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

reply to post by hinky


hmmm, the fact is none of this would be happening if the americans did not invade in the first place. If they didn't these terrorist would not be doing anything to the americans.

Americans (or anyone else for that fact) invades a country; don't you think that would cause a reaction from the people there?

America should be prepared for the consequences to invading a county.

Now regardless of this article, america HAS been holding Iraqi prisoners and torturing them; it's been on the news countless times. Some of the arrested people are innocents. You can't use your argument that the terrorist are doing worse things agaisnt americans since thats just a response to being invaded. Would you let someone stand by and kill your family? you would kill them regardless of geneva conventions or anything surely.

And in no way am I supporting terrorists here. I am just pointing out that its a action-reaction thing and that america started soemthing to cause a reaction to which they are reacting to by holding iraqi's ILLEGALLY.

This was a little rushed and typed as i was thinking so apologies if its badly laid out and not in order.

[edit on 15/5/2008 by Snake64_009]

[edit on 15/5/2008 by Snake64_009]

reply to post by COOL HAND


I didn't lie and I resent the accusation - and I don't have to prove anything to you.

Your statement about the humanitarian organisations is truly astonishing - of COURSE they look for the bad things that happen, that's what they are there for.

Now, again, can you find ANYTHING non biassed to back up you assertions?

reply to post by hinky


So you are saying that torture, illegal detention of civilians, illegal occupation, and constant war is the american way?

I think your founding fathers may have disagreed with you.

“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.

Sounds pretty much what happens under a Grand Jury here in the US, doesn't it?

And what happens when they are released?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Kuwaiti man released from U.S. custody at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in 2005 blew himself up in a suicide attack in Iraq last month, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi was one of two Kuwaitis who took part in a suicide attack in Mosul on April 26, the officials said. Records show that an attack in Mosul that day targeted an Iraqi police patrol and left six people dead, including two police officers.
:
Documents provided by the Pentagon show other former detainees returning to the battlefield, including Abdullah Mahsud, who was released from Guantanamo in 2004. He returned to Afghanistan, where he became a militant leader in the Mahsud tribe in southern Waziristan, the documents said.

www.cnn.com...

And I haven't seen evidence of torture here. Has anyone?

So despite the government admitting it, you are saying there was no torture at abu ghraib.

If there was torture in one of them, and it was official policy which came from the white house, then there was torture at all of the prisons.

@ CNN

reply to post by budski


Dance all you want. You haven't showed where these detainees are being tortured.

You have no proof - only your hatred for the US.

reply to post by jsobecky


You keep saying that - does it make you feel better about the torture that your president ordered?

I don't hate the US or americans - I just dislike bush and his cronies and their policies of conquest and economic imperialism.

If you disagree with the humanitarian agencies that said there was torture, write to them and express your displeasure.

Originally posted by budski
I didn't lie and I resent the accusation - and I don't have to prove anything to you.

Why can't you acknowledge the source then? Are you hiding something?

Your statement about the humanitarian organisations is truly astonishing - of COURSE they look for the bad things that happen, that's what they are there for.

No, that is not what they are there for. Look at their charters.

Now, again, can you find ANYTHING non biassed to back up you assertions?

Everything I find you consider bias. Apparently Time is not known for its jounalistic integrity?

reply to post by COOL HAND


I'm not HIDING anything - I am simply not discussing my personal life with one of your ilk.

Your sources have said nothing, proved nothing - and if it's OK for YOU to question sources then I reserve the right to do the same.

The humanitarian agencies are there to search for and report on, humanitarian issues.

Like people being locked up without trial or legal recourse, bheing tortured whilst they are incarcerated, and the crimes against humanity commited by bush and his regime.

Opednews.com??? Please, this is like saying you read it at God Like Productions, too unreliable, more emotion and few facts.

This is information we like to read and believe because of our disdain toward Bush, but this is a crap site and has news not based off fact, even if we would like it to be true.

Iraqi population is around 30 million. With 50,000 being held, that would be an incarceration rate of 0.16%

USA population is around 305 million. With 2.5 million being held prisoner, the USA has an incarceration rate of 0.81%

It really isn't a stretch that 50,000 are being held in Iraq especially considering that the country is in such a condition.

I don't know if those that are being held are suffering torture or other horrifying treatment but there is one thing that I can be for sure of.....

The US government sure loves capturing and imprisoning people at a massive expense to the American taxpayer.

