detainees (they said they were innocent - honest!) and then recapturing the bastards later down the road with a detonator in hands.

Innocent. Yeah. Uh-huh.

Pass the Kool-aid pleeeease.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Derdeb:

I have a difficult time believing that these guys were in the 'wrong place at the wrong time'.


Yes, you're right. Far better to trust your government which has consistently lied to you and treated you like a total moron. I mean, they have no reason to lie to you about this, do they?


“It's a bunch of documents that put a innocent spin on detainees - he's only there because of his watch.”


I see. So in all those thousands of words in the links, you get that one point?

I guess you failed to realize that these facts are based on the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE’S COURT DOCUMENTS that they filed.

What about this guy?


"I think the standards for sending someone to Guantanamo in 2002 and early 2003 were not as high as they should have been," said Mark Jacobson, who was an assistant for detainee policy in Rumsfeld's office from November 2002 through August 2003.


Worked for Rumsfeld himself. Doesn’t even talk about a wristwatch.

What about this:


By the fall of 2002, it was common knowledge around CIA circles that fewer than 10 percent of Guantanamo's prisoners were high-value terrorist operatives, according to Michael Scheuer who headed the agency's bin Laden unit through 1999 and resigned in 2004. Most of the men were probably foot soldiers at best, he said, who were "going to know absolutely nothing about terrorism."


From a guy who HEADED the CIA’s Bin Laden unit for years. Notice the lack of mention of a watch.

So everyone who mentions the mistreatment of detainees is just crazy?

news.yahoo.com...



Please notice the TITLE on this next link:

law.shu.edu...

A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data

Through analysis of DoD Data. Know what that means?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
What's the wrist watch frenzy?

I'm not going to counter point every damn case. You want to believe that we're torturing innocent foot soldiers? Great for you.

I'll take the opinion that it's probably not a great idea to release these guys in a state of war. Call me crazy. Rogue combatants who are captured should not be treated as the equivalent of the average U.S citizen.

Poor little foot soldiers.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
derdeb:

Rogue combatants who are captured should not be treated as the equivalent of the average U.S citizen.


Beautiful illustration of a racist, self-aggrandizing, cowardly policy. They don't deserve the same freedoms as you because they are not American.

They might want to kill you sometime in the future, possibly, so you figure just to be safe, they should be put away and the key should be thrown away.

Sounds positively yellow, doesn't it? With a splash of fascism.

Of course, this kinda of thing is probably what has a bunch of Al Qaeda guys sitting around in the cave roaring with laughter, realizing that your country is doing more to help Al Qaeda than they are.



jako



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by derdeb
I have a difficult time believing that these guys were in the 'wrong place at the wrong time'. The U.S is quikcly learning their lesson when releasing 'innocent' detainees (they said they were innocent - honest!) and then recapturing the bastards later down the road with a detonator in hands.


I'm not going to say they have never accidentally released a detainee who poses a threat, but at least consider this. You're an innocent... farmer, let's say... in Afghanistan. One day, some locals turn you in as a terrorist to the Americans in exchange for money. You are kept in a prison for years without any contact with your family or anyone else outside. You are subjected to the so-called "advanced interrogation techniques" in order to get you to confess. Finally it is determined you are not a threat and you are released without an explanation or apology.

Is it that much of a stretch to see a formerly peaceful farmer swear revenge on America after that kind of an experience? What do you expect, for them to love America after they've been detained for years and possibly tortured? Now THAT'S a stretch.

And regarding the watch: That is the most ludicrous excuse for arrest and detention I've ever heard. I mean... I have no words. You don't detain someone because they're wearing a watch that has a part inside that could possibly be used for a bomb. I mean, that's like arresting anyone who ows a clock because they can be used as timers in bombs.

The bottom line is, as long as there are rewards for turning in terrorists and the reward does not specify a specific person, people will take advantage of that and turn in innocent people. It's happened, is happening, and will continue to happen.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
well...ill let you in on a secret

*pulls up chair and whispers in your ear*

..You know where naughty ATS members go



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Murderers, terrorists, plotters, deviants, religious radicals, extremists, sadists, racists, anti Semites, enemy combatants, saboteurs, liars, cheats, cutthroats, traitors, political dissidents...


...Pirates?






posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
...Pirates?



cut·throat n.

1. A murderer, especially one who cuts throats.
2. An unprincipled, ruthless person.
3. A cutthroat trout.

See definition #2.

Dictionary.com



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
good thread jakomo


all i'm gunna say is....once again, another shining example of the u.s. govt saying onething to get what they want and then after some time has passed and more evidence is found, we find that once again, the good 'ol govt 'misinterpert info' again...and again..and again.....



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
cut·throat n.

1. A murderer, especially one who cuts throats.
2. An unprincipled, ruthless person.
3. A cutthroat trout.

See definition #2.

Dictionary.com


You know,
i was pulling your leg


hench the "
"..

back to the subject, all the guys at the bay were caught in action..i believe, not just suspected Al Qaeda members.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Damnit I just bought a Casio watch last week.


I hope the shopkeeper will let me exchange it for a Seiko. What excuse am I gonna give him, now?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
In my opinion (shared by a few I might add) the whole place is an illegal site, not subject to any international law, nor the U.S. laws. It seems more like a concentration camp for undesirables than an official prison, where the authorities can do whatever the hell they want to anyone they want.

Why do you think the pressure is mounting for the site to close?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
derdeb:

Rogue combatants who are captured should not be treated as the equivalent of the average U.S citizen.


Beautiful illustration of a racist, self-aggrandizing, cowardly policy. They don't deserve the same freedoms as you because they are not American.

They might want to kill you sometime in the future, possibly, so you figure just to be safe, they should be put away and the key should be thrown away.

Sounds positively yellow, doesn't it? With a splash of fascism.

Of course, this kinda of thing is probably what has a bunch of Al Qaeda guys sitting around in the cave roaring with laughter, realizing that your country is doing more to help Al Qaeda than they are.



jako



You're bleeding heart is getting all over my keyboard. So I'm a racist because I don't think enemy combantants should be given a Gitmo McDonalds meal.

You're liberally squeeky clean values are destorying the modern world.

In conclusion, take your self-aggrandizing, cowardly policy insults, and whine to someone who really cares.

Perhaps, Tim Robins?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by derdeb
I'm not going to counter point every damn case. You want to believe that we're torturing innocent foot soldiers? Great for you.


Listen to what you´re saying. So it is ok to torture now?

So sorry man, but Bill O´Reilly has brainwashed you but GOOD.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by derdeb

Originally posted by Jakomo
derdeb:

Rogue combatants who are captured should not be treated as the equivalent of the average U.S citizen.


Beautiful illustration of a racist, self-aggrandizing, cowardly policy. They don't deserve the same freedoms as you because they are not American.

They might want to kill you sometime in the future, possibly, so you figure just to be safe, they should be put away and the key should be thrown away.

Sounds positively yellow, doesn't it? With a splash of fascism.

Of course, this kinda of thing is probably what has a bunch of Al Qaeda guys sitting around in the cave roaring with laughter, realizing that your country is doing more to help Al Qaeda than they are.



jako



You're bleeding heart is getting all over my keyboard. So I'm a racist because I don't think enemy combantants should be given a Gitmo McDonalds meal.

You're liberally squeeky clean values are destorying the modern world.

In conclusion, take your self-aggrandizing, cowardly policy insults, and whine to someone who really cares.

Perhaps, Tim Robins?


You two want to post in this manner take it to Slugfest and spare the rest of us.

No further verbal warnings.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join