back to article WikiLeaks releases classified files on Guantánamo Bay

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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Christoph

    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?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      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.

      1. mr-tom
        Unhappy

        Depends

        On whether the guys locked up in "the bay" were the guilty ones. From what I understand, that may be far from a certainty.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Yes but..

        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.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          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.

      4. Graham Marsden
        FAIL

        "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".

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          9-11

          "You could also try saying "Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty"."

          How about the victims of 9-11?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Stop

            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.

          2. John G Imrie

            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.

            1. g e

              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...

          3. Pascal Monett Silver badge
            Thumb Down

            Re:9-11

            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.

          4. Graham Marsden
            Thumb Down

            @9-11

            "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...?

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          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.

          1. Filippo Silver badge
            Thumb Down

            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.

          2. Graham Marsden
            Boffin

            @Matt Bryant

            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.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              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.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Questionable

        "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?

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          RE: Questionable

          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.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Here we go again....

    This ought to be good for another 20-30 feature stories on Wikileaks.....

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Sir

      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?

      1. elderlybloke
        Thumb Down

        Sir (Mk2)

        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

  3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        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.

        1. Graham Marsden
          FAIL

          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.'"

          http://agonist.org/20090316/report_red_cross_detailed_torture_at_guantanamo_in_2007

          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.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            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.

    2. Graham Marsden
      Boffin

      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!

      1. Ian Michael Gumby
        Grenade

        @ 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.

        1. Owen Carter
          FAIL

          rtfa then.

          "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.

          1. Ian Michael Gumby
            Boffin

            @Owen Carter.

            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.

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            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).

        2. Graham Marsden
          WTF?

          @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.

          1. Ian Michael Gumby
            Grenade

            @Graham Marsden...

            You funny.

            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.

            1. Graham Marsden
              FAIL

              @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.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

                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.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Have you ever considered

        Especially if you somehow acquired a "depressive or psychotic illness."

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            RE: Re: Have you ever considered

            The question you deliberately ignore at all times is WHO is in detained in Gitmo? Reality indeed.

      3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Matt Bryant

          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.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Stop

            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?

            1. Graham Marsden
              WTF?

              @Matt Bryant

              "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.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

                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.

  4. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    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.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Hmm

        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.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          RE: Hmm

          "....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.

  5. Stratman
    WTF?

    title

    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?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: title

      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?

      1. foo_bar_baz
        Thumb Down

        Please read the article

        ... and take off your HP glasses for a moment.

        It's clear the US was putting (some of the) people in Guantanamo for the purpose of extracting information from them, not because they were enemy combatants or terror suspects. See the case of taxi driver and the reporter.

        There is no defense for that. It looks to me like Obama wanted to close Guantanamo to prevent the PR disaster it has become as much as for humanitarian reasons.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          RE: Please read the article

          The problem (for you) is that I have done a lot more than just skim read The Guardian article, so I am not as lacking in knowledge, perspective or jusy sheer ability to think for myself. Unlike you.

          ".....take off your HP glasses...." What has this to do with hp? Oh, I see, you're one of the Sunshiners that got his mindless drivel exposed in another thread, so you thought you'd come and whine in this one too? Or is it just that you're a serial sucker and fall for every fashionable "cause" that means you don't have to do any thinking for yourself?

          "....It's clear...." What, from a few reports stumped up by Assnut, without any providence either to their authnticity or context, or the background of the two "innocents" mentioned? Did they have Taleban associates, sympathies or were they related to AQ or Taleban operatives? Did either of them actually have priors for working for either AQ or the Taleban (or any of the large number of Afghan or Pakistani tribal gangs that specialise in arms smuggling, drugs smuggling, kidnapping or just good-old Christian/Hindu/Bhuddist-bashing)? So many questions, so little information to actually form a qualified opinion. But don't let that stop you from making a snap judgement based on your own political leanings, paranoia or plain idiocy.

          /SP&L

          1. Intractable Potsherd

            OK, Matt, I call your bluff.

            What is it about you that gives you access to extra information that makes you an expert on this, and the rest of us mere "idiots"? You are so far behind the general curve on this one that you really need to have significantly better information, or you are just another person with an opinion, just like the rest of us, so either put up, or stop patronising everyone that thinks "... consistent with ... our values as a nation” should mean that *everyone* should be treated with the same levels of human rights, regardless of what they are alleged, or found guilty in a real court of law, to have done.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Stop

              RE: OK, Matt, I call your bluff

              Call my bluff? Put up or shutup? You couldn't pull the skin off custard, not without having to have someone else give you an opinion about the custard in the first place!

              ".....access to extra information...." What extra information? It's all out there, it's just many posters here only go looking for the little info that supports their blinkered views, and then studiously avoid reading anything that might spoil their delusions. Have I exposed any top-secret documents? No, I've linked to public articles. The fact that you consider these "extra" just shows the limits of both your knowledge and your ability to go research an item before making a conclusion. But I'm guessing your "opinions" come pre-packaged and are given to you by others you consider just too hip'n'trendy to be wrong.

              "......You are so far behind the general curve on this one...." Really? So I'm betting you didn't read the second Guardian article then? Just like the morons bleating on about the original Guardian article, but being completely oblivious of the second article, run the same day by The Guardian, that admitted at least 150 former Gitmo detainees have gone back to fighting for the Taleban or AQ. Did they do any research or background reading before they got on their moral hobbyhorses? Did you? They didn't even bother reading a headline story on the same website, let alone go to websites or sources that might have a conflicting viewpoint! The reason being for them the glee comes from mounting that hobbyhorse and telling the World how morally superior they are. You want to believe that anyone that doesn't agree with your political viewpoint is "behind the curve", when the reality is it is you lot that simply do not bother to go looking for the facts and are information starved. Behind the curve - you lot are not even on the curve!

              "....should mean that *everyone* should be treated with the same levels of human rights..." Ooh, how quaint! All nice and twee in a lovely World, but the reality is the World is not like that. Try asking the Afghans that suffered under years of Taleban repression about human rights. Try considering that the Taleban were so unpopular that, during their war with the Northern Alliance, they had roughly 45,000 footsoldiers of which over 30,000 were foreign Islamists brought in to try and get the Taleban forces up to the same number as their Afghan opponents. This is doubly damining when you consider that the Taleban came from the Pashtun majority. The Taleban imposed what is widely recognised to be the harshest form of Sharia instituted anywhere, even stricter than Saudi's, and with even stricter punishments. They acted with the conviction that they were doing "Allah's will" - try convincing people that think like that that they should give equal rights to women, gays, or other religions. But I suppose it's much easier for you to just ignore history or ongoing World events, and just bleat on from your hobbyhorse about other people being "behind the curve".

              Let's make one thing clear - I think Gitmo is not an ideal solution, but it is currently one that is there becasue there is no perfect solution. And before you start bleating again, please consider that The Lord Shepherd Obumbler himself has been forced to that conclusion as well, as is evident in his failure to meet his election promise to close Gitmo. Now, how many of you sheep thought it was going to be easy to do simply because He said "yes we can"?

          2. Sir Runcible Spoon
            Flame

            Sir @ Matt

            Whilst I may not be a fully versed local correspondant on the subject matter at hand, but considering that there is a possibility that innocents have been subjected to kidnap and torture I have to say that your attitude to human suffering fucking stinks.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              RE: Sir @ Matt

              I'm guessing you use the term "isn't fair" a lot, as in "it isn't fair that innocent people get locked up", or "it isn't fair that people get killed in war", or "it isn't fair that I didn't get to go to a top university", or "it isn't fair I didn't get that payrise", or "it isn't fair that I don't have a girlfriend/boyfriend/hamster-without-sharp-claws". Truth is the World "isn't fair", it's populated with people, and we all have nasty little personal traits, beliefs, practices, weaknesses and failings which mean there is SFA chance of it being "fair". That is human nature. We recognise the problems in human nature by having laws and punishment for those that break the law. If we were all driven to be "nice" and "fair" then civillisation should have reached a point where we don't need any laws, but we still do. The sooner you realise this and apply that to understanding World events then the sooner you will realise that there are a lot of people out there who's thinking is a lot "stinkier" than mine, only they are in positions to force their thoughts and actions on others. I merely use my "stinkiness" to object to people like you that expect me to accept their limited viewpoint without question

              Even those that declare themselves "nice" and "fair" can end up in positions where - even if they are truly "nice" and "fair" - they have to break their own moral code or laws to avoid something worse happening. This is the dilemna facing the Obumbler over Gitmo. He wants to appear "nice" and "fair", especially to the World in general, but he has to keep Gitmo going - a "nasty" and "unfair" idea - because he cannot find a better solution. His choice is stark - release all the detainees and run the risk that some of them will return to killing - a "stinky" and probably vote-threatening idea - or keep them locked up depsite some of them possibly being innocent - a "stinky" and probably vote-threatening idea! We could argue all day as to which idea the Obumbler might hate most - the possible killing, the possible innocents, or the losing of votes - but please do take the time to tell me how you think the Obumbler has an attitude to human suffering that performs sexual acts in a manner that cause you olfactory stress?

