Secret Guantanamo files released

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby podbaydoor » Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:22 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world ... limbo.html

From the New York Times (three page article)
Classified Files Offer New Insights Into Detainees
By CHARLIE SAVAGE, WILLIAM GLABERSON and ANDREW W. LEHREN

WASHINGTON — A trove of more than 700 classified military documents provides new and detailed accounts of the men who have done time at the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba, and offers new insight into the evidence against the 172 men still locked up there.

Military intelligence officials, in assessments of detainees written between February 2002 and January 2009, evaluated their histories and provided glimpses of the tensions between captors and captives. What began as a jury-rigged experiment after the 2001 terrorist attacks now seems like an enduring American institution, and the leaked files show why, by laying bare the patchwork and contradictory evidence that in many cases would never have stood up in criminal court or a military tribunal.

The documents meticulously record the detainees’ “pocket litter” when they were captured: a bus ticket to Kabul, a fake passport and forged student ID, a restaurant receipt, even a poem. They list the prisoners’ illnesses — hepatitis, gout, tuberculosis, depression. They note their serial interrogations, enumerating — even after six or more years of relentless questioning — remaining “areas of potential exploitation.” They describe inmates’ infractions — punching guards, tearing apart shower shoes, shouting across cellblocks. And, as analysts try to bolster the case for continued incarceration, they record years of detainees’ comments about one another.

The secret documents, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, reveal that most of the 172 remaining prisoners have been rated as a “high risk” of posing a threat to the United States and its allies if released without adequate rehabilitation and supervision. But they also show that an even larger number of the prisoners who have left Cuba — about a third of the 600 already transferred to other countries — were also designated “high risk” before they were freed or passed to the custody of other governments.


Rest of the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world ... limbo.html

It's a pretty fascinating read. I think what's revealed is pretty much going to be cherrypicked by anyone on the political spectrum to support their particular stance. So this isn't going to resolve much.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:07 am UTC

Obama administration officials condemned the publication of the classified documents, which were obtained by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks last year but provided to The Times by another source. The officials pointed out that an administration task force set up in January 2009 reviewed the information in the prisoner assessments, and in some cases came to different conclusions. Thus, they said, the documents published by The Times may not represent the government’s current view of detainees at Guantánamo.


Wikileaks seems to be witholding information for now. If we take Wikileaks at face value and assume that they're honest... then they're releasing this information fairly. On the other hand, I can't help but shake this feeling that Wikileaks is going to cherry pick information. At very least, they've slowed down the release of information, presumably to help Manning's case. So under these conditions, Wikileaks can easily cherry pick the facts and push its own agenda.

Its kinda the Catch-22 of this whole leaks thing. If they don't release EVERYTHING, then they could have cherry picked the information. But if they do release everything, then surely they'll put more lives at risk. They have to review and censor out information if they want to do this safely.

Anyway, Wikileaks is the only link in the chain that can reliably cherrypick information. News Organizations are all over the Wikileaks thing, and they will sell more papers / gain better reputation if they are the ones who cover this story most completely. Basically, if a News Organization cherry-picks information from Wikileaks (an easily accessable primary source...), that News Organization will be criticized. So if you can trust Wikileaks, you can probably trust this story.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:02 pm UTC

I'll cherrypick for both sides.

We're locking up innocent people!
In May 2003, for example, Afghan forces captured Prisoner 1051, an Afghan named Sharbat, near the scene of a roadside bomb explosion, the documents show. He denied any involvement, saying he was a shepherd. Guantánamo debriefers and analysts agreed, citing his consistent story, his knowledge of herding animals and his ignorance of “simple military and political concepts,” according to his assessment. Yet a military tribunal declared him an “enemy combatant” anyway, and he was not sent home until 2006.

But if we let them go they'll kill us!
But also among those freed early was a Pakistani who would become a suicide attacker three years later.

User avatar
big boss
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:59 am UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby big boss » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:26 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:But if we let them go they'll kill us!
But also among those freed early was a Pakistani who would become a suicide attacker three years later.


Maybe he became one because he was locked up...
"Starbuck, what do you hear?"
"Nothing but the Rain."

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Glass Fractal » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

big boss wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:But if we let them go they'll kill us!
But also among those freed early was a Pakistani who would become a suicide attacker three years later.


Maybe he became one because he was locked up...


Then we can't let *any* of them go since we've transformed them all into terrorists!

