quote:

Originally posted by VA90USAW5:
Maybe some would care to adopt one of these "unjustfully incarcerated" men. Bring him home to meet the family.

Carefully, thoughtfully, and lovingly nurture him back to great health after his debilatating incarceration. Show your adoptee around the neighborhood to meet and greet all the neighbors and friends. Get him involded with the entire family so they can appreciate him more.

Show him how compassionate and caring Americans are. Consider treating him as a foreign exchange student if their education was grossly interupted. Get them enrolled in school and make them proud of themselves, you, and America.

When you bring him home just think how wonderful it will be to see his gleaming smile everyday and know how thankful he is for all your kindness. Why not?

quote:

Originally posted by VA90USAW5:
I didn't have too much time to view the documents after 2003. Do they or any of the more recent documents state torture as a method.

The few I reviewed seemed to be rather mundane field trip reports from visiting officials in 2002.

Help me out here and save me the time of looking through them. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Toome:
I don't think we "created" a terrorist. He was already a terrorist; he was part of the Taliban and was captured at Tora Bora by US forces. The review boards at Guantanamo determined that he was a threat to the US and would continue to be a threat to the US.

He was not released from Guantanamo, he was expatriated to Kuwait. Big difference. He was transferred in custody as a terrorist to a country that accepted his status as a captured terrorists. As a result of some of the legalities involved, which included dismissing some of what the US considered as evidence, Kuwaiti courts under Kuwaiti law dismissed the charges against this guy a little over six months after he was expatriated from US custody.

I think this is just one of those things that happen when you try to abide by certain international agreements. It's a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. The Kumbaya crowd would have screamed bloody murder the longer we detained this individual at Gitmo, or at least question why he wasn't expatriated to his home nation. He gets expatriated and, as predicted by US sources, carries out a terrorist attack.

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by Toome:
I don't think we "created" a terrorist. He was already a terrorist; he was part of the Taliban and was captured at Tora Bora by US forces. The review boards at Guantanamo determined that he was a threat to the US and would continue to be a threat to the US.

He was not released from Guantanamo, he was expatriated to Kuwait. Big difference. He was transferred in custody as a terrorist to a country that accepted his status as a captured terrorists. As a result of some of the legalities involved, which included dismissing some of what the US considered as evidence, Kuwaiti courts under Kuwaiti law dismissed the charges against this guy a little over six months after he was expatriated from US custody.

I think this is just one of those things that happen when you try to abide by certain international agreements. It's a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. The Kumbaya crowd would have screamed bloody murder the longer we detained this individual at Gitmo, or at least question why he wasn't expatriated to his home nation. He gets expatriated and, as predicted by US sources, carries out a terrorist attack.

The Geneva Conventions, which we both wrote, and are now tossing into the garbage can, are pretty specific. If someone is classified as a POW you can hold them as long as you want. But that's not what we're doing. We are calling them criminals (and many probably ARE criminals) and bringing charges against them.

So, if we WERE interested in protecting ourselves, we would simply call them POW's and keep them locked up as long as we want. You don't "try" POW'S for crimes - you keep them locked up.

But since we declare that they are in fact crimials and NOT POW's, then we are forced to release them, or repatriate them if we cannot bring a charge against them. Sort of being "hoist by your own petard."

At any rate, accoding to the DoD, 12 of those released have fought against us, which is a bit less than One percent of the original 1252 people we had there.

Dave

quote:

http://foia.fbi.gov/guantanamo/122106.htm site is mostly hearsay. The Agent heard the detanee say certain things had happened to him. Asmall minority were "witnessed" , but never the events leading up to the scene.

quote:

#
civilian contractor asked W (an FBI SA) to come see something. There was an unknown bearded longhaired d gagged w/duct tape that covered much of his head. SA asked if he had spit at interrogators, and the contractor laughingly replied that d had been chanting the Koran nonstop. No answer to how they planned to remove the duct tape.

quote:

Originally posted by Toome:

If I'm not mistaken, the Catch-22 behind the POW argument is that we are obligated to repatriate them to their home nation under certain circumstances. For instance, taking WWII as an example, we would hold on to German POWs until the end of the war. However, if we had captured someone from France who had collaborated with the enemy, I think we would be obligated to release them to the French government unless they committed a crime against US law. I'm not a lawyer and can't really speak to this with any real degree of expertise; however, I do know that the Geneva Convention argument actually works against us if our intent is to hold onto these guys until we've extracted all the intelligence information we want.

quote:

Originally posted by VA90USAW5:
Detainees are released when it is believed they no longer pose a significant threat. They are transferred to the custody of their governments when those governments acknowledge responsibility to ensure the detainees will not pose a threat to the United States.

Here are examples of some GITMO detainees that may or have qualified for release:

-- One admitted al Qaida explosives trainer.

-- One who completed advanced terrorist training in Afghanistan and participated in an attempted highjacking that resulted in the deaths of several Pakistani guards.

-- One self proclaimed terrorist financial expert who provided information on Usama bin Laden's front companies, accounts, and international money movements for financing terror.

