The headline in todays Times' World supplement read "Freed Guantanamo prisoners taunt America as closure plan falls apart", it seems that freed prisoners actually tured out to be terrorists as America thought, and have since posted Jihadist videos with Jihadist threats against Britian, the US and Isreal. Should have left them in there.
Not everywhere wants them back, several of the inmates have been deemed innocent, but their countries won't have them back. So taxpayers have also been paying to keep all those innocent people behind bars, not cheap, more expensive than a plane ticket.
No, the problem isn't that they were released. The problem is that most of them shouldn't have been in prison at all. If you take innocent people, strip away their human rights, lock them up for years on end with no access to legal counsel, and torture them, then you can't act surprised if they come out the other end a bit bitter about the whole experience. I imagine it takes a lot more than a "re-education" program to cure a person of that experience. -monkey
Yeah, whether they did it or not it isn't for America to hold them without good evidence or without charges. Some of the innocent people in there, some of whom might not have been Americas greatest fan in the first place, are going to be so bitter about being locked up for a good proportion of what is their working adult life - that they will turn to terrorism to "get back" at them. Many won't go that far, but some will, and its America which drove them to it. When these guys come out they wont neccesarily have family's any more, they might have died or moved on whilst they were in Jail, their kids have grown up without them there - how do them guys feel? I'm glad Obama is freeing them, but I hope he is also providing for them - I would demand some serious compensation for being unjustly locked up for so many years - I can't even put a word to just how angry I imagine I would be.
The thing is though, they may be innocent in terms that you couldn't pin a conviction on them in a western court were it favours the accused, but many of them must be dangerous. For example meeting with many known terrorists and preaching hate isn't going to put someone away for long (in fact it wouldn't at all), so do we wait for them to carry out terrorist acts and let innocent people die first? -I agree that if (and there probably are) some innocent people who have been treated badly, and rightly so they are going to be very angry, and certainly would need compensation, but clearly al-Shihri; the above mentioned terrorist was dangerous, if he was innocent then he wouldn't have contacts with such high ranking al-Qaeda terrorist. Personally I think Guantanamo is an embarrassment to the west, but I do believe that the Government(s) should have the ability to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely, under independent monitoring. Terrorists don’t play by the rules, and although we should never compromise our values because of them, we have to adapt some laws/loop holes to protect ourselves.
So what your saying is, even though there is no evidence to charge them, they should be detained because they might potentially be planning something ? Despite the evidence ? How would you feel if you go sent to prison, and tortured, without being charged, having done nothing wrong ? Im sure this guy wouldn't agree with your feelings - 6 years in Jail (equivalent to heavy drug distribution in the UK i believe, but I couldn't find a chart of prison sentencing!) A quote from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8664 and indirectly from the New Yorker: If you think its justice to find someone innocent and keep them in prison then I question your morals. To actually go through a process of finding out that someone has done absolutely nothing wrong but then to keep refusing them their basic human rights is criminal in itself. By making this his first priority Obama has told the world that once more America stands for justice, and good on him.
Of course if there is no evidence then they shouldn't be held, and certainly not tortured, and clearly there are people like that who need to be released. What I'm saying is there may be a person (hypothetically) who appeared in a terrorist video with a gun, next to Sadam-husan, who actively preaches death to the west, and encourages people to go kill etc. What do we do? As non of those things can lead to a conviction but clearly the person is dangerous, therefore the person should be held until more evidence is brought forward, as I said for such a person to be held, independent monitoring and frequent reviews would be needed.
Court rooms are actually quite favourable to the lawyers\cop not the defendant just ask these 6 we have to bias the rules of court to prevent the powers of the state from being overwheling but when in drug cases the defendant is not allowed to state that they had a legally issued prescription for the drug they were arrested with you cannot claim the courtroom is biased in the favour of the defendant. so the right of free association no longer exists Intent is so easy to ******** You follow the laws so that you can look yourself in the mirror you don't compromise important principals such as the writ of Habeas corpus just to hold people Other wise you get fbi plants inciting violence from vietnam(and iraq) war protestors Blackbag jobs to go in and do whatever the **** you want. and generals marching their troops accross the rubicon to take control.
