Guantanamo Bay Escapes

Hagar

Three men have escaped the clutches of Uncle Sam in the Guantanamo Bay Camp.

Ok, they had to commit suicide to do it, but who wouldn't.
No charges, no trials, no family contact, no rights, no hope.

Karl Hungus

Hagar wrote:

Ok, they had to commit suicide to do it, but who wouldn't.

Queue "Easy way out" joke.

Seriously though, I'm not really sure I see the point of this thread. Yes, Guantanamo Bay is a very, very unpleasant place, but that's been established to the point of being engrained in most opinions. I'm not sure their suicide is something to be applauded either. It's not an "Escape" so much as a tragedy, and I don't think it should be seen as anything other than that.

Hagar

The basic point is that three probably innocent, definitely legally innocent as they have never been tried and found guilty of anything, men have been ground down by the self-appointed guardians of freedom and justice to the point of suicide. How many more can we expect? How many more have tried and failed?

Karl Hungus

Hagar wrote:

The basic point is that three probably innocent, definitely legally innocent as they have never been tried and found guilty of anything, men have been ground down by the self-appointed guardians of freedom and justice to the point of suicide. How many more can we expect? How many more have tried and failed?

Yes, it's a horrible situation entirely, but at the risk of sounding apathetic, do we really need another Guantanamo fist-shaking session? Because that's really all these threads ever end up as. It's inhuman, it's an injustice, and it's been said countless times already.

Is there any forseeable justice? Will Guantanamo come to an end? What's going to be/can be done about it? I think these are far more important questions that merit more discussion.

Hagar

I take your point. There is very little the average person can do except shake their fist. Hopefully the people who can do something about it will count the fists and say "look that's what the voters want, let's listen to them". Speaking out against injustice is an important part of our social order.

Karl Hungus

Why do I get the feeling I've opened up quite the can of worms here?

Hagar wrote:

I take your point. There is very little the average person can do except shake their fist. Hopefully the people who can do something about it will count the fists and say "look that's what the voters want, let's listen to them". Speaking out against injustice is an important part of our social order.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not disrespecting the power of fist-shaking, in my opinion a well organised protest can work wonders, or sometimes not, which seems to be the case with reguards to matters of the US. A lot of people were fist-shaking about the use of Shannon airport by US planes, and that amounted to exactly nothing being accomplished.

I think the US government listening to their people is about as likely as George W. Bush seeing sense.

Sand

Seeing as Hagar hasnt provided links, guess its up to others

The basic point is that three probably innocent, definitely legally innocent as they have never been tried and found guilty of anything, men have been ground down by the self-appointed guardians of freedom and justice to the point of suicide. How many more can we expect? How many more have tried and failed?

41 attempts AFAIK. But 3 simultaneous suicides? Seems more like a calculated effort rather than individual desperation/despair. Not surprising if fanatics willing to become suicide bombers are willing to commit suicide to achieve political ends. Gitmo holds 460 prisoners - well 3 less now - and has released about 300. No hope? I guess it depends on whether you can convince interrogators that you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. These 3 guys obviously couldnt. And their co-ordinated martyrdom doesnt really contradict that.

"They hung themselves with fabricated nooses made out of clothes and bed sheets," U.S. navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris said in a conference call from the U.S. base in southeastern Cuba.

Gen. John Craddock, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, said in the conference call the three left suicide notes but refused to disclose the contents.

One of the detainees was a mid-or high-level al-Qaida operative, Harris said, while another had been captured in Afghanistan and participated in a riot at a prison there. The third belonged to a splinter group. Their names were not released.

He said all three had engaged in a hunger strike to protest against their indefinite incarceration and had been force-fed before quitting the protest action. Military commanders said two were participating in the hunger strike as recently as last month and described one of them as a long-term hunger striker who had begun the protest late last year and ended it in May.

I take your point. There is very little the average person can do except shake their fist. Hopefully the people who can do something about it will count the fists and say "look that's what the voters want, let's listen to them". Speaking out against injustice is an important part of our social order.

