Be careful with the Casio!

[Azash]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060210/wl_nm/security_guantanamo_dc

MIAMI (Reuters) - The majority of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base are not accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies, and only a small percentage were captured by U.S. forces, a review of government documents has found.

"The large majority of detainees never participated in any combat against the United States on a battlefield," concluded a report compiled at Seton Hall University's law school, in New Jersey, and given to Reuters on Thursday.

The report analyzed unclassified government summaries of evidence the military used in 2004 hearings to decide whether 517 Guantanamo detainees were enemy combatants. One of the authors, Seton Hall law professor Mark Denbeaux, represents two Guantanamo prisoners.

The summaries do not use prisoners' names nor do they include secret evidence the review panels considered.

But the analysis provides a picture of who is being held indefinitely at the detention camp the United States set up in Cuba in 2002 to hold suspected terrorists captured in the war against al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters in Afghanistan.

The study said 55 percent were not accused in the documents of committing hostile acts against the United States and its coalition allies.

Among those where the location of capture was listed, only 5 percent were captured by U.S. forces. The rest were taken by Pakistani forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or by the Northern Alliance, an Afghan militia that helped U.S. forces oust the Taliban.

Some were sold to the United States by bounty hunters who then disappeared, making it difficult to verify their claims that the detainee had terrorist connections, the report said.

It included copies of leaflets distributed in Afghanistan urging people to "get wealth and power beyond your dreams" by turning in Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

The report said the government documents contained formidable evidence that a few Guantanamo detainees are dangerous men with powerful positions in terrorist groups.

Eleven percent had met Osama bin Laden and one participated in al Qaeda meetings discussing the September 11 attacks before they occurred, the report said. Another is a high-ranking Taliban member who tortured, maimed and murdered Afghan citizens in Taliban jails, it said.

"The evidence provided for most of the detainees, however, is far less impressive," the report said.

Only 8 percent were characterized in the government documents as al Qaeda fighters and 16 percent as Taliban fighters, the report said.

Some of the rest were considered al Qaeda or Taliban "members," under a definition so broad it could apply to anyone believed to have ever spoken to an al Qaeda or Taliban member, the report said.

Others were deemed "associates" of terrorist organizations, though half the groups cited are not on U.S. government lists of groups it considers terrorist organizations.

The report questions whether associating with the Taliban really makes someone an enemy combatant, since the Taliban government controlled nearly all aspects of Afghan citizens' lives, and conscripted boys as young as 12 to fight.

One detainee was considered an enemy combatant because he was conscripted into Taliban forces as a cook's assistant, the report said.

Other evidence cited in the documents as proof of enemy combatant status included possessing AK-47 or Kalashnikov rifles, staying at guest houses while traveling through Afghanistan, possessing a Casio watch or wearing olive drab clothing.

U.S. officials at Guantanamo have repeatedly said that the detainees provide valuable intelligence information and were carefully selected from among more than 8,000 men taken captive during the Afghanistan war.

A few dozen of those who underwent the 2004 enemy combatant reviews have since been released. The population has been whittled down to about 490 through diplomatic negotiations and through an annual review process that continues.

Only 10 have been charged with war crimes and Pentagon officials have said only 50 to 75 ever would be charged.

 

[Rambuchan]

The majority of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base are not accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies, and only a small percentage were captured by U.S. forces, a review of government documents has found.

Thank God for government reviews. We'd be so in the dark without them

 

[anarres]

Moderator Action: Trolling removed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Of course, to 95% of the world population none of this is a shock.

 

[bhsup]

Just out of curiosity, if we were in a conventional war and we captured a division of <random nation picked here> Icelandic Marines, would we be obligated to let all of the support personnel go who never actually fought on the field of battle? Cooks, motor pool personnel, secretaries, you name it, all exist at that level and are enemy soldiers, but probably never committed a hostile act against the US or fought in a battle.

No, of course not, we'd keep them and shove them in a POW camp along with the rest of the division. And they're even legitimate POWs, not illegal enemy combatants aligned with a terrorist group which presumed to take upon itself, illegally, the rights and priviledges reserved to a sovereign nation.

 

[Rambuchan]

Mr Agent, your post is HIGHLY academic to the debate. You are not in a conventional war, these people have not been proven to be 'support personnel', there is no 'battlefield', these are not soliders (by your own definition) and this is not your regular POW camp. Kindly deal with the topic in hand and refrain from such abstracted, distractionary tactics. Thank you.

 

[Timko]

U.S. officials at Guantanamo have repeatedly said that the detainees provide valuable intelligence information and were carefully selected from among more than 8,000 men taken captive during the Afghanistan war.