I would assume appearing in a video saying "im going to kill all these people" would lead to fairly strong evidence in favour of some crime, and where I say assume, I do of course mean there are laws that could convict someone in that case. There is absolutely no need for an institution like Guantanimo bay, and what's worse is the US knows it, which is why it was based in Cuba, outside of regular US law, where they could get away with more. an edit: this wasn't directly related to the conversation as torture has not been condoned by anybody in this discussion, but it is relevant to people who believe the methods and usefulness of guantanimo made it just Also, furthermore to the argument. If a man is innocent there is absolutely no reason to torture him. If a man is dangerous there is absolutely no reason to torture him.If a man is a self confessed mass murdering rapist there is absolutely no reason to torture him. No matter who or where you are, no matter what the person is accused of, torture has been shown time and time again to not work. The victims of it will say anything to stop the pain, even if it means falsely incriminating themselves. It is a sadistic measure used by bully's to make themselves feel righteous against a defeated man. If the US thought these men dangerous they should proceeded like the Law states they should proceed, not swagger around the world in their arrogant manner taking anybody they feel as an enemy of the US and sticking them in a prison without charge.
Send them to Crawford Texas I think Anyhow, no we don't need a torture center sourced off US soil. As was recently stated so eloquently by someone in Europe (the UK?) on TV, we don't need a "war on terror." Terrorists are criminals, and they need to be prosecuted and punished by the justice system, not the military.
I find it disturbing the number of times in this short thread that people have advocated holding people illegally outside the frame work of law purely on what might happen or what is in these peoples heads. When I know no one here would like the same to be done to them. Not everything I think is beneficial to governments, and I know a few of you here are either into drugs or drug related activities. I also know that some of you are so rabidly anti-American that you could easily be mistaken for those that want to hurt us. and some of you are loony Americans that I consider you a danger to your own country. But none of you can be held for what is in your head or based on what you might do. You all have the protection of a legal system that allows you to be judged alone on the actions you have taken (barring a few specific legal situations). By advocating that other deserve less then what you have, you are in fact suggesting to your respective governments that you might not need it. I would be very careful about that slippery slope. The inmates in Guantanamo deserve the most rigorous legal battle we can give them. We need to do it to uphold our own right to the balance that a vibrant legal system affords us. Anything less would be admitting that our system is fundamentally flawed and not viable. Neither of which I believe to be true. As for the released inmates making videos advocating jihad. Who cares? Making a video isn't illegal in the countries where they are made. We have to respect the laws of other nations if we expect them to respect ours. Not to mention, there have been quite a few videos released where the person recorded spewed hateful speech against certain groups based on religion. A few American pastors and their blind hatred against homosexuals come to mind. Were they prosecuted in their country? other countries? No. So why the double standard? I for one applaud the announcement, fully expecting a longer review period involving a hard look at who, why, and what was done. Followed by a review of what evidence we can use and what we can't. Because the evidence that we can't use because we obtained it through torture doesn't belong in an American court room. We will have to release those who we should have tried openly in a court room under that same laws that protect us and our families. Anything less would be lowering ourselves to the very level that produced those that hate us.
