Gitmo: They wouldn't be there if they weren't guilty. Oh really?

Wait a moment, the treaty was made before Castro came into power, so how come this was not nullified after Castro?

Does Castro ever asked the US to leave their lands.?

If he did then I can only imagine that US after 2003 is invading Cuba.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by ShadowEyes
I'll say it again, if the government can prove their case then they need to get on with it,...for all to see. Gee, then there would be no room left for debate.

It's not that simple. They can be held without trial for as long as the hostilities last:

There are clear distinctions in both domestic and international law between the powers of government in times of war (“armed conflict”) and in times of peace. During war, for example, an enemy combatant (one who is taking active part in the hostilities) can (with a few exceptions) be shot on the spot, without warning and even in the absence of an imminent threat, and can be detained without charge or counsel until the end of hostilities. In peacetime, law enforcement may use lethal force only to meet an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, and a suspect once detained must be charged and tried. The rules are clear about this; what is not clear is how to tell the difference between war and peace.

www.forward.com...

So, it seems that they are being treated fairly.

One would think this is what they should want to do, if for no other reason than to salvage just a bit of their credibility. Especially when, even though some of you still believe everything they say, many more do not believe them.

It's not a matter of who believes whom. It's a matter of who is anxious to see these murderers get pampered and those who put their comfort just a little further down the priority list.

I know that we are supposed to wage the PC war, and to maintain our higher standards. And it gets harder to maintain that stance, after the terrorists show us their brand of justice, such as the execution of those 3 soldiers recently. Where was their trial? What rights were afforded to them before they took a bullet in the head?

Beheadings, executions, torture, SOP for those murderers. Yet we have such a short memory. As soon as the going gets tough, we are willing to throw in the towel and blame our own gov't for the murders.

The terrorists are much more patient. They know that if they drag things out, we will lose our will, and defeat ourselves. In fact, they are right. The cut and run voice in our country gets louder every day. The terrorists are just waiting for us to set a surrender date.

Originally posted by jsobecky

In peacetime, law enforcement may use lethal force only to meet an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, and a suspect once detained must be charged and tried. The rules are clear about this; what is not clear is how to tell the difference between war and peace.

www.forward.com...

Newsflash. By everyone elses standards its peacetime. Terrorism has been dealt with by other nations as a criminal act. It is only the US that has decided to invade two countries under the cover of responding to "terrorism" - one as a direct result of it (Afghanistan) and one as a convinient excuse (Iraq).

Show me a formal declaration of war signed by the President and approved by congress against a nation state.





[edit on 14/0607/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by neformore
Newsflash. By everyone elses standards its peacetime. Terrorism has been dealt with by other nations as a criminal act. It is only the US that has decided to invade two countries under the cover of responding to "terrorism" - one as a direct result of it (Afghanistan) and one as a convinient excuse (Iraq).

Show me a formal declaration of war signed by the President and approved by congress against a nation state.

Surprise! Not every aggresive action can be pigeon-holed into a nation-upon-nation category. But it is still a war. New tactics have to be developed and yes, new rules have to be created to deal with this new type of threat. As far as other nations dealing with it as a criminal activity, well, that's their prerogative. They don't set our foreign policy. Especially since many of them turned their backs on us when we asked them for help.

Originally posted by neformore
By everyone elses standards its peacetime.

Anyone who thinks that this time in history is 'peacetime' has their head stuffed in the sand. (I'm NOT pointing at you neformore) Seriously. Just look around. The entire world is at war - both visible war and invisible war. We ARE in a world war. Sometimes in the shadows. Sometimes violently in the open. But it IS a world war.

There is no peace on this planet. There hasn't been in a long time. There wont' be real peace for a long time to come either.



[edit on 6/14/2007 by FlyersFan]

Js "war on terror" is the biggest hoax this administration created, to be able to justify invasion and take over of resources that happen to be in the lands of the people our "war on terror" president has tagged as "axis of evil".

Because you always going to find people that will fight to death for what is theirs by birth right, our nation will tag them terrorist, insurgents and radical Islamic militia groups all out there to kill su Americans.

But Alas we are invading their lands after all.

It's just to obvious Js.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Anyone who thinks that this time in history is 'peacetime' has their head stuffed in the sand. Seriously. Just look around. The entire world is at war - both visible war and invisible war. We ARE in a world war. Sometimes in the shadows. Sometimes violently in the open. But it IS a world war.

There is no peace on this planet. There hasn't been in a long time. There wont' be real peace for a long time to come either.

Actually, no. My heads not stuffed in the sand. Its more of a case that the United States had its head very forcibly removed from the sand on the 11th September 2001, because what you define as "terrorism" isn't new, had been happening for years - some of it has been funded by your own government and sections of your society.

You can try and ignore that fact if you want, but its true.

Originally posted by neformore

Actually, no. My heads not stuffed in the sand. Its more of a case that the United States had its head very forcibly removed from the sand on the 11th September 2001, because what you define as "terrorism" isn't new, had been happening for years - some of it has been funded by your own government and sections of your society.

You can try and ignore that fact if you want, but its true.

