discuss atrocities of Gitmo here.

real bad atrocities. Lots of terrorists get to be beaten up in American Cuba territory, just so that some small % of them are actually real terrorists.

Gitmo is a joke. Even Blair (Bushs' best buddy) has sad it should be shut down. And while its still there holding detainees without any prospect of a trial, the US has zero credibility.

does anyone know what qualifies a person for Gitmo?

does anyone know what qualifies a person for Gitmo?

Talk bad about the U.S. or look like a raghead.

- N

Talk bad about the U.S. or look like a raghead.

- N
sources?

does anyone know what qualifies a person for Gitmo? No. Simple chance and bad luck appear to have been involved in many, perhaps most, detainments.

One guy had a name that was spelled a letter off from an alleged terrorist. A few were sold for the bounty money by paramilitaries they ran into on accident. That kind of thing.

No. Simple chance and bad luck appear to have been involved in many, perhaps most, detainments.

One guy had a name that was spelled a letter off from an alleged terrorist. A few were sold for the bounty money by paramilitaries they ran into on accident. That kind of thing.
sources?

Quite a lot of them werent even picked up by Americans, but handed over to them by the Northern Alliance.

There's the story of the British citizen (Arab) who was just picked up off the streets. Then there is that German businessman. Absolutely ridiculous, and I can't believe what we are letting Bush do!

I find it funny that Gitmo started out with 775 prisoners, we started a process to sort out who were legal POWs, Not of Interest, Innocent, or Terrorist, the liberals got the Courts involved, and they said that the already established tribunal procedure needed to be re-authorized by congress and that the whole thing had to start over from the beginning, we have released 340 of the detainees as innocent, or of no threat, or of no intelligence value, and a group of them don't want to return to their native countries because they fear the on country more than they detest being in Gitmo, 250 have been given POW status, and that leaves 70 that will face trial, so what do you want? the process had to be done, the people had to be vetted as to their actual status, in the legal system we hold people until they have been processed, and either they are released due to not being of interest, bail set by a court, or held for trial, with no bail, so what is different at Gitmo? they have done the same process, by authorized tribunal, and have released those not of interest, assigned POW status to those that qualify, let certain detainees remain because they fear their own governments more that they dislike GITMO, and remanded to trial those suspected to be Terrorist, it seem the system has worked, even though you don't want to recognize this, it has worked.

I find it funny that Gitmo started out with 775 prisoners, we started a process to sort out who were legal POWs, Well that was a war crime, and a violation of the Geneva Convention. They were all legal POWs until sorted otherwise, not the other way around.

Only a minority were captured by US forces. Most were captured by Northern Alliance forces or kidnapped by bounty hunters (the US was paying as much as 5k apiece for the right sort of "terrorist"). it seem the system has worked, even though you don't want to recognize this, it has worked. So your goal was to establish the beginnings of an American Gulag, with torture and indefinite imprisonment for years and secrecy and show trials and kangaroo "tribunals" for courts? Your goal was to trash the reputation of the US legal system and the US intelligence agencies simuiltaneously? Banana republic prisons and Soviet style intelligence agencies are your idea of something that "works"?

So far we've made a god damned mess.

iceaura

Well that was a war crime, and a violation of the Geneva Convention. They were all legal POWs until sorted otherwise, not the other way around.

So to disagree with you, now please provide the relevant sections that were violated in the Geneva Convention, ever thing that we are signatory to in the Geneva Convention was followed. Plus the fact that we are realeasing them as fast as possable.

So your goal was to establish the beginnings of an American Gulag, with torture and indefinite imprisonment for years and secrecy and show trials and kangaroo "tribunals" for courts? Your goal was to trash the reputation of the US legal system and the US intelligence agencies simultaneously? Banana republic prisons and Soviet style intelligence agencies are your idea of something that "works"?

I think you should look up what a Soviet or Chinese Gulag entails. Gulags as the name implies were to hold political dissidents, and you worked to death, received no medical treatment, weren't allowed to practice your religion, and became a slave for the Communist system, and in the Chinese system, you are also a organ bank for transplants. Plus the fact that we are realeasing them as fast as possable.

