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. Holding 51,000 Iraqis In Prison, Most Illegally

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   

U.S. Holding 51,000 Iraqis In Prison, Most Illegally




The U.S. is illegally holding more Iraqis in prison than ever before---24,700---and is expanding its facilities to accommodate another 10,000, according to a published report.In addition to those detained by the U.S., the Iraqi government is holding 26,000 Iraqis in jail, bringing the total number of prisoners to almost 51,000.

“U.S. forces are holding nearly all of these persons indefinitely, without an arrest warrant, without charge, and with no opportunity for those held to defend themselves in a trial,” writes Ciara Gilmartin, the Security Council Program Coordinator at Global Policy Forum(GPF), of New York City.

“While the United States has put in place a formal review procedure that supposedly evaluates all detainees for release on a regular basis, detainees cannot attend these reviews, cannot confront evidence against them, and cannot be represented properly by an attorney,” Gilmartin said.These conditions are “in direct violation” of international human rights law, says Glimartin. Washington, however, claims due process does not apply as it is engaged in “an international armed conflict.”

Human rights authorities, however, say the conflict is not international and that human rights law applies at all times.In an effort to conceal conditions in its Iraqi compounds, the U.S. has closed them to human rights monitors such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Federation of Human Rights, Gilmartin said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 15 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   
51,000!!!

No-one can make me believe that there are 24,700 insurgents/al qaeda/terrorists that have been caught, and that are being held illegally.

So, what does this prove?

That bush&co don't believe in international law, that they are somehow above the international laws they expect others (with the exception of israel) to abide by.

They are not even allowing human rights monitors to observe, and that makes it appear as though torture is still going on.

These camps are in danger of becoming the next generation of concentration camps - the type the british used in the boer war, not the nazi variety.
Although with bush&co in charge, who knows what could happen...


(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
As long as they have suicide murderers going on within Iraq, they apparently don't have enough terrorists being detained. I don't give one **** how many of these people are being kept and held.

They treat their prisoners (our soldiers and contractors) by torture, mutilation, and then beheading. What makes a civilized person believe these people deserve any decent treatment.

Simpletons and anti-American people will tell you that because of our actions, they act this way. No, they kill innocent people only because of the false religion they follow and have no fear of death. Leaving them alone would only endanger more people as they would spread their terroristic ways to other countries.

The terrorist need to be either incarcerated or killed. It's that simple.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 


So for thinking that the proven detention of innocent civilians is bad, a person is either a simpleton or anti-american?

Do you also condone the proven torture of innocent civilains?

Tell me how you would feel if armed forces invaded your home, took away your male family members, held them without trial or charges, tortured them, granted them absolutely no rights, then released them a few years later as innocent.

The kind of thinking that you have displayed, with apparently no knowledge or comprehension of the situation is what has allowed bush to ride roughshod over the US constitution.

Perhaps you'll be happy when they have real nazi-style concentration camps not only for "terror suspects" but also for any who dare to disagree.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 

I have to admit I am sometimes jealous of such thoughts. The black and white world seems like such a simple place to live. Embracing stereotypes, not needing to do any actual thinking, just let your emotions speak and box the world up. We = good, Iraqi = terrorist, terrorist ≠ human, anyone who disagrees = anti-American.

Anyway, back to the real world: I assume the detainees are in prison for a reason. I am however having trouble believing all those reasons actually justify those people being in prison. I wonder how many people are just there for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because someone being tortured for names finally broke and simply listed friends and acquaintances to get the torture to stop? If the reasons are legitimate, why aren't they charged with something? Is there any sign of trials starting, or at least anything resembling a justice system being put in place?

By the way budski, I seem to be missing the link to the article. Could you (re)post it?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

Could we have a source link please?

Just to check the veracity.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
That was strange, anyway, here's
the link again.
I have no idea what happened there.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Thanks budski.

While I do not doubt that both the USA and Iraq are holding prisoners in violation of some groups ideas of human rights, [probably my own also],
This source is by definition an opinion source.

I resoundly disagree with most of what we are now doing in Iraq. But I also believe in the autonomy of nations just as I do individual autonomy.

It still comes down to trusting another individual or nation to put what you feel is your best interests above theirs.

