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.

 

More than 60 children reportedly held at Guantanamo Bay

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
..DGTEMPE, bringing you the latest news......




If there were to be one (1) child prisoner, that would be one child too many and it would be an abomination.
What difference does the number make?
And under what grounds? They picked up a stone to throw to a US soldier who came into their house in the middle of the night looking for "terrorists"?

Hell, i sure hope some Jap doesnt come to my house in the middle of the night, for starters he'd get a couple of lamps tossed at his head.

Human instinct is to protect yourself, specially of the unknown.

Ohhh, yep. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. I forgot. Babies next.




posted on May, 28 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

U.S.: Guantanamo Kids at Risk

April 24, 2003

The detention of children at Guantanamo poses grave risks to their well-being, Human Rights Watch said today, in response to the U.S. military's acknowledgement that at least three children, ages 13 to 15, are among the detainees at Guantanamo. In a letter sent today to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch urged the United States to strictly observe international children's rights standards regarding the detainees.

"Simply providing the United States with military intelligence does not justify the detention of children," said Becker. "If these children have committed offenses, they should be provided with counsel and adjudicated in accordance with standards of juvenile justice. Otherwise, they should be released immediately."

No Councelor.

No Trial.

No Justice.


US admits jailing children at Guantanamo Bay

1 May 2003

Amnesty International described the conditions at Guantanamo Bay as “cruel, inhuman and degrading” and called for the immediate release and repatriation of the children. “That the US sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become about respecting human rights,” Amnesty International spokesman Alistair Hodgett said.

Human Rights Watch declared that the US was in breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice and the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. It said the accepted international definition of a child was anyone under the age of 18.


US Detains Children at Guantanamo Bay

April 23, 2003

Lt Col Johnson said the juveniles were being held because "they have potential to provide important information in the ongoing war on terrorism".

"Their release is contingent on the determination that they are not a threat to the [US] nation and have no further intelligence value."

Last but not Least:


U.S. Detentions Undermine the Rule of Law

Since January 11, 2002, the U.S. government has sent over seven hundred people picked up from around the world to Guantanamo. Currently some 660 are in detention, including an undisclosed number of children. As the detention camp begins its third year, the public still does not know who the detainees are, what they have allegedly done, and whether and when they will be charged with crimes or released. There have been no hearings to determine the legal status of detainees and no judicial review—in short, no legal process at all.

The Bush Administration asserts that all of its detainees at Guantanamo are enemy combatants in the war against terrorism and therefore properly detained until terrorism is vanquished. High-level administration officials have repeatedly characterized the detainees as the “worst of the worst.” In response to questions about their fate, President George W. Bush has called the detainees “bad people” and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has labeled them “hard core, well-trained terrorists.”

Well, that sure is Interesting.

And just how exactly can We Know how Many Children are being Held in Guantanamo?



We Ain't Never gonna find out How many are being held there!

And the Army will just come and tell us that?



Well, ofcourse - they are BAD PEOPLE, WORST OF THE WORST, HARD CORE WELL TRAINED TERRORISTS!

The Notorious Evildoers!

They are Friends with those People, that Hijacked the Airplanes on 9-11.

If they get out, they will just start Killing Americans, everywhere they go!

BE AFRAID!

BE VERY AFRAID!



But - if they Truly are Hard-Core-Well-Trained Terrorists, I suggest that the US goverment presents the Evidence in the Trial and start convicting this Terrorists for what they are.

If they Can.



Oh, and while we are "Googling" - check this Result in Google Search - Results 1 - 10 of about 5,560,000 for Children Guantanamo.

Hmmm, now what does that tell you...



[edit on 28/5/06 by Souljah]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Souljah,

Thanks for all your information.


Google?
It tells me the story is true



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

U.S.: Guantanamo Kids at Risk

April 24, 2003

The detention of children at Guantanamo poses grave risks to their well-being, Human Rights Watch said today, in response to the U.S. military's acknowledgement that at least three children, ages 13 to 15, are among the detainees at Guantanamo. In a letter sent today to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch urged the United States to strictly observe international children's rights standards regarding the detainees.

"Simply providing the United States with military intelligence does not justify the detention of children," said Becker. "If these children have committed offenses, they should be provided with counsel and adjudicated in accordance with standards of juvenile justice. Otherwise, they should be released immediately."

No Councelor.

No Trial.

No Justice.


US admits jailing children at Guantanamo Bay

1 May 2003

Amnesty International described the conditions at Guantanamo Bay as “cruel, inhuman and degrading” and called for the immediate release and repatriation of the children. “That the US sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become about respecting human rights,” Amnesty International spokesman Alistair Hodgett said.

