WikiLeaks has released over 100 military dossiers detailing prisoners at the US prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, promising to release more than 600 additional classified documents over the next month. More than 750 files have already been shared with The New York Times, The Guardian, National Public Radio (NPR), and The …
Tough luck on funny foreigners
"Both Administrations have made the protection of American citizens the top priority"
And the human rights of non-citizens a zero priority?
RE: Tough luck on funny foreigners
"......And the human rights of non-citizens a zero priority?" Your prejudice against the Septics obviously meant you missed the fact that AQ and the Taleban kill far more Afghans, Pakistanis, Saudis, Iraqis and other brown "foreigners" (Muslim, Christian or otherwise), than they do Americans. The Gitmo captives released that have gone back to fighting in Afghanistan have been leading the campaigns of intimidation and murder against other Afghans and Pakistanis. In fact, you could say that in keeping them locked up, the US is actually saving foreign lives.
On whether the guys locked up in "the bay" were the guilty ones. From what I understand, that may be far from a certainty.
If i was an innocent villager imprisoned for years in a strange country being subjected to what almost everyone except the US describes as torture, i'm pretty certain i wouldnt go back to being a farmer if i was released either.
re: Matt Bryant
I am more surprised that any of the people who have been kidnapped and tortured after being released decided they *didn't* decide to sign up with the "enemy".
I am going to come and kidnap you and your family and lock you up and torture you and justify it by saying that you are a bad man, if when you finally escape you decide to come after me to get revenge for what I did to you then this will be considered proof that I was right all along and you definitely are a bad man and should never have been released and I should still be torturing you "for the good of mankind" or something.
"you could say...
...that in keeping them locked up, the US is actually saving foreign lives."
You could also try saying "Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty".
"You could also try saying "Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty"."
How about the victims of 9-11?
RE: "you could say..
The majority of Gitmo detainees were either captured in combat with AQ forces in Afghanistan or in anti-terrorist operations, not just grabbed for a whim. Even The Guardian, which loves to pretend that there are oodles of "innocents" in Gitmo, is struggling to make a case for even five of them being so.
RE: re: Matt Bryant
".....any of the people who have been kidnapped and tortured after being released decided they *didn't* decide to sign up with the "enemy"....." Yes, because in your fairytale version of reality, there was no 9/11, and no Taleban, and no AQ, and no-one even thought nasty thoughts about us Westerners before the invasion of Afghanistan, right? Please, go get a clue.
Sick of 9-11 stats used to justify the warmongers of the US and Britain to fight an unjust war!
Yes, 9-11 was horrendous. I am not blind to the horror that befell innocent people just going about their daily business, but let me just put those 6,000 deaths on one day into perspective.
30,000 people are shot by handguns in the US every year, of which 50% are suicides.
Did you know that 22,000 children under 16 die every day in the world from a multitude of reasons? That's 8.1 million a year!
2006 in the US alone 6,000 children under 13 died from HIV/AIDs related conditions.
Just recently the latest figure that roughly 20,000 have died so far from the terrible natural disaster that occurred in Japan.
So while I appreciate that 6,000 deaths on one day occurred at the hands of some fanatical nutters who managed to steal some planes, in the grand scheme of things the world turns and people continue to die. Thousands of innocent children continue to die from malnutrition and disease in the sub-Saharan Africa for the want of the basic human right to clean water and food. Kids dying from simple to cure diseases like diarrhea and measles, if you do make it out of childhood, like expectancy in Africa is around 49 years old.
How about the victims of 9-11?
Locking up people who had nothing to do with 9-11 does less than nothing to help those people. It just makes it more probable that their will be another attack.
What about them ?
Oh, of course, they were unjustly killed in a terrible, man-made catastrophe. Either you believe that it is the US Government (named "previous Administration" in this document) that did it, following a certain amount of conspiracy theories, or you believe that Bin Laden is the culprit, following the official stance of the same US Government.
Either way, I fail to see how that justifies torture.
