For reporters, the rules at Guantanamo change daily

I don't get it. I thought Gitmo was supposed to be closed by now!!?? What'd I miss??

Commentary: For reporters, the rules at Guantanamo change daily

WASHINGTON — Guantanamo's Camp Justice is a place where you can sit at your laptop or by your phone only if there's a member of the military within earshot.

It's a place where you can go to court only in the custody of a military public affairs officer. Inside, if there's only one escort — this happened recently — and somebody has to go to the bathroom, every reporter has to leave court, too.

It's a place where a soldier stands over your shoulder, looks in your viewfinder and says 'Don't take that picture, I'll delete it.'

Read more: www.mcclatchydc.com...


Edit to add the required external quote tags.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by SkepticOverlord]

It's a United States Military base in CUBA. Some U.S. Military bases in the United States you can't even go on, and most you can't use a camera.

The detention center was supposed to be closed, but the right wing didn't want the POWs in United States jails. Figure out where we can put these POWs and then the detention center at GITMO will be closed.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


Oh, then they don't have any place else to put these terrorists if they close Gitmo?

I see.

Well, makes sense. If Gitmo is the only place they can be kept, you can't close the place. Who'd feed the prisoners if Gitmo was closed?

reply to post by fred call


Exactly, they can't close it, because no one wants these POWs in their backyard. No other country will take them either. Not even their home countries will take them. So, it's either try them for crimes in civilian court which the right wingers wont do, or let them sit there on our dime.

It's pretty silly, the concept that they can't even be housed in a maximum security prison that already should be "maximumly secured". Those prisons already hold cold blooded killers, serial killers, but people are afraid to trust them to hold "terrorists".

Originally posted by snowspirit
It's pretty silly, the concept that they can't even be housed in a maximum security prison that already should be "maximumly secured". Those prisons already hold cold blooded killers, serial killers, but people are afraid to trust them to hold "terrorists".

You mean terrorists aren't cold blooded killers? I hadn't thought of it that way. But if you put terrorists into a prison along with cold blooded killers, wouldn't the lives of the terrorists be put into jeopardy? I mean, what cold blooded prison inmates could do to terrorists would make waterboaring look tame by comparison.

reply to post by fred call


They aren't convicted cold blooded killers yet. They are right now POW's they are detainees, all awaiting trial. Thanks to the Right Wingers, trials that won't come.

If they could have a real trial, they could be either found guilty or innocent, and if they are found guilty, sent to a military stockade or federal prison where what do you care what happens to them? If however they are found innocent, especially seeing the fact that any confessions obtained because of torture would be inadmissible in court and probably grounds to dismiss any and all charges, kinda makes detaining them in Cuba pretty dang civil.

Would you want that? Do you think that you deserve that treatment? Endless detainment without trial? No longer welcome in any country, and being tortured?

The rules at gitmo are from what I have read in your link way more lax than rules at say HAARP, Area 51, and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.




[edit on 8/5/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


Yes, let's have quick trials so that those who are convicted can get to the business of appealing their convictions. The sooner we get to quick trials, the sooner the convicted can appeal.....because appeals take years to be heard. We have to get this whole thing moving, and moving right now.

reply to post by fred call


Right, and they should have those trials in civilian court. But Republicans don't want that, and do you know why? Because these detainees have some dirty little secrets that can't be brought up in court.

Remember there is no appeal if the case is thrown out because of bad evidence.

reply to post by whatukno



Ah, so the sooner the trials can be thrown out for lack of evidence, the sooner the terrorists can return to Afghanistan to rejoin al Qaeda. Then the taxpayers don't have to feed these terrorists anymore. I see. Makes sense.

reply to post by fred call


The problem is, they aren't even allowed to go back anymore. They are literally people without a country. Some being cleared are being let go, some are just going to rot.

www.yementimes.com...

SANA’A, July 13 – Of the 180 detainees in Guantanamo Bay Prison, 58 Yemenis have been cleared and are awaiting their turn to be sent home as was Mohammed Odaini, 26, who has just returned to Yemen.

Odaini has never been charged since his arrest in one of Al-Qaeda hide outs in Pakistan in 2002. He was 17 years old at the time and claimed that he was there because he was studying the Quran. He was acquitted in May this year and the District Court of Washington declared that he was unlawfully detained in Guantanamo.

www.yementimes.com...

[edit on 8/5/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


That's a sin that nobody wants these released terrorists. You mean that the released terrorist join the homeless on the streets of America. That is an insult to humanity. Something should be done about this atrocity.

reply to post by fred call


No, it's worse, if a POW is released (means they aren't a terrorist) and they have no country to go to, they are stuck in GITMO. They are people without a country. They don't get released to the USA, they are in CUBA.

Not everyone from the Mid East is a terrorist, and not everyone in GITMO is a terrorist either.

reply to post by whatukno


Does Castro let them come to live in Cuba? Or do they just become residents of a jail cell in Gitmo? What about Venezuela? Wouldn't Chavez let them come live in Venezuela? There must be some country that will take them. How did this mess ever get started?

reply to post by fred call


Raúl Castro is in charge of Cuba now Fidel is retired.

From what I understand, every nation that is a part of the UN will not take these people.

abcnews.go.com...

President Barack Obama is now confirming what many have long suspected: He will miss his January deadline to close the Guantanamo prison — partly because he cannot persuade other nations to take the detainees.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


Maybe if more Americans got together to protest, these detainees would be allowed to come live in America. I would guess that many of them have been in Gitmo long enough to learn English from the soldiers. They probabaly had time on their hands to study English. Maybe start a letter writing campaign to all our congress people. We've got to find homes for these unfortunate detainees. I'm sure that whatever happened in the past, the long years of incarceration has changed their ways. It's only right to forgive and forget.

Originally posted by fred call

Originally posted by snowspirit
It's pretty silly, the concept that they can't even be housed in a maximum security prison that already should be "maximumly secured". Those prisons already hold cold blooded killers, serial killers, but people are afraid to trust them to hold "terrorists".

You mean terrorists aren't cold blooded killers? I hadn't thought of it that way. But if you put terrorists into a prison along with cold blooded killers, wouldn't the lives of the terrorists be put into jeopardy? I mean, what cold blooded prison inmates could do to terrorists would make waterboaring look tame by comparison.

I wasn't meaning terrorists and killers are different. Maybe some are, maybe some aren't. My only point was that the prisons that are secure enough to house serial killers should be secure enough to house anyone. And I don't know what the prison population would do to terrorists, if anything. Just put them where ever they put the prisoners that they think they have to worry about that.

As far as Canada not accepting our gitmo detainees back, that's just our prime minister at fault there.

reply to post by snowspirit


What is the difference in the defintions of a serial killer and a spree killer?

A serial killer kills a number of people over a longer period of time (Ted Bundy....not Al Bundy), while a spree killer kills a number of people all at one time (suicide airplane highjackers).

A spree killer can become a serial killer if said spree killer lives to kill again and again.

Either way, it's fairly cold blooded.