If you head is out of the sand, then maybe you can explain why one of your citizen as a Brit would attempt to come and bomb with a shoe? Sections of our society. You seem to have a problem of your own as well, not to mention I know you have terrorism back home, and using military resources to fight against it before, so don't attempt to think terrorism as a criminal act.

Originally posted by deltaboy
If you head is out of the sand, then maybe you can explain why one of your citizen as a Brit would attempt to come and bomb with a shoe? Sections of our society.

You seem to have a problem of your own as well, not to mention I know you have terrorism back home, and using military resources to fight against it before, so don't attempt to think terrorism as a criminal act.

I can no more explain the actions of Richard Reid as you can explain the actions of the US funding group NORAID, who contributed monies to the IRA during their terror campaign against the UK over a period of 40 years - who were described as "Freedom fighters" by sections of American Society and were openly backed by parts of the US Congress at the same time as they were blowing up city centres in the UK.

Don't lecture me on terrorism, I have experienced it first hand, having been evacuated from both Manchester and Warrington city centres at times when the IRA struck and I can tell you that the experience of not knowing whether a bomb is going to go off in a nearby litter bin because some sadistic bastard thought he could make a point that way is not pleasant. That having been said I don't happen to think that all Irishmen are scumbags, and the idea of the UK invading Ireland to prevent such attacks would have been abhorrent to me.

And incidentally, ALL of the IRA terrorists that were captured were tried and jailed via the UK's criminal justice system. There were incidents where the SAS were involved in stings as a force tool, but the ultimate authority for the operation remained a civilian matter. I suggest you do your homework on the subject before you try and lecture me on it.

Originally posted by neformore
And incidentally, ALL of the IRA terrorists that were captured were tried and jailed via the UK's criminal justice system. There were incidents where the SAS were involved in stings as a force tool, but the ultimate authority for the operation remained a civilian matter. I suggest you do your homework on the subject before you try and lecture me on it.

I'm aware of the problems going on in Ireland along with the British intervention between Catholics and Protestants along with so many different groups like IRA or the Real IRA, etc. for independence. I even took some classes that involves with terrorism and discussions related to this subject besides other terrorist groups. Don't assume anything.

The GITMO subject was discussed many times here on ATS. But OP does not want to discuss detainee treatment issue or the issue of legallity. He wants to discuss the origin of this detainees. This is a very interesting topic.

What this recent history of GITMO showed/showes us that many released and still detaineed persons were captured/seized/arrested by Northern Alliance warlords and then turned over to the US forces in Afghanistan. This warlords settled many tribal disputes that way or let's say they got rid of their political rivals or persons they just didn't like. And because the US forces were on a terrorists witch hunt frenzy, they probably swallowed practically everything this alliance sold them or we can say, Americans got a Raw Deal.

The other interesting thing is the origin of fractions of this alliance.

According to Wikipedia

United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan
The UIF was comprised of roughly five of the factions of Mujahideen fighters. Iran and Turkey considered there to be seven factions in total. These groups were:

* Islamic Party of Afghanistan - Jamiat-I Islami-yi Afghanistan - Made up of mainly Persian-speaking Tajiks, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani. In later years as the capital was lost and the situation was largely military, Rabbani had little influence compared to Defence Ministers Ahmed Shah Massoud and Mohammed Fahim, who were also members of the Party.

* Islamic Unity Party of Afghanistan - Hizb-I Wahdat-I Islami-yi Afghanistan - Made up of Shia Hazaras, once led by the martyred Abdul Ali Mazari and later by Mohammed Mohaqiq and Karim Khalili, supported by Iran

* National Islamic Movement of Afghanistan - Junbish-I Milli-yi Afghanistan - Made up of Uzbeks and former communists, led by Abdul Rashid Dostum, supported by Turkey

* Islamic Movement of Afghanistan - Harakat-i-Islami-yi Afghanistan - Shia, led by Ayatollah Muhammad Asif Muhsini

* Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan - Ittihad-I Islami Bara-yi Azadi - Pashtun, led by Abdul Rasul Sayyaf

Many members, including much of the leadership were ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara - ethnic minorities in Afghanistan. Remnants of the former Soviet-backed communist government also made up a subsantial portion of the Northern Alliance.

Interesting bunch, don't you think. If I'm alowed a quick generalisation I could say na nice bouquet of commie/terrorists.

Here is also an interesting report on GITMO detainees.

Report on Guantanamo Detainees
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody.
This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

Originally posted by jungle lord
Collin Powell just said that they need to close that base ASAP
lets hope it creates some motivation for the American public to stand up for the constitution.
for themselves and everyone else.

Colin Powell was asked to review Iraq in 2000. When he finished his review he stated in reference to Saddam Hussein

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"


So my question to you is, What would make people listen now to this guy when they didn't listen in 2000 and 2001?

My second question to you is. Why was war with Iraq being talked about close to 3 years before 9/11. And I dont want people to read this and think conspiracy, I want people to read this and remember what President Bush did the first 9 months he was in office.

Who's running our Military and who's in control of this country?