Close Guantánamo in 5 minutes

  • Thread starter Thread starter islamirama
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 41
  • Views Views 6K
snakelegs said:
btw, in case anyone thinks i take quantanamo lightly, i do not. i think it is a major national disgrace.
i would support closing it down immediately, if that would solve the problem. but all that would happen is these guys would "disappear" to be tortured in some unknown country. the issue is torture and human rights abuses - it's a bigger issue than the walls of guantanamo.
Click to expand...

No offense but they're not getting any biscuits and cake behind those walls either. Give them refuge status in some other country instead of sending them to those countries that are known to torture, like egypt, jordon and other secular dictators.
 
did you think i was condoning the practice of "special renditions"????
if so, read again. my point was that the problem is bigger than guantanamo and if guantanamo is closed, we will just send them somewhere else to be tortured. and some of those places, even further removed from the spotlight may be much worse.
 
snakelegs said:
did you think i was condoning the practice of "special renditions"????
if so, read again. my point was that the problem is bigger than guantanamo and if guantanamo is closed, we will just send them somewhere else to be tortured. and some of those places, even further removed from the spotlight may be much worse.
Click to expand...

I stated it to let others know who refuse to believe and think gitmo is a walk in the park. I know where you stand and i respect you for that and not being afraid to see the truth and acknowledgeing it. Look at the few that were released and went back to UK and now are building their lives back together with their families. Many of these "suspects" can go back to their western nations (australia, uk, etc) and rest can be given refuge status in friendly nations.
 
snakelegs said:
did you think i was condoning the practice of "special renditions"????
if so, read again. my point was that the problem is bigger than guantanamo and if guantanamo is closed, we will just send them somewhere else to be tortured. and some of those places, even further removed from the spotlight may be much worse.
Click to expand...

That is a very scary thought I had not even thought about. A fast way to shut gitmo down would be to send the prisoners to separate state prisons in each of the 50 states, that would put a maximum of 6 prisoners in each prison. Most states have more than one state prison so, most likely it would be one gitmo detainee in any prison. It would be nearly impossible for any impartial international organization to check on their treatment.I would suspect that in a very short period of time each one would be involved in a fatal "accident" that would not even be noted in any news media as it is only one person and of no international concern to the media.

As bad as gitmo is, it does give a central point to check for abuses, and does name people that can be held accountable for any misdoings.
 
Well, unlike some, I don't buy into the myth that the Gitmo detainees are innocent bystanders. Most of them are the worst of the worst, and will never see freedom again..I hope. For those that are "innocent"...if there are any, they should indeed be given a speedy hearing by a military tribunal and either released to their home countries or given political asylum elsewhere.

As for the torture element, I believe the secretive nature of Gitmo only adds fuel to the fire on that topic. I also believe the whole concept of torture has been watered down into nothingness. There have been so many false allegations mixed with actual events, like Abu Ghraib, that the truth is hard to come by.
 
islamirama said:
Many of these "illegal enemy combatants" are nothing more than "suspects". They are held there in a limbo so the US doesn't have to worry letting them go. Many pakistani are there as "qaeda members", the same "members" that Paki journalists and relatives uncovered evidence of dictator Musharaf selling innocents to US as "members" for a fee to show he's catching "terrorist" and to make a few million bucks.
Click to expand...

You might have a good point if what you are saying were true.

The truth is those with the weakest evidence against them have already been repatriated or released to the custody of their own government. Anyone with a scintilla of objectivity will question your apparent claim these boys were rounded up by Musharraf. That must have been one heck of a wedding party, eh? Or maybe they were all there for a capture the headless goat tournament?

Here is the activity since Aug 6, 2007 (from Globalsecurity.org)

Guantanamo Bay
Detainees

As of November 10, 2007, approximately 305 detainees remained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

On November 10, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of fourteen detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Saudi Arabia.

On November 04, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of eleven detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Eight detainees were transferred to Afghanistan, and three to Jordan.

On October 16, 2007, DoD announced it would grant access for a civilian defense attorney to meet with Majid Khan, a Pakistani national and one of 15 high value detainees held at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

On September 29, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of eight detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six detainees were transferred to Afghanistan, and one each to Libya and Yemen.

On September 28, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of one detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Mauritania.