              Hamid Kharzai is (alledgedly) a member of a drug-dealer clan that has (alledgedly) used their current position in power to enhance their own standing and wealth and (alledgedly) encouraged corruption and nepotism in Afghanistan. Personally, I don't think he's a "nice person" or at all "fair", but I consider him a better choice than the Taleban. Until there is a "nice" and "fair" option available, he's probably the best choice the Afghan people are going to get. We could strip him of power and insist we don't let anyone rule Afghanistan until they have found that perfectly "nice" and "fair" person, but that would mean our own very human and not perfectly "nice" and "fair" politicians would have to run Afghanistan, and their history makes the idea of any politician being truly "nice" and "fair" a pretty bleak prospect. Afghansitan may never find a perfectly "nice" and "fair" leader, but time and the democratic process, coupled with economic development, may lead to "nicer" and "fairer" (but probably not perfect) leaders developing. Maybe one of those future leaders will come up with a "nice" and "fair" solution (without philosophical "odours" that offend your delicate sensibilities) to the Gitmo issue.

              But don't let that little reality check stop you bleating, it does provide considerable humour.

              1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                Sir

                Wow, where to start?

                You seem to be guessing a lot about me and getting it wrong, but I suppose it did provide you with yet another small platform from which to make even more incorrect inferences.

                For the record, I have no illusions about the world being a fair place. I'm sure there are people in Gitmo that deserve to be there, but when you debase others, you debase yourself. If you claim to speak from 'reality' and you do seem to be a perfect representative of the very human nature you are describing at length in your post, then you make me ashamed of being human.

                I'm glad this all provides some humour for you, if you need to reduce my opinion to 'bleating' then you'll have no objection to my referring to your blatherings as those of someone who has been damaged and seeks to impose their fucked up view of the world on others, because that's exactly what you sound like.

                I have no real illusions about the world we live in and the depths to which people will stoop. I also realise there are gray areas regarding morality when the choice is between the lesser of two evils (or something more complex which it usually is). No, I think we can agree that the world is a less than perfect place.

                I tell you what, let's get all the people who you might consider 'bleating do-gooders' and foster in them a sense of reality as you describe and live in a dog-eat-dog world with no recourse to law and order. That would make the world a better place I'm sure.

                In my previous posting, I didn't say that the world was fair, I just said your attitude stinks - a statement which I stand by.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  RE: Sir

                  "......For the record, I have no illusions about the world being a fair place. I'm sure there are people in Gitmo that deserve to be there, but when you debase others, you debase yourself....." You're sinking your own boats here! First you claim to understand the World isn't black-and-white, but then you leap to condemn those that have to make difficult choices and perform actions which they probably also don't like doing. You don't consider the context - the Gitmo authorities believe that keeping certain dangerous people locked up and interrogating them prevents further deaths, whereas the detainees you whine over have in many cases expressed their desire to kill in the name of their cause. Even by the furthest stretch there is no way for you to pretend releasing all the current Gitmo detainees bears no risks, especially as at least 150 of the lesser detainees have since gone back to fighting. No, you have completely failed to realise the World has many shades of grey between the black and white extremes. Maybe the noise from your hobbyhorse clunking round the room is too distracting?

                  1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                    Sir

                    "Maybe the noise from your hobbyhorse clunking round the room is too distracting?"

                    Hehe, I reckon my hobby horse is faster than yours, but yours does seem to whinny a lot more I have to admit.

                    I haven't said anything about releasing 150 odd potential killers, I also haven't condemned those who have to make difficult choices. I am simply stating that treating humans like animals doesn't do anyone any good.

                    Let me state my position then so you can't go round putting words in my mouth..

                    Locking up combatants captured in the field=I'm fine with this

                    Interrogating prisoners=again, nothing majorly wrong with this as it can save the lives of people on 'our' side.

                    Torturing prisoners=not so much approving of this one. I'm certain the US Gov. have access to plenty of reliable drugs out there to get the information without having to resort to waterboarding and treating their prisoners like dogs - it's barbaric.

                    I was also trying to state that if there are innocent people held in Gitmo, then this is a very sad state of play. And before you harp on about picking people up in combat zones etc. there are civilians there too you know. How do we know who is AQ/Taliban unless they are tried? It is an abuse of power, and your defence of it is what is driving my comments on your attitude.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      RE: Sir

                      ".....I reckon my hobby horse is faster....." I'm not so sure your prowess at hobbyhorse riding is something to brag about.

                      "......I am simply stating that treating humans like animals doesn't do anyone any good....." Once again we have an unfounded allegation - please state how the detainees are being "treated like animals"? As I understand it, one of the complaints that has been made previously by the detainees was they were putting on weight because they weren't used to getting the three square meals a day they were getting in Gitmo!

                      "....I'm certain the US Gov. have access to plenty of reliable drugs...." And again the lack of background research shows. Drugs can be both time consuming and very dangerous to the subject, to the point of causing premeanent brain damage and longterm mental illness. And then there is the problem of reliability of the information extracted from people that may have been trained to repeat false information if drugged (a standard technique thought to have been taught to some jihadis back in the days when they were fighting in Afghanistan for the CIA). The waterboarding technique was used because it was simply the most effective, quickest and most reliable method available. The fear induced was so strong that interrogators found even those trained in anti-interrogation techniques (like Sheikh Muhammed) could not stomach it. It also has the lowest risk of actual physical injury, though the court is out on the longterm mental effects of repeated sessions.

                      ".....it's barbaric...." So, you're OK with what, "harsh interrogation techniques"? So it's not alright to waterboard someone, but it's OK to put them in stress positions for extended periods? How about playing loud rock music in their cells during daylight hours? Would you be OK with interrogators shouting in their faces, or are you expecting genteel conversation over a cup of tea? Face it, interrogation of any form is not going to be "nice".

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: PR disaster

          Too fucking right, it's a PR disaster. In 2001 the US had the sympathy of most of the world. Now the whole world hates America. The whole world, including her putative allies.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        Re: RE: title

        Your remarks about AQ and Taleban using kids also apply to Gaddafi, whose 'mercenaries' include children, deliberately sent in the first waves as cannon fodder. The nay sayers are either PC or blind. I can't think of another reason for their dogged silliness.

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      @Stratman

      "Did I read that correctly? The Land of the Free imprisoned a FOURTEEN year old kidnap VICTIM to extract information from him?"

      Correct.

      I guess they figured that the idea a fourteen YO might be a bit traumatized by being seized at gunpoint and threatened with death was IDG some sort of liberal tree hugging hippy crap.

      A touch of death metal or some good old waterboarding and he'd soon recover his memory.

      Does that sound as mad to you as it does to me?

  6. Winkypop Silver badge
    Flame

    America: Land of the free *

    * conditions (and occassional torture) apply.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: America: Land of the free

      Care to do a simple comparison - number of people alledgedly being tortured or mistreated in America, verses any number of foreign countries, or even Afghanistan as it was under the Taleban? No, I didn't think you would, seeing as you so obviously prefer your "thoughts" spoonfed to you. Asking you to actually stop and consider reality would probably be far too painful an experience for you. Even professional handwringers like Amnesty International admit the worst of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib pale in comparison with routine practices in many other countries.

      1. foo_bar_baz

        Those are the standards you're now setting for your behaviour?

        It's ok as long as we aren't the worst. How about trying to be the best?

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          RE: Those are the standards you're now setting for your behaviour?

