Gitmo abuse

POSTED BY: BarnStormer
UPDATED: Friday, June 24, 2005 06:00
VIEWED: 8401
PAGE 4 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:

However, I'm sure being left to rot in Gitmo has made them see the light. I'm sure they're now going to go home and spread LOVE about America...

FFS,

Sadly, this is exactly why I suggest they should never be taken into a long term prison system in the first place. They are a permanent liability and not a fixable problem.

I suggest they should be dealt with tactically on site. That means deal with them by a quick tribunal immediately after whatever intelligence can be gained is extracted. These are permanent enemies of the US and the rest of civilized world. They have crossed the line from civilized and into barbarism. I liken them to a rabid dog or bear that has started eating people. Once it begins there is no point in retaining them as there is no hope of recovery.

It is abhorent to me to have to come to such a conclusion but given the alternatives I can see no other choice. The transnational terrorist groups are just too dangerous to allow to continue unabated.

I suggest rather than just criticize GITMO people should consider the alternatives and think of what are the unintended consequences would be if the facility were lost. Most likely it would have to be replaced with something even worse.

When GITMO was created it was described to the effect of being the least worst of the bad options. Hopefully, that is where it will stop.

Thanks!

Andrew Lynch

So, ignoring the careful, doleful rhetoric about how it pains you to have reached your current opinion, what you are advocating is "extracting" intelligence from these people and then executing them.

Lovely the way you assume so much about the detainees. Assume them all guilty, assume them to be rabidly devoted to terrorism, assume each one to be deserving of no better justice than a quick "tribunal" at the hands of their captors.

Also, how glowingly patriotic, the way you assign non-Americans to some some sort of subhuman status more akin to animals.

You really come off as the sort of scary, ignorant, bigoted ba*stard that gives America a bad name on this planet and makes it so easy for our enemies to recruit more souls against us.

God help the United States if your opinion reflects more than the tiniest fragment of
the people in this country.

Thanks!

Susan

RUE

Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:26 AM

Quote:
These are permanent enemies of the US and the rest of civilized world.

To reiterate, nearly all of the people at GITMO are non-combattants who were sold by warlords to the US for a bounty.

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
These are permanent enemies of the US and the rest of civilized world.
To reiterate, nearly all of the people at GITMO are non-combattants who were sold by warlords to the US for a bounty.

Says who? Where's your proof? And please don't
tell me your proof consists of statements made
by the prisoners (It's a rare prisoner who says
"I'm Guilty").

Show me a list of the prisoners at Gitmo with a
description of how each was captured and under
what circumstances. Something official that's
not just your BS opinions.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

BARNSTORMER

Monday, June 20, 2005 1:28 PM

rue

how about that list, huh?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

CONNORFLYNN

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
These are permanent enemies of the US and the rest of civilized world.
To reiterate, nearly all of the people at GITMO are non-combattants who were sold by warlords to the US for a bounty.

There is no proof other then an article claiming that "some", not "nearly all", were sold for bounty.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8049868/

Also, those that were "supposedly" sold were not necessarily "fleeing" the fighting if you believe their stories. They were kidnapped in different parts of Europe and Pakistan and Kuwait etc..etc..

spin..spin..spin..spin..propaganda wheel spin..spin..spin..

I'm not saying it didn't happen at all, but what the hell does that say about the arabs who sold them?

I still say leave them to their biblical age lifestyles.

RUE

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:50 AM

Got my news from several sources, but not MSN.

I've given up posting news links as most commercial news items are archived after 1 to 2 weeks and require $$ to access after that. And it seems like they also disappear from Google. That may be why you only came up with 1 story.

(And, anyone who can confirm, refute or explain this observation, please reply. I think it is something to do with a recent proposed lawsuit against Google for making copyrighted and commercial material available through the cache, as this fast drying-up of news items seems to be fairly recent.)