On September 12, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of a terror suspect to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to DoD, Inayatullah, an Afghan national, had been captured as a result of ongoing DoD operations in the struggle against violent extremists in Afghanistan and had admitted that he had been the Al Qaeda Emir of Zahedan, Iran, and planned and directed Al Qaeda terrorist operations. Inayatullah collaborated with numerous Al Qaeda senior leaders, to include Abu Ubaydah al-Masri and Azzam, executing their instructions and personally supporting global terrorist efforts. Inayatullah attested to facilitating the movement of foreign fighters, significantly contributing to trans-national terrorism across multiple borders. Inayatullah met with local operatives, developed travel routes and coordinated documentation, accommodation and vehicles for smuggling unlawful combatants throughout countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq.

On September 6, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of sixteen detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Saudi Arabia.

On August 09, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of six detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Five detainees were transferred to Afghanistan, and one was transferred to Bahrain.



While you are at it...you might want to ask why all of these non-Afghans were at their cousin's wedding party in Afghanistan?
 
Last edited:
See? This is what happens in a system without lawyers who aren't provided by the people prosecuting you. Insanity!

All those people released? 'Well, sorry about those years we kept you locked up without charge, sorry for the misunderstanding, no hard feelings, yes? Cheerio! Oh, and by the way, when you get home, they'll probably keep you under observation for a few more years, but no hard feelings, eh? Bye!'

Strange days...
 
Muezzin said:
See? This is what happens in a system without lawyers who aren't provided by the people prosecuting you. Insanity!

All those people released? 'Well, sorry about those years we kept you locked up without charge, sorry for the misunderstanding, no hard feelings, yes? Cheerio! Oh, and by the way, when you get home, they'll probably keep you under observation for a few more years, but no hard feelings, eh? Bye!'

Strange days...
Click to expand...

Yes, quite a shame isn't it? Bad things can happen to you if you get up one morning to go bus tables at the World Trade Center or try to fly to Grandma's house from Logan Airport...bad things can happen to you if you join an international terror organization and are caught walking around Tora Bora with a Kalshnikov. It's the crazy randomness of it all.

Can someone offer a plausible explanation for the presence of so many Saudi nationals in rural Afghanistan in the vicintiy of big cahes of weapons before the arrival of the US? Let me suggest a few:

1) I came to fight the Soviets and stayed for the nightlife.
2) I am here for the Taliban music festival.
3) I am here for the Taliban film festival.
4) I am here for the Taliban Beaujolais nouveaux festical.
5) I am here for the capture the headless goat tournament.
6) I am touring the ancient Buddhist statue sites.
7) I am here for my...cousin's..yeah that's it..my cousin's wedding.

Come on guys. We all know what the Saudis and Yemenis were doing there. Half are probably 3rd cousins of OBL and almost all are adherents to a certain strict interpretation of a certain religion whose very mention on this forum will result in a series of these things in the post *********

At least a native Pashto speaker might have a case he was swept up by the Northern Alliance or Musharraf or the Israel Secret Service or Kabul Eagle Scout Post #321..

The US is faulted for holding detainees at G'itmo and they are faulted for releasing them. Hmmmm? They are faulted for returning detainees to their country of origin or for trying them. They are faulted for not offering proper care for a cataract in the same detainee whose life was doubtless saved by an American surgeon after he sustained an otherwise mortal chest wound throwing hand grenades around and for his loss of eyesight when the problem was likely a piece of hot metal from his own hand grenade. We are told that solitary confinement is torture. We are told that "not reading him his rights" is torture. We are told the Red Cross was duped when it toured G'itmo. The disrepecting the Quran story at G'itmo turned out to be completely false. How many people here know that?

Who, besides Saudi Arabia is going to take back or offer asylum to Saudis captured hanging out with the homies at Tora Bora? Do you think any country in Europe wants them? Egypt? Indonesia? China? Iran?

Note there is no discussion about the treatment of US prisoners in the custody of various arms of AQ. Anyone want to have a guess why that is?

There are more than a few here who need to take their blinders off.
 
Muezzin said:
See? This is what happens in a system without lawyers who aren't provided by the people prosecuting you. Insanity!

All those people released? 'Well, sorry about those years we kept you locked up without charge, sorry for the misunderstanding, no hard feelings, yes? Cheerio! Oh, and by the way, when you get home, they'll probably keep you under observation for a few more years, but no hard feelings, eh? Bye!'

Strange days...
Click to expand...

This isnt really the first time people have been imprisoned without trial during war and released years later.
 
