Gitmo abuse

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

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5

RUE

Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:27 AM

It must be such a drag.

According to today's New York Times the CIA is upset about getting stuck with a bunch of beaten-down detainees. "The CIA's current leadership is concerned," the Times says, "that the legal authority for interrogations and detentions is eroding, and that there is no clear plan for how the agency can extricate itself from what could be a lengthy task of holding and caring for a small population of aging terrorists whose intelligence value is steadily evaporating and who are unlikely ever to be released or brought to
trial."

Don't you just hate it when that happens? You pick up a suspect, you rough him up so much in interrogations that you couldn't ever really bring him to trial, and then you're just stuck with him. And then the Justice Department repudiates its memo authorizing the beating of detainees (conveniently, just in time for Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings), so you're left not only with the detainee but maybe with legal liability for messing with him in the first place.

What's a government agency to do?

If you're the CIA, what you do is try to palm the problem off on someone else. The Times says that CIA officials are thinking about dumping the detainees on the FBI, but the FBI doesn't know about any such plan and would fight it if it did. Another possibility: Hand over the detainees to some other country. But with growing concerns about the torture meted out in rendition cases, that option might not be a political possibility -- that is if anyone ever found out about it.

It's a bad situation all around, and there may be no good answer for the CIA.

"No one has a plan for what to do with these guys," a former intelligence official told the Times, "and the CIA has been left holding the bag."

Life can be so unfair.
-- Tim Grieve

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It must be such a drag.

According to today's New York Times the CIA is upset about getting stuck with a bunch of beaten-down detainees. "The CIA's current leadership is concerned," the Times says, "that the legal authority for interrogations and detentions is eroding, and that there is no clear plan for how the agency can extricate itself from what could be a lengthy task of holding and caring for a small population of aging terrorists whose intelligence value is steadily evaporating and who are unlikely ever to be released or brought to
trial."

Don't you just hate it when that happens? You pick up a suspect, you rough him up so much in interrogations that you couldn't ever really bring him to trial, and then you're just stuck with him. And then the Justice Department repudiates its memo authorizing the beating of detainees (conveniently, just in time for Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings), so you're left not only with the detainee but maybe with legal liability for messing with him in the first place.

What's a government agency to do?

If you're the CIA, what you do is try to palm the problem off on someone else. The Times says that CIA officials are thinking about dumping the detainees on the FBI, but the FBI doesn't know about any such plan and would fight it if it did. Another possibility: Hand over the detainees to some other country. But with growing concerns about the torture meted out in rendition cases, that option might not be a political possibility -- that is if anyone ever found out about it.

It's a bad situation all around, and there may be no good answer for the CIA.

"No one has a plan for what to do with these guys," a former intelligence official told the Times, "and the CIA has been left holding the bag."

Life can be so unfair.
-- Tim Grieve

LOL this is why I have such a hard time taking you seriously. The NYT as a reliable alternate resource!?!?! Thats like saying that the "Star" magazine is top notch journalism.

Thanks for making my point. Search for truth, not what you want to be the truth. I made that mistake.

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
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.

See:
www.drudgereport.com
Though Drudge may be partisan, he sure keeps a decent list of News Links

Though the headlines have a definite political slant, you can avoid that and use the site for all the links. Of which every one that you have listed is there. You don't have the corner on super secret supposed "Alternate resources"

I have numerous sites bookmarked as well. You still haven't listed your source. The ones you have claimed as "Alternate Resources" still all carry the same type of material slanted to fit their own agendas. It doesn't make them anymore or less accurate and I sure as hell wouldn't place all my faith in them either.

I ask again:

What was your source?! For the "NEARLY ALL" statement followed by the bullshit reiteration.

Or are you going to try and change the subject again? LOL

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
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.

Rue, your defense (ny times) says only SOME of the detainees were sold by warlords, and they were
considering releasing them back in dec 2003.

How the heck can you misread that as NEARLY ALL detainees currently in Gitmo as being sold?

Speaking of detainees, how about this account from
your favorite non-partisan news rag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/international/middleeast/19torture.h
tml?ex=1276833600&en=8711248f5a2b9fe6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Also, no one needs to try to give you a bad name.
You do that quite well all on your own.

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

BarnStormer

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:17 PM

Barnstormer, watch that the sarcasm doesn't overwhelm your point.

Looky here: "most, many, nearly all, etc" is IMPOSSIBLE to prove without going down to Gitmo ourselves and counting heads. There's no proof gonna show up on this BB. When we act as if the other party is gonna prove something here, we just look like fools.

The point here, seems to me, is that Rue and others have presented evidence that the general assuption that the detainees are "all" sub-human sociopaths who deserve whatever they get is a load of grade "A" crap. It'd be convenient, tidy, a comfort to our vengeful souls, but it just ain't true.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Barnstormer, watch that the sarcasm doesn't overwhelm your point.

Looky here: "most, many, nearly all, etc" is IMPOSSIBLE to prove without going down to Gitmo ourselves and counting heads. There's no proof gonna show up on this BB. When we act as if the other party is gonna prove something here, we just look like fools.

