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.

 

U.S. to free 141 terror suspect from Gitmo

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
"Okay, sorry for holding you for so long. No hard feelings, huh?"

Pfft. Guatanomo Bay is the most effective terrorist recruitment tool in the world. Way to go Bush! If these 141 people had no ill will towards the USA before, they definitely do now.


www.latimes.com...


GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION, Cuba — The Pentagon plans to release nearly a third of those held at the prison for terrorism suspects here because they pose no threat to U.S. security, an official of the war crimes tribunal said Monday.

Charges are pending against about two dozen of the remaining prisoners, the chief prosecutor said. But he left unclear why the rest face neither imminent freedom nor a day in court after as many as four years in custody.

Only 10 of the roughly 490 alleged "enemy combatants" currently detained at the facility have been charged; none has been charged with a capital offense.

That leaves the majority of the U.S. government's prisoners from the war on terrorism in limbo and its war crimes tribunal exposed to allegations by international human rights advocates that it is illegitimate and abusive.


So maybe they should just look at this as a 4 year intensive course in American-style "freedom"?







[edit on 26-4-2006 by Jakomo]




posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Yep kidnap and detain people based on a 2% probability that they're guilty (ignoring the 'about two dozen who may have charges laid against them).

Sweeping a US city and detaining everyone in it would yield a higher conviction rate.

Disgraceful behaviour from a country that kills for 'freedom'.

I'm sure those released now have a much truer picture of the US's 'acceptable standards'.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
If theyre found on the battlefield with weapons, or aprehended during a sting type intelligence operation then I would say its higher than a 2% probablity that they are involved with something they shouldnt be in Iraq of Afghanistan. Dont get me wrong, some probably are innocent, statistcally speaking its gonna happen. The world aint perfect, and neither is the system of aprehending insurgents in both countries.

I think youre assuming too much of the people being held in Gitmo as far as their feelings for the US Jakomo. To say they had no animosity before is a poor assumption, these people are held in Gitmo to collect intelligence and information needed to fight the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the fact that they are captured enemy combatants. The more info we have, the sooner we can end it and leave. These people should be glad they were released, given a ticket home all on the US' dime. I dont doubt their feelings for the US have become worse. But I feel that if they were caught fighting or snatched up in a sting type operation, they are there for a reason.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Yeah you're right. It's all justified.

What if I said (hypothetically) I'm going to kidnap 1,000 Americans take them to a Spanish Island, hold them in cages, deny them any legal representation, interrogate them for 4 years and then let 980 of them go as part of my self-declared War on Fashion.

Would that be OK too?



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Should keep them there forever because they are going to be terrorists sooner or later.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkhero
Should keep them there forever because they are going to be terrorists sooner or later.



yes and you know why ? because they were held for 4 years and tortured , anyone held that long and tortured would probably do the same thing



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Yeah you're right. It's all justified.

What if I said (hypothetically) I'm going to kidnap 1,000 Americans take them to a Spanish Island, hold them in cages, deny them any legal representation, interrogate them for 4 years and then let 980 of them go as part of my self-declared War on Fashion.

Would that be OK too?


A completely bogus analogy. Why? Becuase us rounding up people on account of bad fashion isnt a threat, unless youre really into fasion. Most of these people who are rounded up are found on the battlefield surrendering or forced to surrender. If we didnt care about them one bit, why not just shoot them there and save the trouble? We need that information. Information is the most important weapon you can have, he who has it can control a war. I would bet these people held recieved better health care than they get at home. When they go on hunger strikes they are given healthe checkups and IV's to make sure they get their daily nutrients at least. Would the insurgents do that for our troops? NUH-UH. They would just kill them right there or later. Your analogy has no bearing on the subject at all.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
This is great news!!

Now we can just kill them when they go home and pick up their weapons again.