          "......How about trying to be the best?" I suggest you aim a lot lower, seing as your IQ and moral hobbyhorse are going to seriously hamper you in dealing with the real World. I'm betting you think all the Taleban and AQ fighters can be "cured" if only we try being nice to them, talk calmly and not use any nasty swear words? An ostrich would consider you a miner.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Matt Bryant (again)

        So, basically you are saying that because there are worse countries out there than the US it therefore exonerates the US from committing their little crimes?

        <insert example about committing an offense against you that is not as bad as a worse offense so therefore you should be grateful and stop complaining>

        You need to get a dose of reality my friend.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          RE: @Matt Bryant (again)

          "So, basically you are saying that because there are worse countries out there than the US it therefore exonerates the US from committing their little crimes?...." Nope, I'm saying try waiting for all the information before making a statement damning the US. But I'm sure that nasty things are done by the US every day, even if I'm not convinced by the current stuff out of The Guardian from Assnut. I'm not that bothered, becuase I've seen the World and how it works. That experience helps me realise it's not all black-and-white, there's plenty of grey in between. You obviously still have a lot of learning and growing up to do.

          ".....You need to get a dose of reality my friend." I'm laughing at that idea as I'm pretty sure reality and yourself don't meet much. Please feel free to fall back on the usual and predictable whining of "Nazi", etc, if it makes you feel any better.

        2. Ian Michael Gumby
          Grenade

          @Lee

          "So, basically you are saying that because there are worse countries out there than the US it therefore exonerates the US from committing their little crimes?"

          No, When US forces break the law, they are tried and punished. How many countries do that?

          So there is no exoneration.

          However there's a lot of gray area when you talk about 'crimes'.

          Some things which you consider to be a crime may not actually be a crime.

          Using the example of the 1969 Pulitzer prize winning photo of the South Vietnamese General shooting a man in 'civilian' clothing, you would call it a crime. However, the Viet Cong prisoner was a member of an Assassination hit team who just killed one of his officer's family and under the law, because he wasn't in an uniform he could be shot on sight. Meaning the actions of the officer was legal. Brutal, sure, but I'll be honest enough to say that if I was in the same position of that Vietnamese General, I'd pull the trigger too.

          Yet were Graham alive back in the 60's, he'd probably be sitting with Hanoi Jane and cry foul. Of course he wouldn't be alone. Why? Because when the photo and the CBS movie footage was shown, it was shown without the proper context and people jumped to the wrong conclusion In context, I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion.

          And that's the thing. Governments like the US, UK, etc ... all do nasty things so that we can sleep a little easier at night.

          Now I use the Viet Nam war as an example because its 1) Far enough back in time that it forces people to think, 2) Its another era where the US didn't always act above board.

          Unfortunately Lee you need a dose of reality. Its really a nasty scary world out there.

          1. Graham Marsden
            FAIL

            @Ian Michael Gumby

            "When US forces break the law, they are tried and punished. How many countries do that?"

            Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!

            You keep claiming that people "need a dose of reality", but you seem to ignore any "reality" that doesn't fit in with your totally skewed views!

            What, exactly, was the punishment given to the crew of the US Apache Gunship who shot at and killed two reporters, a dozen civilians and *then* shot up the van trying to take wounded to hospital? Oh, that's right, there wasn't a punishment. Only after demands by Reuters was the incident investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

            It wasn't until Wikileaks released the video of the event (declared "Classified" by the US Military) that the truth came out, but even then there was no punishment.

            You need a dose of reality, but it's clearly not to your taste.

            PS As with posts from Matt Bryant, I doubt I'll bother posting again in response since you have now stooped to personal insults and ridiculous claims about how I would act or who I would support which I will treat with the contempt they deserve.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              RE: @Ian Michael Gumby

              "......Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!....." In between howls, please go look at sites like http://wn.com/US_Soldiers_Charged_With_Murdering_Afghans, which has many items on US servicemen that were charged following criminal acts in Afghanistan. Now please identify one jihadi that got even told off by Bin Liner or Mullah Omar for targetting civillians.

              ".....that the truth came out...." The heavily-edited "truth" stil showed the Apache crew acted in accordance with the RoE and also confirmed with a senior officer that they were cleared to engage with lethal means. The Wikileaks version, despite trying to show the crew in the worst possible light, did nothing more than confirm those facts. Oh, and it did whip the easilly-duped into a fashionably-outraged frenzy, and gave St Julian's bank balance a healthy boost.

              ".....I doubt I'll bother posting again in response...." Don't tell me, you're also going to thcream and thcream until you're blue in the face? Please don't take out your childish rage on any of the other children in the nursery that may have played with your favourite dolly in your absence.

      3. Denarius
        Paris Hilton

        however, back in the discussion...

        Nice phrase there. " professional handwringers like Amnesty International". However the point many of disputants in this fragfest are trying to make is that stooping to low standards does not help your just cause. Paris, because I have not seen her in the news for weeks.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          RE: however, back in the discussion...

          "......the point many of disputants in this fragfest are trying to make is that stooping to low standards does not help your just cause...." Believing you can fight any war, let alone one against religious nutters, without horrible things happening to possibly innocent people caught up in the cross-fire, is simply naivete of epic proportions. Whilst we may try to avoid it happening as much as possible (and unlike the Taleban who execute their own on the merest suspicion of treachery or collaboration, we do have rules), it is inevitable that some innocents will be wrongly accused or punished in amongst the massively larger number of "bad guys" correctly identified and detained.

          During WW2, the Brits detained very large numbers of foreigners on the suspicion they may have helped the Nazis. Similarly, the Septics detained Japanese, Italian and German families as a precaution. We are talking about tens of thousands of people, not a few hundred. As well as the 11,000-odd Germans interned in the US, 4,500 Germans were shipped to the US from Latin America alone, and interned for the duration fo the War, which makes the modern extradition program look tiny in comparison. All were questioned and there is no doubt some were interrogated more roughly. Are you saying the whole war against the Nazis was "wrong" because of that? Grow up.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Feeding the Troll

            You talk a lot, Matt, but what you say is mostly empty self-justification. You defend torture and kidnapping by pointing out that the world isn't perfect and that, anyway, someone else started it. You have the morals of a 10-year-old bully caught picking on his 5-year-old kid brother.

            Most people know that the world is complex and reasons for things get messy and mixed up with issues like money and prestige and religion. You apparently don't and what us all to pretend that it's a black and white - them or us; with us or against us - a war against some ultimate evil which requires us to resort to any and all methods because its a fight for survival.

            Hardly. The war on terror is a trivial thing. 9-11 resulted in 3,000 deaths. Not quite 1939, is it? Not really the epic struggle you want us all to believe. You, and so many might-make-righters want the rest of us to go and tremble in the corner while you get your rocks off watching bombs and missiles flash across your monitors. So what if a few innocents get killed or arrested or tortured? As long as you get your war-porn it's A-OK with you, right?

            Why don't you go and crawl back into whatever sesspit you came from and leave civilization to the civilized?

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              RE: Feeding the Troll

              "You talk a lot, Matt, but what you say is mostly empty self-justification...." Ah, so you are merely trying to discredit what I post without trying to argue any of the points? So that means you are discrediting the The Guardian as they posted the article that I linked to pointing out that 150-odd ex-Gitmo detainees have gone back to fighting? Oh dear - that means you just dicredited the same oragn that is publishing articles on the WIkileaks material! You can't have it both ways, either The Guardian is just publishing articles containing "empty self-justification", or they are spreading The Truth straight from His Holiness Saint Julian. You fall back on groundless accusations of bullying (was there a lot of that in your playground, did you lose your lunchmoney a lot?) and cast aspersions on my morals, but you don't provide any arguments to disprove my points. That part of your post is just empty, period!

              ".....Not quite 1939, is it?..." Try 1941. The attack on Pearl Harbor, which the Americans went into a full-blown war over, killed 2,402 military and 57 civillians. That was still less than died annually on the US roads of the period. The US went to war because it could not afford to let another party - in this case a country rather than a religious group - think it could attack and kill Americans at will.