As the stories went, they were fleeing the fighting, were welcomed into tribal villages, given water, food and shelter, then forcibly detained until they were handed over to the US for the promised bounty. It was 'nearly all' of ppl who ended up in GITMO (and only a handful were definitively combatants). I stand by my recounting of international news stories of 3-4 weeks ago. I suspect the reason why your version differs is that US news differs significantly from international sources.

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Got my news from several sources, but not MSN.

I've given up posting news links as most commercial news items are archived after 1 to 2 weeks and require $$ to access after that. And it seems like they also disappear from Google. That may be why you only came up with 1 story.

Ugh..I posted 1 link, that didn't mean there weren't more. The fact is that this article was put out by the Associated Press (not created by MSN), meaning that every news agency pretty much ran the same story or a version of that story.

edited to add a few links after a 30 second search:

There are literally hundreds of posts,topics, articles, editorials blahblahblah about this. "Nearly All" of them are direct duplications or use the original article by Michelle Faul as a source.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/06/01/detainees_say_the
y_were_sold_for_bounty/

http://justworldnews.org/archives/001278.html

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010937.html

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050531135109990006&_c
cc=1&cid=842

http://www.thediplomatictimes.info/archives/2005/05/did_cia_buy_som.ht
ml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413841/posts

http://martinirepublic.com/item/1715

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060105Z.shtml

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8995.htm

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1383969,00050001.htm

http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=2831

http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/avantgo/entry.php?blog_id=1&entry
_id=10611

You can find stuff on Google for years. It doesn't vanish, you just have to know how to find it or try typing in a few "key" words.

What is YOUR original source Rue? I'd be guessing that they derived their contention from the same source as all the others have, because everyone and their grandmother ran this exact same article. I'd also guess that based on what you read, you automagically believed that that meant "Definitively" that ALL Gitmo detainees (PoW's) were innocent farmers who were sold by their local governments.

The problem I have is that there are SOOOO many people who make definitive statements without any facts to support them.
The words "ONLY", "Nearly ALL", "All" and "Every" are used in such abundance that it's very difficult to take someones argument with a grain of salt.

If you want someone to see your side and listen to your point of view, then you have to make statements that have some subtlety and are more fact based then a 5 paragraph article put out by the Associated Press with no specific names named and no real facts just assertions by so called "Experts", instead of off the wall definitive rhetorical reiterations.

/rant on
I've been visiting these boards for what seem like ages. I find myself getting so incensed by the absurdity of 90% of the posts that I miss out on all the "LEGITIMATE" points. We spend more time calling each other idiots and dumbasses and party hacks and trolls and Pinkos and Racist pigs, that we never seem to get to the heart of the matter.

I'd just like to enjoy some good ole fashioned political discussion (not debate). I.e. Points with counter points that have basis in fact rather then what the media or the party propaganda has spewed out on the internet.
/rant off

Now to the meat of it. Pure and simple, the Gitmo detainees NEED to have trials. They need to have the opportunity to defend themselves in open court. Enough with all the intrigue already.

/looks for his marijuana he hid in the 80's

RUE

Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:48 AM

I've been aware of the multiple printings of AP and other stories in various publications for years. That's why I look to alternate sources for news.

Places where I found stories about ppl being sold for a bounty: International Herald Tribune (but you have to be selective, they carry many NYTimes, AP, Boston Globe etc stories. You need to look for the rare ones written by IHT staff), Agence France Presse (AFP), UPI, and Inter-Press Services.

To access either AFP and UPI stories directly you either have to be a news carrier and pay a fee, or you can cruise through every day and get the selected stories they provide for free, but available only on that day. I don't know of any on-line news publication that has links to UPI, Yahoo has an AFP selection, but it only goes back 24 hours. There is no search function for AFP. Links seem to time-out quickly, I've saved them for my own use and lost them within a couple of weeks.

IHT has a robust search function, but you must be accurate in your selection or you will miss the item completely or have it buried in thousands of irrelevant hits. The IPS search function seems quirky. And on both of these I have also saved links and have them either time-out (page not found) or become a for-pay item. I've had to go to secondary and tertiary sources many times to get quotes as original sources became unavailable.