So you campaign against the Special Criminal Court as well?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Gitmo holds 460 prisoners - well 3 less now - and has released about 300. No hope? I guess it depends on whether you can convince interrogators that you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Can you tell us how long those three where in Gitmo?

Considering the percentage of people innocent in Gitmo is running close to 50% of those that are detained and nearly everyone there is held without charges I think its a bit prudent to claim they are terrorists without actual proof to back it up.

If there is hope of being let go why are so many on hunger strike there?

Hagar

Sand wrote:

So you campaign against the Special Criminal Court as well?

Where did that come from? Are they sending people to Guantanamo now? Is that why the planes stop off in Shannon? To pick them up?

As for links, I don't supply links, this is discussion between adults not a school room.

Sand

Considering the percentage of people innocent in Gitmo is running close to 50% of those that are detained and nearly everyone there is held without charges I think its a bit prudent to claim they are terrorists without actual proof to back it up.

Yes, given that the percentage of people innocent in Gitmo is running close to 100% released it is prudent to consider them to be terrorists, especially seeing as they launch co-ordinated suicides for political gain. Anyway, using Martys standard of determining guilt, who needs actual proof?

Gitmo isnt all that different to any other prision. Everyone in it is innocent apparently.

Where did that come from? Are they sending people to Guantanamo now? Is that why the planes stop off in Shannon? To pick them up?

Non jury trials, people convicted on the basis of Gardai opinion alone. I understand from the above that you think that if its not Gitmo, it cant be unjust...

As for links, I don't supply links, this is discussion between adults not a school room.

Yep, hype works better in an enviroment lacking facts and information.

Karl Hungus

Hagar wrote:

As for links, I don't supply links, this is discussion between adults not a school room.

Well with that kind of tone, I'm not too sure of the distinction.

Hagar

What tone? I'm just putting forward my opinion. I'm not saying it's an absolute. The US is operating above the law in detaining these men. Yes there probably are men in there who have committed hideous crimes but equally there are likely to be innocent people caught in a rather indescriminate net.
How can they prove their innocence? I always thought someone had to prove their guilt.

I don't think I'm hypeing up anything. As for the Special Criminal Courts in Ireland, while I don't entirely agree with them, they are a matter for another thread. We can't discuss all the criminal justice systems in the world in a single thread?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Yes, given that the percentage of people innocent in Gitmo is running close to 100% released it is prudent to consider them to be terrorists, especially seeing as they launch co-ordinated suicides for political gain. Anyway, using Martys standard of determining guilt, who needs actual proof?

Well me for starters. Like I said do you know how long they have been in prison or what they have been charged with?

Or does committing suicide automatically brand you a terrorist in this day and age?

Gitmo isnt all that different to any other prision. Everyone in it is innocent apparently.

Well I was basing it off the figures you quoted as people released vs how many are in there now.

Last time I checked we lived in a culture of innocent until proven guilty.

Does being sent to Gitmo automatically make you guilty? If so how can you say that with so many already released as innocent?

Non jury trials, people convicted on the basis of Gardai opinion alone.

However in such an instance your convicted. Your also entitled to a fair trial and entitled to see the evidence against you.

Karl Hungus

Hagar wrote:

What tone? I'm just putting forward my opinion.

I'm refering to the really rather condescending "It's a discussion between adults, not a school room" comment.

Hagar

I'm sorry Karl, you've lost me. How can I be condescending by stating that we are all adults here and should be able to discuss a topic with someone looking for links as if links were the Ten Commandments cast in stone?
You can find a link on the web to prove absolutely anything.

I'm more interested in hearing people's opinions not cut and paste generic stuff from a site somewhere. I'm sorry if that offends anybody, it's not intended to.

Heinrich

Karl Hungus wrote:

I'm refering to the really rather condescending "It's a discussion between adults, not a school room" comment.

In all honesty I think Hagar seems to want to discuss rather than trawl up links for the sake of argument!