To those who feel that Gitmo was necessary on some level: If you read about the detainees themselves and how they ended up imprisoned, you'll find the process was often arbitrary. According to My Guantanamo Diary, by author Mahvish Khan, and various other sources, many detainees were sold to the U.S. and Afghan intelligence for a profit. Leaflets and loudspeaker announcements promised that locating terrorists and turning them in would be immensely lucrative, and dishonest mercenaries and citizens seized the opportunity. Essentially, they were paid to falsely identify victims who were then incarcerated indefinitely. An example from the "Diary": "Mousovi is a physician from the Afghan city of Gardez, where he was arrested by U.S. troops 2 1/2 years ago. He tells us that he had returned to Afghanistan in August 2003, after 12 years of exile in Iran, to help rebuild his wathan, his homeland. He believes that someone turned him in to U.S. forces just to collect up to $25,000 being offered to anyone who gave up a Talib or al-Qaeda member. . . . He doesn't know why he was brought to Guantanamo Bay. He had hoped he would be freed at his military hearing in December 2004. Instead, he was accused of associating with the Taliban and of funneling money to anti-coalition insurgents. When he asked for evidence, he was told it was classified. And so he sits in prison, far from his wife and three children." Another example: "At 80, Haji Nusrat -- detainee No. 1009 -- is Guantanamo Bay's oldest prisoner. A stroke 15 years ago left him partly paralyzed. He cannot stand up without assistance and hobbles to the bathroom behind a walker. Despite his paralysis, his swollen legs and feet are tightly cuffed and shackled to the floor. He says that his shoes are too tight and that he needs new ones. He has asked for medical attention for the inflammation in his legs, but has not been taken to a hospital. . . . U.S. troops arrested Nusrat in 2003, a few days after he went to complain about the arrest of his son Izat, who is also detained at Guantanamo Bay. Nusrat is charged with being a commander of a terrorist organization in Afghanistan with ties to Osama bin Laden, and with possession of a cache of weapons. Izat, who appeared as a witness at his father's military hearing, maintained that the weapons in question were in a storehouse set up by the Afghan defense ministry, which he was paid to guard and maintain."
I find it funny how Anti-American the world can be considering some of the countries pointing fingers have 1000x more skeletons in the closet over the centuries than the US. But the past is the past and doesn't help change the future unless our policy makers get their heads out of their asses.
You are absolutely right. But only the US has been doing this in recent, supposedly more enlightened times under the banner of protecting freedom, democracy and justice. It's an irony thing, I suppose.
I'm an American, and I'm anti-American by your definition. For a religious guy, Bush seems to have forgotten the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Yeah, the Germans were *******s 60-70 years ago... but they know better now than to lock people up without evidence or charges and stomp around the world generally being dicks. Guantanimo is very much the present, and people have a right to be anti-american at the hypocrisy of it all. And in ending, I wouldn't say any of us are massively Anti-American as such, we are all anti Bush Administration. I would be very glad to visit an America that trusts its allies and uses its power for good. Simply by being in office the Obama administration has done alot for America's reputation, which the American people in essence have done for themselves.
I agree 100%. I only feel that laws should be in place to detain suspects without charge for a period of time (by time I mean weeks not years). We already have such a law in the UK, 28days or so, but I feel a better system is one that is done by reviews, so every 7/14 days a request put before a judge for more time etc, before a conviction can be brought forward. I think some of you misunderstood what I said to be I support Guantanimo (I did says with some sarcasim that the terrorist above mentioned should have been left there, but then the truth is, Guantanimo bay can't just close over night, as people will need moving to other place and charges and court cases would be needed etc). -Such detention centres should be like our immigration detention centres which have visiting times/gyms/tvs/chapels for different faiths etc as appose to what ever Guantanimo has. Maybe I am also naive (no sarcasm) to believe that the US gov, must know some secret stuff about these people which lead to them being put away, because if there isn't then the inmates are the least of our worries.
Such a system wouldn't work. If you can't charge someone with a crime, you have no right to detain that person. To do so is to accuse the person of thoughcrime. It has been pointed out that many of the people detained at Guantanamo we arrested based on evidenced obtained by paid informants. It's easy for US citizens to turn a blind eye to it because we don't think it can happen here. Unfortunately, it's closer than we think: An interesting twist to the idea of using paid informants can be found in Brandon Darby, an anti-war protester from Austin, Texas. In 2003, Darby was arrested during an anti-war protest in Austin. Allegations in the case included reports of undercover officers inciting violence in order to make arrests, and officers harassing Darby and his friend. In 2008, during the Republican National Convention, Darby's name came up again - this time on the other side of the law. He was working as a paid informant for the FBI, helping the agency arrest would-be terrorists. It may seem odd, but these events are somewhat common; it's easier for an informant to infiltrate an activist group if he has enough street cred to back him up. Indeed, when word spread about Darby's involvement with the FBI, fellow activists were skeptical: The practice of using paid informants casts doubt on the entire process, because it can be very difficult to separate the truth from the lies. Take a person who is young and impressionable, offer him money in return for arrests, and you have a recipe for disaster. Now apply that recipe to Guantanamo. -monkey
