An American Lesson From The Captured British

[candle86]

I would never go as far as to say that all of those people are innocent. I would completely disagree with anyone making that argument.

But whether innocent or not, especially when that's an unknown fact, torture, arbitrary detention and robbing a person of their rights/dignity is uncalled for.

We don't seem to be in disagreement regarding Guantanamo Bay, so there's no reason to argue about that.

It was also mentioned earlier that these incidents are uncommon. Just because you don't see them often in the mainstream press, doesn't mean that they haven't been occurring (or that they go unreported). I don't think the majority of Americans watch BBC News (British), the CBC (Canadian), Euronews or the variety of smaller or independent news providers.

why would we watched biased canuk or english news, especially when i cant stand either country?

 

[Stacmon]

@Xanikk: Again, you draw far too much out of my arguments.

I'm not saying that "mass atrocities" are occurring, rather I'm saying that more goes on than what you end up hearing about in the US.

In some of these "incidents," the soldiers involved tried to cover up their actions and conspired to make the dead look hostile or make the situation seem accidental.

Also, many suspicious deaths are written off as collateral damage.

If you recall the Haditha Massacre, there was no military investigation until a published article drew the attention of the public and pressure started to mount.

I doubt that you think every single event is officially reported.

 

[Stacmon]

why would we watched biased canuk or english news, especially when i cant stand either country?

I'm very interested in this .

First of all, why do you think that these news services are biased?

Second of all, why can't you stand either country?

 

[Shadylookin]

except where not fighting countiers where fighting terrorist cells, disorganized cells i might add, so releasing them would be a bad idea, untill we stop there entire cell and eradicate it they remain a POW in the war on terror. We are treating them to humane, what we should do is everyone arrested as a terrorist should recive a short trial followed by a nosse, thats justice

well I don't think we should declare war on abstract ideas. If they're terrorists give them fair a trial, if they are not terrorist there is no reason for us to keep them

 

[Keshik]

I don't buy your premise that the two detention situations are so comparable.

 

[Stacmon]

I don't buy your premise that the two detention situations are so comparable.

Well the purpose of the post isn't to make the two seem identical. Rather it's to underline that the reaction to the detention of several British service personnel for a relatively short period of time is disproportionate compared to the amount of consideration given to the people that have been (and are still being) detained by the US government without trial, despite their innocence.

 

[Stacmon]

So far the poll has been a surprise to me. There are far more supporters of the current policy than I thought there would be. Is anyone else bothered by this?

 

[scipian]

You're wrong on several levels.

First, pretty much no one, not even many conservatives, approved of the actions at Guantanamo. Remember the scandal? Of course we didn't support this.

Also, those in Guantanamo were in reasonable suspicion of being terrorists and we are at war with terrorism. These British/UN troops were in no way at war or in an way in conflict with the Iranians.

Also, we did not kidnap the inmates from their country. We at least wait for them to be in our or our allies' country.

And i refuse to vote in your poll because of the obvious bias of the questions. Put in an answer saying "I'm an American and I, as the rest of the Americans are, am against the Guantanamo type prisons." This was one case of American injustice that when revealed was pulled due to public outrage. The Iranians are cheering for their saviour Ahmadinejad's actions..

 

[Stacmon]

First, pretty much no one, not even many conservatives, approved of the actions at Guantanamo. Remember the scandal? Of course we didn't support this.

Are you confusing Guantanamo Bay with the scandal that took place at Abu Ghurayb? Otherwise, I'm not aware about the specific scandal there that you suggest happened above.

If "not even many conservatives" approved of Guantanamo Bay, we'd have seen it closed by now, especially with all the international pressure being applied.

Also, those in Guantanamo were in reasonable suspicion of being terrorists...

"Reasonable suspicion?" What do you base that claim on? The US has imprisoned many people in Guantanamo Bay and other locations and filed no charges. If there was reasonable suspicion, why on Earth would they not confront them with the evidence they have?

Furthermore, dozens of people have been released after no sufficient case could be built up against them, despite their long period of captivity. It's almost as if they're trying to make an argument about why they're there after the fact. Again, I'm not suggesting that all detainees are innocent, but clearly this is a severely flawed system.

... and we are at war with terrorism.

I always find it astonishing when people say things like "we are at war with terrorism." You can't fight a tactic, like countless people before me have argued. Why doesn't the USA wage a "war against drunk driving?"

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

That's 16,885 people that die each year in the USA because of drunk driving, that's more than 5 times more than the number that died in September 11th (and it's happening each and every year!) This is one simple example of the thousands of things more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack, yet people allow themselves to be "frightened" into giving up their rights and allowing deplorable things to be done in the name of "national security."