              You then come up with the bizarre idea that 9-11 was acceptable becuase it only "resulted in 3,000 deaths"! That is so gob-smackingly out-there as to defy sane analysis! Are you really saying you wouldn't mind if terrorist (sorry, you probably call them "freedom fighters", no?) were smacking jets into Western highrises on a regular basis, we should just laugh and shrug and say "well, more are killed evey year on our highways"!?!? You are so determiend to push your views you call me insensitive for accepting that a few innocents might get caught up in the system, but you brazenly declare the deaths of 3,000 people as irrellevant! You really are so far gone I would suggest you seek professional attention. I am betting there are even very few of the posters here that would be as far gone as to claim the deaths on 9-11 as irrellevant.

              /Can we please have an icon for "Seek professional help, pronto!"?

      4. Winkypop Silver badge
        Unhappy

        @Matt Bryant

        Sorry it was a cheap shot.

        If only it were untrue.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Oh come on you must be a troll.

        "Care to do a simple comparison - number of people alledgedly being tortured or mistreated in America, verses any number of foreign countries, or even Afghanistan as it was under the Taleban?"

        And your point is what exactly?

        "Even professional handwringers like Amnesty International admit the worst of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib pale in comparison with routine practices in many other countries."

        See above.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          RE: Oh come on you must be a troll.

          Well, seeing as you have not posted any arguments at all, I would say you are the troll, and a vacuous one at that! My point is that you people get in such a manufactured lather over what you perceive as "horrible injustices" simply because they pander to your anti-The Man views, whilst happilly ignoring far more serious events happening every day in other parts of the World. You pretend to hold the Allies to some holy standard when your only desire is to bash them at all costs. We never hear people like you praising anything good done by the Allies. You are simply repeating the same drivel you trotted out over Iraq - "war is bad, it should never be the answer, shame on you" - and ignoring the facts that the average Afghan, just like the average Iraqi, has more freedoms today than they did under their previous regimes. Your selective analysis is simply childish.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            RE: RE: Oh come on you must be a troll.

            "Well, seeing as you have not posted any arguments at all ..."

            Not only did I post no arguments, I posted no arguments far more concisely than you posted no arguments.

            "Your selective analysis is simply childish."

            As you noticed, I made no analysis, selective or otherwise.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              RE: RE: RE: Oh come on you must be a troll.

              Whilst refreshingly short, your attempt to formulate any form of counter is as equally comic as the rants posted by your like-minded handwringers. Please return when you have something of worth to say.

  7. Kevin 6
    Happy

    And?

    "Nearly 100 inmates were described as having depressive or psychotic illnesses, the paper says, and "many" went on hunger strike or attempted suicide. "

    Lets face it the people were after are extreme religious nuts who are the type that will voluntarily crash a 767 into a tower filled with people. I would say they are likely to have some psychotic illness's to begin with, and are not above suicude.

    1. Dante
      FAIL

      Re:And?

      Oh that makes it ok then.

  8. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    FAIL

    The British tried it in the 1970s

    In Northern Ireland.

    It was called "Internment without trial" with people being detained on about the same level of evidence (EG annon message left on informant answering machine).

    The MoD report on "Operation Banner" (the 38 year deployment of British troops in NI) stated this was the single *worst* mistake made by the UK govt in the campaign as it "Politicised a generation of young men."

    They *might* have been terrorists before they went in.

    But a hell of a lot more of them *wanted* to be when they came out. And quite a few of them did.

    In the Guantánamo bay context if you knew a friendly cop and you could get 4x your *annual* salary in reward by turning in a "terrorist" wouldn't you be thinking about people you knew who were IDK a bit "suspicious" or at least "disposable"?

    Had Obama shut this prison, release the ones who are *blatantly* innocent of *any* crime anywhere (89YO's with dementia make p**s poor suicide bombers) and had a *proper* trial of the rest he would have looked a strong brave leader.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Linux

      Title

      So what your saying is the choice any state faces is.

      1/ Don't release them ever.

      2/ Execute them all after interrogation

      So in fact the US is being wishy washy and liberal by even considering releasing anyone.

      Hmmmm sort of begs the question why take them prisioner in the first place.

      Alternatively

      Take off and nuke it from orbit...it's the only way to be sure.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: The British tried it in the 1970s

      Which all kinda neatly avoids the facf that the mainstream IRA eventually realised it could not win a protracted "war" with the UK and eventually settled for disarment and entry to the political system. So, obvioulsy, all those Irish "detainees" that you are convinced became life-long commited terrorists also accepted the solution (mustn't call it "defeat", the IRA sympathisers like to cling to the idea that they didn't "lose", despite their having failed to achieve any of their aims). By that token, your argument is shown to be moot in the longrun.

      1. Graham Marsden
        Boffin

        Re: RE: The British tried it in the 1970s

        "Which all kinda neatly avoids the facf that the mainstream IRA eventually realised it could not win a protracted "war" with the UK and eventually settled for disarment and entry to the political system."

        Which all kinda neatly ignores the fact that the mainstream IRA only eventually settled for disarmament and entry into the political system when, instead of spouting rhetoric about "defeating them" (the 1970s equivalent of our current "war on terror"), politicians actually started looking for a practical solution.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          RE: Re: RE: The British tried it in the 1970s

          "....politicians actually started looking for a practical solution." Wrong! The UK had always offered all the Irish in the North and the South the chance at inclusion in the political process via democratic elections to the UK Parliament, it was BECAUSE the IRA could not see itself gaining a majority in Northern Ireland that the IRA decided to continue the campaign after the liberation of the South. Originally, Sin Fein won elections in the South in 1918 which allowed them to form an extrajudicial government (as in they held 73 UK parliamentary seats but they said they would run their own "country"). In the South, politics worked for the IRA, they had majority support and that translated into general support for the war against the Brits. In the North, they failed, so they went for "the armed struggle"/terrorism instead.

          So let's review - IRA rejected democratic elections when they didn't work for them, went to "war", got nowhere but killed and maimed plenty of people and kept many in a state of fear, and then eventually went back to the democratic process. All the fancy trimmings added to the 1998 Agreement (such as changing the name of the RUC to the PSNI) were added to help Sinn Fein sell it to the IRA as "not a surrender". The underlying core of the Agreement is simple - the mainstream IRA gave up armed violence in their attempt to control the future of Northern Ireland and accepted that it should try an influence the future by political means only.

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Happy

        @Matt Bryant

        "Which all kinda neatly avoids the facf that the mainstream IRA eventually realised it could not win a protracted "war" with the UK and eventually settled for disarment and entry to the political system. "

        You don't know much about the IRA's campaign or it's strategy.

        Hint. It was known as "The Armorlite *and* the ballot box." "Disarmament" came a *long* time afterward. Nearly 2 *decades* after they tried to blow Margaret Thatcher into small pieces at Brighton and gave Norman Tebbit a steel plate in his head.

        "So, obvioulsy, all those Irish "detainees" that you are convinced became life-long commited terrorists also accepted the solution ("

        After they'd killed off a few 1000 men, women and children on both sides. Although in some cases I think some of the more extreme cases were put down by their own side in the end.

        "(mustn't call it "defeat", the IRA sympathisers like to cling to the idea that they didn't "lose", despite their having failed to achieve any of their aims)."

        another comment that show's your ignorance of the peace process.

        As long as *no* one "won" everyone could get *part* of what they wanted. If someone *felt* they had won, everyone *else* would feel they had lost and it would all start again.

        "It is illogical, but it is a fact" as Mr Spock would say.

        "By that token, your argument is shown to be moot in the longrun."

        Firstly it's not my argument. It's the analysis of the MoD based on 38 *years* of deployment.. Secondly it means that *not* interning a lot of people on *flimsy* evidence would have saved a *lot* of people they went on to kill and maim. It was also a knee jerk reaction that "Something *must* be done."

        That does not make it moot. It makes it highly relevant.

        I've noticed a certain vehemence in your posts which IRL i've seen from people who've either lost loved ones to terrorist incidents or lived with the *fear * of loosing them to such a situation. People who've lived *through* such incidents (I've only known one of those at second hand so my sample is limited) were just damm happy to still be alive.

        That fear is expressed as a willingness to use unlimited levels of aggression and a complete abandonment of *any* sense of compassion or humanity towards their *perceived* enemy.

        Are you supporting the US governments behaviour or trying to justify your own?

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          RE: @Matt Bryant

          Well off-topic, but what the heck.

          "....Are you supporting the US governments behaviour or trying to justify your own?" So, everyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint must be a "war-criminal" in hiding? Very objective! Try sipping the Kool Aid instead of gulping it down.