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Telchar » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:43 pm UTC

I don't think any anti-GITMO people argue they there aren't dangerous people there. I think the line of thinking goes that regardless of how dangerous these people may be, it's wrong to hold anyone indefinitely regardless of what you know/suspect they may be capable of.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Diadem » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:40 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:I don't think any anti-GITMO people argue they there aren't dangerous people there. I think the line of thinking goes that regardless of how dangerous these people may be, it's wrong to hold anyone indefinitely regardless of what you know/suspect they may be capable of.

You probably meant that, but I'd say it's wrong to hold someone indefinitely without trial. I have no problem with lifelong imprisonment of people who are found guilty after a fair trial.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby sardia » Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:13 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Telchar wrote:I don't think any anti-GITMO people argue they there aren't dangerous people there. I think the line of thinking goes that regardless of how dangerous these people may be, it's wrong to hold anyone indefinitely regardless of what you know/suspect they may be capable of.

You probably meant that, but I'd say it's wrong to hold someone indefinitely without trial. I have no problem with lifelong imprisonment of people who are found guilty after a fair trial.

Except what standards are you going to use during your trial? The US criminal court standards where the constitution applies and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence tainted by time, torture/coercion, hearsay, and circumstantial evidence? Soldiers aren't policemen and they aren't trained to secure and inspect all the evidence. Does anybody know how much more lax are the standards for military tribunals? The other thing holding them back is fear(some real, some imagined) and that nobody wants to take them.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Telchar » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:16 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Except what standards are you going to use during your trial? The US criminal court standards where the constitution applies and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence tainted by time, torture/coercion, hearsay, and circumstantial evidence? Soldiers aren't policemen and they aren't trained to secure and inspect all the evidence. Does anybody know how much more lax are the standards for military tribunals? The other thing holding them back is fear(some real, some imagined) and that nobody wants to take them.


Then you release them. It's that simple.

The solution to having no evidence isn't keeping them forever, it's releasing them.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby addams » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:52 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Obama administration officials condemned the publication of the classified documents, which were obtained by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks last year but provided to The Times by another source. The officials pointed out that an administration task force set up in January 2009 reviewed the information in the prisoner assessments, and in some cases came to different conclusions. Thus, they said, the documents published by The Times may not represent the government’s current view of detainees at Guantánamo.


Wikileaks seems to be witholding information for now. If we take Wikileaks at face value and assume that they're honest... then they're releasing this information fairly. On the other hand, I can't help but shake this feeling that Wikileaks is going to cherry pick information. At very least, they've slowed down the release of information, presumably to help Manning's case. So under these conditions, Wikileaks can easily cherry pick the facts and push its own agenda.

Its kinda the Catch-22 of this whole leaks thing. If they don't release EVERYTHING, then they could have cherry picked the information. But if they do release everything, then surely they'll put more lives at risk. They have to review and censor out information if they want to do this safely.

Anyway, Wikileaks is the only link in the chain that can reliably cherrypick information. News Organizations are all over the Wikileaks thing, and they will sell more papers / gain better reputation if they are the ones who cover this story most completely. Basically, if a News Organization cherry-picks information from Wikileaks (an easily accessable primary source...), that News Organization will be criticized. So if you can trust Wikileaks, you can probably trust this story.



Yes. I have read this argument. You stated it well. This is as clear a statement as I have read on the subject.

There are complaints when everything is released. The most common complaints are as follows:
1. It is boring.
2. There is too much unimportant information.
3. The important information is should not be released.

There are complaints when, not, everything is released. The most common complaints are as follows:
1. It is not enough.
2. Someone that is untrustworthy is deciding what is released and what is not.
3. Be afraid. Be, very, afraid. Fear. Fear what you do not understand.

See? The same people. We hear the complaints of the same people over and over. They take one side. Then, they take the other side.
It is like a high school debate team.

Only, it is not a high school debate. It is an international incident.
Umm. It seems that this is a world war. There are pockets of peace.

Most of US seem to be pissed off about something. What?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

kadak
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:54 pm UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby kadak » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:
sardia wrote:Except what standards are you going to use during your trial? The US criminal court standards where the constitution applies and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence tainted by time, torture/coercion, hearsay, and circumstantial evidence? Soldiers aren't policemen and they aren't trained to secure and inspect all the evidence. Does anybody know how much more lax are the standards for military tribunals? The other thing holding them back is fear(some real, some imagined) and that nobody wants to take them.