Unless, of course, you admit that you actually accept to debase yourself to the same level as they did, which you implicitly do in your remark, in which case you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Re: Matt Bryant
Yeah, I'm positively certain that the 89-years old suffering from senile dementia would have gone on to kill dozens if released.
Not only but also
it's a monumental insult to the memories of the victims of the 9-11 attacks, too.
'Way to go' as they say over there...
"How about the victims of 9-11?"
How about the families of some of the victims of the September 11th attacks who were objecting to the invasion of Iraq with "Not in My Name" and, more importantly not in the name of their dead loved one...?
Which part of "Until Proven Guilty" don't you understand?
If you can *prove* them guilty then *do* so. Put them in front of a Court of Law (not some Military Kangaroo Court), present the evidence allow them a *proper* Defence and then if they're found guilty, lock them up.
But holding people without trial and torturing them for information which they may not even have is certainly not the mark of a civilised nation which considers itself to be "better" than the terrorists.
"The Gitmo captives released that have gone back to fighting in Afghanistan have been leading the campaigns of intimidation and murder against other Afghans and Pakistanis. "
Is that true? do you have any examples of it?
RE: @Matt Bryant
"Which part of "Until Proven Guilty" don't you understand?...." Oh, if only it was that simple. This is not civil arrests for breaking the peace or being drunk in public, these are potentially killers that would attack the West if given the chance and have attacked their own people. The ones that were handed over by the Northern Alliance after being captured in combat, how do you expect to try them? How do you expect to track down the NA soldiers that captured them and interview them when it is highly likely the NA didn't keep a record of exactly who did what, only that thet picked up such and such a guy in a firefight with AQ or the Taleban. Want to ask the ISI, which hates having to hand over their own Taleban pets to the CIA, for evidence to back up allegations against people like Sheikh Muhammed? Your naivete is touchingly stupid.
In war you do not need to apply rediculous ideas like "ooh, he might be innocent" as the costs are much higher if you get it wrong. Look at the tens-of-thousands of Europeans interned in the US and Britain during WW2, without any trials or right to appeal, simply because they might be sympathetic to the Nazis and commit acts of treason. Compared to that we have a few hundred - a pittance. This is not some petty squabble between neighbours that needs to be arbitrated by oridinary Police, this is war against an enemy that does not follow even the most basic of criminal or military laws and deliberately targets civillians here and abroad to make their point.
I've already provided The Guardian link for their article discussing the 150-odd ex-Gitmo detainees that have gone back to fighting for AQ or the Taleban! I'm assuming your overwhelming desire to flaunt your moral superiority meant you didn't bother to read any of the posts, you just went straight to bleatomatic setting ten! Here it is again, please try READING before bleating: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-released-taliban-alqaida.
The Guardian is going to present any such supporting evidence for keeping Gitmo in the worst light possible, so for them to admit to 150 means the reality is probably even worse.
Here we go again....
This ought to be good for another 20-30 feature stories on Wikileaks.....
The cynic in me tends to agree, but..
"President Barack Obama ordered the prison closed more than two years ago."
Doesn't this justify some kind of scrutiny? As far as I'm concerned Obama is just another lying scumbag president, or he isn't in charge - which is it do you think?
Greetings Sir Runcible Spoon,
Mr. Obama promised to close the Dachau type concentration camp within a year, when he took over the job.
He just hasn't managed to deliver on his promise- as is ofter the case with politicians
The Guardian a bit hypocritical?
They have an article up on their webiste admitting that "150" of those released from Gitmo have gone back to fighting for AQ and the Taleban, including the new Taleban 2IC, Abdullah Zakir (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-released-taliban-alqaida). Even the Saudis admit their "re-education" program for Saudis returning from Gitmo has an estimated 25% failure rate. As in 25% of the "re-educated", despite being under the eye of the Saudi secret services, still go back to fighting for AQ in Saudi Arabia itself - they have been criticised by the US for not being able to say how many of the released Saudis have already gone back to fighting in the Afghan or Iraq.