Most of these links are pro american, pro iraqi invasion and are largely based on American spin! Having over 500 prisoners for years in detention without even a modest Judge Roy Bean sort of trial defies all human rights.

Saying that three men were activists without furnishing proof is just not a good enough argument.

Karl Hungus

Hagar wrote:

I'm sorry Karl, you've lost me. How can I be condescending by stating that we are all adults here and should be able to discuss a topic with someone looking for links as if links were the Ten Commandments cast in stone?
You can find a link on the web to prove absolutely anything.

I'm more interested in hearing people's opinions not cut and paste generic stuff from a site somewhere. I'm sorry if that offends anybody, it's not intended to.

Er... It's just common courtesy to provide a link to what you're refering to. It's not a case of "cut and paste generic stuff from a site somewhere."

Hobbes

Hagar wrote:

Ishould be able to discuss a topic with someone looking for links as if links were the Ten Commandments cast in stone?

Its in the forum charter that you should supply them if someone asks (so they can see more details themselves). No biggie, although I don't know why Sand felt links needed to be added, its not like this is ultra secret news.

Can we get back on topic?

Wolff

a small point but im sure most of the home countries a lot of these prisoners come from would never imprison innocent people - or have mock trials - im sure none would ever condemn people to death for homosexuality and witchcraft etc

and behead ,hang and whip those found guilty or not guilty

Im sure they are all above reproach - i dont condone what the americans are doing in Guantanemo but lets look at the whole picture and not a slanted one

tallus

Well that's an issue for a seperate thread Wolff. I mean the discussion here is about Guantanamo.

murphaph

Wolff wrote:

a small point but im sure most of the home countries a lot of these prisoners come from would never imprison innocent people - or have mock trials - im sure none would ever condemn people to death for homosexuality and witchcraft etc

and behead ,hang and whip those found guilty or not guilty

Im sure they are all above reproach - i dont condone what the americans are doing in Guantanemo but lets look at the whole picture and not a slanted one

The difference between those countries and the United States is the pompous attitude the US has, as if it were the beacon of democracy and human rights shining around the world, when that is very far from the reality.

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

a small point but im sure most of the home countries a lot of these prisoners come from would never imprison innocent people - or have mock trials - im sure none would ever condemn people to death for homosexuality and witchcraft etc

So two wrongs do make a right?

Im sure they are all above reproach - i dont condone what the americans are doing in Guantanemo but lets look at the whole picture and not a slanted one

Indeed. For example they have had people from Canada, Australia, England, Switzerland, France. They are also detaining children there.

Can you tell me which one of those still condemn people to death for witchcraft? I have trouble remembering.

So if they don't come from a country that matches our morals its ok to detain them without rights?

Karl Hungus

Wolff wrote:

a small point but im sure most of the home countries a lot of these prisoners come from would never imprison innocent people - or have mock trials - im sure none would ever condemn people to death for homosexuality and witchcraft etc

and behead ,hang and whip those found guilty or not guilty

Im sure they are all above reproach - i dont condone what the americans are doing in Guantanemo but lets look at the whole picture and not a slanted one

I really do believe in the notion that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would leave the world blind, and eating their supper through a straw.
That is really one idea I can't abide by; that because someone would do something unsavoury, that justifies others to do other unsavoury things.

I also believe that one of the greatest human virtues is to rise above something.

Wolff

Im talking about the three boys that strung themselves up specifically

emm 2 Saudis and a Yemeni

there you go...... have a look at Saudi Arabia's human rights and thats where they put peole to death for withcraft Hobbes - just so you know.

And where are the children detained exaclty, in the guantanamo creche....?

Karl Hungus

Wolff wrote:

Im talking about the three boys that strung themselves up specifically

emm 2 Saudis and a Yemeni

there you go...... have a look at Saudi Arabia's human rights and thats where they put peole to death for withcraft Hobbes - just so you know.

And where are the children detained exaclty, in the guantanamo creche....?

I get the feeling that you might, just possibly, maybe, conceviably, have missed my point.