Yeah, Gitmo shouldn't be. We should have just shot all the sons of bitches on the battle field without affording any of them the opportunity to state their case and defend their claim to innocence.

Better dead than well-fed but contained.

Next time, there won't be a Gitmo -- by popular demand.

Just a few more spent shell casings littering the terrain.

Good budget decision, no doubt.

Thanks for the idea.

Mr. G, seems to be the solution when our men are kidnapped.

Mr. G, seems to be the solution when our men are kidnapped.
Seems to be the only available solution of any situation: No more due process, just more do process.

Children and their childish notions in an adult world.

Begging for an educational spanking.

I think you should look up what a Soviet or Chinese Gulag entails. They started small, like gitmo. Systems like that don't spring up all at once. Once the principle has been established, expansion is easy.

How many gulag-style prisons is the US currently maintaining? More than ten, or fewer? There are three of four in Iraq, a couple somewhere around the Indian Ocean, one in Cuba (If you count the seven there as all subdivisions of Gitmo), a couple in Eastern Europe somewhere, maybe a couple in Central Asia or maybe those are proxies we shouldn't count, etc.
now please provide the relevant sections that were violated in the Geneva Convention, Geneva forbids torture, requires that all captures by military forces in the field be treated as POWs until a formal hearing has determined their status, and specifies the treatment of POWs after determination (such as the members of the Taliban military who were captured armed and part of an organized battlefield force).
Plus the fact that we are realeasing them as fast as possable. Now you are just being silly.
Yeah, Gitmo shouldn't be. We should have just shot all the sons of bitches on the battle field That would only take care of about 10% of them. Those detainees were not captured on battlefields, or by us, as a rule.

“ Originally Posted by buffalo
Plus the fact that we are releasing them as fast as possible. ”

Now you are just being silly.

Really and please show how? as you say many of them weren't captured on the battle field, so they needed to be vetted, and to do so, so as to not release actual POWs, or Terrorist, we need to have some place to sort thing out, and that is just what we did at Guantanamo Bay, and if they were found to be innocent victims we released them, or do you have proof otherwise? If they were soldiers, they were held as POWs or do you have proof otherwise?
If they were found to be terrorist, they are scheduled to be tried, or do you have proof otherwise? all of this was authorized by Congress, and then re-authorized again by Congress in accordance with the findings of the Supreme Court Decision, and the fact is there are people who could be released to their countries but are more afraid of their own countries than they are of staying at Guantanamo Bay.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8G6CJV03&show_article=1

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - Fearing militants or even their own governments, some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay from China, Saudi Arabia and other nations do not want to go home, according to transcripts of hearings at the U.S. prison in Cuba.

A Saudi identified only as Yasim, who said he attended an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan and was jailed in his country for selling drugs, told the tribunal that after being repeatedly interrogated at Guantanamo, he fears his fellow prisoners as well as others back in Saudi Arabia.

"I can't go back to my country. I have been threatened to be killed by many people," he said, according to the transcripts, which the Pentagon released Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit filed by The Associated Press



Originally Posted by mrG
Yeah, Gitmo shouldn't be. We should have just shot all the sons of bitches on the battle field ”

That would only take care of about 10% of them. Those detainees were not captured on battlefields, or by us, as a rule.

And we have to find out the circumstances of their apprehension, if their innocent they are released, the numbers at Guantanamo are going down, or do you have different information?

Those detainees were not captured on battlefields, or by us, as a rule.
I'm an atheist.

What you believe on faith means nothing to me.

I'm an atheist.
What you believe on faith means nothing to me. The word for "don't know, don't care to find out, not my problem" is 'agnostic'.