Cognescenti said:
Yes, quite a shame isn't it? Bad things can happen to you if you get up one morning to go bus tables at the World Trade Center or try to fly to Grandma's house from Logan Airport...bad things can happen to you if you join an international terror organization and are caught walking around Tora Bora with a Kalshnikov. It's the crazy randomness of it all.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I remember this one time, I got on this bus, and this guy farted. Man. Put me off baked beans for life.

Can someone offer a plausible explanation for the presence of so many Saudi nationals in rural Afghanistan in the vicintiy of big cahes of weapons before the arrival of the US? Let me suggest a few:

1) I came to fight the Soviets and stayed for the nightlife.
2) I am here for the Taliban music festival.
3) I am here for the Taliban film festival.
4) I am here for the Taliban Beaujolais nouveaux festical.
5) I am here for the capture the headless goat tournament.
6) I am touring the ancient Buddhist statue sites.
7) I am here for my...cousin's..yeah that's it..my cousin's wedding.

Come on guys. We all know what the Saudis and Yemenis were doing there. Half are probably 3rd cousins of OBL and almost all are adherents to a certain strict interpretation of a certain religion whose very mention on this forum will result in a series of these things in the post *********
Click to expand...
Due process. It's a national treasure.

At least a native Pashto speaker might have a case he was swept up by the Northern Alliance or Musharraf or the Israel Secret Service or Kabul Eagle Scout Post #321..
Click to expand...
Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

The US is faulted for holding detainees at G'itmo and they are faulted for releasing them. Hmmmm? They are faulted for returning detainees to their country of origin or for trying them.
Click to expand...
The US is faulted for holding them, without charge, for years.

They are faulted for not offering proper care for a cataract in the same detainee whose life was doubtless saved by an American surgeon after he sustained an otherwise mortal chest wound throwing hand grenades around and for his loss of eyesight when the problem was likely a piece of hot metal from his own hand grenade.
Click to expand...
Haven't heard of that. Interesting.

We are told that solitary confinement is torture.
Click to expand...
By whom?

We are told that "not reading him his rights" is torture.
Click to expand...
No, just, like, a breach of due process. If the USA holds herself as a bastion of justice, perhaps she should act like one? Same thing goes for Britain, too, mind you.

We are told the Red Cross was duped when it toured G'itmo. The disrepecting the Quran story at G'itmo turned out to be completely false. How many people here know that?
Click to expand...
Completely untrue? Not even a sort of accidental dropping it on the floor and kicking it while walking? If not, then I did not know of that.

Who, besides Saudi Arabia is going to take back or offer asylum to Saudis captured hanging out with the homies at Tora Bora? Do you think any country in Europe wants them? Egypt? Indonesia? China? Iran?
Click to expand...
I should have been clearer. I was referring to the British detainees.

Note there is no discussion about the treatment of US prisoners in the custody of various arms of AQ. Anyone want to have a guess why that is?
Click to expand...
Because nobody ever posts about it?

There are more than a few here who need to take their blinders off.
Click to expand...
In politics, everyone's wearing a set of blinders.

Suiomipoika said:
This isnt really the first time people have been imprisoned without trial during war and released years later.
Click to expand...
And? That doesn't make it right, whoever the jailer or the prisoner is.
 
Last edited:
Suomipoika said:
So it is wrong to imprison captured enemies in combat zone? I kind of disagree.
Click to expand...
Well, there's that, and there's imprisoning them indefinitely without charge or trial while simultaneously boasting about one's nation's sense of justice.

I'd go into the 'interrogation techniques' too, but it would drive the thread off-topic.
 
Muezzin said:
Well, there's that, and there's imprisoning them indefinitely without charge or trial while simultaneously boasting about one's nation's sense of justice.

I'd go into the 'interrogation techniques' too, but it would drive the thread off-topic.
Click to expand...

Yet thats how its done to other combatants, imprisoned indefinitely without charge or trial. It took several years after world war 2 to free all germans, and most of them never saw a trial.

Mind you if my opinion actually mattered at all, I certainly have several objections towards the treatment of these prisoners. However I dont think there is anything wrong on keeping people who fight against you indefinitely without trial in prison while the conflict is ongoing.

But what do you suggest? After a battle, USA lets the people they captured/surrendered to them go? Or that USA sends a boat full of lawyers so that all the people who fought against them have a legal representation?