The Uyghars are a particularly sad case. They cannot be returned to China as it is more than likely that their treatment in China will make anything that happened in Gitmo look like a holiday. The Guardian again carries many articles on this such as a recent death in custody (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/14/china-police-chief-dies-custody). But at the same time, many countries won't accept the Uyghars as there are Uyghar Muslims fighting a violent terrorist/liberation campaign in China, known to have links with AQ. Who's going to risk taking in such a "refugee"?
So, on the one hand we have the Guardian saying "Gitmo bad", but then on the other they are admitting that it is highly likely that many of those currently still incarcerated there (judged to be the worst cases, so the "returnee" rate is likely to be even worse) are likely to go back to killing. The Obumbler is damned if he keeps them locked up in Gitmo, and likely to be damned if they are released and promptly go back to killing. Still, if it helps The Guardian shift a few papers, what do they care.
RE: The Guardian a bit hypocritical?
You're assuming that they're all guilty in the first place, and thus can "go back" to killing. I suspect that many people, guilty or innocent, would fight against the U.S after a stay in gitmo. Their reaction to illegal detention and torture says nothing about their original innocence or guilt.
Have you ever considered....?
That if you were someone who was incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, water-boarded, deprived of sleep, repeatedly interrogated to reveal information that you never knew etc etc, you might feel that, on release, joining Al Qaeda would be a bloody good idea!
@ Graham Marsden...
Using your logic than anyone in the US that was wrongly convicted and then had their conviction overturned went back to a life of crime.
The sad thing is that News Papers like the Guardian are going to look to the extreme cases and portray them as the norm.
How many detainees were there / are there in Gitmo?
How many would fit the description as 'wrongly detained'?
I don't know the answer. Do you?
At the same time... back in Afghanistan... Al Queda dug a tunnel in to the prison and helped over 100 of their comrades escape. I guess that you're ok with that too because who knows... some of those in the Afghan prison were 'wrongly detained' too.
Re: Have you ever considered
Especially if you somehow acquired a "depressive or psychotic illness."
RE: Have you ever considered....?
I would have thought that having seen the might of the Allied forces smash AQ in Afghansitan and send the Taleban back to the hills (and their Pakistani hidey-holes), and then seen how determined the US was not to see them return, that anyone with an ounce of commonsense would realise they were better off not fighting. And then, having been locked up in Gitmo for years, if it really was as nasty as you bleeding hearts make out then surely the released would be doing all they could to avoid returning? Check the results on what happens to jihadis that do return and go back to violence, the majority are killed within a few years. Oh, hold on a sec, I see the problem - you don't have any common sense.
RE: Re: Have you ever considered
Many prisoners of war become depressed when captured. It's not surprising the jihadis get depressed as it must be a major wake-up call for them - they have been told their faith will protect them, that their "cause is righteous" and that they would win as long as they prayed five times a day and killed whomever they were told were "bad Muslims" and Westerners. Then they get a military kicking, get captured and locked up by the supposedly "decadent and inecffectual" Westerners. Realities often a female dog when your life is built around a skyfairy faith.
"How many detainees were there / are there in Gitmo?
How many would fit the description as 'wrongly detained'?"
Go and read the articles and you can find out.. unlike the pillocks who support Guantanimo this has hard statistics to back it up.
We won in Afghanistan then? Totally defeated the bad people and brought peace and love and prosperity throughout the land? I must have missed that one - seems rather strange that all the news channels (even Fox - well, especially Fox) have "forgot" to mention it.
RE: @Matt Bryant
"We won in Afghanistan then?...." Let's see - the Taleban are out of power and hiding in the hills; the AQ training camps have been dismantled and many of their fighters and leaders have been captured or killed, significantly reducing their ability to carry out further attacks on the West; the Afghans have held proper and democratic elections and are trying to build up the structures for a proper and peaceful country; and the Taleban and AQ are just playing spoilers as they have very little chance of getting back into power. Not complete victory, but pretty close. Should ceasefire talks with the Taleban bear fruit then the US and allies can claim a pretty total victory. Why am I guessing that what you actually wanted was the US and allies to fail and for the poor Afghans to return to the imposed and oppressive rule of the Taleban?