If they were soldiers, they were held as POWs or do you have proof otherwise? None of them were treated as POWs, as your President carefully specified, so by your logic none of them were captured on battlefields while bearing arms as part of an organized force - soldiers under Geneva. Do you believe that?
Really and please show how? as you say many of them weren't captured on the battle field, so they needed to be vetted, and to do so, so as to not release actual POWs, or Terrorist, we need to have some place to sort thing out, and that is just what we did at Guantanamo Bay, and if they were found to be innocent victims we released them, or do you have proof otherwise? Torture is not "vetting". Three years of incarceration and abuse of people sold for bounty money is not "sorting things out" and "releasing the innocent". We did not need a place like Gitmo for any legitimate purposes - they can be accomplished in normal prisons and ordinary military stockades and regular holding cells. The innocent should never have been transported to Gitmo in the first place, and those simply bearing arms against their enemy should never have been abusively interrogated.

The punch line is that several of those released have joined jihadist organizations - after all that vetting and "interrogation". One thing a place like Gitmo can do, besides generating lots of bogus "intelligence", is create dedicated enemies.
the fact is there are people who could be released to their countries but are more afraid of their own countries than they are of staying at Guantanamo Bay. So?

iceaura

Torture is not "vetting". Three years of incarceration and abuse of people sold for bounty money is not "sorting things out" and "releasing the innocent". We did not need a place like Gitmo for any legitimate purposes - they can be accomplished in normal prisons and ordinary military stockades and regular holding cells. The innocent should never have been transported to Gitmo in the first place, and those simply bearing arms against their enemy should never have been abusively interrogated.

And I take it that you are a expert on these things? that you were present during the interrogations? You know first hand that all of this is true? We are not talking about normal prisoners or as the people serving time in the the British prison systems refered to them selves, to differentiat between them selves and terrorist, POC's (Plain Ordinary Criminals), or normal criminal prison, or civilian crime, that is a story in and of itself, all you have to do is look at the recidivisiam rates in normal prisons, were they treat the prisoners in the way that you suggest, and watch how sucessfull that aproach is, to see what a crock of bullshit you are trying to pedal.

The punch line is that several of those released have joined jihadist organizations - after all that vetting and "interrogation". One thing a place like Gitmo can do, besides generating lots of bogus "intelligence", is create dedicated enemies.

And you can prove this? provide absolute, none refutable proof that this is the way it actually happened for the and the reasons given?

And the interrogations provided a lot of solid intelligence, and most of the solid intelligence would be classified, the only way that you would see the effect would be in the numbers of high ranking al Queda leaders that have been picked up or exterminated, so show absolute irrefutable proof that what you said was done, and what was accomplished. The word of a detainee is not sufficient, as they do have a self serving point of view, and you still haven't explained if Gitmo is so bad, People who have the right to be released, don't want to go home? how it is that the prisoner gain weight, have had their medical need met at a standard far higher than when they were in Afghanistan, hell one of the poor abused recaptures that you complain about was given a artificial leg, which he used to return to the battle field with. Self testimony from terrorist? really? it is called psychological warfare, propaganda.

And the interrogations provided a lot of solid intelligence, and most of the solid intelligence would be classified, the only way that you would see the effect would be in the numbers of high ranking al Queda leaders that have been picked up or exterminated, So I take it you have no evidence of any solid intelligence whatsoever coming from Gitmo ?

I can help, here: many sources have provided evidence that as many as a couple of dozen of the detainees at Gitmo had some valuable intelligence about something, often Al Qaida, and the torture did not destroy all of it. It is possible,from this evidence, that some valuable info was obtained from Gitmo.