Sand

What tone? I'm just putting forward my opinion. I'm not saying it's an absolute. The US is operating above the law in detaining these men. Yes there probably are men in there who have committed hideous crimes but equally there are likely to be innocent people caught in a rather indescriminate net.
How can they prove their innocence? I always thought someone had to prove their guilt.

I don't think I'm hypeing up anything. As for the Special Criminal Courts in Ireland, while I don't entirely agree with them, they are a matter for another thread. We can't discuss all the criminal justice systems in the world in a single thread?

A) The issues are connected in that they are both extraordinary responses to terrorist and subversive activity. Basically the Irish court system was altered to ensure conviction where a jury trial would not provide convictions and where the accused could not face his accusers nor examine the evidence put against him. Irish democracy somehow survived - in fact Irish democracy would have been at great threat without the SCS. I think the US will survive somehow too.

Gitmo is hyped up as being some sort of death camp, when the reality is that it is a reaction to the nature of the enemy faced. Terrorists, as Ireland has already discovered, cannot be tried like ordinary muggers or joyriders.

You dont have to prove anything these days. Ask Marty. Simply throw enough mud and some of it will stick.

Like I said do you know how long they have been in prison or what they have been charged with?

That Harris guy noted what they were picked up for. Their names havent been released so its difficult to track down their record without the first piece of necessary data...

Or does committing suicide automatically brand you a terrorist in this day and age?

Of course not, but planning a simultaneous suicide with 2 others in a camp for captured terrorists with the obvious effort to stage a martyrdom coup (and lets face it, were talking about it and some people sound like they want to put them up there with Anne Frank) doesnt exactly sound abvoe suspicion, now does it?

In terms of martyrdom and dying for the cause whats the difference to fanatics between blowing up a resteraunt or killing yourself to provide your side with some PR?

Last time I checked we lived in a culture of innocent until proven guilty.

No we dont, we live in an era of hype. Ask Marty.

Does being sent to Gitmo automatically make you guilty? If so how can you say that with so many already released as innocent?

If the innocent are released, then what were they still doing there after yers of questioning?

However in such an instance your convicted. Your also entitled to a fair trial and entitled to see the evidence against you.

Yeah, if you stretch the definition of "fair trial" and "convicted" as far as the US has stretched the defintion of torture. And no, terrorists are not entitled to see the evidence against them for blatantly obvious reasons ( Mlud, the state calls Dennis Donaldson to the stand ......). A Garda Superintendant can simply state that they have intelligence that youre a terrorist, and thats it. You are not allowed to see or challenge that intelligence. Which is quite similar to the proccess by which most Gitmo detainees wound up in Gitmo.

How can I be condescending by stating that we are all adults here and should be able to discuss a topic with someone looking for links as if links were the Ten Commandments cast in stone?
You can find a link on the web to prove absolutely anything.

I consider it normal that when you open a topic for discussion that you provide a link to what it is youre discussing. Not to prove anything, simply to allow people to take a look quickly at the topic. If you dont, fine. Like I said, the less information available the better for some viewpoints.

The difference between those countries and the United States is the pompous attitude the US has, as if it were the beacon of democracy and human rights shining around the world, when that is very far from the reality.

US; Gitmo. Ireland; SCS. Pot. Kettle. Black.

अधिनायक

What is the future of Guantanamo? As time goes on the possibility of convicting any of the prisoners or obtaining any useful intelligence must be diminishing. Equally, support for their incarceration is unlikely to stop falling.

So the US will be faced with the choice of continuing to hold prisoners into old age without trial at great cost to their desired position as world policemen and flag bearers of freedom - or else a humiliating release of all prisoners followed by a negative historical judgement of this camp, placing it in the same bracket as the incarceration of Japanese-US citizens during WW2. Presumably the camp wil be disbanded by the next administration and blamed on GW.

Some released prisoners have stated they believe the camp is a smokescreen to distract attention from the imprisonment/interrogation/torture of more valuable prisoners in various secret locations such as aircraft carriers, prisons in Afghanistan etc.