I'm just wondering did everyone miss my post?

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).

www.globalsecurity.org...

The majority of the 89,000 or so people detained during the course of the war on terror are NOT detained by US Forces.
The Marines and Rangers aren't cops or detectives, the US physically doesn't have the capacity to devote a good portion of deployed forces to capturing, detaining and searching for evidence.

Most of the guys in Abu Ghraib and especially at Guantanamo (the majority of which are from Afghanistan) are captured by US-aligned, local factions.
Eg: The Northern Alliance, Kurdish Rebels, Iraqi Security Forces, etc...

They turn over enemy combatants simply for personal reasons. These guys could care less about the "War on Terror" or locking up suspected terrorists. Even though they may support US Forces it doesn't mean their any different from the former regimes of Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Northern Alliance have widely been reported to commit war crimes:
www.wsws.org...
www.abc.net.au...

While Kurdish Militias like the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party) are even designated terrorists groups by the EU and Turkey:
permanent.access.gpo.gov...

The two primary reasons they turn over "suspected terrorists" to the US are:

1. Retribution. Eg: Yusuf and his Afghani tribe capture Ahmed, a man from a rival tribe who killed his cousin years ago and who owns a huge Opium plantation. With Ahmed gone, Yusuf controls the Plantation, exports the Opium, makes a truckload of money and finances his militias.

More than likely this is primary reason there has been such a huge influx of detainees during the course of the "War on Terror". Most of formerly oppressed minority ethnic groups, factions and such now see this as their chance to seek vengeance on the people who were in power or those that wronged them in the past.

Iraq and Afghanistan have very large "tribal" regions, where families control big portions of land. It's almost like the Wild West out there, any opportunity they get to take something from a rival tribe or get one over them they'll do it.
You have to understand that most of these so-called "freedom fighters" like the Northern Alliance only have their own interests close to heart, when the US leaves Afghanistan their not going to devote themselves to weeding out more terrorists, their going to attempt to take over Afghanistan and impose their rule like they've been trying to do for decades.

2. Money. US Forces give out handsome bounties to indigenous forces for captured combatants, sometimes as high as $25,000 (US)per man, depending on who they were suspected to be.

A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.

www.talkleft.com...

Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified during military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

www.commondreams.org...
www.theglobeandmail.com...

For obvious reasons this is another extremely attractive option for many US-aligned militias to begin turning over everyone and anyone they can find.
Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest nations, with Iraq not quite as far gone but close to it.
Militias need food, weapons, transport and money to recruit more men with.
You think presented an opportunity like this, their going to give a damn about whether they give the right people into the US Hands?

Not likely... they'll turn over any and every man they can their hands on.
It's almost like a Free Cash Programme for these people.
All they have to do is tell some American Captain they found this guy preparing a car bomb somewhere or this guy was in a house used by Insurgents and that's where the questions end. In return their handed cash.
Simple as that.
Put yourself in their shoes, I'll bet you wouldn't be too discriminating if you had to chance to make a quick million just by capturing a few innocent Iraqis or Afghanis.

The fact is with no tight controls or regulation over who the US accepts from all these militias and allied forces we will keep detaining and incarcerating a good majority of innocent folks who have yet to commit a crime.
We don't know who 90% of the detainees the US Army processes are, where their from or what they did.
All they know is the dubious information the Northern Alliance gave them, or some Kurdish Rebel; which as budski said is like trusting the testimony of a known serial killer or gang member.

The US really needs to shape up this whole detention process and start taking the initiative here to develop units who are devoted to capturing known Insurgents with the facts and proof to back it up.

Otherwise what your essentially doing here is adding fuel to the fire your trying to fight.
How many of these wrongfully detained prisoners (and likely tortured) from Iraq & Afghanistan are going to become Insurgents after their released?

[edit on 16/5/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Originally posted by budski
I'm not HIDING anything - I am simply not discussing my personal life with one of your ilk.

Until you admit something, it appears that you are hiding something. Why would you have even thrown that fact out if you weren't willing to back it up?

Your sources have said nothing, proved nothing - and if it's OK for YOU to question sources then I reserve the right to do the same.

Let me ask this question to the masses here. Does anyone else agree with budski that my articles are complete crap?

The humanitarian agencies are there to search for and report on, humanitarian issues.

Right, so they don't report when things go right. How can I show you evidence from those organizations when they don't post that kind of information?