Human Rights Watch declared that the US was in breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice and the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. It said the accepted international definition of a child was anyone under the age of 18.


US Detains Children at Guantanamo Bay

April 23, 2003

Lt Col Johnson said the juveniles were being held because "they have potential to provide important information in the ongoing war on terrorism".

"Their release is contingent on the determination that they are not a threat to the [US] nation and have no further intelligence value."

Last but not Least:


U.S. Detentions Undermine the Rule of Law

Since January 11, 2002, the U.S. government has sent over seven hundred people picked up from around the world to Guantanamo. Currently some 660 are in detention, including an undisclosed number of children. As the detention camp begins its third year, the public still does not know who the detainees are, what they have allegedly done, and whether and when they will be charged with crimes or released. There have been no hearings to determine the legal status of detainees and no judicial review—in short, no legal process at all.

The Bush Administration asserts that all of its detainees at Guantanamo are enemy combatants in the war against terrorism and therefore properly detained until terrorism is vanquished. High-level administration officials have repeatedly characterized the detainees as the “worst of the worst.” In response to questions about their fate, President George W. Bush has called the detainees “bad people” and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has labeled them “hard core, well-trained terrorists.”

Well, that sure is Interesting.

And just how exactly can We Know how Many Children are being Held in Guantanamo?



We Ain't Never gonna find out How many are being held there!

And the Army will just come and tell us that?



Well, ofcourse - they are BAD PEOPLE, WORST OF THE WORST, HARD CORE WELL TRAINED TERRORISTS!

The Notorious Evildoers!

They are Friends with those People, that Hijacked the Airplanes on 9-11.

If they get out, they will just start Killing Americans, everywhere they go!

BE AFRAID!

BE VERY AFRAID!



But - if they Truly are Hard-Core-Well-Trained Terrorists, I suggest that the US goverment presents the Evidence in the Trial and start convicting this Terrorists for what they are.

If they Can.



Oh, and while we are "Googling" - check this Result in Google Search - Results 1 - 10 of about 5,560,000 for Children Guantanamo.

Hmmm, now what does that tell you...



[edit on 28/5/06 by Souljah]


voted 'way above' by xeros



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Shots' position is funny.

It would be like me saying the AIDS cases in Africa are all lies because they're reporting more cases this year than last year.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Shots' position is funny.

It would be like me saying the AIDS cases in Africa are all lies because they're reporting more cases this year than last year.


voted 'way above' by xeros. Jeez i'm running out! how much more joy can a thread bring? At least we're not all brainwashed racists.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Xeros]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
It does not mean that what is being said is a lie. It is not proof that what is being said is a lie. And without it being true that no one has arrived at Guantanamo Bay since 2004 it would appear that there is no proof that this "lawyer" is lying.


It sure does as at least as far am I am concerned. He made a claim of 6 in 2005, He is now making a claim there might be 60 or as few as 10 it is also a fact that NO NEW Prisoners have arrived since 2004. Here is a cached Link from Druge Note the Toronto link is no longer available or I would have used it.

--------

For the rest of you I think you are all over reacting since there is nothing in the Geneva convention regarding the housing of minors as prisoners of war at least not that I can find.

I see this whole issue as nothing but a group of activists playing a new lets be pc correct card, only this time with minors rather then the names of things etc., as they have done in the past.



[edit on 5/28/2006 by shots]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Apparently there is NO difference between Child or Adult "Terrorists".


So a 30 year old male with a rifle and a 14 year old with a rifle, who are both aiming at you, to kill you makes a difference? The 30 year old male deserves punishment or shooting, but the 14 year old who is doing exactly the same , deserves compassion?

Get real here. If he is old enough to shoot our troops, then he is old enough to be shot back at, or detained.

Forget the child ideologies. They know what they are doing.

The difference is?, there is no difference if you pick up a rifle and shoot.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
great work Souljah,

I too have voted you "way above" for your great and conclusive post.

especially the article where the US admits it...Kinda renders any debate about the validity MOOT.

Shots Ihave a question for you. And Im not trying to be an arse. But how many children is too many 1-10-100-1000-etc? IMHO ONE child is far too many. there are other ways of dealing with children, even "TERRORIST" children. I have read quite a few of your threads and I respect your opinions and research capabilities. But on this one I have to go with souljah the amount of kids isnt the important factor here. Sure the original story at the beggining of the thread may or may not be accurate. But the fact remains that there ARE children there and thats not going to cut it.