The failed unilateral war and Guantanamo adventure may have the positive result of persuading the US to pay more respect in future to their allies and the UN and maybe even to take part in joint ventures such as the ICC.

अधिनायक

Sand wrote:

A) The issues are connected in that they are both extraordinary responses to terrorist and subversive activity. Basically the Irish court system was altered to ensure conviction where a jury trial would not provide convictions and where the accused could not face his accusers nor examine the evidence put against him. Irish democracy somehow survived - in fact Irish democracy would have been at great threat without the SCS. I think the US will survive somehow too.

The Special Criminal Court is not a good analogy for Guantanamo Bay. The SCC is a non-jury court established to deal with terrorists. Defendants are charged and tried within a reasonable timeframe and afforded lawyers. They may appeal their cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal. If convicted they serve their sentences within the normal prison system. The SCC is provided for by the constitution and by legislation.

This is not comparable to a prison camp that holds people without charge, trial or conviction indefinitely without respecting even the basic provisions of the Geneva convention. This arrangement is a form of extra-judicial offshore internment.

The SCC is an unfair form of court and should no longer be allowed to continue now that the Irish terrorist threat has reduced so much. Its scope has been extended to organised crime, which of course is a meaningless phrase. One result of the SCC is that some attempts to extradite people to Ireland have been challenged on the basis that this court does not have an equivalent in the country of the extraditee.

It is true that we should get our own house in order before criticising others. Many people commit suicide in Irish prisons.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Irish democracy somehow survived - in fact Irish democracy would have been at great threat without the SCS. I think the US will survive somehow too.

Interesting line of reasoning.

Using the same approach, I can assert that Hitler and is antics weren't really sich a big deal as German democracy seems to have survived it all just fine.

Gitmo is hyped up as being some sort of death camp, when the reality is that it is a reaction to the nature of the enemy faced. Terrorists, as Ireland has already discovered, cannot be tried like ordinary muggers or joyriders.

Gitmo is criticised because most of the critics do not agree that it is the correct "balance point".

If the terrorists of today are somehow different creatures to the terrorists faced in various nations in the world over the past century and more, then there is a case to be made that we need a new system to deal with them. However, this should not be confused with the notion that any system which claims to be for this purpose is therfore acceptable.

Of course, this would all be contingent on showing that today's terrorists are somehow different ot the terrorists of the past. Again, using your "survived" line of reasoning, I can't think of a single nation which no longer exists as a result of terorism. That would suggest that nations have survived, despite not having a Gitmo to save them.

You dont have to prove anything these days. Ask Marty. Simply throw enough mud and some of it will stick.

So thats why they don't have trials of the people held? Its because they could find them guilty of something if they wanted to anyway?

You seem to be saying there's no problem with not giving these people fair trials because they could be found guilty via unfair trials anyway.

planning a simultaneous suicide with 2 others in a camp for captured terrorists with the obvious effort to stage a martyrdom coup (and lets face it, were talking about it and some people sound like they want to put them up there with Anne Frank) doesnt exactly sound abvoe suspicion, now does it?

D'ya know what though...

If Gitmo was properly run, with no question of inuhmane treatment, no issues with ridiculous proportions of incarcerees being released without charge after months or years, and so on and so forth...there would be no question about whether or not this was suspicious behaviour. There would be nothing to exploit.

So if their behaviour was (fully or partly) sinister, its because Gitmo is run in such a way as to allow such sinistry. No matter which way you look at it, Gitmo still is part of the problem.

In terms of martyrdom and dying for the cause whats the difference to fanatics between blowing up a resteraunt or killing yourself to provide your side with some PR?

Is that a rhetorical question? I mean, if you don't know the answer, then its an admission that you're basing your reasoning on pretty big assumptions. If you do know the answer, then maybe you could explain it because I'm no expert on what does and does not constitute martyrdom nor on the mindsets of anyone - innocent or guilty - who's been in Guantanamo Bay for an unspecified period of time.

If the innocent are released, then what were they still doing there after yers of questioning?