The point here, seems to me, is that Rue and others have presented evidence that the general assuption that the detainees are "all" sub-human sociopaths who deserve whatever they get is a load of grade "A" crap. It'd be convenient, tidy, a comfort to our vengeful souls, but it just ain't true.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HK

My sarcasm knob was turned down to 2 on the dial. Unlike Rue, who is normally dialed up to 11 (Spinal Tap humor, sorry). Rue likes to spew these nonsensical "Facts" everywhere she posts.

And if anyone on this board could be considered to be Rude, Sarcastic, or any other thing considered to be Trollish, Rue is the one.

If you wish to admonish anyone, reply to Rue and friends.

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

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:39 PM

Quote:
My sarcasm knob was turned down to 2 on the dial. Unlike Rue, who is normally dialed up to 11 (Spinal Tap humor, sorry). Rue likes to spew these nonsensical "Facts" everywhere she posts.

Whoa there, Barnstormer! If you don't like the information Rue brings to the board, that's one thing. But to claim that Rue is "sarcastic" BECAUSE of that information is really shooting yourself in the foot.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:52 PM

Just a comment.

I haven't been following the Gitmo story very closely, but I don't need to in order to see major flaws in some arguments in this thread.

As has already been stated, some people are assuming that the detainess are "guilty" or "terrorists" just because they are in Gitmo. Clearly, there were a number of ways that innocent people could have been rounded up by accident or turned in maliciously. War is a confusing thing, and war in a nation where vengeance is a cultural norm and settling scores is a common practice can lead to all sort of miscarriages of justice.

The other is the whole notion that you can gain valuable information out of people by torturing them. Torture someone enough, and you'll get all kinds of information...

And the third fallacy is that killing them all is any sort of solution. Do you have any IDEA what kind of harm that would cause our troops????

Right now, the only way out of Gitmo is for a nation (Britain, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) to DEMAND that it's citizen(s) be freed. Then- they are released. But it really makes you wonder why they were held in the first place if they could be released so easily.

RUE

Friday, June 24, 2005 6:00 AM

:

I listed but did not link my sources, but you will have an extremely hard (if not impossible) time digging up their info. You really have to be on those sites day after day to pick up some of these articles b/c you cannot retrieve them the next day. (PS I tried the Drudge search, but it does not limit itself to the desired wire/news service.)

My 'defense' was NOT the linked NYTimes summary. That was just something I came across that was interesting because it was so old and because US officials actually said that, indeed, innocent people really were sold to the US for the US- proffered bounty. Now, of course the official line is - bounty? what bounty? never was one. never will be. nope. people are making this up !!

Oh, and the other thing I posted - It Must Be Such A Drag - it was a joke, NOT, repeat, [io]NOT a news item. Sheesh.

Let's see, what else ....

Quote:
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.

Let me turn this around. Figuring at one point GITMO had about 900 prisoners, and that a small fraction would be 10%, that would be roughly 90 prisoners. Show me 90 prisoners who were caught on the battlefield, by US troops, in the act of being 'illegal combatants'. Or 45 (5%). Or even just 18 (2%). A mere 2%. Try it.

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

Now that was interesting to me. I had completely blown past the AP article, figuring that that news service is only good as a megaphone for official press releases and other forms of propaganda. I didn't think they actually did investigative 'real' journalism. But since you pointed it out, I'd like to say I think it's a significant article, as it contains US gummint information from FOIA filing and at least some independent verification of specific elements. According to the article, people sold to the US included appx 100 "Arabs, and Chinese Muslims famished from fleeing US bombing in the Afghan mountains", "an Afghan refugee in Pakistan" scooped up by the ISI, "an Arab in a foreign country", "a Saudi businessman (who) claimed, 'The Pakistani police sold me for money to the Americans'", and "Kuwaitis being sold to the Americans in Afghanistan", first being sold to Dostum who then sold them to Pakistanis, who then sold them to Americans.

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

Not to pick, it was the Pakistanis and Dostum and probably others in the area who sold 'Arabs' - and Kuwaitis, ethnic Chinese, Saudis and even refugee Afghanis - not the other way around.

While poking around on my own I came across one of the people quoted in the article through several references "Najeeb al-Nauimi, a former Qatar justice minister and leader of a group of Arab lawyers representing nearly 100 detainees". Najeeb al-Nauimi (also Najeeb al-Nuaimi) represents 92 (or 93 or 'nearly 100') detainees also described specifically as Kuwaitis. That's a lot of Kuwaitis as 'enemy combatants'. One would think there'd be a preponderance of Afghanis (the former Taliban) and Saudis (through the al Qaeda connection), but not 'nearly 100' Kuwaitis. And isn't the US supposed to be Kuwait's idol? So what would they be doing in numbers all out of proprotion to their population as 'terrorists' in Afghanistan? Isn't it strange.

Quote:
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.

Not really. This is an old, old issue, staring from back when, when the US came up with this scheme. There was consternation at the time, many objected saying it was inviting people to settle scores, consol

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5