Uniformed soldiers can be held indefinitely without charge or trial, but those who dont follow rulers get legal representation and the captor needs to prove without a doubt their participation. Doesnt this turn the situation such that its actually alot smarter not to follow the rules of war? If that really is the case, I hope Finland abandons uniforms and all sorts of insignia soon. Incase of war, our captured soldiers that cannot be proven to be participants in the conflict have to be released by the captor (all you really need to do is throw the gun away and hope no one took pictures, and even then it could be just a "hunting" rifle), thus they can be returned to front soon after. Not to mention the extra work the enemy needs just to process all our captured troops.

Ill agree that it is very ugly situation and it should be solved somehow by the international community so that there would be clear rules how to treat these people and get the innocent ones out, but I cannot agree to a situation where not following rules is better than following rules. Thats just not right.
 
islamirama said:
Did you watch this one also?

any comments?

http://www.youtube.com/v/Svuu3xgmiMM
Click to expand...

Yes..I watched it..you happy.

Some of it is, of course, true. Some of it out of date. Some is intentionally deceptive. Some is outright BS.

That G'itmo was chosen precisely because it is not on US soil...duh...of course it was. That is hardly a secret. Anyone remember the absolute, insufferable, interminable trial of Moussoui (the 22nd hijacker)? He was captured in Mineapolis and was tried in Federal Court. The idiot made incomprehensible statements and couldn't decide whether to represent himself. In the end, he did represent himself and he ended up with a million year sentence. If we had 500 Mousaoi trials, every single Federal Judge would put a bullet through their own brain to end the suffering. There was also the problem of airing national security secrets in open trial (for eg., technolgical capabilities of satellites and human spies)

That the term "illegal enemy combatants" was carefully chosen...duh...of course it was.

Was the tribunal system first set up unconstitutional? That was a close call. It was decided in the Hamdan case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

The Executive Branch argued they had the authority to set up military commissions to try the detainees as part of the power of the President as Commander in Chief in time of war. The Congress actually passed a law before the case which attempted to limit the power of the Court to review claims of the detainees. By a 5 to 3 vote, the SCOTUS claimed jurisdiction and found the plan unconstitutional because of the Geneva Convention. In essence, the Court told the President he needed a specific law from the Congress authorizing the tribunals. The Congress were at each other's throats for some time over this. They finally compromised, allowing evidentiary rules and legal representation similar to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (a set of rules for Courts Martial of US servicemen). It differs from US civil law but clearly does offer many protections to the detainees and, in many way goes beyond protections in the Geneva Convention.

I realize this sounds confusing to many foreigners, but it does demonstrate Constitutional limits to executive power even in times of war.

The Australian chowderhead just recently repatriated was the first to be brought to "tiral" under the new system. He chose to cop a plea agreement before his hearing and was transfered to an Australian jail. I believe this 20 or 21 year old Canadian mentioned in the other similar thread is the 2nd.

You want the detainees released? Over 300 already have been?

You want trials? Here they come.

BTW..I suspect some of the big shot primadonas will get a Federal trial
 
Suomipoika said:
Yet thats how its done to other combatants, imprisoned indefinitely without charge or trial. It took several years after world war 2 to free all germans, and most of them never saw a trial.

Mind you if my opinion actually mattered at all, I certainly have several objections towards the treatment of these prisoners. However I dont think there is anything wrong on keeping people who fight against you indefinitely without trial in prison while the conflict is ongoing.
Click to expand...
Now I see where you're coming from, that's fair enough. Trouble is, they're not necessarily enemy combatants - many might just be pulling a McClane and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that they're just crowded up and sent to Guantanamo without questioning or charge or anything until they get there, and then are subject to maltreatment is what causes resentment.

And to pre-empt anyone who says 'oh, well, the other side does much worse!' Pointing out someone else's defects does not purge one of one's own. That's not sanctimony, it's just fact.
 
Muezzin said:
Now I see where you're coming from, that's fair enough. Trouble is, they're not necessarily enemy combatants - many might just be pulling a McClane and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that they're just crowded up and sent to Guantanamo without questioning or charge or anything until they get there, and then are subject to maltreatment is what causes resentment.
Click to expand...

I really dislike the part too where people might be innocent/civilian and subject to maltreatment (actually most of my complainments towards the situation come from the maltreatment part, personally I think doing stuff like simulating drowning is wrong, terrorist scum or not). But USA needs to have sensible ways to detain enemies in a conflict zone, and I think giving everyone a full civilian trial is going too far.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top