          Your reply is a long-winded denial of the simple facts - the territory of Northern Ireland was under British law UK Parliamentary control before the start of "the troubles" and remained so after the 1998 Agreement. Politicians elected to the "devolved" Northern Ireland Assembly are still part and parcel of the Whitehall apparatus, which is what was Britain's objective all along. The IRA objective was that Northern Ireland should be absorbed into Southern Ireland and be completely free of British control. A simple comparison shows the Brits "won" as they restored order and prevented control of Northern Ireland falling into Southern Irish hands, whilst the IRA definately had to abandon their priciple objective (i.e. they "lost", even if they don't admit defeat). Politicians from all sides will sell it as they think their communities want to hear it, but the comparison of before and after show the Brits "won". Apologies for the reality check if you are Irish and have swallowed the version from your politician where the IRA "won".

          A major factor was the change in views of the Southern Irish, who started thinking a lot more about Ireland and its own economy rather than backing a protracted war. The hope is peace will bring greater prosperity to the people of Afghanistan, and they will then be less likley to sign up as Taleban footsoldiers, which is why the Taleban spend so much effort attacking anything that might help (such as schools and charities bringing development aid). A key aim of the Taleban campaigns is to keep the locals poor and desperate. Well, at least the locals not directly related to the clan leaders, who sem to be living the feudal lord lifestyle on the backs of their footsoldiers.

          Whether Internment helped the IRA in the short-term or not, it did not produce an unwavering and life-long commitment to unrelenting warfare on the part of those interned, as the majority of IRA activists and supporters have accepted the Agreement and are enjoying the peace that has followed. That is much more relevant to the arguments saying that every Gitmo detainee will become a "dedicated terrorists" that will never accept defeat.

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            Happy

            @Matt Bryant

            "the territory of Northern Ireland was under British law UK Parliamentary control before the start of "the troubles" and remained so after the 1998 Agreement"

            No. Roughly 1922-1972 Northern Ireland *was* a devolved government run from Stormont Castle, with a "Governor" rather more like Honk Kong but the people retained the right to elect MP's to the House of Commons. This was suspended in 1972 and direct rule from Westminster instituted. Rule from Stormont was re-instituted under different rules from 1998 onward.

            "A simple comparison shows the Brits "won" as they restored order and prevented control of Northern Ireland falling into Southern Irish hands, whilst the IRA definately had to abandon their priciple objective "

            Wrong. The Sein Fein still want a united Ireland. They have accepted that the merger would only happen if the *majority* on *both* sides of the border want it. BTW the referendum for the 1998 agreement took place on *both* sides of the border between NI and the Republic.

            "That is much more relevant to the arguments saying that every Gitmo detainee will become a "dedicated terrorists" that will never accept defeat."

            Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

              RE: @Matt Bryant

              All you have done is highlight the facts that the IRA tried to sieze control of Ireland by an "armed struggle"/terrorism and it failed. I can't put it any more simply than that, you simply don't want to see the facts. Where's the military victory of the IRA, when did they drive British forces out of the North? The didn't because they couldn't.

              "....Wrong. The Sein Fein still want a united Ireland....." I'm sure they do, the difference is they have had to accept that they cannot force the British to leave or force the general population of Northern Ireland to accept their view alone. So you are wrong.

              "....Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote." That part was in answer to another poster's point. Try reading something other than just your own posts and replies. Like a little Irish history for starters.

  9. Nuno trancoso

    Re: And?

    I'm sure you're trying to be funny and all, but what you point out to is precisely what's wrong with this whole picture.

    Had they been real terrorists, trained, hardened, and fueled by extreme religious fervor they would have endured it all with only the prospect of "righteous retribution" to keep them going.

    Given a "turnover rate" so big of so many going into depression and suicide it spells something else. Spells you detained "ordinary people" that have no means at all to cope with the situation.

    @Matt Bryant

    "other brown "foreigners""...

    Care to explain wtf that means? Brown? Not people? It's guys like you that made mankind the PoS it became and to be bluntly honest, the only thing i think you lot are good for is to provide a cheap way to "close" Chernobyl, ie, dump the f'ing lot of you f'tards into the reactor until it's sealed under tons of charred bigot flesh.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: Re: And? - @Matt Bryant

      "....Care to explain wtf that means? Brown?...." Just pre-empting the usual handwringer gumph that the US and allies are only concerned about "white Westerners" because we just have to be racists Nazis, etc, etc. Extra funny when you consider the Obumbler isn't white, but typical from the morons that fail to realise that many of the Gitmo detainees were actually captured by the Northern Alliance, which are Afghans that were fighting the Taleban long before the invasion. These weren't just people picked up after an anonymous phone tip-off, in may cases they were captured in firefights. In other cases they already had extensive jihadi records. Trying to pretend they are all innocents and bore us no ill-will before their incarceration is wilfull stupidity in the extreme.

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. Stratman

    re Matt Bryant

    Quote

    " it is impossible to state his innocence or otherwise."

    It's equally impossible to state his guilt, yet this child kidnap victim was incarcerated without trial in a torture camp for the noble purpose of 'extracting' information.

    Go USA!!!!

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      RE: re Matt Bryant

      Which completely ignores the fact that children are routinely questioned by Police all over the World on suspicion of them having knowledge or of having taken part in a crime. Some are sent to young offender institutes whilst on remand. Many of those children are eventually tried and convicted and may be locked up for extended periods. You have no evidence that the youth in question was tortured or anything more than strongly spoken to. I'm quite amused at your presumption that it is only at age sixteen (or do you prefer eighteen?) that the jjihadi bug can kick in, especially considering the indoctrination known to have been going on for years in madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'm not convinced the US authorities would have simply held onto this boy just for the fun of it, let alone gone to all the trouble of shipping him half-way round the World, so I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye. One aspect you may have failed to grasp is that if he has supplied info to the allies that led to Taleban or AQ leaders being kileld, then he is highly likely to be killed by his former comrades upon his return, especially given the tribal nature of many Taleban gangs. That threat to his safety may be a factor in the delay. Without the full story you're just hyperventilating.

  12. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Coat

    "ANY minute now"

    "President Barack Obama ordered the prison closed more than two years ago."

    "Autocratic Figurehead X ordered his convenient torture facility closed more than Y years ago"

    Your death-head insignia sporting jacket, sir!

  13. Graham Bartlett

    @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."

    Yes, this does happen. Look up the stats for young offender institutions and children's homes. They might not have been hardened criminals when they went in - but after years of abuse, they damn sure were when they came out. If they came out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0102r71

    But that's just criminal behaviour. You don't seem to have grasped the concepts of revenge and just cause. If you've imprisoned and tortured someone for 10 years, and then you let them out without even acknowledging you were wrong, do you think you can just make nice again? Wouldn't you want to fight the people who'd done that to you?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: @Gumby

      By your argument, we'd still be fighting German Nazis that were previously PoWs, or the Japanese. People, no matter how committed, do give up and accept defeat. In the case of Germany and Japan, they may even come round to accepting how their actions were wrong and/or illogical. The fact that not all jihadis detained at Gitmo do go back to fighting suggest that some of them do see sense. The bit you'll probably froth over is that we will probably have to kill or permeanently detain those diehards that won't accept defeat, if only to make it easier for the others to come to terms.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        No

        Permanent detention of violent criminals is a life sentence. It's normal in any society

        What people froth over is that:

        - there hasn't been a trial to determine criminal behavior

        - they are tortured

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

          RE: No

          "Permanent detention of violent criminals is a life sentence. It's normal in any society...." And internment is a standard practice during wartime, which is not the norm in society. You are trying to apply civillian values and laws to a situation that bridges both military and civil arenas. The Taleban are armed civillians, they are not the military arm of a soveriegn country, but the threat they pose is militray and cannot be contained or eliminated by police actions alone. The Allied (and Afghan) hope is that one day the Taleban can be reduced to the point where they can be stopped by police actions alone, or where the Taleban agree to give up violence and join the democratic process.

          "....- there hasn't been a trial to determine criminal behavior...." In war, you don't need to have a trial for every prsioner. The fact that the Taleban are armed civillians means they cannot expect ordinary civil law to apply. If they were uniformed soldiers OR merely civilians of a country we were in a declared war with then we could keep them locked up without trial for the duration fo the war. We are not at war with Afghanistan. I have also pointed out the logistical difficulties and/or political difficulties of trying to track down witnesses for those handed over from the Northern Alliance or ISI. Your expectation of "whiter-than-white" practices is touching but amusingly obtuse.