IMHO - it ain't gonna happen.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
No problem, I don't know what happened with the OP
probably had a stupid moment.

The problem always comes back to international treaties and human rights.

The same country that is violating those rights have in the past used them as an excuse to wage war.

If the US were not signatories to various treaties, and hadn't used them for their own ends in the past, then I would be a little quieter on the subject - but this is another example of the hypocrisy that surrounds bush&co.

If a country professes to be "the worlds policeman" then they also have a duty to abide by the rules they profess to enforce.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I hope people here realize less than 5% of ALL captured enemy combatants during the War on Terror so far, have been actually captured US Forces.

The rest of the 89,000 or so people detained from Afghanistan & Iraq during up until now are handed over by tribal warlords, indigenous forces, Iraqi Security/Police, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, Kurdish Rebels and other various coalition-aligned factions. Usually for handsome bounties paid in return.

The fact of the matter is, we have no friggin' clue who most of these guys are and what crimes they have committed, IF ANY.
More than likely innocent men have been turned over to US forces as retribution from the persecuted minorities and factions who suffered under Saddam or the Taliban, and now want to make a quick buck so they can finance their own fight.

I'd say less than 2% of all detained combatants are actually Insurgents or known-terrorists.

Will they become Insurgents after US Incarceration, torture and interrogation?
Bet your bottom dollar on it people.
Great way to make the "War on Terror" the "War of Forever", just keep sowing the seeds of the problem.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Did anyone else here actually read the entire article?

The author is quoting someone else in the article. He conducted no research of his own (at least that is what it sounds like to me) and is rehashing what the other person says.

Doesn't seem like a credible source to me. Any chance you can find another article (one with real evidence) to back this up budski?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
About the author:

Sherwood Ross has worked as a publicist for the City of Chicago and Nassau County, N.Y., governments; as a news director for the National Urban League; as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News; as a workplace columnist for Reuters; as a media consultant to colleges, universities, law schools and more than 100 national magazines including The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Business Week, and Foreign Policy; as a speechwriter for mayors, governors and presidential candidates, and as a radio news reporter and talk show host at WOL, Washington, D.C. He holds an award for "best spot news coverage" for Chicago radio stations in 1963. His degree from the University of Miami was in race relations and he has written a book, "Gruening of Alaska," a number of national magazine articles and several plays, including "Baron Jiro," produced at Live Arts Theatre, Charlottesville, Va., and "Yamamoto's Decision," read at the National Press Club, where he is a member. His favorite quotations are from the Sermon on The Mount.

source

He's well respected and has done the research before on countless occasions.

I'd trust his word and sources before those of a lot of people on ATS



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
He's well respected and has done the research before on countless occasions.

But what research did he do in this instance? What he has done in the past has no relevance to this article. With the exception of his slanted reporting when it comes to Iraq.



I'd trust his word and sources before those of a lot of people on ATS


Hmm, that explains a lot.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


I thought the thread was about discussion of the article and the issues it raises, rather than your usual strawmen and derailing attempts when you read something you don't like.

If that's the case, prove that there AREN'T nearly 25,000 prisoners in US custody, as well as the 26,000 iraqi's in iraqi jails.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I thought the thread was about discussion of the article and the issues it raises, rather than your usual strawmen and derailing attempts when you read something you don't like.

Without proof, it is basically an opinion piece that you are actually trying to pass off as factual information.

What issues is it supposed to raise anyway? If we think you are a threat we are going to minimize your ability to cause harm to our forces. Great, I am all for that.

Does it raise the issue of how they are being selected for their vacation? I am pretty sure they aren't just riding around town and grabbing folks who look at them the wrong way.



If that's the case, prove that there AREN'T nearly 25,000 prisoners in US custody, as well as the 26,000 iraqi's in iraqi jails.


I can't prove those numbers, until they declassify them. Can you prove that the US is the only one who is locking people up over there?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
What you have to understand is that many iraqi's are using the US military to settle old scores.

They go to the PTB and say "abdul is an insurgent" so the military lock them up with no proof (in many cases) other than someone elses word.

They are then held without legal recourse or trial.

There's plenty of evidence about this.

I'm not passing anything off as factual information - I posted a story and my thoughts on it.