And now we can save all the lavish accommodations we spend millions on providing for them


I wish they would release all of them. A plane ticket home, and a few bullets in the gut cost a great deal less than the millions we are spending each year at Club Gitmo

Thanks Jak, always good to hear great news.


[edit on 27-4-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus

Originally posted by darkhero
Should keep them there forever because they are going to be terrorists sooner or later.



yes and you know why ? because they were held for 4 years and tortured , anyone held that long and tortured would probably do the same thing


I will give you there are isolated incidents(alleged) of maltreatment at Guantanamo Bay. But its not a widespread thing, Abu Gharib is another isolated incident where a small group of people have commited illegal acts. But if you think this torture is so wide spread wheres your proof, the word of the captured enemy combatants? Really credible there. They get good food, a roof, a prayer rug and koran if they follow islam, good medical care and you say they are torutured? I may have missed something there. Care to enlighten me with your sources that substantiate your claim?

[edit on 4/26/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   
You have descended to the level of terrorists:

Shoot them because they MAY be against you?

Lock them up for ever in case some of them are terrorists?

They should be grateful for a nice cage?

Allegedly attacked by an alleged dog and caught on an alleged photo? I'd remind you some of your soldiers were found guilty of this - nothing alleged about it at all.

If someone did this to your people you'd be the first to go on about right & wrong. It stinks and it's a stain on your country and any other that's involved or keeps quiet (including mine)

To put people through all that and only have 2% guilty of anything at the end of it shows how poor your methods, intelligence (in both senses) and morals have become.

Land of the Free?? Disgusting!

It's no wonder the World hates the current US regime



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I think kneeling in the sun on your knees for hours with a hood on your head or your face partially covered amounts to torture in my eyes from my western upbringing.I dont think it is really necessary to degrade humans like that and as for the other comments here on shooting them in the stomach and such, this is utterly disgusting and goes to show what regards you have for human life.





posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
You have descended to the level of terrorists:

Shoot them because they MAY be against you?

Lock them up for ever in case some of them are terrorists?

They should be grateful for a nice cage?

Allegedly attacked by an alleged dog and caught on an alleged photo? I'd remind you some of your soldiers were found guilty of this - nothing alleged about it at all.

If someone did this to your people you'd be the first to go on about right & wrong. It stinks and it's a stain on your country and any other that's involved or keeps quiet (including mine)

To put people through all that and only have 2% guilty of anything at the end of it shows how poor your methods, intelligence (in both senses) and morals have become.

Land of the Free?? Disgusting!

It's no wonder the World hates the current US regime



You talkin bout Guantanamo, or Abu Gharib. I was unaware of any pictures of dogs attacking inmates at Guantanamo. Give me an article with pictures for a dog attacking inmates at Guantanamo. I admitted the Abu Gharib abuse(and yes that is terrible), but its an Isolated incident. You can accuse all you want about other abuses, but until you have undeniable proof about OTHER cases of abuse, then you have nothing else.

I guess this is all a matter of perspective.

And again with this 2% percent number. Where do you get this from, the number of cases actually prosecuted. You dont think any of these inmates are cut deals for information? Its how our system works here, it stinks, but sometimes in exchange for valuable information you have to cut deals(the guilty go unpunished). Ill try to dig up something on deal cutting with the inmates at Guantanamo and get back to you. Although some of this information may be hard to come by due to some of its possibly sensitive nature.

My? morals and ethics have become poor. This aint a peaches and cream world, and you cant treat it as so. If some of these guys want to play hardball, then you play as hard as you can as well within the bounds of the law. There are most likely some people working at these camps who break the law, and they should be punished and are in cases wehre the PROOF is undeniable. Thats how it works, innocent until proven guilty.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
I think kneeling in the sun on your knees for hours with a hood on your head or your face partially covered amounts to torture in my eyes from my western upbringing.I dont think it is really necessary to degrade humans like that and as for the other comments here on shooting them in the stomach and such, this is utterly disgusting and goes to show what regards you have for human life.