          "......- they are tortured." Please provide substantiated and scientific reports to back up your claim that all are being "tortured". Please also then explain, in legal terms, exactly what it was in their treatment that you consider "torture", and prove that the people administering that treatment were aware that it was legally torture as opposed to what they were told was a legal interrogation technique. Try not to let your emotions drag you off into a whimsical rant, I want actual and proveable facts and legal argument, not froth. You may fall back on such often-quoted sources as Amnesty International, but please be aware I will reply with other public debunkings of many of those often-quoted pieces. I would be pleasently surprised if you managed something original. Whatever you do, please do not consider that whatever happened at Gitmo is probably a shade of what could have happened had the detainees been kept in jails in Afghanistan or other source countries for the jihadis (Saudi Arabia, Gaddaffi's Libya, Assad's Syria, etc, etc), as that might be a bit to close to reality for you to cope with.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            @ Bryant: "And internment is a standard practice during wartime"

            You are presumably aware that the US is happy to accept the concept of "Endless War" as a means of achieving its aims? So they never have to raise their moral standards to those expected in peacetime. How convenient.

            Are you a Fox News editor?

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              RE: @ Bryant: "And internment is a standard practice during wartime"

              You are presumably aware, even in your deluded state, that Al Quaida (or the Taliban) does not represent a particular country, does not have a formal army with a uniform, nor a legal set of rules of engagement (though they will claim their "understanding" of passages in the Koran give them their rules of "warfare"), nor does it have any way to negotiate a ceasation of hostilities? AQ does have two stated aims - the "liberation" of all existing Mulsim states, to be joined in one big Caliphate, with the second aim of using that Caliphate's forces to wage perpetual war on the non-believers until the Caliphate is dominant Worldwide. We're not setting the terms of the "endless war", it was forced upon us by the Islamists.

  14. tiggertaebo
    Stop

    The power of negative connotations is amazing

    I've always been against the whole Guantanamo Bay thing - it never seemed like a good idea to me on either human rights or tactial grounds but such is the power of the negative connotations that the name now holds for me that the very term "WikiLeaks" in the title meant that my first thought was just "will that twat Assange just fuck off already?"

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Geneva Convention

    Hi Matt Bryant,

    Well, I suggest that you try reading the actual Geneva Convention that applies, before making such bold statements.

    The relevant document is the Third Geneva Convention of 1929 (which was significantly updated in 1949).

    Article 2 determines that where one party (Uncle Sam) is a signatory, but the other (Taleban) is not, then the signatory (Uncle Sam) is still bound by the provision of the conventions and protocols.

    Article 4 details the criteria that determine whether an individual qualifies as a Prisonor Of War. In is indeed uncertain whether some of those held at Guantanamo would qualify as POW's. Particularly, due to precedents set in the 1977 Protocol 1, which determines that in some circumstances combattants with no military insignia do indeed qualify as militias, and hence must be considered POW's upon capture.

    Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

    Since, no such tribunals have been held, we must conclude that they are indeed POW's.

    Willful torture, willfull deprivation of the right to a fair trial, and unlawful deportation or tranfer of POW's are all specified as Grave Breaches on the Fourth Convention of 1949.

    Best Wishes,

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Grenade

      Great you've defined what happens in a war.......

      Cept this aint a war is it. It's an insurgency so does the Convention actually apply to it? Please prove it does.

      Incidentally if the Convention does apply to a shadowy loose knit terrorist group like Ally Kayder (as well as a proper nation). Does it likewise bestow any obligations upon the combatants without a nation? Like must wear a nice uniform at all times etc? Name Rank and Serial Number pip pip you chaps etc.

      If that is the case can we sue the IRA for breaking the rules of warfare? They claimed to be an Army (chortle) but didn't like playing by the big boys rules in Gibraltar..see SAS very effective cleanup operation. I believe they weren;t that keen on the SAS closer to home either.

      Just asking.

      1. paulc
        Stop

        War on Terror

        was declared by the "Shrub"... he called it a war, therefore it is a war...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Grenade

          Nope

          Most of the enemy franc tireurs are not actually Afghani's. So if one is from say the UK. Is the USA at War with the UK then? Nope. So how can the 'Brit' be a Prisioner of a War that doesn't in fact exist in a legal sense? Please explain.

          If they really want to go with the doesn't exist theme perhaps when they are disappeared they should stay disappeared.

      2. Mayhem

        Um.

        The alliance invaded an independant country. Since neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were ever considered to be part of the USA or Britain, then its a little hard to describe the events as anything other than a war.

        Heck, even Fox news calls it the War in Afghanistan. Insurgency is a lovely buzzword coined relatively recently that refers to an uprising within a country. Like rebellion, or guerilla uprising, but without the positive connotations. Whatever you call it though, it is clear that the US is occupying a foreign country under sufferance by the local inhabitants, and it did so under decidedly flawed provisions. If the locals start trying to drive the invaders out by force, well, it was considered virtuous when it happened to the Russians. Why is it considered bad now?

        Please do not conflate the participants of state sponsored terrorism (Al Qaeda, IRA, RAF, Hezbollah etc) with the domestic guerillas fighting for their homelands.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

          RE: Um.

          "The alliance invaded an independant country....." Actually, since they didn't declare war on Afghansitan, and seeing as forces in Afghansitan fighting the Taleban welcomed the Allies, that point is moot. To all intents and purposes, it was an invasion, but legally is was a policing action to remove those (the Taleban) sheltering a listed international terrorist group (AQ) and to destroy the training camps of said terorists. So, despite the practicalities, you're legally wrong to call it an invasion of an independent country.

          ".....the US is occupying a foreign country under sufferance by the local inhabitants....." Apart from totally ignoring the fact that the Taleban imposed their rule and did not have universal support, that many of the locals welcomed the Allied invasion (try reading up on the Northern Alliance), and apart from the fact that there have been two rounds of democratic elections (not perfect, I grant you, but they did allow the formation of more than just the one party routine as practiced by the minority Taleban), your post is accurate. Oh, hold on a sec, apart from those points covers all the actual meat in your post! Consider yourself debunked.

          "....Heck, even Fox news calls it the War in Afghanistan...." What Fox News chooses to call a conflict has zero legal bearing on the status of those caught trying to kill Afghan civillians, aid workers or Afghan and Alliance soldiers. Don't tell me, you base all your decisions on what the TV tells you.....

          ".....with the domestic guerillas fighting for their homelands." So that would be the Northern Alliance, then? The Taleban are "domestic" to only the South of the country. And what exactly do you class Al Quaida as, "freedom fighters"?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Rule of Law

      Doesn't matter to the US. They hold the rule of law in utter contempt.

    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: Geneva Convention

      <Yawn> Nice try, but the Geneva Convention applies to sovereign countries at war and the soldiers and civillians of those sovereign countries. You have to be a soveriegn country (and recognised as such by the UN is the benchmark) to be a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which is why the Taleban (and AQ) are not signatories. We are not formally at war with Afghanistan. The Taleban and AQ members (or suspects, if you prefer) detained in Gitmo are not PoWs as they are not uniformed soldiers of a soveriegn country we are at war with. To be counted as a militia you also have to be fighting for a sovereign country at war with another soveriegn country. It's like taking international shipping law and trying to apply it to a dispute over a car theft - it doesn't apply. Nice try, but completely wrong.

      The Geneva Convention WOULD apply if Bush Jr had declared war on Afghanistan rather than just on the Taleban, and seeing as the Taleban were the recognised power (at least by states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) largely in control of the country at the time it would make legal sense. Then, any captives could be declared PoWs either as uniformed soldiers or as militia, and you would be right. But, Bush Jr was advised that this was not a good idea as it was hard to form a legal argument for war with Afghanistan as the 9-11 attack was by AQ, and the Taleban were merely accused of sheltering and protecting AQ rather than being proveably complicit in the attack. The result is the compromise of declaring the Taleban as the "enemy" via the UN resolutions against sheltering terrorists, but without any proper and legal declaration of war, the invasion havng the declared aim of clearing up the AQ training camps in Afghanistan and removing the Taleban from power. The result is the legal limbo under which the Gitmo detainees have been kept.