Surely that should say `provided information', since they really can't still be providing useful information, having been locked up for up to 4 years.

 

[bhsup]

Mr Agent, your post is HIGHLY academic to the debate. You are not in a conventional war, these people have not been proven to be 'support personnel', there is no 'battlefield', these are not soliders (by your own definition) and this is not your regular POW camp. Kindly deal with the topic in hand and refrain from such abstracted, distractionary tactics. Thank you.

I realize they are not POWs, as they do not deserve that rating being illegal enemy combatants. But just as you still call a cook a soldier if they are in the enemy's army, you can still call a cook for Al-Queda an illegal enemy combatant. Supporting a terrorist organization automatically makes one a terrorist, period.

You're right that there is no battlefield in the traditional sense, and that they are not truly soldiers, and that this is not a regular POW camp. That is because the enemy is not a nation-state but a terrorist organization which does not have the right to wage war, so OUR tactics must be different. Instead of a traditional battlefield, we must fight them in different ways. Instead of true soldiers, we have illegal combatants who are illegal because they support an organization which decided it could play with nation states when in fact it cannot just assume that right. Instead of a traditional POW camp, we have Gitmo for illegal combatants because they do not deserve the same protections of POWs. That said, they're not being tortured or mistreated, but they sure don't deserve Red Cross care packages either. And just as with POWs in a legitimate war, these illegal combatants in this conflict that terrorism illegitimately forced upon the world will be kept until the conflict is over, which we will decide arbitrarily since there is no legitimate enemy to negotiate with.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wasnt he a cook for the Taliban? That isnt the same as a terrorist. Al-Qaeda probably just ate at McDonalds and BurgerKing anyway

 

[Rambuchan]

I realize they are not POWs, as they do not deserve that rating being illegal enemy combatants. But just as you still call a cook a soldier if they are in the enemy's army, you can still call a cook for Al-Queda an illegal enemy combatant. Supporting a terrorist organization automatically makes one a terrorist, period.

You're right that there is no battlefield in the traditional sense, and that they are not truly soldiers, and that this is not a regular POW camp. That is because the enemy is not a nation-state but a terrorist organization which does not have the right to wage war, so OUR tactics must be different. Instead of a traditional battlefield, we must fight them in different ways. Instead of true soldiers, we have illegal combatants who are illegal because they support an organization which decided it could play with nation states when in fact it cannot just assume that right. Instead of a traditional POW camp, we have Gitmo for illegal combatants because they do not deserve the same protections of POWs. That said, they're not being tortured or mistreated, but they sure don't deserve Red Cross care packages either. And just as with POWs in a legitimate war, these illegal combatants in this conflict that terrorism illegitimately forced upon the world will be kept until the conflict is over, which we will decide arbitrarily since there is no legitimate enemy to negotiate with.

Errr proof and evidence are lacking in the sea of assumptions and opinions above. And that, dear sir, is the problem with supporters of Guantanamo - they all jump to conclusions that they are illegal, enemy combatants.

I'm simply asking: On what basis are those assumptions being made?

varwnos: Ain't you ever heard of KFC???!

 

[bhsup]

Errr proof and evidence are lacking in the sea of assumptions and opinions above. And that, dear sir, is the problem with supporters of Guantanamo - they all jump to conclusions that they are illegal, enemy combatants.

I'm simply asking: On what basis are those assumptions being made?!

My government says they are, and that's good enough for me.

 

[Abaddon]

My government says they are, and that's good enough for me.

oh dear me.

 

[anarres]

But just as you still call a cook a soldier if they are in the enemy's army, you can still call a cook for Al-Queda an illegal enemy combatant. Supporting a terrorist organization automatically makes one a terrorist, period.

And being conscripted (hint: forced) to be a cook for the Taliban (hint: NOT a terrorist organisation) is relevent to your statement how?

Seriously, your statement is ludicrous. Stupid to quite literally an unbelievable extent. I have to believe it is deliberate propaganda (aka lying).

You're right that there is no battlefield in the traditional sense, and that they are not truly soldiers, and that this is not a regular POW camp. That is because the enemy is not a nation-state but a terrorist organization which does not have the right to wage war, so OUR tactics must be different. Instead of a traditional battlefield, we must fight them in different ways. Instead of true soldiers, we have illegal combatants who are illegal because they support an organization which decided it could play with nation states when in fact it cannot just assume that right. Instead of a traditional POW camp, we have Gitmo for illegal combatants because they do not deserve the same protections of POWs.

I'd really like to know how the Taliban (LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN WHEN YOU WERE AT WAR WITH THEM) is in any way a terrorist organisation.

Fail to do this and you have to admit (by your own statements) that people the USA recognises as Taliban soldiers are not illegal combatants, and since war ended a few years ago with Afghanistan you have to release them.

That said, they're not being tortured or mistreated, but they sure don't deserve Red Cross care packages either.

Convenient you forget the UN report that calls the force feeding of prisoners with metal-edged tubes "tantamount to torture". Do you force-feed prisoners in the USA generally or is this "humane treatment" kept especially for those in Guantanimo?

And just as with POWs in a legitimate war, these illegal combatants in this conflict that terrorism illegitimately forced upon the world will be kept until the conflict is over, which we will decide arbitrarily since there is no legitimate enemy to negotiate with.

How convenient, a life sentance without trial.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: To those Christians who support this treatment of people in Guantanimo, Jesus would weep at what you are doing.

 

[Rambuchan]

My government says they are, and that's good enough for me.

:suicide:

That was the WRONG answer mate.

I can hardly resist saying yet, so I won't:

If they asked you to jump of a cliff, would you do it?

 

[bhsup]

And being conscripted (hint: forced) to be a cook for the Taliban (hint: NOT a terrorist organisation) is relevent to your statement how?

I'd really like to know how the Taliban (LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN WHEN YOU WERE AT WAR WITH THEM) is in any way a terrorist organisation.

Just FYI, but the USA and the vast majority of the world never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, ever. But anyway, I addressed that earlier anyway will quote it again below.

Supporting a terrorist organization automatically makes one a terrorist, period.

Clearly, the Taliban openly and fervently supported the Taliban. That's indisputable. Therefore the Taliban themselves are indeed terrorists as well.

:suicide:

That was the WRONG answer mate.

I can hardly resist saying yet, so I won't:

If they asked you to jump of a cliff, would you do it?

Of course not, and they never would. It's not the same as someone in an oppresive regime saying it. The US is the good guys, remember?

 

[Rambuchan]

Of course not, and they never would. It's not the same as someone in an oppresive regime saying it. The US is the good guys, remember?

OMG. You are a very long way from having a balanced and independent view of things aren't you? It's almost like you're speaking another language or you're being sarcastic.

Question for you:

What do YOU think should happen to those men in Guantanamo?

(There is no ask the audience or phone a friend on this btw.)

 

[bhsup]

OMG. You are a very long way from having a balanced and independent view of things aren't you? It's almost like you're speaking another language or you're being sarcastic.

Question for you:

What do YOU think should happen to those men in Guantanamo?

(There is no ask the audience or phone a friend on this btw.)

First, no sarcasm, I assure you. I may be scarily jingoistic to a level that you're not used to seeing, but it's all sincere.

Well, I guess I'd not be opposed to allowing those to leave that are deemed not a threat, but otherwise as I said earlier, we keep them there until the end of the war. It's a camp for enemy combatants and we're still at war with their organization (terrorism), so why in the world would we let them go? Even POWs, who have treaty protection, are not released until the end of a war.

 

[Rambuchan]

First, no sarcasm, I assure you. I may be scarily jingoistic to a level that you're not used to seeing, but it's all sincere.

That is (partly) good to hear, especially the sincerity part.

Well, I guess I'd not be opposed to allowing those to leave that are deemed not a threat, but otherwise as I said earlier, we keep them there until the end of the war. It's a camp for enemy combatants and we're still at war with their organization (terrorism), so why in the world would we let them go? Even POWs, who have treaty protection, are not released until the end of a war.

Can I offer some free and friendly advice? How about a trial or two? This way you can be sure that they don't present a threat before you just "let them go". Smells like justice and peace of mind right?

Another tip is to stop comparing these people to prisoners of war. They are not. Most of them have been shopped into US hands by people they know for a cash reward. As we've noted, it's only the government that is calling them prisoners of war and there's a whole thread in OT right now about the government's own review of their 'status'.

When do you see the war ending? I mean what is it that will spell victory? (You know, like taking the enemies capital, or achieving a surrender)

 

[Alpine Trooper]

First, no sarcasm, I assure you. I may be scarily jingoistic to a level that you're not used to seeing, but it's all sincere.

Well, I guess I'd not be opposed to allowing those to leave that are deemed not a threat, but otherwise as I said earlier, we keep them there until the end of the war. It's a camp for enemy combatants and we're still at war with their organization (terrorism), so why in the world would we let them go? Even POWs, who have treaty protection, are not released until the end of a war.

Moderator Action: Trolling removed. Warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Abaddon]

Its terrifying that the rest of the world has turned a blind eye to Guantanamo.

 

[Rambuchan]

We haven't Sloz. It's only people who have Guantanamo existing 'in their name' who have.