Woah now. Thats torture. Our armed forces go through worse during basic training on a daily basis. You call this torture. Football camp during the summer in high school was much more "torturous" than that, 2-a-days in the hundred degree heat cmon. You do realize that that picture says nothing about how long they are outside, the temperature or anything about the conditions. You could say anything you want to about it and it could be ASSUMED true. Read these articles about Camp X-Ray.

Camp X-Ray

Heres a site from the ICRC with some audio talking about concerns, and what goes on at the camp on a day to day basis from ICRC employees who have been there.
ICRC Interviews

So far the only complaint from the ICRC is they would like the legal process to speed up and give the detainees more access to legal representation. Nothing about conditions or treatment in those segments. They are short, but Ill get more from the ICRC to fill in the blanks here.

The ICRC also is allowed to come into the camp and give the prisoners communications with their families.
Staying in Touch

The ICRC has made regular visits to Guantanamo since inmates have began to arrive in 2002.
ICRC visiting



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
You used the word 'alleged'.

2% I got this by working out the number of those charged against those imprisoned.

If it's all legal why don't the UN think so? Why place it in a legal no mans land on Cuba? Why deny those imprisoned access to legal representation?

'Within the law' - whose law? these guys aren't even held under your civil law as you know they'd be set free for lack of evidence

Strangely the infomation about those who've been kidnapped, held, abused and the just released without charge isn't hard to come by.

Are you suggesting all those released are just terrorists with whom you've cut a deal or might some of them just be innocent people kidnapped and terrorised by your government?

So innocents can be kidnapped and imprisoned? treated badly? denied representation?. 4 years in jail is a strange definition of innocent - presumably you'd be happy to volunteer for a session in G'mo?

When your government does it to you whose going to speak up for you?



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I have to toss my hat in here real quick...

Rounding up every person with his head wrap and a rifle in his closet in Afghanistan is hardly justified as catching "terrorists." Thats everyone. We didn't capture armed combatants...we shot them. We jailed the unarmed ones. We ran in, in a flurry, and everything we deemed a threat that we didnt kill got stuffed into Gitmo. There is probably plenty of bad-guys who deserve that little 6x8, but I promise there are plenty that were just regular guys trying to survive a foreign invasion. Give em trials, or let em go. Every American should agree. If they run back to the Mideast and take up arms....well...you know how we do, and it won't be a cell.

We owe every single human being behind bars a fair shot to plead their case in court. The ones blowing people up and shooting folks are already killed. We dont take the time to disarm them and detain them. The ones locked up are locked up for information, just like Luda said. However, I won't cosign to the idea that it is ok.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
I have to toss my hat in here real quick...
Rounding up every person with his head wrap and a rifle in his closet in Afghanistan is hardly justified as catching "terrorists." Thats everyone. We didn't capture armed combatants...we shot them. We jailed the unarmed ones. We ran in, in a flurry, and everything we deemed a threat that we didnt kill got stuffed into Gitmo. There is probably plenty of bad-guys who deserve that little 6x8, but I promise there are plenty that were just regular guys trying to survive a foreign invasion. Give em trials, or let em go. Every American should agree. If they run back to the Mideast and take up arms....well...you know how we do, and it won't be a cell.

We owe every single human being behind bars a fair shot to plead their case in court. The ones blowing people up and shooting folks are already killed. We dont take the time to disarm them and detain them. The ones locked up are locked up for information, just like Luda said. However, I won't cosign to the idea that it is ok.


As far as just shooting armed combatants, that depends on how they were behaving or reacting, if they were firing back thats their problem if they got shot. But if they surrendered then sure they got taken to a detention center somewhere. Where they are taken depends on where they were captured and who they were affiliated with when captured, i.e. what they possibly know that could help the US fight this war more efficiently. I'm sure there are many who were just trying to survive but taking up arms was probably not their best option if thats what they were trying to do.