      You also forget that the Geneva Convention would definately not cover AQ members captured outside Afghanistan. Some of the remaining detainees are supposedly AQ operatives and leaders caught in Pakistan and other countries (some of them being victims of the other fave froth point, rendition). If we were at war with Afghanistan and AQ was legally accepted as an arm of the Afghan administration (the Taleban), then the non-uniformed members "captured" outside Afghanistan could be classed as spies. But the wartime sentence for spying can be death, so you probably don't want to go there.

      Try again, if only because it makes me laugh!

  16. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Pirate

    Abdul Ghani

    Taleban number two and co-founder of the whole Taleban junket, recently killed in Afghanistan (possibly by the dreaded drones!), was captured in Pakistan in early 2010 but not sent to Gitmo. Looks like you don't have to send hard-core jihadis to the "horrors" of Gitmo to make them return to violence, even keeping them in friendly Pakistani jails for less than a year seems just as likely to do nothing to dim their desire to kill. Of course, you could argue that keeping them in sham Pakistani "internment" under the watchful eye of their ISI masters is more likely to help them return to violence, rather than locking them up under US supervision in Gitmo! Perish the thought! And Afghan jails seem to leak prisoners as a matter of course. I'm sure that thinking has nothing to do with the reluctance of even the Obumbler's team to close Gitmo. Do I need to insert /sarc tags?

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The bottom line...

    ... is that the USA is no longer a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

    They may say they are but the reality is they're no better than the tinpot psychopaths they (now) decide are "bad men".

    Kidnap, torture, murder - routine tools for the USA now. Extrajudicial assassinations? No problem, they don't even bother to get client states to do it for them now - "diplomats" do it on the street in plain view of hundreds. Fucking funny looking "diplomats" with assault rifles, body armour and US Army kit.

    You ought to be ashamed of yourselves - ALL of you for you've proven yourselves no better than the scum you profess to be superior too. Same total lack of morals. Fuck the lot of you!

    The Labour scum that went along with this deserve their day at the Hague. We can but hope.

    I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone with a shred of morality can vote for Labour. The tories are probably just as bad but they weren't the ones who continued on when they knew EXACTLY what was going on. Labour did.

    Amoral venal scum, the lot of them.

    I'm ashamed to say I come from the UK, I really am.

    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: The bottom line...

      Why would you be ashamed to say you come from the UK? Lots of us do, and had nothing to do with any of this.

      As for Labour - what, all of the party in perpetuity is tainted by this? Those are some big umbrellas there, chum. You might want to try and keep to some specifics, for your own mental health.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        They'd get voted in now...

        ... if there was an election (Labour that is). Same people/SPADs will be in the cabinet/govt - Blair, Mandelson, Brown excepted. So yeah they are tainted for a HELL of a long time.

        Yes I am ashamed to come from a country where its clear that the cabinet KNEW about rendition and torture in January 2002 and continued with no change in policy.

        I am ashamed to come from a country that invaded Iraq on the basis of what we now know was lies - with the consequent loss of civilian life and war crimes associated with it. I'm ashamed that we STILL continue to lie about it as a nation.

        Maybe we just have different morals "chum". I'll keep mine, you can have yours....

  18. Mark .

    Re: 9-11

    "How about the victims of 9-11?"

    I'm sure everyone here agrees that 9/11 was a terrible act.

    If you're saying that Guantanamo is also a terrible act, then it seems you're in agreement with people here.

    Seriously - what sort of argument is it to justify Gantanamo, by comparing it to 9/11??

    Matt Bryant: "The prisoners are not uniformed combatants of a nation we are at war with, so they don't fall under the Geneva Convention."

    If the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, then it's either a criminal matter, or straightforward kidnapping. The US doesn't appear to be charging these people, so...

    (The point of the Geneva Convention was to give extra rights and protections. It's sad to see people use it to argue the opposite.)

    Yes, they don't wear uniforms. Most people in their home country don't. Do you wear a uniform right now? Probably not. Does this mean anyone can legally and rightfully kidnap you, because the Geneva Convention doesn't apply?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      RE: Re: 9-11

      COmeon, at least try and put up some form of argument, that effort is simply laughable!

      ".....I'm sure everyone here agrees that 9/11 was a terrible act....." Can you be certain? Sure, I do, and I'm sure many other posters do to, but plenty of people around the World supported Bin Liner and co. Do you want me to link to video of Palestinians dancing in the streets and handing out sweets (a traditional Arab way of celebrating) when seeing the 9-11 news? Best not to assume everyone shares your values and morals, otherwise you may make the mistake of assuming they will behave in a manner you would. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't strap on a suicide bomb and blow up a Sbarro, or shoot an anti-tank missile at a schoolbus.

      "....If you're saying that Guantanamo is also a terrible act, then it seems you're in agreement with people here...." I'm saying Gitmo probably is not as terrible as made out, and it would also seem the lesser of the evils given the choices - release the detainees and risk them going back to killing; hand them over to local authorities in countries that have death as a legal recourse; or try them in the US and risk introducing extreme Islamists into a prison system already thought to have a problem with radical conversions. The prison idea is also fraught with the possibility that a detainee might claim refugee status or asylum, and I'm sure you wouldn't want an ex-Taleban or AQ bomb-maker moving in nextdoor to you, no matter how "rehabilitated" he claims to be!

      "....If the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, then it's either a criminal matter, or straightforward kidnapping...." You are simply pointing out the legal limbo these people fall under. The majority of known Gitmo detainees (I can't say all as I don't know for every single one) are there with the tacit approval of their own governments, or the Afghan government if captured in Afghanistan, so kidnapping doesn't apply. Bizarre as it may seem, your country "owns" you, and if they do not formally object to the actions of another country then you're stuffed, you have to fight local law. You may recall that the British givernment had to be prodded into formally asking for the return of some of the British detainees. As Assnut found out, thinking what applies legally in his home country would apply abroad is not a good idea, especially if that home country doesn't see fit to intervene on your behalf.

      The US law doesn't have provision for enemy non-uniform combatants not of a soveriegn country the US is in a declared war with. If there was a simple legal answer then the Obumbler would have closed Gitmo in a snap, even pretending Bush Jr would have been able to keep it open. All legal attempts to close Gitmo have failed so far, and a lot of smart people have been trying to find legal ways to close it for years.

      "....Yes, they don't wear uniforms...." Actually, to be recognised as a militia all you have to do is wear a common and recognised symbol of that militia, such as an armband. Oh, and you also have to represent a soveriegn country at war with the other sovereign country. Guess again!

      "......(The point of the Geneva Convention was to give extra rights and protections. It's sad to see people use it to argue the opposite.)...." The GC is to give protection to people in times of war. It is not some coverall set of laws to allow religious fruitcakes to blow up someone they dislike simply becasue they don't follow the version of Sharia the fruitcakes subscribes to. It is sad to see the uninformed using it in their blather.

      "......Do you wear a uniform right now?...." I'm not representing a country at war with another, so a pointless argument. However, if I was at war, say representing Britain as a militia member fighting some other sovereign country (who? the US, the Chinese, the Russians?), I'd be pretty careful up-front to make sure I could claim to be a proper PoW by following the rules and at least wearing the minimum uniform element required. Oh, and I'd also make sure I was representing a sovereign country legally at war with the invading force from another soveriegn country (like, duh!). Not just blowing up people in another country because some mullah told me doing it would get me my 72 virgins in the afterlife. Oh, did you forget that many of the jihadis caught in Afghanistan aren't Afghani?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Biggest mistake ever made by the yanks was...

    showing the world that this place and these captives even existed... but then again, hitting the media showing they were "doing something" was all the "Shrub" and his "cabal" were concerned with... they completely failed to think through the consequences of establishing the camp in Guantanamo bay and showing the world that people were being detained in such conditions...

  20. Hooch181
    Stop

    Is...

    any of this surprising?

    These events, 911, Iraq, Afganistan are all a long line of schemes to feed the Military Industrial Complex with money...

    Don't believe me, prove me wrong?

    Hey if that logic works for the government to lock people up, it works for this argument too...

  21. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Happy

    RE: Re: The bottom line...