Are you suggesting there are no more innocents in GUantanamo? Or perhaps that the only reasons innoncents would still be there are basically of their own choosing?

Yeah, if you stretch the definition of "fair trial" and "convicted" as far as the US has stretched the defintion of torture.

Em, no.

One is entitled to a fair trial. The chances of getting one - inside or outside Gitmo - are what require the stretching you refer to. Regardless, that doesn't make it acceptable for us to decide arbitrarily that some people deserve even less fair trials. I'm not saying we can't do so, but its something that has to be justified.

And no, terrorists are not entitled to see the evidence against them for blatantly obvious reasons

And the innocent people? Do you believe that only the guilty will be brought to trial? Or that it doesn't matter really how many miscarriages of justice there are as long as its the innocent being found guilty, rather than the guilty being let off?

US; Gitmo. Ireland; SCS. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Isn't it amazing how there are two basic defences for Gitmo:

1) Its not the worst thing in the world.
2) You have a less vile version of the same thing closer to home.

Is it just me, or do these two lines of reasoning conflict? Its wrong to complain about Gitmo either because its not the worst, or because there's something less bad we should complain about instead.

Handy that.

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

Im talking about the three boys that strung themselves up specifically

Like I said you seem think its ok to mistreat people if they aren't in our country?

And where are the children detained exaclty, in the guantanamo creche....?

I'd also recommend you go read up on the subject.

Sand wrote:

Gitmo is hyped up as being some sort of death camp

Well in fairness the only reason its not a death camp is because the US administration haven't been able to get approval to put the gas chamber into the camp.

when the reality is that it is a reaction to the nature of the enemy faced.

According to BBC news earlier the men who committed suicide where there for about 5 years without being charged. They also mentioned that only those released are those people they know about.

Terrorists, as Ireland has already discovered, cannot be tried like ordinary muggers or joyriders.

Yes and Irish people have seen what Internment did to help kill off the IRA.

Of course not, but planning a simultaneous suicide with 2 others in a camp for captured terrorists with the obvious effort to stage a martyrdom coup

So your saying they are terrorists because they committed suicide.

If the innocent are released, then what were they still doing there after yers of questioning?

People who have been released as innocent have spent 3-5 years in Gitmo. Its common knowledge.

And no, terrorists are not entitled to see the evidence against them for blatantly obvious reasons

You see what your saying. You are claiming these people are terrorists without even any proof or charge yet. To you just the action of being detained makes you a terrorist.

I can tell you now if I was jailed and being charged I would dam sure want evidence of the crimes I committed.

You are not allowed to see or challenge that intelligence. Which is quite similar to the proccess by which most Gitmo detainees wound up in Gitmo.

you got a link for that?

Hobbes

I had a read through some of the prisoner reports of those released. What is interesting is that if you are a member of the Taliban you get a trip to Gitmo. However the Taliban were the reconised rulers of Afganistan (by 3 countries, US being one of them) so capture of those forces would fall under the P.O.W. laws (even if they don't have a fixed uniform).

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

Considering the percentage of people innocent in Gitmo is running close to 50% of those that are detained and nearly everyone there is held without charges I think its a bit prudent to claim they are terrorists without actual proof to back it up.

I'm not entirely sure I see the correlation between a statistical claim of some 50% innocence with the subsequent clause in the same sentence about a lack of proof.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm not entirely sure I see the correlation between a statistical claim of some 50% innocence with the subsequent clause in the same sentence about a lack of proof.

NTM

So you think that the Administration is releasing guilty people from Gitmo then? Clearly a policy of guiltly until proven innocent.

Manic Moran

Are you suggesting that if guilty that they should be held interminably?

Innocence is not the only reason to be released from Gitmo. A lack of benefit to continued detention might be another. (eg, the person in question might be a relatively small player in an organisation since eliminated).

NTM

Hagar

Hobbes wrote:

Its in the forum charter that you should supply them if someone asks (so they can see more details themselves). No biggie, although I don't know why Sand felt links needed to be added, its not like this is ultra secret news.