Then you release them. It's that simple.

The solution to having no evidence isn't keeping them forever, it's releasing them.


It really is that simple. I don't know shit about legislation but holding them just for the sake of it is probably a war crime.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby sardia » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:10 am UTC

kadak wrote:
Telchar wrote:
sardia wrote:Except what standards are you going to use during your trial? The US criminal court standards where the constitution applies and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence tainted by time, torture/coercion, hearsay, and circumstantial evidence? Soldiers aren't policemen and they aren't trained to secure and inspect all the evidence. Does anybody know how much more lax are the standards for military tribunals? The other thing holding them back is fear(some real, some imagined) and that nobody wants to take them.


Then you release them. It's that simple.

The solution to having no evidence isn't keeping them forever, it's releasing them.


It really is that simple. I don't know shit about legislation but holding them just for the sake of it is probably a war crime.

Oh, I sorta addressed that when I said the thing holding them back is fear, and nobody wants to take them in either.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:50 am UTC

The questions are the following, I think: should we prosecute war criminals using the same standards of evidence as we do with domestic criminals? Have we met that standard in Guantanamo Bay?

It seems like if we know that these people are dangerous, we shouldn't be releasing them, but then how do we determine if they're dangerous? Do we determine their guilt the same way we'd determine the guilt of somebody in Illinois, for example?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Plasma Man » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:15 am UTC

Well, why wouldn't you use the same method? If someone was accused of setting off a car bomb in Illinois, they'd go through the normal US court system. The US has backed itself into a corner, by saying that those held at Guantamo are not prisoners of war (and entitled to the rights that prisoners of war have). This only leaves them being civilians that the US has claimed jurisdiction over, so should be prepared to put through the civilian court system. In my opinion, the reason they're not is that there are minimal chances of getting a conviction on any of them, but having spent so long claiming that they are dangerous, it would be politically inexpedient for them to be freed. Thus they are held illegally in legal limbo.
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby johnny_7713 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:28 am UTC

Plasma Man wrote: <snip> In my opinion, the reason they're not is that there are minimal chances of getting a conviction on any of them, but having spent so long claiming that they are dangerous, it would be politically inexpedient for them to be freed. Thus they are held illegally in legal limbo.


There is also the problem of where you are going to send them if you release them. Some countries may just continue the torture, other countries will refuse to accept them (especially if there is a lack of conclusive evidence regarding nationality). One way of solving that problem is offering everyone you release asylum in the US (or a different country, Obama was asking for help with that a while back), but that is politically even more inexpedient.

Also, in response to Sourmilk's post enemy combatant != war criminal. In fact I'm not even sure if you can (legally speaking) be considered a war criminal if you're not a member of the armed forces or some other kind of government agency.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:31 am UTC

johnny_7713 wrote:Also, in response to Sourmilk's post enemy combatant != war criminal. In fact I'm not even sure if you can (legally speaking) be considered a war criminal if you're not a member of the armed forces or some other kind of government agency.


Yes, I meant enemy combatant or prisoner-of-war. Thank you.

Plasma_Man wrote:Well, why wouldn't you use the same method? If someone was accused of setting off a car bomb in Illinois, they'd go through the normal US court system.

Perhaps it has to do with what kind of jurisdiction and ability one has to gather evidence in foreign, war-torn areas? I was under the impression that prisoners of war and enemy combatants were tried differently from civilians, though I probably couldn't articulate why this is the case.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Plasma Man » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Well, a quick Wikipedia search says that prisoners of war are tried differently to civilians. Enemy combatants (in the US usage of the term) seem to be classed as unlawful combatants, who are supposed to prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. So it seems that they should be tried by the same standards as someone in Illinois. This is supported by the US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, where the ruling was that those detained at Guantamo were entitled to Constitutional rights, including habeus corpus. That ruling was about the 2006 Military Commissions Act, and was delivered in 2008. Since then, there's been a new Military Commissions Act in 2009, though that has not been tested by the Supreme Court.

With the question of "jurisdiction and ability one has to gather evidence in foreign, war-torn areas", I'm not sure how that's handled in domestic cases in the US. AFAIK, it's not considered acceptable to detain people indefinitely, just in case evidence might turn up later. There's also the question of whether it's really likely that any new evidence will be able to be discovered in these "foreign, war-torn areas".
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Belial » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:52 am UTC

There is also the problem of where you are going to send them if you release them. Some countries may just continue the torture, other countries will refuse to accept them (especially if there is a lack of conclusive evidence regarding nationality). One way of solving that problem is offering everyone you release asylum in the US (or a different country, Obama was asking for help with that a while back), but that is politically even more inexpedient.