Not as much, and nowhere near as reliable, as ordinary interrogation and common espionage techniques would be expected to yield, of course, but you can't have everything. Gulags are not designed for obtaining information.
And I take it that you are a expert on these things? that you were present during the interrogations? You know first hand that all of this is true? What are you talking about? What have I claimed that requires personal presence? All that stuff is from perfectly ordinary sources of information. Are you unaware that many of the inmates of Gitmo have been tortured, that many have been there for years now, that no hearings were held before their incarceration ? What is your specific doubt, here ?
And you can prove this? provide absolute, none refutable proof that this is the way it actually happened for the and the reasons given?
- - -
hell one of the poor abused recaptures that you complain about was given a artificial leg, which he used to return to the battle field with.
You don't believe your own stuff ?
and you still haven't explained if Gitmo is so bad, People who have the right to be released, don't want to go home? The Uighurs don't want to go "home", because "home" is Communist China and they have been publically identified as Muslims rebelling against the Chinese Communist government. Gitmo is better than execution. There are some others whose home governments would welcome them back in unfortunate ways. Home can be worse than decent treatment at Gitmo - which is available. There are a half a dozen different compounds at Gitmo, not counting the "black" cells that don't exist of course, and some of them (such as where they put the old men and young boys who had no idea why they'd been detained) are reasonably comfortable.
The word of a detainee is not sufficient, Unless it's been tortured out of them, right? Then it's sufficient to declare them the leaders of Al Qaida and the plotters of terrorism worldwide -even against targets that did not exist at the time - and all the people they name legitimate targets of detention, assassination, torture themselves.

Maybe some specifics: http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf

http://law.shu.edu/news/second_report_guantanamo_detainees_3_20_final.pdf

Here's one of the released ones, so your back patting can be done from examples: http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/threemon_article_guantanamo_human_rights_abuses_da vid_rose.htm
"He used to run an Islamic bookshop in Birmingham - recounts Rose, who has interviewed the now released Moazzem Begg - They used to get visits from a guy who called himself Steve, who turned out to be with MI5. He was looking for information on possible extremist networks in England. Moazzem and his partner Tahir were very happy to cooperate with him, saying 'look, we have no links with terrorism - drop in any time, we've nothing to hide'. Moazzem later moved to Afghanistan with his family , up until September 11th, at which point he fled as he didn't want any part in what was clearly going to be a war. So there they were in Islamabad, renting a house. MI5 didn't have a clue where they were. Steve went up to Tahir, asking where Moazzem was. Tahir responded 'he's in Pakistan actually', at which point Steve asked him to put him in touch, for a chat. Tahir called him, and told him that Steve was looking for him, for a chat. Moazzem indicated that this was fine, to give him his number, and that if he was in Islamabad he could call over for dinner. Well, in fact, two days later, Moazzem was arrested, or rather kidnapped, bundled into a car and taken to a secret detention centre in Pakistan where he was held for six weeks [In july of 2002 CNN was reporting that Begg had been captured in Afghanistan]. Almost the first person he saw when he got there was Steve." Begg was subsequently transferred to Guantánamo, from where he was released in March 2004, without charge.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/america/FactSheet.pdf

http://thetalkingdog.com/archives2/000525.html Interview with a lawyer representing some Gitmo inmates
Joshua Denbeaux: - -
The first possibility for why the list of terrorist organizations relied upon by the Pentagon to hold these detainees does not match either the State Department or Patriot Act (Homeland Security) terrorist exclusion lists is because the DOD is simply making it up-- it has decided that association with groups makes someone per se an enemy combatant, and there are 164 detainees so "associated" with groups not on either State or Patriot Act lists. One can say it "smells like" the DOD interrogated all of the Guantanamo detainees, established what organizations these men were "associated with", and then, after the fact, determined that these were "terrorist organizations"; this is certainly consistent with the large discrepency between DOD's list and the others-- indeed, only 20 of the organizations on DOD's lists are on either of State's or Patriot Act lists; 52 out of 72 organizations don't show up on either State or Patriot Act list, and yet, are deemed sufficient basis to hold Guantanamo detainees indefinitely.

The second possibility is also troubling: maybe the Defense Department is right. Maybe these really are terrorist organizations. In that case, what is the State Department doing maintaining lists that allow these people into the country? As far as we know, members of the 52 organizations on DOD's list, but not on either of the other two lists, can enter the country. Are we allowing terrorists to freely come in?

The third possibility is that both sets of lists are screwed up-- that we are both holding innocent people at Guantanamo, and the government is not fully holding up our security by admitting people into the country that it shouldn't be.

The word for "don't know, don't care to find out, not my problem" is 'agnostic'.
Ah.

As in "Democrat".

Point taken.