I Can't Gitmo Satisfaction

[traderx]

Can you ONLY imagine the uproar in this country IF american citizens were detained by another country because their government considered them enemy combatants (in any area of the world where we have a military presence) and then imagine the outrage if these American citizens were denied the BASIC human right (that the US has helped establish) that EVERYONE is entitled to know what the charges against them are, that they have a right to mount a defense, to legal counsel, etc...

We used to have a high standard and it is in our collective interest to fight that all entities (including the US military and specifically in times in war) upholds our rights if we wish to continue having confidence in our civil liberties.

This brings to mnd a number of Americans and others who had their heads chopped off. Detained or head cut off? Touch choice.

 

[scooterbug44]

The whole idea is that WE are supposed to be better than that.

Holding people prisoner for years when the only evidence against the majority of them is that someone who needed money turned them in for profit. Not quite the shining ideal of democracy, eh?

 

[traderx]

The whole idea is that WE are supposed to be better than that.

Holding people prisoner for years when the only evidence against the majority of them is that someone who needed money turned them in for profit. Not quite the shining ideal of democracy, eh?

I understand and agree. I responded to the can-you-imagine-the-uproar-if-Americans-were-detained. I immediately thought of headless American corpses. I am at ease when deploring such beheadings of Americans.

I still would like to see an objective list of the folks detained in Gitmo and under what conditions they were picked up. If they are POW's, then their release would coincide with the end of the war(s). If they are innocents, they should be released obviously. There is just too much hype all the way around and non-partisan infortmation sources are as rare as a moist turkey on TG day.

 

[30ashopper]

Can you ONLY imagine the uproar in this country IF american citizens were detained by another country because their government considered them enemy combatants (in any area of the world where we have a military presence) and then imagine the outrage if these American citizens were denied the BASIC human right (that the US has helped establish) that EVERYONE is entitled to know what the charges against them are, that they have a right to mount a defense, to legal counsel, etc...

We used to have a high standards and it is in our collective interest to fight that all entities (including the US military and specifically in times in war) upholds our rights if we wish to continue having confidence in our civil liberties.

"We used to have" - maybe you could cite some examples of how we used to have more careful rules of engagement and rules of incarceration? AFAICT next to Europe we probably have the highest standards in the world when it comes to fighting "civilized war", too high in my opinion.

 

[poppy]

We have already turned out dozens of the original number. Common sense would tell you that those who remain are those who are a threat. And in many cases their own native country refuses to take them back. So what do we do then? Put um on a boat and say "go east." We darn well better not bring them inside this country. We already have enough Cubans, Mexicans and such in custody that we cannot do anything with.

REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government?s own documents.1 This Report provides a window into the Government?s success detaining only those that the President has called ?the worst of the worst.?

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed ?fighters for;? 30% considered ?members of;? a large majority ? 60% -- are detained merely because they are ?associated with? a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants ? mostly Uighers ? are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf

Common sense should tell us that sadly we can't believe our own leaders.

 

[traderx]

Common sense should tell us that sadly we can't believe our own leaders.

Does that include Obama?

Go to the link posted by Mango and you will see that the analysis was conducted by attorneys who represent Gitmo detainees. Hardly an objective source by which to judge the statistical breakdown of Gitmo detainees.

Will all libs join me in condemning the beheading of Americans and other nationals?

 

[poppy]

Does that include Obama?

Go to the link posted by Mango and you will see that the analysis was conducted by attorneys who represent Gitmo detainees. Hardly an objective source by which to judge the statistical breakdown of Gitmo detainees.

Will all libs join me in condemning the beheading of Americans and other nationals?

We don't know yet, hopefully not, only time will tell.


I won't answer such a stupid question.

 

[Mango]

Does that include Obama?

Go to the link posted by Mango and you will see that the analysis was conducted by attorneys who represent Gitmo detainees. Hardly an objective source by which to judge the statistical breakdown of Gitmo detainees.

Will all libs join me in condemning the beheading of Americans and other nationals?

Actually, the report is drawn from the government's own records.

"The data in this Report are based on written determinations the Government has produced for detainees it has designated as enemy combatants.4 These written determinations were prepared following military hearings commenced in 2004, called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, designed to ascertain whether a detainee should continue to be classified as an “enemy combatant.”
The data are obviously limited.5 The data are framed in the Government’s terms and therefore are no more precise than the Government’s categories permit. Finally, the charges are anonymous in the sense that the summaries upon which this interim report relies are not identified by name or ISN for
any of the prisoners. It is therefore not possible at this time to determine which summary applies to which prisoner."

Now for the definition of enemy combatant:

For the purposes of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, an “enemy combatant” has been defined as:
[A]n individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy forces.10
This could be interpreted alternatively as requiring either a combatant be both a member of prohibited group and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or coalition forces or only that a combatant be anyone either a member of prohibited group or engaged in hostilities to U.S. or coalition forces. Indeed, under this definition, one could be detained for an undefined level of “support of” groups considered hostile to the United States or its coalition partners."

It gets into even more detail regarding types of enemy combatants there are, associated with, member, etc.-- so, then if they do not have enemy combatant status, then they haven't proved any association with Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Here's the problem, the way I see it. What is going to happen to the detainees that are not classified as enemy combatants? Firstly, is the government willing to say they held these people without evidence? and then if you release the ones not deemed EC, what becomes of them after they've felt that they have been wrongly detained? If they weren't a terrorist before, they sure as heck might be if they are released.

 

[traderx]

We don't know yet, hopefully not, only time will tell.


I won't answer such a stupid question.

That comment is low even for you Poppy.

It is a fair question. I was not a member of this group when Americans were beheaded. Did folks come online and condemn the acts or were there overtures about how we need to understand their culture?

 

[traderx]

Actually, the report is drawn from the government's own records.

I understand but the art is in interpretation and analysis. The authors had an axe to grind on behalf of their clients. How in the world could they be objective?