See, the thing is, if we're agreeing they should be released, but not agreeing where to, then whilst we're sitting around with our thumbs up our asses deciding, we maybe shouldn't be maintaining them in the shitty fucking conditions at Guantanamo. Don't we have any, like, mid-range hotels we could imprison them in? Something with HBO and continental breakfasts?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Dream » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:03 pm UTC

Let's start with not ripping up their Korans and work from there.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Zamfir » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:16 pm UTC

Belial wrote:See, the thing is, if we're agreeing they should be released, but not agreeing where to, then whilst we're sitting around with our thumbs up our asses deciding, we maybe shouldn't be maintaining them in the shitty fucking conditions at Guantanamo. Don't we have any, like, mid-range hotels we could imprison them in? Something with HBO and continental breakfasts?


Well, that might be what you would do with normal people if you have no evidence against them. But these are highly dangerous terrorists without evidence against them, that's very different. What if terrorisms turns out to be contagious? They might infect real people.

User avatar
Gellert1984
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:07 pm UTC
Location: South Wales UK

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Gellert1984 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:40 pm UTC

Belial wrote:See, the thing is, if we're agreeing they should be released, but not agreeing where to, then whilst we're sitting around with our thumbs up our asses deciding, we maybe shouldn't be maintaining them in the shitty fucking conditions at Guantanamo. Don't we have any, like, mid-range hotels we could imprison them in? Something with HBO and continental breakfasts?


Wasn't it pointed out that if they are brought into the US, land of the free, innocence until proven guilt and all that spiel, that they'd suddenly be entitled to human rights and as such to sue the shit out of the government for things like 'imprisonment without trial' 'kidnapping' and 'torture'? Seem to recall certain people in governemnt didnt really like that idea...
The only time I question the right to Free Speech is when I watch Fox News, probably due to the fact that I don't think they really believe in it. -Elisa Scaldaferri

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Dream » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:47 pm UTC

Gellert1984 wrote:if they are brought into the US, land of the free, innocence until proven guilt and all that spiel, that they'd suddenly be entitled to human rights and as such to sue the shit out of the government for things like 'imprisonment without trial' 'kidnapping' and 'torture'?

And so they should be. But that aside, there is no reason to have Guantanamo be so barbaric if the rationale for keeping it is simply that the inmates can't be let go. All that is strictly necessary is suicide proofing. Everything else is a human rights abuse in itself, let alone as a part of the whole.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Belial » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:34 pm UTC

Gellert1984 wrote:
Belial wrote:See, the thing is, if we're agreeing they should be released, but not agreeing where to, then whilst we're sitting around with our thumbs up our asses deciding, we maybe shouldn't be maintaining them in the shitty fucking conditions at Guantanamo. Don't we have any, like, mid-range hotels we could imprison them in? Something with HBO and continental breakfasts?


Wasn't it pointed out that if they are brought into the US, land of the free, innocence until proven guilt and all that spiel, that they'd suddenly be entitled to human rights and as such to sue the shit out of the government for things like 'imprisonment without trial' 'kidnapping' and 'torture'? Seem to recall certain people in governemnt didnt really like that idea...


Okay, putting aside the sheer balls involved in a "but if we bring them to a place with rules we might have to pay for the clearly fucking unacceptable things we've done" defense...

They don't have hotels in cuba?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:37 pm UTC

Dream wrote:Let's start with not ripping up their Korans and work from there.


To be fair, a crazy US Citizen does not represent the whole US Government. I think its safe to say our starting point is to treat our Prisoners of War like Prisoners of war amirite?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby bentheimmigrant » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:42 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Dream wrote:Let's start with not ripping up their Korans and work from there.


To be fair, a crazy US Citizen does not represent the whole US Government. I think its safe to say our starting point is to treat our Prisoners of War like Prisoners of war amirite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Qur%2 ... ontroversy
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Dream » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:47 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Dream wrote:Let's start with not ripping up their Korans and work from there.


To be fair, a crazy US Citizen does not represent the whole US Government.