Also BBC (on TV, not available through the internet).

Looking around, I noticed this is not a new issue, and has in fact been confirmed as fact by US offcials in the past (2003):

Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00816FD3B5E0C728CDDAB0
994DB404482
FOREIGN DESK | December 1, 2003, Monday
U.S. in Talks To Return Scores Held At Cuba Site
By NEIL A. LEWIS (NYT)
ABSTRACT - Senior Defense Dept officials say military may soon release to their home countries scores of detainees who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; say talks are under way over terms of transferring custody from US military to their home governments and eventual repatriation; issues include whether detainess will be freed once they return home or just reimprisoned locally; American officials are quoted as saying some of detainees being considered for release had been captured by Afghan warlords and sold for bounty offered by Washington for Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters; detention of people captured in Afghanistan has been major irritant in relations between US and several of its allies.

But you have to pay to read the whole thing.

I stand by my original comments.

As for my 'reputation', I nearly always provide links (except recently for news items). Failing that I nearly always provide a lengthy quote that should generate at least one source if used in a Google search. I don't make unsupported claims like some (where are those WMDS?).

Don't like the posting? Tough. Trying to give me a bad name? Good luck.

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

Show me a list of the prisoners at Gitmo with a
description of how each was captured and under
what circumstances. Something official that's
not just your BS opinions.

Well, you'd have to go to your government for such a list... Mind you I could bring up one example.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/2005021
0/KHADR10/TPNational/Canada

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-02-09-canada-gitmo-abuse_x.htm

We see in these articles Omar Khadr is accused of tossing a grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces medic while fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan, planting mines to target U.S. convoys and gathering surveillance.

How does this make him an illegal combatant ?

Article Four, Section Six of the Geneva convention states:

" 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

Only one curious example

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

RUE

Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:16 AM

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/Guantanamo_composit
e_statement_FINAL.pdf

10. Other detainees (including detainees sold to the Americans)
307. Asif describes a disturbing number of detainees who have clearly been sold. All three are convinced that there must be a paper trail which will show huge sums of money paid out by the USA for many of those now in Guantanamo. These are some examples (some of the names are familial names, as is customary).
a) ‘Two brothers from Pakistan, one is a scholar the other a reporter, reason they are there because they were having a feud with another family, the other family told some people they are al Qaeda now they are in Cuba. Both were sure that the Americans were paying money for captives.
b) Numerous other people in Cuba who are from Afghanistan and Pakistan were sure they had been sold by corrupt individuals. A lot of people who were having land disputes were sold by the disputers to the Americans.
These people were brought to Cuba. The Americans know they are innocent but still they are not letting them go.
c) Abu Ahmed Makki, a Saudi Arabian citizen married to a Pakistani wife lived in Pakistan with his wife and was arrested in Pakistan by the Pakistan authorities. Most of his possessions were taken including his motorbike and cash. Upon his release in Pakistan by the authorities he asked for his valuables back but he was rearrested and handed over to the Americans who took him to Cuba and he has been there for over two years. He was told he should not be there but they wanted him to spy in the camp for them. He was told once he had cooperated and helped the Americans they would release him.
d) Abu Ahmad Sudani, a teacher in Pakistan who has a wife and a child in Pakistan believes he also was sold to the American forces. He was told that he would be released over a year ago but he is still in Cuba. He doesn’t know when they will release him to. He wants to go to Pakistan because his wife and child are in Pakistan. His wife and child are Pakistani nationality and he is a Sudani.’
e) One Afghani man, a farmer about 55 years old, is a farmer from Bamyam.
He was next to Shafiq. He speaks Farsi and although in Cuba for over a year was only interrogated on two occasions; on one occasion there was no Farsi translator and he was brought back to his cage. He does not know what he has done to be in Cuba. He doesn’t even know where Cuba is! He is depressed, scared and badly affected.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE