Guantanamo - Three inmates kill themselves

"Nobody knows why those idiots killed themselves. Could be the treatment they received or martyrdom, or perhaps guilt and shame of breaking under interrogation."

Or, perhaps, the result of being imprisoned for four years, with no contact with a lawyer, no contact with friends or family, and no hint of the prospect of any trial or opportunity to defend yourself...just a lifetime of inprisonment?

I would have killed myself long before four years of such treatment.

Musuko.

"That is farking hilarious. How about we give them the same justice that they give our soldiers, not to mention INNOCENT civilians?"

If you act below your own moral standards in order to punish those who you believe have acted below those same standards, how credible are you as any kind of moral being?

Musuko.

The point is, we don't know! IF they are guilty of some crime, convict them of it!

A military tribunal reviewed their status 2 years ago. Over 100 of them were subsequently released. The remainder HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE TERRORISTS.

Where is the evidence? BRING ME THE BODY.

You are sooo right... we arent doing enough... "Three square meals a day paid for by American taxpayers, a free Koran and a prayer rug, plenty of water for showers and reading materials to pass their time."... this isn't nearly enough. We should also supply each one of these monsters with one dry, clean 6 foot rope to do with as they please. Allah be praised.

"The remainder HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE TERRORISTS."

Passive sentence. Who has shown them to be terrorists? And to whom were they shown to be terrorists?

Where is the record of their trials? And if they were proven to be terrorists under secret or military trials, were are the records of such trials having occured?

Proving someone to have committed a crime is something that we, as civilised countries, do by fair trial. If trials have not happened, they have not been proved to be terrorists.

All they are until a trial occurs are innocent people suspected of terrorism. Nothing more.

Musuko.

You aren't worth the time to respond to that bs.

"We should also supply each one of these monsters with one dry, clean 6 foot rope to do with as they please. Allah be praised."

When I hear comments like that, I realise why so many people wish to murder you and your countrymen.

Musuko.

I have to admit to not having read the whole of this thread, mostly because the first few postings which appeared to support the idea that it is right for an alleged democracy to imprison people without recourse to any legal framework, is right, just made me feel soo depressed for the future of our freedom.

Once you have an alleged democracy removing the human rights of one person, you are on the road to fascism. I see no difference between the US behaving as though it is above the law and a terrorist, frankly.

I want my freedom and that means I want everyone's freedom, because for me to be free, they have to have the same freedom. That means you don't draw a line in the sand and say these people deserve a court of law and their human rights and these people do not.

The UK people who were detained in Guantanamo Bay, and were released, have not, as far as I am aware, have been proven to have done anything except be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unless the US starts to provide people with their rights to a proper trial, and to be convicted of some wrong doing, I am going to presume everyone held illegally by them is INNOCENT.
Cali

Should be easy... Osama is recruiting idiots I hear.

You forgot something at the end of your post... PRAISE BE ALLAH!!!

They're in military custody. The military reviewed their cases. And, of course, the military is under civilian control and oversight from Congress. Whether you trust that mechanism or not, that's how it works.


You believe that the intelligence we have, which revealed who they were would be splattered over the front page of the NY Times, further reducing the low effectiveness of our intelligence agencies? How dumb would that be?


They're illegal combatants, not criminals. Not American citizens. Not POWs. But even POWs aren't entitled to legal representation. This is an entirely new gray area not covered by civil, criminal, or international law. You can argue about whether this administration's approach was correct, and that's fine, but let's not assign more rights to them than even a formal POW has under Geneva protocols.

sure if a passport comes with it and I can get away from the likes of you and all the other Americans on this forum.

As long as it is a one way and you never come back, I'll be more than happy to help make that happen.

Are these the military tribunals you are referring to? According to this, only 10 inmates have even been charged with crimes so far. A great many more have been released without trial.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/NASU51701.htm

The assumption that releasing the rest of the prisoners, or releasing evidence against them, would be damaging to our intelligence efforts is ridiculous. Most of these people have been there for many years now. How could they possibly jeopardize our operational security at this point?

No, the only thing that would be jeopardized by opening up for public trials is the "security" of our current administration.

The only thing about this, is that here in the UK we heard this same line about intelligence telling us about weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. I believed it at the time but it was shown to be utter rubbish. I'm a bit wary now of secret intelligence reports used to justify extreme measures. I'm hoping this isn't some new way of governments getting to do anything they want.

"You forgot something at the end of your post... PRAISE BE ALLAH!!!"

Troll.

"They're in military custody. The military reviewed their cases. And, of course, the military is under civilian control and oversight from Congress. Whether you trust that mechanism or not, that's how it works."

Why is the military being charged with holding non-military prisoners?

"You believe that the intelligence we have, which revealed who they were would be splattered over the front page of the NY Times, further reducing the low effectiveness of our intelligence agencies? How dumb would that be?"

How exactly would "Mr X was involved in suchandsuch a battle four years ago, and we can prove it due to X, Y and Z" hurt the current situation? After all...America is currently not at war, and is (according to the American government) in control of the situation in Iraq.

"They're illegal combatants, not criminals."

Has anyone proved by trial that they were illegal combatants?

"This is an entirely new gray area not covered by civil, criminal, or international law. You can argue about whether this administration's approach was correct, and that's fine, but let's not assign more rights to them than even a formal POW has under Geneva protocols."

So let me get this straight...America is in uncharted territory, perfectly positioned to create new laws to cover this very situation...laws which would provide an entirely fair and moral system to deal with suspected terrorists...showing America to be a fabulous beacon of moral guidance in this changed world....

...and instead you want to just hold your hands up and say "hey, no law says we have to treat these people fairly...so why should we?"

Disappointing.

Musuko.

Wow! I guess you are on the mailing list for idiots then? Well that's great.

*ahem* - paging resmod...

What is disappointing is your inability to use the "QUOTE" feature. Your posts require more effort than I care to use to read. Just try it:


Briana Dawson

"What is disappointing is your inability to use the "QUOTE" feature. Your posts require more effort than I care to use to read. Just try it:"

If you can't make the effort to read what I say, I can't make the effort to make it easier to read.

What are you, a child?

Musuko.

America is claiming this is a gray area in order to go on holding these people. It looks like there is trouble sorting out whether the prisoners are entitled to be POW's or not. But the Geneva Conventions cover this as well.

Specifically, any prisoner must be given the rights of a POW, unless a "competent tribunal" finds that they are not. Second, any prisoner not a POW then they retain the right "to be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."

Is holding uncharged, undifferentiated prisoners for four years constitutional? I guess we will find out soon.

Not all of us are suffering from the malady. I'm ashamed of the situation in Cuba.

Frankly, I don't care if they picked these people up in dumpsters fighting rats for food and now they are living in Club Med conditions.

The point is that they are being held without trial and without contact with any legal representation or contact with the outside world. If they are indeed terrorists and murderers, let's put them on trial for the world to see. If we don't have the evidence to try them, send their asses home.

As for the threat of terrorism? In the immortal words of Patrick Henry, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" I would rather die in a terrorist attack, I would rather my whole family die in a terrorist attack, than to see the US become a police state.

ZOMG! We agree on something!

They are, in fact, military prisoners.


If they were taken prisoner as part of Taliban or al Qaeda units, armed with automatic weapons and very likely having fired on American forces, I'm not sure why the military should treat them any differently than they have - as illegal combatants.


You can cease the hyperbole, it's not helping you. We have allowed the Red Cross to visit these people. We are providing them with every courtesy that the Geneva Convention allows for real POWs, including medical care, food, shelter and religious amenities. I've said all this more than once in this thread, but perhaps you just choose to spout hyperbole instead of discussing how you think we should handle 400 violent, dangerous individuals captured in action?


As captured combatants go - legal or otherwise - it's not accurate to claim we're mistreating these people. I realize the opposition press wants you to swallow that, but it's still your decision to swallow it. Simply because you weren't given the transcripts of the hearings doesn't mean they were unfair or never happened. You have no evidence either way, other than the word of a lot of people with political agendas.


The only disappointment to me here is the number of people who are quoting directly off of leftwing anti-war blogs without admitting it.