My apologies for inadvertantly breaching the charter.
I'll pay more attention next time.

Ping Chow Chi

Sand wrote:

Gitmo isnt all that different to any other prision. Everyone in it is innocent apparently.

most other prisions normally give you the common courtesy of actually charging you of a crime.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Are you suggesting that if guilty that they should be held interminably?

No, I am saying they all should be charged with something or let go. They should not be imprisoned for 2-5 years without ever being charged before they say "Oops, looks like your not that important as we were lead to believe".

Innocence is not the only reason to be released from Gitmo. A lack of benefit to continued detention might be another.

So your saying that its fine to pick people off the street and hold them for years just to get some intel?

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad, but the US actually paid $2,000-$25,000 for each prisoner (a large number of them) because they told the Northern Alliance they would pay them for rounding up Taliban. Kept the streets clean of vagrants and strangers and they got paid for it.

Wolff

Hobbes wrote:

Like I said you seem think its ok to mistreat people if they aren't in our country?

I'd also recommend you go read up on the subject.

eh ? our country ???



Well in fairness the only reason its not a death camp is because the US administration haven't been able to get approval to put the gas chamber into the camp.

Who exactly approves the setting up of death camps - oh i remember - the ancient order of Zion i take it. that has to be one the daftest and misinformed things ever posted here.

As for the kids in the camp - boys aged between 13 and 16 what are they doing in the Taliban army in the first place they are deemed old enought to fight and die by their own people why dont you critisise that in the first place or are child soldiers ok by you.

as for reading up on the subject i suggest you get your facts straight - the US never recognised the Taliban as a legitimate government - the same people sheltering Bin Laden - why on earth would they - the 3 govs that did were surprise surprise

SAUDI ARABIA
UNITED ARAB EMERIATES
PAKISTAN

nobody else in the civilised world would recognise a govenment led by a bunch of pig ignorant religious nuts and halfwits - oh and there is no oil in afghanistan anyway.

all three really good breeding grounds for terrorists.........

gandalf

I notice that the Camp Commander has called this "an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us" does this mean they are prisoners of war then?

Also I notice a top US official has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention". I wonder will George W or Donald decide to do a PR Stunt like this it would sure be popular.

Oh Wolff that "bunch of pig ignorant religious nuts and halfwits" comment could be used to describe the current US administration as well Oh and Afghanistan is an important infrastucture conduit for the oil from the Caspian Sea (ie its about the pipeline!).

The US has lost this war on terror the minute they opened the Gitmo Concentration Camp, they changed their values exactly to what the extremists wanted. Predicatable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5068606.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5069230.stm

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

Who exactly approves the setting up of death camps

Learn to use the quoting.

Don't know what your going on about Zion for. The Army listed they were trying to build a Gas Chamber in Gitmo some years back. Its not like I am making this sh!t up (I wish I was)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2979076.stm

As for the kids in the camp - boys aged between 13 and 16 what are they doing in the Taliban army in the first place

If you bothered to do a bit of research you would know that there are reports of younger children then that there and no not every child there was fighting for the Taliban, some are there "To provide intelligence for the US Military".

nobody else in the civilised world would recognise a govenment led by a bunch of pig ignorant religious nuts and halfwits - oh and there is no oil in afghanistan anyway.

Why then did UNOCAL invite the Taliban for America? Oh right, it was to put an oil pipe through Afganistan. Also makes you wonder why the Northern Alliance offer amnesty to some Taliban to co-run the government. (probably for the reward).

Frederico

Sand wrote:

Of course not, but planning a simultaneous suicide with 2 others in a camp for captured terrorists with the obvious effort to stage a martyrdom coup (and lets face it, were talking about it and some people sound like they want to put them up there with Anne Frank) doesnt exactly sound abvoe suspicion, now does it?

Does it not occur to you that prehaps they commited simultaneous suicide to draw attention to the hideous conditions in Gitmo?

These people think they are the forgotten, left to rot in that place for eternity, and charged with nothing..