@Ian Michael Gumby
"Using your logic than anyone in the US that was wrongly convicted and then had their conviction overturned went back to a life of crime."
I think you need to check *your* logic because someone who is "wrongly convicted" ie did *not* have a "life of crime" cannot then "go back to a life of crime" which they didn't have in the first place!
As for: How many detainees were there / are there in Gitmo? How many would fit the description as 'wrongly detained'? I don't know the answer. Do you?
No, I don't and that is the *whole point*! The way to find out if someone is correctly detained is to put them and the evidence in front of a Court of Law and see if they can be Proven Guilty.
And please, stop the ridiculous Straw Man arguments eg about the escape in Afghanistan, they're just making you look silly.
So essentially when I ask Graham to back up his statements... you tell me to look them up myself?
The problem with the dump of wikileaks material is that its taken out of context.
You don't know why these people were brought to Gitmo. In fact, I seriously doubt that you or Graham understand much about anything. Sorry, I mean Graham is definitely a pacifist who seems to have a non-violence at all costs attitude. There's nothing wrong with that naive viewpoint until you try to enforce your beliefs on others.
AQ wants you dead. Why? Because you don't believe what they believe. Because you have values that they don't have and feel that your values are a danger to their way of life. They rape a woman, its the woman's fault. They have no respect for life. If Graham were to walk in to an AQ encampment wearing nothing but a flowing robe and holding a bunch of flowers, they would shoot him on sight.
These were the same people who destroyed works of art because it celebrated Buddha. (You do remember the statues in the caves in Afghanistan?)
I suggest you go back and review your world history for the past 50-60 years.
The point I was trying to make was that if you took your example of 'wrongly detained' and then becoming a terrorist... and transposed it to a situation where a person was wrongly incarcerated and then had their conviction overturned, how many went on to commit another crime and get sent back to the pokey?
The answer is that it does happen but the majority of those wrongly convicted tend to stay out of prison. Those that did return were actually convicts who had committed other crimes earlier to the conviction being overturned.
So the point is that your argument is meaningless. Putting a prisoner in Gitmo isn't going to make that person a terrorist.
I also suggest that you look at the programs in Saudi Arabia where they rehabilitate those who were in Gitmo. They had a high success rate, so high in fact that there was an assassination attempt against the head of the program....
As to looking silly... well I guess I think all pacifists are silly.
@Ian Michael Gumby
"The point I was trying to make was that if you took your example of 'wrongly detained' and then becoming a terrorist... and transposed it to a situation where a person was wrongly incarcerated and then had their conviction overturned, how many went on to commit another crime and get sent back to the pokey?"
Oh dear, Ian, you are *STILL* totally missing the point. How can someone go on "to commit *ANOTHER* crime" if they were "wrongly incarcerated" and then released because it was later discovered that they had *NOT* committed *ANY* crime in the first place?!
"Presumption of Innocence" does not mean "we just haven't caught you yet!"
"Putting a prisoner in Gitmo isn't going to make that person a terrorist."
So, let's see. By your logic anyone who *was* locked up at Guantanamo Bay and was then released and *didn't* subsequently join Al Qaeda obviously *wasn't* a terrorist in the first place, but anyone who *did* subsequently join Al Qaeda clearly must have been a terrorist!
Unfortunately, the fallacy in your logic, as someone has demonstrated in another post, people who were interned without trial in Northern Ireland as suspected terrorists but were later released *did* go on to join the IRA and other such organisations and commit terrorist acts to get revenge for the way they were treated. In other words they were "radicalised" not by others, but by *us*.
"I also suggest that you look at the programs in Saudi Arabia where they rehabilitate those who were in Gitmo."
Is that the "rehabilitation" which was known as "Extraordinary Rendition" which involved electric shocks, beatings, mock executions and other forms of torture by the Saudis on behalf of the USA who decided that water-boarding and sleep deprivation etc weren't sufficient?