Like people being locked up without trial or legal recourse, bheing tortured whilst they are incarcerated, and the crimes against humanity commited by bush and his regime.

You obviously did not read my article where they discussed the entire process. If you are not willing to read my articles, then how are we supposed to have a debate (backed up with evidence) on this topic?

reply to post by COOL HAND


It may appear that way to you, but frankly, your opinion counts for nothing as far as I'm concerned - I am NOT going to provide you with details of people I know and the jobs they do - end of story.

The humanitarian agencies also report on good works - to suggest otherwise is plain wrong, but their MAIN duty is to look for and report on human rights abuses.
Like those committed on the orders of shrub&co.

reply to post by budski


FYI, For those imprisoned via association with terrorism:

Statistics indicate that at least 20% of those released from prison go right back to a terroristic agenda.

Not going to argue and I know you have some good points my friend but just some food for thought.

reply to post by jbondo


Yes, I understand and have read the stats - it's the other 80% (still a disputed number,I know) that I worry about, as well as the damage this is doing to the US and their allies.

My point is, and always has been, that in the eyes of the world we have to be seen as whiter than white and doing everything by the book - not circumventing the international treaties we signed.

The image of the US and to a lesser extent, the UK has already suffered simply because of the number of lies that have been told, and we cannot afford to make things worse.

It just makes us more likely to suffer future attacks by extremists looking for martyrdom.



[edit on 16/5/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by budski
It may appear that way to you, but frankly, your opinion counts for nothing as far as I'm concerned - I am NOT going to provide you with details of people I know and the jobs they do - end of story.

Translation, you posted false information on this website. You made claims that you cannot back up.

The humanitarian agencies also report on good works - to suggest otherwise is plain wrong, but their MAIN duty is to look for and report on human rights abuses.
Like those committed on the orders of shrub&co.

Really, then perhaps you can pull up a few of them for me?

Are you really stupid enough to believe that the President personally orders the mistreatment of prisoners? That he would order folks to break the law?

reply to post by COOL HAND


Your attempts to bait me won't work - the only time I would discuss this would be with someone on my friends list who I trusted, and only then in private.
If you are accusing me of making a deliberately false statement then report me - it's against the T&C.
Then, depending on which mod contacts me, I would be happy to explain my position to them.

Until such time as you are prepared to do this, stop making false accusations - that's also against the T&C.

I have backed up my statements about humanitarian agencies - if you chose not to read the links, that's your problem.

And now back to the point - the 24,700 prisoners held without charges, legal recourse whilst suffering torture.

The presidents office has admitted that they torture people - are you saying that the president is incompetent and doesn't know what is being done in his name?

[edit on 16/5/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by budski
And now back to the point - the 24,700 prisoners held without charges, legal recourse whilst suffering torture.

They are not being held without charges, read the article I posted. Better yet, go over there yourself and witness the process firsthand. Then again, maybe you can get one of your "friends" do tell you the truth.

The presidents office has admitted that they torture people - are you saying that the president is incompetent and doesn't know what is being done in his name?

Are you trying to tell me that the President should always know what each and every person in the military is doing at all times? That it is his job to ensure that his orders are carried out down to the lowest level.

reply to post by COOL HAND


They ARE being held without charges, and tortured - which order came from the presidents office.

These are well established facts, which you deny only because you dislike the truth of what is happenning.

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. 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. Families are only irregularly notified of the detentions, and visits are rarely possible.

These conditions are in direct violation of international human rights law, though Washington claims that such legal constraints do not apply, because the United States considers its forces to be engaged in an "international armed conflict." The human rights community, however, firmly disagrees arguing that the conflict is not international in the traditional legal sense. Furthermore, international human rights law applies at all times, in war as well as in peace

The detention facilities are closed to human rights monitors like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or the International Federation of Human Rights. Even the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq, mandated by the Security Council to provide human rights reporting, is denied access by the U.S. command. Lack of such monitors greatly increases the likelihood that detainees will suffer from abuse and bad conditions, as human rights organizations have often pointed out.

Prisoners at Bucca have rioted to protest maltreatment, poor conditions and religious insults by guards. Most troubling, the military regularly confirms deaths of detainees in the facility, suggesting that excessive force is commonly used.

source

Torture and Prison Abuse in Iraq

Now, again, either report me or stop making snide remarks and false allegations.



[edit on 16/5/2008 by budski]