If you don't agree with it, provide evidence other than YOUR opinion that refutes it.

The person who wrote the article is a very well respected journalist, and has named his sources in international organisations.

Now would you care to get back to the point of the thread, or provide some contrary evidence, or shall I just stick you and your strawman on ignore?

Here's some more from gilmartin:
www.fpif.org...

[edit on 15/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hinky
As long as they have suicide murderers going on within Iraq, they apparently don't have enough terrorists being detained. I don't give one **** how many of these people are being kept and held.

They treat their prisoners (our soldiers and contractors) by torture, mutilation, and then beheading. What makes a civilized person believe these people deserve any decent treatment.

Simpletons and anti-American people will tell you that because of our actions, they act this way. No, they kill innocent people only because of the false religion they follow and have no fear of death. Leaving them alone would only endanger more people as they would spread their terroristic ways to other countries.

The terrorist need to be either incarcerated or killed. It's that simple.



You don't give one **** how many innocent people get detained illegally?

Excellent... then you won't mind being locked up along with them.
Where do you live? I think I smell a "homegrown terrorist", I can't be sure, but I think we had better lock you up and torture the heck out of you just to make sure.


You might not care how many innocent people get locked up and tortured... but those innocent people DO... and when they get out... they won't give one **** how many of YOU get blown up.


... we are all angry at the terrorists. But hitting innocent people for it just makes things worse.

And no, ONLY SIMPLETONS AND ANTI-AMERICANS CONDONE THE USE OF TORTURE AND ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT.

Free countries don't use torture, Free countries respect human rights...
Why do YOU hate Freedom?

[edit on 15-5-2008 by johnsky]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
They go to the PTB and say "abdul is an insurgent" so the military lock
them up with no proof (in many cases) other than someone elses word.


Where's the proof of that? The ones that the military locks up have to be proven by multiple sources (narc, evidence, caught at a meeting, etc). The Iraqis may be locking up people like you say, but the US is not involved with that.

Which begs my question of where is the proof that these 51k people were all locked up by US forces and not the Iraqis?



They are then held without legal recourse or trial.

Proof?



There's plenty of evidence about this.

Just not in the article you are using.



I'm not passing anything off as factual information - I posted a story and my thoughts on it.

Yet you are hinging your entire arguement on this article. You have shown no other proof.



If you don't agree with it, provide evidence other than YOUR opinion that refutes it.

I have told you that I can't, stop beating a dead horse.



The person who wrote the article is a very well respected journalist, and has named his sources in international organisations.

Well respected? Where? Do a goole search on him and see for yourself.



Now would you care to get back to the point of the thread, or provide some contrary evidence, or shall I just stick you and your strawman on ignore?


I have been working on the point of this thread.

But, if you want to put me on ignore then go right ahead. I can't stop you from doing that. Course that is like admitting you can't handle debating someone.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Here is an article about the process.

It comes from (gasp) TIME, so I am sure it will be immediately denounced as right wing pro-war propaganda.

Most captives transferred to tented U.S. detention camps can expect to be there roughly 35 days before their case file is viewed by the Combined Review and Release Board, a panel of U.S. and Iraqi officials. Detainees are allowed to offer a written statement to the panel, but they do not appear in person before it. After a reading of a detainee's file, the panel then recommends whether to continue holding the person or not, though final release authority rests with the U.S. commander of detention operations, Major General Douglas Stone.


It is from last year, so some of the names may have changed.


LINK



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


Cool Hand, reread my post above and here's your evidence:


On February 7, 2006, Mark Denbeaux, professor at Seton Hall University Law School and counsel to two Guantanamo detainees, and Joshua Denbeaux released a report on the Guantanamo detainees.
This report used information contained in the Combatant Status Review Board Letters, released by the Department of Defense, to compile a profile on the detainees. It provides a more detailed picture of who the detainees are, how they ended up at Guantanamo, and what evidence there is to support their classification as enemy combatants.
Some of the information contained in the report include the fact that only 8% of the detainees are classified as Al Qaeda fighters and only 5% were actually captured by US forces (most were arrested by Pakistan and the Northern Alliance and then turned over to the United States).

Global Security (more here)

[edit on 15/5/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join