Just my $.02 keep the change



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie

Originally posted by Souljah
Apparently there is NO difference between Child or Adult "Terrorists".




The difference is?, there is no difference if you pick up a rifle and shoot.
And how do you know they picked up a rifle to begin with??? Did i miss that information?
Or is it an assumption on your part they were armed?



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
And how do you know they picked up a rifle to begin with??? Did i miss that information?
Or is it an assumption on your part they were armed?


No you did not miss that. And please, don't
me. The 'children' were detained for a reason. I am only trying to determine what possible circumstances led to these 'children' being detained in the first place.

I know from what my son has told me. The 'children' will shoot and then drop their weapons. The Army (British) cannot shoot back. They cannot shoot at children. That is their orders. ( Don't ask me to back that up, because i cannot for obvious reasons. take my word for it)

The same can be said of an adult shooting at a soldier. He can shoot ,then give the weapon to a child. He knows this child is not going to be shot by the Army.(British). Therefore he gets off with the 'crime'.

If a 'child', or shall we call them teenagers? pick up a rifle to shoot, then they are just cause to get arrested for it.
Does this not happen in our countries? Arrest for shooting at some one?



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I didnt mean to offend you by giving you one of these:


I meant, i thought there might be an article somewhere explaining these children were fully armed and dangerous.
The truth is, we dont know.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
And how do you know they picked up a rifle to begin with??? Did i miss that information?
Or is it an assumption on your part they were armed?


Whats the differance if it was a gun or something else? It could have been a kid who had an IED or grenade or perhaps he was wearing a suicide bomb; the type of weapon is moot. They all kill yah know.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I didnt mean to offend you by giving you one of these:


I meant, i thought there might be an article somewhere explaining these children were fully armed and dangerous.
The truth is, we dont know.


No problem with the
. Thanks for the apology.


I can find no article, i am just trying to point out the facts that there must be a reason behind these 'children' being detained.

I just gave some valid reasons as to why they might have been. Thats all.............



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

You have voted Bikereddie for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


Well said, if you did something to warrant Guantanamo then it does not matter if you are 14 or 34, equal treatment for all.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well said, if you did something to warrant Guantanamo then it does not matter if you are 14 or 34, equal treatment for all.


Exactly. That is the point i am trying to get across.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
It looks like a credible story to me and is not at all surprising if this is true.
To neocon thinking, you do not administer "therapy" [ to paraphrase Karl Rove]
to terrorists, you simply "go to war".

To even consider the idea that these children would be valuable
assets to our efforts if we treated them with kindness, and realized that
these innocent children have been born into chaos, and really can not be
held accountable for doing what they were raised to do, would require an ounce of compassion on the noecons part.

The concept of compassion to a neocon is lost. They ridicule the idea of compassion, it would be considered an embarrassment if one neocon caught another performing an act of compassion.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Compassion? Can you give compassion to a grieving mother whose son/daughter was killed by a 14 year old "child", a "child" who could have been in prison instead of on the street? Compassion is one thing, turning a blind eye to a dangerous individual who wants to kill you, is another matter altogether.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Compassion? Can you give compassion to a grieving mother whose son/daughter was killed by a 14 year old "child", a "child" who could have been in prison instead of on the street? Compassion is one thing, turning a blind eye to a dangerous individual who wants to kill you, is another matter altogether.


You obviously don't know the meaning of compassion. It might help to study Bhuddism. Seriously.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Compassion? Can you give compassion to a grieving mother whose son/daughter was killed by a 14 year old "child", a "child" who could have been in prison instead of on the street? Compassion is one thing, turning a blind eye to a dangerous individual who wants to kill you, is another matter altogether.


Can you give compassion to the grieving cousin because the entire family is missing because they are in Guantanamo? Yeah, these kids may have been taught something by an adult with this sick ideology. But comeon! If America was attacked, what would you think of that 13-year-old that picked up a gun to shoot the "infidel?"

There are better things for a kid than Guantanamo Bay. A kid that you could still reach out to, not put a bag over his head, wire him up, and expect this to cause him to love America for the rest of his life! Can't you just bring a "kid" here and place him in custody of a state to let him see counselors to help him deal with the anger and hate he has been taught?

By putting them with the adults, we are only further pushing the hate. Of course, I have a feeling that some people believe these humans are getting better treatment than they deserve. All its doing is furthering the hate in these kid's hearts. Way to go, America.


There are better ways, come on? We are supposedly the high tech, super nation, but we can't even find ways to appropriately jail children?


*Edit - Spelling Error


[edit on 5/28/06 by niteboy82]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join