    "....As for Labour..." Don't worry, at the next Labour Convention they'll probably have a vote to condemn the "war in Afghansitan" the same way they did at the last Convention over Iraq, and then all the Labour ex-ministers that publicly-supported and voted for the Afghan "war" can recant and pretend they all thought it was a horrible idea, just as the ones that voted for the Iraq war did ("....and I only went along with it because of that big bully Blair/Brooooown, and please give me a job in the Shadow Cabinet, Ed!")

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Troll

    I invoke Godwin's law and claim my five pounds

    Arriving late to the party - I obviously don't have enough time on my hands.

    This post is the result of zero research, is based on half remembered comments from people who may or may not have been sane at the time of making them, and WILL NOT be substantiated by links to reputable sites to reinforce my arguments. This is my one and only post on this topic and I will not respond to any requests to justify my statements.

    /rational

    The jews were not a national army - did not wear uniform (debatable?) and were considered a threat by the ruling party. Clearly the Nazis were perfectly justified in kidnapping them en masse and removing them to the camps...

    Someone mentioned the IRA further up but no one took the opportunity to note that the provisional IRA and people of similar alignment murdered a couple of thousand people and were bankrolled largely by Libya (getting back at UK collusion in the American bombing of Tripoli) and our friends in America who thought a bit of terrorist bombing and shooting a long way away wasn't such a bad thing. I understand that opinion changed somewhat around September 12th 2001. (And yes bad things were done by the protestants and army / police but I don't think that excuses anything)

    Oh, and while I'm at it - what about Jeremy Morlock, of Wasilla, Alaska, who probably did more than Julian Assange could ever do to endanger American troops on the ground. Why haven't I heard the only other famous Wasilla resident, Sarah Palin, saying 24 years isn't long enough and he needs to be treated like an AQ enemy, which in this case would be quite easy - just take him to Gitmo and throw away the key.

    Hmmm - Just wondering if I should re-type all the above in capitals.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Coat

      AC@13:37

      MP's tipped off to hashish use by "Spc. Justin Stoner,"

      Gotta love that.

      Their other behavior was rather less amusing.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: I invoke Godwin's law and claim my five pounds

      ".....The jews were not a national army...." One would have to point out that the Jews were not at war with the Germans or the Nazis, that they were a religeous group living in Europe. They were selected as scapegoats by the Nazis to justify the "inexplicable" failure of the Germans to win WW1. Many Jews were active and committed German citizens and had even fought for the Kaiser in WW1. You are taking a completely different case and trying to apply it to a completely different set of circumstances. Please think long and hard before trying again.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    RE: RE: RE: RE: Oh come on you must be a troll.

    With reference to my honourable correspondent and similarly blinkered kipperjugglers , I can't help but notice they have never been able to put down the kippers for long enough to vaguely hint at secret knowledge of serious answers to my witty monologues. Perhaps they could return when they have learned to play hard ball with the big boys?

  24. Arthur Dent

    our values as a nation

    Well done Pentagon spokesman. Your "our values as a nation" tells us exactly what you think the citizens of the United States feel their values are. Exactly those values so bravely displayed by Saddam Hussein, by Muammar Gadaffi, by Heinrich Himmler and by Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria.

    I had thought that it was only the PR idiots who put together Pentagon statements and the PR team of the department of Homeland Security (and a couple of senile senators) who thought those were the values of a once decent nation. The comments here trying to justify the disgraceful events of recent history have changed my belief: I now believe that those are indeed the values of a vociferous part of the nation, which has become a nation which must be despised by all decent people.

  25. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Troll

    The Matt Bryant situation

    Sadly the Reg does not support a kill file.

    My intuition is we are dealing either with a troll or someone who's mental state (for whatever reason) leaves them blind to any argument on reasonable behavior or common humanity.

    Feeding time is over. Do not feed.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: The Matt Bryant situation

      Sadly, it is very obvious that you are not equipped, either mentally or informationally, to conduct a proper debate. I'm suspecting that's because dissent is just so unacceptable in your tiny circle of the hip and fashionably-outraged. If you can't stand the heat....

  26. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Happy

    Good news! If you're not a handwringer.....

    The Septics have nailed Osama Bin Liner (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676)! May I say a big congrats and thanks to the US forces involved (CIA, NSA and Seals), and hope they all got home safely. No comment needed on the fact he was "hiding" right next to Pakistan's top military academy.

    Now, I'm sure that there will be plenty of the morally self-righteous who will still find grounds to moan. They will say (from their hobbyhorses) that we should have captured Bin Liner and put him on trial (civil trial, that is, not military), and that we should not use the death sentence even then. Just forget the risks of having is idiotic followers then spending the rest of his life trying to break him out of prison, or trying to get his release by kidnapping and killing real innocents. Count down to bleedingheart rants in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.....

    /Go USA!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Bin Laden Tangent

      I see you have gone off on an irrelevant tangent instead of addressing the unanswered question of your kipper juggling.

  27. Bernard M. Orwell
    Megaphone

    @Matt Bryant

    MB is clearly sick in the head. If not, then he is clearly a perfect example of why people like killing Americans. I hope he's next.

    If I or my family and friends were treated the way the US likes to treat people then *I* would be picking up a gun too. In fact, I might not even stop there. It doesn't matter what you call it, or how you justify it, or what laws you rewrite to make it ok, what you are doing, America, is WRONG and you deserve all you get.

    You're your own worst enemy. Your paranoia and disdain go hand in hand to make you utterly disfunctional.

    There is, however, one line from an MB post earlier on that I agree with. I suspect he mispelt a word here, but I will present it as is...

    "(the) uniformed pass off their views as gospel, just because they think they are morally superior."

    Yes, thats definately what the uniformed representatives of the US do. Agreed.

    As is traditional, let me lead the chant of "America? Fuck no!" (Later, I will be burning some US flags and a coupla bibles for good measure).

    Now, get out of here you retarded, morally bankrupt, self-inflated troll. (perhaps the Fox network would like to hire you?)

    Hmm, you know that 'flag burning' quip has given me an idea...what if we organise a mass burning of US flags and upload the videos to YouTube as a protest? Might give us an indicator of how many people think the US is utterly fucked up. Perhaps we should do it on 9/11/11? Yep, I'm beyond caring for the likes of the US if the opinion of MB and the actions of its military/governments/banks is anything to go by....

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: @Matt Bryant

      "MB is clearly sick in the head. If not, then he is clearly a perfect example of why people like killing Americans. I hope he's next....." Jokes on you - I'm not an American. So, I'm "sick in the head", but you advocate killing me simply because you don't like my point of view!?! Was that meant to be irony, or are you really that silly? Truly a monumental fail.

      "....If I or my family and friends were treated the way the US likes to treat people then *I* would be picking up a gun too...." Bernie, you are very unlikely to receive any attention from the Yanks as, despite being a seriously stupid in-duh-vidual, you have done nothing to cause the Americans any alarm. At most, your blather has simply caused amusement.

      "....Later, I will be burning some US flags and a coupla bibles for good measure...." I'm amused that you think this will cause offence to the majority of Americans. Most just shrug and think flag-burners are not worth the worry, and I think you'll find it's extremist Muslims that get murderous when you denigrate their holy book.

      "......Now, get out of here you retarded, morally bankrupt, self-inflated troll....." Nice temper tantrum. I wasn't expecting any form of reasoned debate, but your childish rage is very amusing. Now, be a good kiddie and go take your meds. Don't worry, I'm sure someone else with your sympathies may be able to post a reasoned argument. Best if you leave the rest of the debate to the adults.

      "....what if we organise a mass burning of US flags....." I'm quite confident there are already concerned people that keep you and matches well away from each other. Sure you don't want to burn poppies? Anyway, please do organise a protest if it makes you feel better, the funny thing is I would defend your right to do so, provided you don't break the law. Please be understanding if others turn up just to laugh at you, please don't scream and whine that they are "sick in the head" and should be killed. After all, that might be taken as incitement, and it looks like the prison system is not the place for the treatment you probably require.

      /Can we have an "Epic FAIL but it really made me laugh" icon, please?

  28. Bernard M. Orwell
    Stop

    Death of Bin Laden

    Just one thing to say on this subject, U.S of A....

    Pictures or it didn't happen.

    ~ America? Fuck no.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Happy

      RE: Death of Bin Laden

      Or is it that you simply don't want to believe it happened?

      In the case of Bin Liner getting taken out - America, fuck yeah!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like