As for "I guess I think all pacifists are silly", you said in another post "I mean Graham is definitely a pacifist who seems to have a non-violence at all costs attitude. There's nothing wrong with that naive viewpoint until you try to enforce your beliefs on others." which just shows that you completely fail to understand me.
I do not have a "non-violence at all costs" attitude, however I believe that if you're going to *use* violence, you'd better have a bloody good justification for it and "trying to enforce your beliefs on others" is not such a justification, in fact that is what Al Qaeda want to do to us! So what *you* are saying is that *we* should emulate *them* to "enforce our beliefs" on others.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Walt Kelly.
"Taleban are out of power and hiding in the hills"
So them breaking into a jail and freeing 100 of their compatriots is merely a statistical error?
Fewer British soldiers have died in Helmand only because they've handed over control to the US.
Military Leaders are worried that the Taliban will resume their actions as soon as the poppy harvest is over.
Yes, Afghanistan has had democratic elections, unfortunately many Afghans are not so happy that they have effected had a US supported and controlled Puppet Government imposed.
If you want to think that this is "success" then you are more naive that even I thought.
RE: Re: Have you ever considered
The question you deliberately ignore at all times is WHO is in detained in Gitmo? Reality indeed.
RE: RE: The Guardian a bit hypocritical?
You're assuming all Gitmo detainees were tortured, that they all lived in horrible conditions, and that they were all inncoent before being detained. The first point is proveably false as not every Gitmo releasee has claimed they were tortured. The second point is also proveably false as even the Red Cross, which has visited Gitmo, had to concede the tales of the "horrors" of Gitmo were just propaganda. And as to the last point, we have the admissiosn from Taleban spokesmen that many fo their own have been captured, including those in Gitmo. People like you are so determined to think the worst of the US and Gitmo that you can't see the facts.
RE: rtfa then.
"....this has hard statistics to back it up." I'm assuming your reality filter meant you didn't see The Guardian article that clearly states at least 150 Gitmo detainees have gone back to fighting for AQ and/or the Taleban, then? Next time you want ot use the "pillock" term I suggest you look in the mirror, as you seem a particularly and wilfully obtuse form of enraged penis. Please try readding before the next exbleative (sic).
RE: @Ian Michael Gumby
".....By your logic anyone who *was* locked up at Guantanamo Bay and was then released and *didn't* subsequently join Al Qaeda obviously *wasn't* a terrorist in the first place, but anyone who *did* subsequently join Al Qaeda clearly must have been a terrorist!...." You blindly assume that it was only the Gitmo process that would make a releasee into a terrorist. You also assume that being caught and seeing the capabilities of the Allied forces, the disillusionment of seeing their own leaders run and hide whilst leaving them as cannonfodder on the battelfield, plus being locked up a long way from home, might have convinced some of the former terrorists to pack it in. Whilst I don't agree with IMG that the Saudi rehab program has been a great success, by your own "argument" it should be a 100% success becuase - according to you - none of the Saudi Gitmo detainees were ever terrorists in the first place! By your arguments, prison for any crime is pointless and keeping prisoners of war locked up also - do you want us to just put them up against the nearest wall and shoot them all?!? What an immense pile of male bovine manure, probably only exceeded by the pile between your ears.
RE: @Matt Bryant
You are wilfully stupid and are deliberately ignoring the facts. Please name the Afghan city that is the named Taleban capital and is openly under the control of Taleban forces, where a Taleban army is uniformed and operates openly? Oh, you can't, because even Kandahar is under Afghan control. Taleban HQ is operating out of Quetta in Pakistan because their Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been completely dismantled. Taleban inside Afghanistan operate in the shadows and spend their time hiding from Allied forces. The jailbreak is a classic example of desperation - they need their hard-core footsoldiers back because they have lost so many in recent battles. Did they drive into Kabul in force, in a major campaign? No, they bribed guards and slunk around to avoid detection, because they know they cannot go toe-to-toe with even the Afghan National Guard, let alone Allied forces. Whilst people like you will swallow the Taleban propaganda, the reality is that even if all 470 inmates that escaped were Taleban (and they weren't, they included plenty of ordinary criminals), that number is a pittance against the number of Afghans willingly joining the National Guard.