These British/UN troops were in no way at war or in an way in conflict with the Iranians.

This point is fairly trivial. We can't be sure of all the details, and Britain has admitted entering Iranian waters without permission in the past. In any case, even if the Iranians did this with absolutely no provocation, that doesn't warrant detainee treatment by Americans.

Also, we did not kidnap the inmates from their country. We at least wait for them to be in our or our allies' country.

That's completely untrue. Many of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay (and possibly other people we haven't heard of, in locations we don't know about) were picked up in their home countries, like Afghanistan or Pakistan.

And i refuse to vote in your poll because of the obvious bias of the questions. Put in an answer saying "I'm an American and I, as the rest of the Americans are, am against the Guantanamo type prisons." This was one case of American injustice that when revealed was pulled due to public outrage. The Iranians are cheering for their saviour Ahmadinejad's actions..

Again, your comments make it sound you're confusing Guantanamo Bay with Abu Ghurayb. Several people (including Non-Americans) have also voted in support of Guantanamo and similar installations, a surprising number in fact, so clearly there aren't as many people against it as you suggest.

 

[amadeus]

The M1 does MY talking.

 

[JollyRoger]

i disagree, 1% maybe are innocent, maybe 1%,

Far more than 1% have been released. Do you thing the government is being incompetent by releasing people without bothering to at least have a trial and try to convict them since they are so obviously guilty.

 

[JohnRM]

I understand your points and the theory of it all, but I truly have no idea of what is going on out there. I am not in the CIA, FBI, military, or in government. I don't think that many people on these forums are either, and if so, they are unlikely to be in a capacity where they could make an informed decision. At this point, I can only trust that my government is doing what it takes to get the job done.

 

[Stacmon]

I understand your points and the theory of it all, but I truly have no idea of what is going on out there. I am not in the CIA, FBI, military, or in government. I don't think that many people on these forums are either, and if so, they are unlikely to be in a capacity where they could make an informed decision. At this point, I can only trust that my government is doing what it takes to get the job done.

But don't you see, that's exactly the problem. If people blindly trust their governments, then those governments feel no sense of accountability. As soon as the Congress was won by the Democrats, we suddenly started seeing a lot more oversight than we have in the first 6 years of the Bush administration.

If people aren't skeptical of their governments and make no effort to keep track of what their government is doing, how it is spending their money and what possible abuses they're committing, then the government is pretty much given the green light.

For instance, right now we're seeing another scandal regarding the Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales). If the vast majority of Americans were to voice their opposition to him and his policies, the president would have no choice but to ask him for his resignation.

The problem is, Americans are among the most politically apathetic people in the world and have one of the lowest voter turnouts of any democracy, let alone among developed nations. The people in the USA seem to care a lot more about their day to day lives, and don't see how elections or politics affect them. Perhaps this problem (at least partly) stems from the two-party system that the US has, which is rather unique among democratic countries.

If you look at the poll above, there is a huge difference between Americans and Non-Americans regarding their support of current US policies. This is another thing that is putting a wedge between US-World relations. I expected to see some support for the current policy, but nowhere near the amount that has been expressed so far. Of course this is no scientific poll, but still, it's enough to make one worry.

Remember that in a country where a person can be arbitrarily detained for "reasons of national security" there is little preventing the government from picking you up and holding you indefinitely. There have been clear abuses of the sweeping new powers given to the US intelligence organizations since the Patriot Act was put in place, including the most recent scandal regarding the FBI.

I would have said that the current situation would trouble me greatly if I was American, but it's even more troubling than that. As the case of Maher Arar and Kevin's Iranian family have shown, Canadians aren't very safe in the US either.

 

[Atticus]

i disagree, 1% maybe are innocent, maybe 1%, and id bet money that most that have gone free because they couldnt prove the charges,

Did you know that most of the prisoners in Guantanamo aren't even charged of anything?

If you really care about US, you should think the consequences of your actions. You have captured people across the world, put them in cages and "soft" tortured them. Do you really think muslims start to think "oh yeah, America isn't that bad at all, we were wrong all the time, let's stop teasing them". On the contrary you are starting to infuriate nonmuslims too. If you really care about US, you might want to think what will happen in the future and try to prevent it. Or on the other hand you can blindly revenge things that have happened, but don't expect to be treated nicely then.

And besides Guantanamo it self is a mark of sinking to the lowest levels of humanity. If you treat people like that, what makes you better than Iran?

 

[The Last Conformist]

The US should change its policies, but I fail to see how the recent anglo-iranian silliness is relevant.

 

[azzaman333]

What's fair in charging prisoners for breaking laws which didn't exist when they were originally detained?

 

[RedWolf]

i agree with how we deal with those animals, i have a brother that serves in guantumo with the Marines its not as bad as the liberal media makes it. Those animals get an arrow pointing towards mecca, 3 hot meals a day, 1 hr exercise. Tell me how they are mistreated, they are treated the same way a us citizen is treated in out own prisons. A POW is not entitled to a treaty and is only released at the end of a war or with negotions for a POW exchange, you think we should try them and let them go back and fight, your very dumb.

So they're POW's now? If so the harsh interrogation techniques used against them are illegal.

When your government apologizes (and promises to stop) deporting my (innocent) citizens to foreign countries for torture without trial you can again pretend you have a democratic system of justice.

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

 

[Stacmon]

The US should change its policies, but I fail to see how the recent anglo-iranian silliness is relevant.

Well, to reiterate, the reason I suggested that Americans can learn a lesson from the British ordeal is largely due to the fact that many Britons/Americans/Westerners expressed condemnation and a great amount of concern over what they perceived to be the unjustified capture of sailors and marines.

These people were held for less than two weeks and were treated far better than some of the people detained by the American government (even if you assume that every word in their recent press conference is true, relating to their treatment).

What sickens me is that many of the same Americans that were demanding their release have nothing to say about (or even express support regarding) the hundreds of people detained without charge by the US government. These people have been (or still are being) held for years now, not weeks. They have little, if any contact with the outside world, are often isolated from other prisoners, cannot confront the evidence/allegations levied against them and are sometimes involved in the US administration's rendition program (often equated with the "outsourcing of torture to foreign countries.")

As has been echoed before, some detainees are released back into the public after 2, 3, 4 or more years in detention without trial or compensation. If they truly posed a risk, they would have been detained longer, and if sufficient evidence of their complicity in terrorist acts or financing existed, they would have been charged.

The Case of David Hicks

Let's look at the first person tried under the US's new Military Commissions Act, the Australian David Hicks.

It should first be noted that... "Of the 500 detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Hicks is one of four detainees formally charged with offences."

This man, labeled a ruthless terrorist and great danger to the US was released from Guantanamo under a plea agreement that sees him serve only 9 months in an Australian jail. There are a number of things very suspicious about this plea deal. Here are some of them:

1) A stipulation of the plea bargain ensured that the 5 years that Hicks remained at Guantanamo Bay would not be subtracted from any sentence handed down by the military tribunal. (Otherwise, subtracting the amount out a 9 month sentence would mean that he served 51 months/more than 4 years longer than he should have, which would obviously be an admission of error by the administration).

2) Hicks should not speak to the media for one year - that's one great way to prevent him from talking about his ordeal.

3) Hicks is to not take legal action against the United States.

4) Hicks is to withdraw allegations that the US military abused him.

5) He cannot profit from his detainment in any way, including selling his story to the media, writing a book, etc.

Furthermore, there's a lot of speculation that Hicks was finally charged because of growing resentment towards the detention within Australia. As a loyal ally of the Bush Administration, Australian prime minister John Howard would have faced this thorny issue in the next election. Pressure from the Australian government and Hicks' Australian citizenship is likely one of the main reasons he was finally charged and transferred into Australian custody.

The point that I have been trying to make is that it shouldn't matter what citizenship a person possesses. If they are being mistreated, abused and arbitrarily detained, whether guilty or not, there is something gravely wrong with the current system. If the US had reason enough to abduct and hold these people, they should be able to file charges against them, rather than waiting years to build up a case. You can never give a person back their innocence, or their time and this administration has neither apologized for the mistakes that they've committed (ie: when they unconditionally released detainees without any charges after holding them for years), nor have they compensated these people in any way.

Hopefully more Americans will see why the world is becoming less and less patient regarding their actions.

 

[sonorakitch]

When your government apologizes (and promises to stop) deporting my (innocent) citizens to foreign countries for torture without trial you can again pretend you have a democratic system of justice.

Now now, if you are going to bring this one up at least acknowledge your government provided the information indicating he was an evil terrorist.

~Chris

 

[RedWolf]

Now now, if you are going to bring this one up at least acknowledge your government provided the information indicating he was an evil terrorist.

You're right... and don't worry - my disgust for them burns almost equally as strong. On the other hand they've at least apologized, compensated the victim and admitted it was unforgiveable.