Gitmo is NOT about innocence or guilt, its there as a symbol, a symbol of Americas bullish power in the war on terror.. basically its like saying, look this is what we can do to you.

Gitmo itself is creating such anger around the world.. it obviously fuels terrorism.. even from a rightwing point of view it makes no sense.

For this idiot official to get up and say what he said, it just boggles belief, the propaganda just got so much more base.

BillyCom

Well, one blogger in Northern Ireland seems to be ecstatic about the sucicides in Guantanamo......

http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/06/suicide_a_pr_mo.html#comments

tallus

Is there a point to that post billycom?

Zebra3

America holds these people who it onced armed, trained and funded. Now it condemns them as murdering scum (hmm, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Chile) and people leap to their (America's) defence as if their moral guardians of the world.

Wolff

Hobbes

you need to start learing to tell the truth - the taliban may have been invited to UNALCO for tea but you stated they were officially recognised by US

Not True - not one ounce of truth

As for building a Gas Chamber at the camp - a 3 year old link with somebody perhaps considering building one - does not constitute a death camp.


and as I said before where are the children held in a specially constructed creche ?

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

you need to start learing to tell the truth - the taliban may have been invited to UNOCAL for tea but you stated they were officially recognised by US

and I stand corrected.

As for building a Gas Chamber at the camp - a 3 year old link with somebody perhaps considering building one - does not constitute a death camp.

and if you bothered to actually read my earlier post I had said they tried to get it built.

and as I said before where are the children held in a specially constructed creche ?

Actually there is a blocked off section of the camp that the children are held in. You can call it a creche if it makes you feel better about it.

bonkey

Wolff wrote:

or are child soldiers ok by you.

It would seem that by saying children should not be treated like adults even if they were in the army, Hobbes is the one saying that treating child-soldiers as soldiers rather than as children is unacceptable.

You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that because they picked up (or were made pick up, or were alleged to have picked up) a gun, we can treat them the same as adult soldiers and not care that they are kids.

I just find it funny that he's the one saying its not acceptable they be held in the way they are, and your're attacking him for making this point....yet you suggest he is the one who is ok with the notion of child soldiers.

Wolff

emm no not saying that - saying they are probably better off in Guantanamo if they were child soldiers however unsatisfactory that is

and the fact noboby seems to care they were child soldiers in the first place

a misplaced sense of outrage - outrage they are locked up in Guantanamo but no outrage they were asked to die for Allah

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

Hobbes is the one saying that treating child-soldiers as soldiers rather than as children is unacceptable.

Well to be fair, no one in the camp is being treated like a soldier. Otherwise they would have the right to a fair trial for example and as the war in Afganistan is over they could no longer be legally held as P.O.W.

btw some of the children released have detailed torture done on them. Good thing the US never signed up to "Declaration of the Rights of the Child".

and the fact noboby seems to care they were child soldiers in the first place

Did you know in Afganistan that children are allowed carry guns. Its part of thier culture.

Incidently how do you know the people being detained are soliders?

RedPlanet

Wolff wrote:

emm no not saying that - saying they are probably better off in Guantanamo if they were child soldiers however unsatisfactory that is

and the fact noboby seems to care they were child soldiers in the first place

a misplaced sense of outrage - outrage they are locked up in Guantanamo but no outrage they were asked to die for Allah

Were there child soldiers Wolff?
Why should we believe there were any children soldiers?

Wolff

Well Hobbes has helpfully pointed out its ok to be kid in Afghanistan and carry a weapon (its part of the culture) so thats ok, but its not ok to imprison them.

Which in a warped way is grand but getting back to the origional point that in countries where these lads came from - kids, women ,innocents are held every day and executed and nobody speaks out but because the US imprisons without trial a few extremists - everybody is up in arms because it suits the anti US agenga that a lot of people persue here.

As I said before im no apologist for the US and think guantanamo is wrong - they should have executed a lot of these people without trial in their own countires - because they would have gotten away with it judging from the complete lack of human rights in these places.

The last part is sarcasm btw