You admit that their have been democratic elections, but then insist the Kharzai regime is an "american puppet"? The truth is you WANT to believe that Kharzai is just an American puppet and will reject any and all evidence to the contrary. So, how did the US manage to subvert two internationally monitored elections? Please go and read up on the continuing unease between Washington and the Kharzai administration. And then please consider that Kharzai's own parliament is not under his complete domination, having rejected 17 of the first 24 ministers he chose for his cabinet. They then rejected a further 10 choices. They don't sound like very well-behaved puppets to me!
You are not just naive, you are wilfully obtuse in your determination to think the worst of the US, regardless of the facts presented to you. You are truly one of the sheep.
Re: RE: RE: The Guardian a bit hypocritical?
"You're assuming all Gitmo detainees were tortured, that they all lived in horrible conditions, and that they were all inncoent before being detained. "
Really? Am I? Or is this just you twisting my arguments and trying to put words into my mouth to knock down another two Straw Man arguments?
Yes, not every person released from there has claimed they were tortured. That doesn't mean that none of them were tortured.
As for the Red Cross "had to concede that" it was "just propaganda", perhaps I misread this:
"The International Committee of the Red Cross described the treatment of Guantanamo detainees as torture in a confidential report in 2007, according a report on Monday.
The group was allowed access to detainees at the US military prison in Cuba as part of its aid work and interviewed high profile detainees who detailed their abuse in harsh interrogations that the report called 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.'"
Of course there's the small fact that the US Government only allowed the Red Cross access to the detainees *provided* that any reports they made were kept confidential and only given to the US Government, a deal with the RC usually only has to make with Dictatorial Regimes (thankfully someone had the balls to leak the details to ensure the truth got out).
As for "we have the admissiosn from Taleban spokesmen that many fo their own have been captured, including those in Gitmo" again you skew the logic to assume therefore that *all* those captured, including those at Guantanamo Bay *MUST* be Taliban!
And finally your claim that "People like you are so determined to think the worst of the US and Gitmo that you can't see the facts" is just laughable. It is *you* who are so determined to justify the actions of the US and be an apologist for the treatment of people in Guantanamo that you *refuse* to acknowledge any facts apart from those which back up your view.
PS I've wasted enough time here, feel free to have the last word.
RE: Re: RE: RE: The Guardian a bit hypocritical?
"....Really? Am I?.... Yes, you inplied the experience of beign incarcerated in Gitmo, no doubt with "torture" thrown in, was going to make terrorists out of innocent the few internees.
"......Yes, not every person released from there has claimed they were tortured. That doesn't mean that none of them were tortured....." What you're saying is you actually don't know how many were tortured, that you admit that claims have been exaggerated (by people like you) and that - for all you know - true "torture" (which you have still failed to define) could have been so unusual as to have affected less than 1% of the internees. From postings on the Web from US agencies had to admit to Congress or other authorities cases where "more intensive interrogation techniques were used", I can find only six individuals that were Gitmo internees. If you can do better then please supply some details, rather than just ranting on with wild and unfounded allegations.
"....As for the Red Cross "had to concede that" it was "just propaganda", perhaps I misread this...." You missed more than just that, you also missed that the Red Cross could not find one single case where physical evidence corroborated any of the stories given by inmates. Wild tales of extensive beating in Gitmo and "secret prisons" could not be backed up by any sign of physical abuse. The Red Cross report amounted to just internees' (that's Taleban and AQ fighters and leaders, always likely to be telling the unvarnished truth, right?) allegations. Whilst there has been much hot air from the anti-Gitmo crowd around the report, it has so far supplied no legal foundation for anything more actionable than the bleating you are producing. Please supply details of any legal case made against the US using the Red Cross report that has gotten anywhere? Oh, you can't, because even leading handwringers like lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith know that it has zero legal value.