I agree that they should be given their legal council and this whole process be sped up, but a majority of these detainees are listed as "illegal" combatants and can be held under law for a definate period of time, which is what is happening. They are held until the US military feels they have no more intel to give or decide if they want to prosecute them. This is the part that is taking ridiculously long and I understand the problem with that, I feel the same way. The only place I appear to differ with you on this issue is the idea that it is "ok" to detain these guys until we can be sure they arent someone who looks nice on the surface but will shoot you when your backs turned. I personally believe our policy in Afghanistan has saved casualties, possibly on both sides.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Yeah you're right. It's all justified.

What if I said (hypothetically) I'm going to kidnap 1,000 Americans take them to a Spanish Island, hold them in cages, deny them any legal representation, interrogate them for 4 years and then let 980 of them go as part of my self-declared War on Fashion.

Would that be OK too?


If they were captured armed and on a battle field, then yes. In fact, the Geneva Convention provides that any of these non-uniformed combatants could be summarily shot.

The GC was created primarily to protect civilians and that’s why combatants are required to wear uniforms.

These people are POWs and for a lot of the Afghanis their time at Gitmo was probably the first time they’ve ever seen a doctor or a dentist. Based on my time in England, some time at Gitmo wouldn't hurt al ot of you Brits either.



[edit on 27-4-2006 by El Tiante]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
ALL members posting in this thread

There is, typically, no need to quote the Entire post directly above yours.

If it is a long post, Please quote only the portion(s) you are addressing or responding to.


Also, when quoting other members, do Not include that which they have quoted [nested quotes].

I would ask that everyone reading this post Please review the following link:
ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote?




[edit on 4/27/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Strangerous, I'm having trouble with the quoting so bear with me. All these answers are in order of your statements on your last post.

only in reference to the fact you are bringing up some allegations. Some of what you said has definately happend. So I'm not trying to say youre fudging facts by anymeans.

Ok, got ya.

Funny the word alleged actually can be used here haha. But isnt that what these are, allegations, accusations? You are right about the lack of legal representation something I frown upon because I am currently studying criminal law.

No not at all, I was merely hinting at the possibility, and in our current system I believe it to be totally possible. Giving incentive for divulging important information is a good interrogation tactic, no?


Never said that, but I did say that in my personal opinion(I should have specified), the 200 some odd people behing held at Camp Delta(the high security side of Guantanamo) are there for a reason. Im sure youd be able to find some innocents at Camp X-Ray(low-med security) but unlikely on the max security Camp Delta. Those are the true trouble makers, though I'm sure they wouldnt last very long in a super max in the states.

[edit on 4/27/2006 by ludaChris]

[edit on 4/27/2006 by ludaChris]

[edit on 4/27/2006 by ludaChris]

[edit on 4/27/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Luda:

I agree that they should be given their legal council and this whole process be sped up, but a majority of these detainees are listed as "illegal" combatants and can be held under law for a definate period of time, which is what is happening.


They cannot be held according to ANY law. They are not illegal combatants, they are Prisoners of War. The US can use all the semantics and legal dodges it wants to, it still amounts to the the fact that the United States of America is incarcerating SUSPECTED terrorists indefinitely in CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

Guantanomo Bay creates more terrorists than it charges. I can't wait till US citizens start being held incommunicado, let's see what you feel about it then.


They are held until the US military feels they have no more intel to give or decide if they want to prosecute them. This is the part that is taking ridiculously long and I understand the problem with that, I feel the same way.


Ok cool, so you agree with the fact that the military can make legal decisions? If the US military FEELS a certain way they can ignore international law and incarcerate someone indefinitely? You are a fan of Nazism I suppose?


The only place I appear to differ with you on this issue is the idea that it is "ok" to detain these guys until we can be sure they arent someone who looks nice on the surface but will shoot you when your backs turned.


Until WHO can be sure. A general? An MP? Please let me know.




[edit on 27-4-2006 by Jakomo]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join