-- One Taliban fighter who spent three months fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan and is linked to the East Africa embassy bombings.

-- One with links to a financier of the September 11th plots who attempted to enter the United States though Orlando Florida in August 2001. Phone record conversation between him and September 11th hijacker Mohammed Atta was at the Orlando airport that day.

-- Two directly associated with senior al Qaida members who were working on remotely detonated explosive devices for use against U.S. forces.

-- One al Qaida cell member supported terrorist in Afghanistan that targeted civilians, especially journalists and foreign aid workers; responsible for a grenade attack on a foreign journalist's automobile.

-- One admitted al Qaida member who was plotting to attack oil tankers in the Persian Gulf using explosives laden fishing boats.

-- One who fought with an al Qaida supported terror cell in Afghanistan, personally establishing reconnaissance and ambush positions around Kandahar Airbase.

-- One who served as a bodyguard for Usama Bin Laden and escorted him to Tora Bora, Afghanistan following the fall of Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

-- One admitted al Qaida member who served as an explosives trainer for al Qaida and designed a prototype shoe bomb for destroying airplanes and a magnetic mine for attacking ships.

-- One who trained al Qaida associates in the use of explosives and worked on plots to use cell phones to detonate bombs.

-- One who served as an al Qaida translator and managed operating funds for al Qaida. An individual who helped stockpile weapons for use against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:
I would've had 'em all executed...just because...

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:
I would've had 'em all executed...just because...

Because? Because of what? I have no problem with holding onto someone who may be innocent, but whom we think was fighting against us. Innocent until proven guilty is something for criminal trials.

I have a real problem with executing someone who may be innocent. That's because I actually do believe we are better than our enemies.

With all due respect, don't you think your quote above could have come from Al Qaeda?

Dave

"The World's Finest"

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by Toome:

If I'm not mistaken, the Catch-22 behind the POW argument is that we are obligated to repatriate them to their home nation under certain circumstances. For instance, taking WWII as an example, we would hold on to German POWs until the end of the war. However, if we had captured someone from France who had collaborated with the enemy, I think we would be obligated to release them to the French government unless they committed a crime against US law. I'm not a lawyer and can't really speak to this with any real degree of expertise; however, I do know that the Geneva Convention argument actually works against us if our intent is to hold onto these guys until we've extracted all the intelligence information we want.

Your summary is correct as far as it goes. But for example, if we caught a Frenchman fighting for the Nazi's (and there were a division organised by the Petain regime) we could keep them.

The real problem is that we've gotten into treaty breaking so deep, that it's almost impossible to straighten this out.

There is no organisation in the US demanding that POW's be released. They are demanding that "criminals" be "legally" charged and tried.

What is the problem with doing this? If it IS a problem, then stop calling them criminals and keep them locked up. We could always release them when they hit 70.

The whole mess is really a propaganda move gone bad. No one was serving a more criminal enterprise than the Germans in WW II, but we treated those caught with arms as POW's and legally tried those whom we thought were criminals. It was all open and shut.

Some of those in Guantanamo probably ARE criminals, but if we don't have enough evidence to try them - That's the American way. However, this Doesn't mean we have to release them, if we simply state that they are POW's and treat them as POW's. In other words, no need to shoot ourselves in the foot and step by step convince the world that our system of Law is just BS.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by outlaws93:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:
GEE, you don't say. I know, let's give the inmates U.S. lawyers and put them on probation in the U.S. until their hearings.

THEN MAYBE THEY CAN BLOW UP ONE OF THE DOPES WHO ADVOCATED FOR THEIR RELEASE!

A Kuwaiti who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo for more than 3 1/2 years carried out a recent suicide attack in Iraq, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi took part in one of three suicide bomb attacks last month in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, said U.S. Navy Cmdr. Scott Rye, a military spokesman.

It appears to be the first time someone who was held at the prison at the U.S. base in Cuba has carried out a suicide attack, said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon.

Al-Ajmi, 29, was transferred in 2005 to Kuwait, where the government was supposed to ensure he would not pose a threat. In May 2006, a Kuwaiti court acquitted him and four other former Guantanamo prisoners of terrorism charges.

Story

If a country took away 3.5 years of my life and even if I did not hate it before I would after. I would not do a suicide attack but I would take some high risks to get even.

Your mamma should be so proud, a terrorist in the making.

FYI: In the real world, we go to court if we have been wronged, we don't blow up innocent children or "get even."

This individual could have easily gotten one of the many liberal anti American organizations to sue the U.S. for wrongs if that was his real goal.

Instead, he killed innocent Iraqis and you somehow wish to justify those actions? HOW SAD!

In the REAL World anyone in this person's position has NO legal recourse.

Yes, but as you point out, that's the "real world." In the "other world," Guantanamo is Club Med. All those FBI reports about torture and mistreatment? "The FBI was jealous and wanted to get even."

Dave

actually most if not all of those reports are made up... they are treated very well... it is in alquedas handbook to make up false clams of abuse....