"....Of course there's the small fact that the US Government only allowed the Red Cross access to the detainees *provided* that any reports they made were kept confidential and only given to the US Government...." Yet, amazingly, you can quote the report! Sounds like the Red Cross weren't very good at keeping their end of the bargain, could that be because many of the bleedinghearts at the Red Cross went out looking for something to beat up on Gitmo with? Surely even someone as obtuse as yourself would have to admit that the Red Cross would have included any evidence it could find, so their complete failure to provide scientific proof justs show their failure?
"....you skew the logic to assume therefore that *all* those captured, including those at Guantanamo Bay *MUST* be Taliban!...." Nope merely exposing the stupidity of your claim that large numbers of the Gitmo internees are innocents. You failed again to show anything that even implies more than a half-a-dozen are innocents, and then you have zero prove of their innocence as you have no background info on any of them to support your rantings. Your whole diatribe is based on nothing mroe than emotion and has zero proveable substance.
"....It is *you* who are so determined to justify the actions of the US...." Wrong again! What I am is determined not to let the uniformed pass off their views as gospel, just because they think they are morally superior. You could be talking about the ongoing legal battle between Oracle and Google, if you shouted such unfounded idiocy I would feel driven to expose the lack of substance to your arguments. In truth, I simply cannot stand the emotional and uniformed trying to batter others to their point of view, and you have demonstrated that you are both deliberately obtuse and very uninformed.
re: The Guardian a bit hypocritical
If only there was some alternative to holding someone forever without trial - like perhaps having a trial, with evidence and juries and stuff.
Then you can lock them up forever when you find them guilty.
RE: re: The Guardian a bit hypocritical
Slight problem - there is a great big hole in international law around how such prisoners should be tried. Most of the existing laws are built around war between two nations, not war between a nation and a faith-based international group. The prisoners are not uniformed combatants of a nation we are at war with, so they don't fall under the Geneva Convention. And that's just the AQ and Taleban cannonfodder that got scopped up on the battlefield, what laws do you use for the Taleban and AQ puppetmasters sitting safely back in Pakistan that co-ordinated events like 9/11, the Madrid bombing or the London Underground attack?
With the cannonfodder, the simplest option would be to return them to Afghanistan for civil trial, but then their conditions of incarceration both pre- and post-trial would make Gitmo look trivial. And what if the Afghans said that in some cases they wanted to apply the death sentence, which does still exist in Afghani law? Then the US would be legally obliged NOT to return the prisoners, as shown by the case of the Chinese Uyghars.
It's nice and easy to sit there and moralise on and on from your moral hobbyhorse, but reality isn't all so neatly simplistic.
So because there's a claimed legal hole in how to try them it has to be filled with indefinite torture and solitary confinement?
If you torture people you're guilty of human rights abuse which makes you like other abusive groups such as, for example, the Taleban and Al Qaeda, which for some people justifies the use of violence against you.
"....If you torture people...." Please provide your substantiated and scientifically-backed evidence of torture. Not just harsh interrogation techniques, I mean real torture. Oh, you can't, because the majority of the "torture" schpiel is just propaganda and hot air, and because the few that have undergone what might be termed "torture" are real hardcore terrorists like Sheikh Muhammed. And then please go and compare to the techniques used by the Taleban for their prisoners and those they "interrogate", and try and pretend they compare.
Did I read that correctly? The Land of the Free imprisoned a FOURTEEN year old kidnap VICTIM to extract information from him?
How low will these vermin stoop?
Whilst your compassion is touching, you're looking at it from the typical Westerner viewpoint that children are innocents to be protected. Both AQ and the Taleban have thought nothing of using children, women and even the mentally ill as suicide bombers and operatives. Children as young as eight have been documented in Afghanistan acting as supporting members to AQ and Taleban groups. Child assassins are a common ploy in Middle-Eastern, African and Asian countries as they often play upon the mistaken belief that they are harmless innocents. Even the collosally-useless taking shop of the UN has recognised the problem and their Resolution 1612 advises montiroing fifty governments and "rebel groups". Without more facts to consider the background and actions of the child in question it is impossible to state his innocence or otherwise. Oh, sorry, did I just ask you to stop and think before tryping?