Yes, they do. When they are employed by the government, executing government policy, they do. "America" runs Guantanamo, not "some crazy guy".
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:49 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Dream wrote:Let's start with not ripping up their Korans and work from there.


To be fair, a crazy US Citizen does not represent the whole US Government.

Yes, they do. When they are employed by the government, executing government policy, they do. "America" runs Guantanamo, not "some crazy guy".


Seems like I haven't read something important yet. But I was assuming that you were talking about Pastor Terry Jones.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Zamfir » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:20 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Qur%2 ... ontroversy

I was reading that, and I found this:
On June 3, 2005, a U.S. military investigation by the base commander, Brigadier General Jay Hood, reported four (possibly five) incidents of "mishandling" of the Qur'an by U.S. personnel at Guantánamo Bay. Hood said his investigation "revealed a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling of the Qur'an dating back almost two and a half years."[11]

CBC News reported:

"The U.S. Pentagon confirmed Friday a list of abuses involving the Qur'an, Islam's holy book, by American personnel at Guantánamo Bay, but said the incidents were relatively minor."[12]

According to the Hood report:

a soldier intentionally kicked a Qur'an;
an interrogator intentionally stepped on a Qur'an;
a guard's urine came through an air vent, unintentionally splashing a detainee and his Qur'an;
water balloons thrown by prison guards at one another unintentionally caused a number of Qur'ans to get wet; and
a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Qur'an (whether US personnel were responsible for this act, however, could not be confirmed).

So, pissing on the Koran isn't done on purpose. It is just a side effect when a guard's urine came through an air vent.

What in heaven's name went wrong that "oh no, we were just pissing in the air vents" became apparently a reasonable excuse?

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby bentheimmigrant » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:34 pm UTC

Hmm... Good handling of the Koran for almost 2.5 years... which takes it back to a year after they first started holding [exclusively Muslim] suspects there. Interesting.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Plasma Man » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:57 pm UTC

I also like the idea of the prison guards taking time off to have a water balloon fight. What?
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:11 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:What in heaven's name went wrong that "oh no, we were just pissing in the air vents" became apparently a reasonable excuse?


If pissing in air vents is wrong, I don't want to be right.
I looked out across the river today …

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:22 pm UTC

Gellert1984 wrote:Wasn't it pointed out that if they are brought into the US, land of the free...

They're already in the US. These folks were forcibly brought to a United States Naval Base, on what is de facto a US territory we've held for over 100 years.
Wikipedia wrote:In litigation regarding the availability of fundamental rights to those imprisoned at the base, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the detainees "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control."[21] Therefore, the detainees have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

I don't buy this crap about not bringing them into the US for trial, or refusing to release the innocent ones into the US, because I believe there's a very strong argument that they're currently wrongfully imprisoned in the US.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby sardia » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:30 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Gellert1984 wrote:Wasn't it pointed out that if they are brought into the US, land of the free...

They're already in the US. These folks were forcibly brought to a United States Naval Base, on what is de facto a US territory we've held for over 100 years.
Wikipedia wrote:In litigation regarding the availability of fundamental rights to those imprisoned at the base, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the detainees "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control."[21] Therefore, the detainees have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

I don't buy this crap about not bringing them into the US for trial, or refusing to release the innocent ones into the US, because I believe there's a very strong argument that they're currently wrongfully imprisoned in the US.

It's hard to enforce US laws when you can't actually see what's going on. If I beat the shit out of you every day and violated your rights in other ways there, how are you going to report me? There's no cops, no personal lawyers, just the guards. Your friends can't travel there and pay you a visit every week, you're on a isolated island.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Secret Guantanamo files released

Postby johnny_7713 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:50 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Perhaps it has to do with what kind of jurisdiction and ability one has to gather evidence in foreign, war-torn areas? I was under the impression that prisoners of war and enemy combatants were tried differently from civilians, though I probably couldn't articulate why this is the case.


I was under the impression that prisoners of war weren't tried at all. They're enemy soldiers that you have captured and are keeping detained somewhere so they can't continue fighting you. You keep them until the war is over and then let them go home. If some kind of crime happens in the POW camp you let the POWs try themselves by forming an appropriate court martial (or was this just a Hollywood invention? There was a movie that had this as the major plot point). As far as I'm aware there's no accepted method of trying enemy combatants since that definition was only invented about nine years ago by the Bush administration as a way of denying the prisoners kept at Guantanamo both the rights they would have in the normal US legal system and the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests