FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Triple suicide at Guantanamo Bay





710ths
Three detainees at the Guantanamo Bay camp have committed suicide in an apparent pact.

The two Saudis and one Yemeni hanged themselves with clothing and bed sheets, and were found dead in their cells on Saturday morning.
(Source NTLKWORLD NEWS) link http://www.ntlworld.com/news/story_world.php?page_zone=150.5.5&storyid=32065376

So if this camp is so well protected / high security and all that, how the hell did they get to do it?

Do we really care?

Was their life such hell that they had no other recourse?

Guantanamo's military commander Harry Harris called the suicides acts of "warfare".

"I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.".... They probably just wanted to go home!
alkady
With all the stories of how prisoners are treated and so on, I wont be suprised they comitted suicide. They face alot of torture there apparantly, So its obviously going to be an option.
CompactHaven
Bah, they're terrorits. One of the libby groups went in there (I don't even remember. Might have been Greenpeace) and they came back with reports higher than anyone's expectations. This was during the big torture scandals. However, the TV news media never really reported on their review.

I guess this means they don't get their 70 virgins?
Bondings
CompactHaven wrote:
Bah, they're terrorits.

Certainly not all of them. They didn't even get a trial. And torture should never be used, not even for terrorists.

By the way, most likely there are quite a few people there who are known to be innocent, but were tortured so much that the US doesn't even dare to release them.
xalophus
Bondings wrote:
Certainly not all of them.

Oh stop being so negative all the time.
They are all dangerous and 100% hardcore suspected-maybe-terrorists ™.

In this ultra-sacred "war" on raghead terror, everyone east of the white house is a suspected-maybe-suicide-bomber hell bent on destroying the American values of fraudulent elections (aka democracy) and justice and liberty as epitomised in Guantanamo.


Bondings wrote:
They didn't even get a trial.

What do you mean "trial" ?
Pedophiles, serial killers, rapists - they're are all entitled to rights.
But a rifle muzzle up their anus is the only justice suspected*-ragheads are entitled to.
There's a reason why it's located in Cuba and not in the "land of the free".

* Yes - suspected, not convicted.


Bondings wrote:
most likely there are quite a few people there who are known to be innocent, but were tortured so much that the US doesn't even dare to release them.

Remember what champion savior George "Rambo" Bush said ?
Quote:
The British government has just prepared evidence to show that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium and a significant number of ultra-destructive sling-shots from Africa.
He has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Just imagine those dead 9/11 hijackers, this time sired by Saddam Hussein, carrying deadly WMD's and nuclear weapons hidden inside their turbans and Korans!

Imagine horror, imagine, imagine, imagine !
You're not a patriot if you're not imagining yet.



Ok, so now that you've imagined the real truth of horor of terror ™, you can imagine that ragheads starring in prison-porn is good for you and your freeedom and democracy.
I'm sure you don't mind US picking up a few maybe-terrorist college students from their lives and putting them into summer camps where they'd rather die than be politely asked a few questions.
These guys are so much maybe-hardcore, they're terrorizing us in acts of "asymmetric warfare" committed against America even in their death.

Bondings wrote:
And torture should never be used, not even for terrorists.

You must be a bad person not to support Guantanamo. And by doing that you give USA - the land of the free ™ reason to "suspect" you.
Let's support Guantanamo, it's good for us, our freedom and our anatomies.



CompactHaven wrote:
Bah, they're terrorits.

Congratulations minion, the President and the Commander in Chief - Vice President are proud of you and your subservient brain-washed thoughts. You're a complete success.
damj
710ths wrote:
Do we really care?

No!
Billy Hill
That's good. Now there's three less mouths to feed over there at Club Gitmo. Yes, Club Gitmo, where the prisoners are treated better than just about any prison in the US.
Like the "Day without an Illegal" we should have things like this more often.

Quote:
most likely there are quite a few people there who are known to be innocent,


How's that for trying to make something out of nothing... Rolling Eyes

Seriously, how about you post up some source to back up you 'claims' there mister bondings.
AftershockVibe
Billy Hill wrote:
That's good. Now there's three less mouths to feed over there at Club Gitmo. Yes, Club Gitmo, where the prisoners are treated better than just about any prison in the US.
Like the "Day without an Illegal" we should have things like this more often.


How about you back up YOUR claims. Treated better than just about any prison in the US? How exactly do you know that when no-one is allowed inside except on especially organised and choreographed PR stunts?

Besides, a prison made up to look like a hotel would still be a prison. If they're guilty terrorists then prove it at trial, otherwise there is no ground to hold them for any longer.

It's sickening that people deem this acceptable just because they're not American. Ask yourself where and why you draw the line; Anyone from Iraq? Anyone from Asia? Anyone from anywhere except America? Anyone who is not a white American?

If you draw the line somwhere in the above then you are a racist and a fascist. Why should an american be treated differently to anyone else? Are they somehow lesser people? If you don't draw a line and think it should apply to everyone then I for one will laugh my arse all the way to hell when you annoy someone in a position to put you in jail indefinitely without charge or evidence.

The US constitution has checks and balances for a reason.
xalophus
Billy Hill wrote:
Yes, Club Gitmo, where the prisoners are treated better than just about any prison in the US.

Rrrright. Rolling Eyes
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-background-eng
Your "facts" are most amusing, mister Billy.

Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
most likely there are quite a few people there who are known to be innocent,

How's that for trying to make something out of nothing... Rolling Eyes

Seriously, how about you post up some source to back up you 'claims' there mister bondings.

Seriously, how about you open your eyes instead of your mouth and get a single fact right for a change there mister Billy?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1168937,00.html
Three Britons detained, tortured and humiliated in the most inhuman conditions, just because they were in Afghanistan attending a ceremony.
How's that for the "nothing" that the "something" was made out of, mister Billy?


And here's the reason why everybody enjoying "5 star" American torture in Guantanamo is a certified killer -
Quote:
Bush - "Remember, these are -- the ones in Guantanamo Bay are killers. They don't share the same values we share."

Reporter - "But if you say they're killers --"

Bush - "Yes, I think they're killers."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-17.html

So now you know, mister Billy.


Billy Hill wrote:
post up some source to back up you 'claims'

I can't wait for you to share your sources with us, mister Billy.
Billy Hill
AftershockVibe wrote:

How about you back up YOUR claims.


The ONLY confirmed case of torture I'm aware of was of the so-called "20th" 9/11 bomber. Rummy authorized 'coersive' methods, including forcing him to stand, to shave his face, have a dog outside his room, a finger poke to the chest, and some other torturous methods along those lines.

Yeah. It's brutal isn't it. Wink
tidruG
OK just a scenario.
Imagine you're in the army.
Imagine you've severely abused an inmate in an attempt to "make him talk"
Imagine the news somehow leaked.
You're shit scared and panicky.
You take a few hours to calm down while the journalists queue up outside your door.
You think for a while, and come out and....

A. Outright deny that you tortured anyone, and then not allow any visitors inside except for special times when "the stage is set" for them to come inside and take a peak.

OR

b. Confirm that you torture inmates, inviting the wrath of the international community, internation human rights associations, etc etc.

Hmm.... which would you pick Sargeant Hill?
tidruG
PS: Let me also show you how to quote sources:

This is what happens when you declassify information. Then, the army has to release the fact that you did, in fact, torture prisoners to get them to talk. Of course, your name and your victim's names are censored (blacked out) to prevent you from being humiliated, even though it seems perfectly alright to torture... I mean, what's a little bit of physical torture in comparison to court martial and/or himiliation for being inhuman?

By the way, just to make sure that you're not confused, this is the declassified information from Abu Ghraib, which got declassified now that the issue has seemingly blown over, and it's safe for the army to admit:

Quote:
One document tells of a teenager arrested for looting who was taken into the desert, tortured and subjected to a mock execution. In another incident a soldier threatened to shoot a child in front of its parents to “send a message to the Iraqis”.

Another report describes how a soldier threw rocks at two children who were handcuffed and helpless.

Other documents log the rape of detainees, sexual humiliations, and torture involving the electrocution and choking of detainees.

There is a report of a middle aged man who was tied to the bonnet of a US military vehicle and driven around until the heat from the engine burnt the flesh off his hands, stomach and legs.

The report notes that the prisoner’s pleas for mercy were answered with repeated beatings.

Another investigation describes how a US army doctor gave a detainee painkillers so that his torture could continue.

Some of the most disturbing records detail the abuse of female detainees in Abu Ghraib. In one case a women was repeatedly drugged and raped by US soldiers during her detention.

Another women describes how she was raped in front of her husband. These cases date from the period when both the US and British government denied holding any women captives in the prison.

The revelations confirm claims by the Iraqi resistance of an appeal smuggled out by women prisoners, which called on insurgents to bomb the section of the jail where they were being held.

In the letter, which was dismissed by US authorities at the time as “propaganda”, a women named Nour appeals to fighters, “We scream for help to save us from these beasts, but no one seems to hear our desperate cry.

I would have highlighted some parts, but all of them are equally shocking.
source

Now just imagine a few months down the line when the army is facing flak for something else, and the Guantanamo issue has been swept over... if documents from this facility are declassified, I wonder how many admissions there will be from the army then? Cases like this one, perhaps.
S3nd K3ys
Wow.

Just wow.

It's a Prisoner Of War camp. (You know, Hogan's Hero's and all that.) It's not a Prison or Jail.

They're being held because they are enemy combatants, not because they robbed the local 7-11 or broke in to your house and stole your stereo.

When the war's over, they can leave. Unless they're charged with a crime, in which case they'll go before a MILITARY TRIBUNAL. If they are still considered a threat to the safety of the US, they will not be released.

According the KFMB radio:

Hundreds have been released. Scores are in the works to be released soon. (One guy that was released, BTW, went and blew up a bunch more women and children at a hotel. Go figure. I guess they'll be more selective on who they release.)

They have:

AIR CONDITIONING IN THE CELLS.

THEY CHOOSE THEIR MEAL FROM A MENU.

THEY HAVE FREE LAWYERS. (Mostly Liberals (trying to make a name for themsleves), which is really good for terrorists because these lawyers really seem to want them to win this war.)

THEY HAVE UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS.

THEY GAINED AN AVERAGE OF 18 POUNDS SINCE BEING THERE.

As for the interrogations, NOBODY knows except the interrogators and the interrogatees. But I've heard interviews from several interrogators that tell a completely different story than the story coming from the terrorists, who know very well they can ONLY win this war via the media).

It's my opinion that the hangings were a war tactic. Nothing else.
The Conspirator
First of all, there is no "war on terrorism", terrorism is a method of warfare, not a country, not a people, not a group, or even a thing. Its a method of warfare. You can not wage a war against a method. Having a war against terrorism is like having a war against carpet bombing. I'm not saying its just (its not) I'm just saying what it is.

Most in Guantanamo are enemy combatants, solders not terrorists. Only a minority of them are terrorists. And they haven't even been given a trail.
Given that other prison abuses its stupid to think there are no abuses going on there.
S3nd K3ys
The Conspirator wrote:
First of all, there is no "war on terrorism",


Ignorance is bliss and denial is your friend.

From Wiki:

Quote:
The War on Terrorism or War on Terror (officially the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT"[1]) is a campaign by the United States, NATO, and other allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism.


Anyone else want to chime in and say there's no war against terrorists?

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Quote:
And they haven't even been given a trail.


They're, umm... enemy combatants. They don't GET a trial. They sit in the POW camp until the war is over.
The Conspirator
Oh I'm the ignorant one? Terrorism is method. You can not wage war against a method, you can not wage war against punching, against shooting against carpet bombing. theses are all methods. But terrorism is less than a method, its is an idea, terrorism exists only be definition. A punch or a carpet bombing are actual action, terrorism is not, its a name given to certain actions.
You can not wage a war against a punch and you can not wage a war against terrorism.

Many of the prisoner at Guantanamo are accused terrorists yet they have not been given a trail. Any where else that is considered wrong but not there. Ether there terrorists or thee not, give them a far trail and if they are not convicted, let them go.
S3nd K3ys
The Conspirator wrote:
Oh I'm the ignorant one? Terrorism is method. You can not wage war against a method, you can not wage war against punching, against shooting against carpet bombing. theses are all methods. But terrorism is less than a method, its is an idea, terrorism exists only be definition. A punch or a carpet bombing are actual action, terrorism is not, its a name given to certain actions.
You can not wage a war against a punch and you can not wage a war against terrorism.

Many of the prisoner at Guantanamo are accused terrorists yet they have not been given a trail. Any where else that is considered wrong but not there. Ether there terrorists or thee not, give them a far trail and if they are not convicted, let them go.


Considering "Terrorists" are a group of people (Generally Radical Islamics, which might be a better choice of what to 'name' the war) with a like minded cause and having like minded methods of operation, and considering there is not a single 'country' that is responsible for said "Terrorism", and considering these "Terrorists" often 'reside' in the country they "Terrorize", it is very simple to declare a "War on Terror" (Well, going to war against Terrorists and winning are two different things). It means that, no matter where you are, if you "Terrorize", the US military and it's allies are coming after you.

Seriously, this is a stupid debate. Lets stay on topic.

Gitmo is a POW camp. Not a Prison. Please research the difference before you (ignorantly) insinuate that the people there should get a trial. There have been POW's in probably all wars. Including this one.

Also, don't forget, people at Gitmo don't just 'happen' to get put there. It's not an easy place to get in to.

And I'm not denying that there may be torture there. I'm saying (aside from rouge guards ef'ing it up for the rest of them) that the US does not condone torture. (Unless you consider 120 db's of Metallica and being forced to shave your face torture Shocked )
The Conspirator
Quote:
Considering "Terrorists" are a group of people

But that a war against specific groups not terrorism.
Quote:
Generally Radical Islamics, which might be a better choice of what to 'name' the war

That is a much better name but I think "Islamic fundamentalist militants" is better.

Quote:
Gitmo is a POW camp. Not a Prison.

POW: Prisoner of war.

Quote:
Also, don't forget, people at Gitmo don't just 'happen' to get put there.

Yeah, a guy drafted by the talaban, who fought for the talban out of fear of the talaban really deserves to be there. And what about the people there who are there cause they are accused terrorists? They haven't been triad. And they have been there sine Afghanistan, at some point you have to start letting people out and that point passed along time ago.

Quote:
that the US does not condone torture.

Publicly but it doesn't madder what people say publicly, its what happens secretly.
Bondings
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Gitmo is a POW camp.

Meaning you are at war with 35-40 countries?
xalophus
Billy Hill wrote:
"20th" 9/11 bomber

What Bomb, mister Billy?


Billy Hill wrote:
The ONLY confirmed case of torture I'm aware of

That you're not aware of much was quite evident all along.
But now we know that it's deliberate, mister Billy.


Billy Hill wrote:
Yeah. It's brutal isn't it. Wink

Yeah. You're ignorant, aren't you mister Billy? Wink


For someone who makes a cry about "sources" and "backing up", you sure decree your own "facts".
You're ignoring facts posted by others, and seem to be here for a recital.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and just stop making what you're making of yourself, mister Billy?
xalophus
Quote:
It's a Prisoner Of War camp. (You know, Hogan's Hero's and all that.) It's not a Prison or Jail.

Prisoners of war ?
You mean to say that the Guantanamo detainees enjoy POW status and the privileges granted to POW's under the Geneva convention?
Are you sure ?
Do you even know ?
No. Rolling Eyes

S3nd K3ys wrote:
When the war's over, they can leave. Unless they're charged with a crime, in which case they'll go before a MILITARY TRIBUNAL. If they are still considered a threat to the safety of the US, they will not be released.

In President's own words, a tribunal is only an option.
Many people released from Guantanamo have been released without any trial or tribunal whatsoever.
There were no charges against them.
But they underwent years of unlawful imprisonment and torture, anyway.
They were suspected-maybe-terrorists ™ after all.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
They're being held because they are enemy combatants, not because they robbed the local 7-11 or broke in to your house and stole your stereo.

Many of the people detained in Guantanamo are not enemy combatants.
Infact, they are not combatants at all. Not even stereo-stealing thieves.
They've just been collected from areas of conflicts (or should I say from Pakistani bounty-hunters) and shipped over to Cuba without any effort being made to ascertain if they indeed are enemy combatants.

Tell us, how do they prove their innocence if they don't have a trial or tribunal?
How did President Bush and Defense secretary Rumsfeld establish their crime and that they are terrorists without giving them trial or tribunal?


S3nd K3ys wrote:
AIR CONDITIONING IN THE CELLS.

Which is turned up all the way for long periods of time after the detainees have been stripped naked.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
THEY CHOOSE THEIR MEAL FROM A MENU.

Which is force-fed to them through nasal tubes.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
THEY GAINED AN AVERAGE OF 18 POUNDS SINCE BEING THERE.

What statistics!
By the way, do you know the method used for fattening poultry quickly?
Yes, forced feeding it is.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
THEY HAVE FREE LAWYERS. (Mostly Liberals (trying to make a name for themsleves), which is really good for terrorists because these lawyers really seem to want them to win this war.)

But do these lawyers have access to the detainees?
And how do you have knowledge about the political orientation of these lawyers?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
THEY HAVE UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS.

You mean the American red cross can visit them when the army is prepared for them and invites them over ?
The red cross findings are confidential, but the officials are free to make personal statements - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm
Why were UN officials were denied visiting the detention center?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
But I've heard interviews from several interrogators that tell a completely different story than the story coming from the terrorists, who know very well they can ONLY win this war via the media).

You heard any terrorist's account of Guantanamo?
Share it with us please.

We do have innocent people's accounts of Guantanamo, and they do not seem to agree with your version of things.
They speak of the worst imaginable conditions.

But quite "honestly" for you, the best source on information about misconduct by interrogators are the interrogators themselves. They must be telling the whole truth. Rolling Eyes
Not Amnesty international and not even those who have been "through" Guantanamo in person.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
It's my opinion that the hangings were a war tactic. Nothing else.

Hanging themselves to terrorize Americans.
Hardcore suspected-maybe-terrorists ™, aren't they?
Good to see you making godlike judgements just like the President and Defense secretary.


The credibility of all American claims of fair and humane treatment are proven false just by the simple fact that the camp is located in Cuba and not in the US.
Can you please tell us the reason behind the choice of location?
Can you tell us why American detainees were moved to military prisons within America while non-American detainees are held at Guantanamo.
S3nd K3ys
In war, facts are often the first casualties.

As for the terrorists, it is they who claim they love death like we love life. So you figure it out. Wink

Now back to the regularly scheduled program...

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/charlie2.asp

Quote:
Charlie Went Down to Gitmo

Claim: Charlie Daniels penned "The Straight Scoop," an essay about the al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Status: True.

Charlie Daniels, famed musician, writes regarding his Guantanamo Bay trip.

I've just returned from the Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) Naval Air Station base where we did three shows for the troops and toured several locations around the post visiting with some of the finest military personnel on planet earth.

The kids seemed to really enjoy the shows and especially liked "This Ain't No Rag, It's A Flag" and "In America." We had a great time with them.

We saw Camp X-Ray - where the Taliban detainees are being held - only from a distance, but I picked up a lot of what's going on there from talking with many different people.

The truth of the matter is that this operation is under a microscope. The Red Cross has an on-site presence and watches everything that goes on very closely.

The media is not telling you the whole truth about what's going on over there. The truth is that these scum bags are not only being treated humanely, but they are probably better off health-wise and medically than they've ever been in their lives. They are fed well, able to take showers and receive state-of-the-art medical care. And have their own Moslem chaplain.

I saw several of them where they were being treated in a state-of-the-art medical facility.

Now let's talk about the way they treat our people. First of all, they have to be watched constantly. These people are committed and wanton murderers who are willing to die just to kill someone else. One of the doctors told me that when they had Talibans in the hospital the staff had to really be careful with needles, pens and anything else which could be used as a weapon. They also throw their excrement and urine on the troops who are guarding them. And our guys and gals have shown great restraint in not retaliating.

We are spending over a million dollars a day maintaining and guarding these nasty killers and anyone who wants to see them brought to the U.S.A. for trial is either out of their heads or a lawyer looking for money and notoriety. Or both.

I wish the media and the Red Cross and all the rest of the people who are so worried about these criminals would realize that this is not a troop of errant Boy Scouts. These are killers of the worst kind. They don't need protection from us, we need protection from them.

If you don't get anything else out of this soapbox, please try to realize that when you see news coverage much of the time you're not getting the whole story, but an account filtered through a liberal mindset with an agenda.

We have two fights on our hands, the war against terror and the one against the loud-mouthed lawyers and left-wing media who would sap the strength from the American public by making us believe that we're losing the war or doing something wrong in fighting it. Remember these are the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein's Republican guard was going to be an all but invincible enemy and that our smart bombs and other weapons were not really as good as the military said that they were.

They also took up for Bill Clinton while he was cavorting around the Oval office with Monica Lewinsky while the terrorists were gaining strength and bombing our Embassies and dragging the bodies of dead American heroes around the dusty streets of Somalia.

It's a shame that we can't have an unbiased media who would just report the truth and let us make up our own minds. Here I must commend Fox News for presenting both sides much better than the other networks.

They are leaving the other cable networks in the dust. People want to be told the truth. Our military not only needs but deserves our support. Let's give it to them.

The next time you read a media account about the bad treatment of the Taliban in Cuba, remember what I told you. Been there, done that.

Footnote: I got an e-mail from a rather irate first cousin of mine the other day who has a daughter who's a lawyer, and she seemed to think that I was painting all lawyers with the same brush. Please understand that I'm not doing that at all. That would be like saying that all musicians were drug addicts. There are a lot of good and honest attorneys out there. I happen to have one of them. But it seems that they never get any airtime. It's always the radicals who get their opinions heard, who fight the idea of the military tribunals and cite The Constitution and the integrity of America as the source for justifying their opinions.

Well, first of all The Constitution says, "We the people of the United States," it doesn't mention any other country. And, secondly, as far as integrity is concerned, I don't think some of these folks would know integrity if it bit them in the posterior.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030808/od_nm/odd_russia_guantanamo_dc_1

Quote:
MOSCOW (Reuters) - A Russian mother said that conditions in Russian jails are so awful that she would prefer her son remain in the "humane" conditions of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay.

A number of governments, including Russia's, are in talks with the United States to extradite their nationals from the prison camp in Cuba, which was set up to house Taliban and al Qaeda suspects after the war in Afghanistan.

"I am terribly scared of a Russian prison or Russian court for my son," Amina Khasanova was quoted as saying by Gazeta newspaper on Friday.

"At Guantanamo they treat him humanely, the conditions are fine."

Her son Andrei Bakhitov is one of eight Russian detainees, and the newspaper quoted a letter he wrote to his mother.

"I think that there is not even a health resort in Russia on the level of this place," the letter said.


BUAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, sorry. Here's more.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050602-085745-2130r.htm

Quote:
According to recently released FBI documents, inaccurately heralded by civil liberties activists and military-bashers as irrefutable evidence of widespread "atrocities" at Gitmo:
A significant number of detainee complaints were either exaggerated or fabricated (no surprise given al Qaeda's explicit instructions to trainees to lie). One detainee who claimed to have been "beaten, spit upon and treated worse than a dog" could provide not a single detail pertaining to mistreatment by U.S. military personnel. Another detainee claimed guards were physically abusive, but admitted he hadn't seen it.
Another detainee disputed one of the now globally infamous claims that American guards had mistreated the Koran. The detainee said riots resulted from claims a guard dropped the Koran. In actuality, the detainee said, a detainee dropped the Koran then blamed a guard. Other detainees who complained about abuse of the Koran admitted they never personally witnessed any such thing, but one said he heard non-Muslim soldiers touched the Koran when searching it for contraband.
In one case, Gitmo interrogators apologized to a detainee for interviewing him prior to the end of Ramadan.
Several detainees indicated they had not experienced any mistreatment. Others complained about lack of privacy, lack of bedsheets, being unwillingly photographed, guards' use of profanity and bad food. If this is unacceptable, "gulag"-style "torture," then every inmate in America is a victim of human-rights violations. (Oh, never mind, there are civil liberties Chicken Littles who actually believe that.)
Erik Saar, an army sergeant at Gitmo for six months and co- author of a negative, tell-all book titled "Inside the Wire," inadvertently provides us more firsthand details showing just how restrained, and sensitive to Islam -- to a fault, I believe -- detention facility officials have been.
Each detainee's cell has a sink installed low to the ground, "to make it easier for the detainees to wash their feet" before Muslim prayer, Mr. Saar reports. Detainees get "two hot halal, or religiously correct, meals" a day in addition to an MRE (meal ready to eat). Loudspeakers broadcast the Muslims' call to prayer five times daily.
Every detainee gets a prayer mat, cap and Koran. Every cell has a stenciled arrow pointing toward Mecca. Moreover, Gitmo's library -- yes, library -- is stocked with Jihadi books. "I was surprised that we'd be making that concession to the religious zealotry of the terrorists," Mr. Saar admits. "It seemed to me that the camp command was helping to facilitate the terrorists' religious devotion." Mr. Saar notes one FBI special agent involved in interrogations even grew a beard like the detainees "as a sort of show of respect for their faith."
Unreality-based liberals would have us believe America is spitefully and systematically torturing innocent Muslims at Guantanamo Bay. Meanwhile, our own MPs have endured little-publicized abuse at the hands of manipulative, hatemongering enemy combatants. Detainees have spit on and hurled water, urine and feces on the MPs. Causing disturbances is a source of entertainment for detainees who, as Gen. Richard Myers notes, "would turn right around and try to slit our throats, slit our children's throats" if released.
The same unreality-based liberals whine about the Bush administration's failure to gather intelligence and prevent terrorism. Yet, these hysterical critics have no viable alternative to detention and interrogation -- and there is no doubt they would be the first to lambaste the White House and Pentagon if a released detainee went on to commit an act of mass terrorism on American soil.
Guantanamo Bay will not be the death of this country. The unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting left is a far greater threat.


Quote:
This was an act of an al-Qaida operative, a terrorist recruiter and a front-line Taliban fighter – in other words … terrorists. They are seeking to manipulate the weak-minded. This was what they were tying to do on May 20, 2006, when the riot broke out. Note that three detainees tried to commit suicide (one attempted to hang himself; the other two tried to overdose).


The Left doesn't hate George W. Bush because of this war; they hate this war because of George W. Bush and will do what ever it takes to bring him down, including and not limited to bringing down the US with them, fabricating stories about Gitmo, and anything else they can use against him.
daniel_l_135
S3nd K3ys wrote:
In war, facts are often the first casualties.

Indeed. Your previous posts are a testament to the fact, which makes your use of the term very ironic.

Now, for your first quote. You have read who Charlie Daniels is have you not? I had no idea, but on reading his wikipedia article I failed to find any reason to believe what he says. His credibility is further thrown out the window when you read his tone.
Some examples of his great speech:
Quote:
visiting with some of the finest military personnel on planet earth.

How many military personnel has he met?
Quote:
We saw Camp X-Ray - where the Taliban detainees are being held - only from a distance, but I picked up a lot of what's going on there from talking with many different people.

Seeing the camp from a distance... wonder how many of those people were detainees?
Quote:
These people are committed and wanton murderers who are willing to die just to kill someone else

The lack of any trial has already been brought up. Just because your president says he thinks they are murderers, doesn't make it true.

The rest of the article is simply left-wing bashing with no substance whatsoever (please point to his proof that the non-fox networks are distorting the news. I couldn't find it.) The following was interesting:
Quote:
The Constitution says, "We the people of the United States," it doesn't mention any other country.

Sounds like an excuse for torture does it not. I could really go into this topic, but suffice it to say, human rights are international.

Now onto the next story.

The article couldn't be found.... however I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
It's hard to argue with an unknown Russian mother so I'll suggest you search for aticles about Terry Hicks. He is the father of an Australian prisoner at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo is such a moronic name). He has spent years campaigning to get his son out of X-ray and extradited to Australia. He has had a conversation with his son who claims to have been tortured. I can't say that either of them are truthful, but what are you going to believe, A conversation or a letter?(I'm sure that their mail is read by the way.)
A good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks


Third article. Well a U.S right-wing commentator quoting an FBI document that isn't referenced. Enough said.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
BUAHAHAHAHA!!!

If you're going to take a stance on a contentious issue like this, please be more mature about it.

I could have covered this in much more detail and coherency, but I don't see the point. You have failed to address the articles that are presenting an opposing view and have simply posted aritcles that have no credibility.


Daniel.
S3nd K3ys
daniel_l_135 wrote:
[ but on reading his wikipedia article I failed to find any reason to believe what he says. His credibility is further thrown out the window when you read his tone.

blah blah blah

It's hard to argue with an unknown Russian mother so I'll suggest you search for aticles about Terry Hicks. He is the father of an Australian prisoner at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo is such a moronic name). He has spent years campaigning to get his son out of X-ray and extradited to Australia. He has had a conversation with his son who claims to have been tortured. I can't say that either of them are truthful, but what are you going to believe, A conversation or a letter?(I'm sure that their mail is read by the way.)
A good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks


Third article. Well a U.S right-wing commentator quoting an FBI document that isn't referenced. Enough said.


Typical left wing rhetoric. If you can't dispute it, use any means necessary to discredit the sources.

Laughing Laughing Laughing

We can sit here and discredit sources all day. The fact remains, there is no certification of US approved torture at Gitmo. Has anyone disproven the fact that EVERYONE at Gitmo has access to the International Red Cross? Or that they have FREE lawyers? Or that they are, in fact, treated better than most prisoners in the US, and likely in many other countries? Or that the extreme extent of condoned torture by the US is finger poking in the chest and shaving a face?

Here's some more news for you to ignore.

Oops, I closed the tab before I copied the source, but I think I originally found it here.. http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=1680

Quote:
Guantanamo facts

June 11, 2006

Some key facts about the prison camp at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


There are approximately 460 prisoners held at Guantanamo, and about 300 others have been released or transferred to other governments. Most were captured during the US war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The first detainees arrived at Guantanamo in January 2002 and the last in October 2004.

Ten prisoners have been charged before US military war crimes tribunals with conspiring with Al Qaeda, although none of them is charged with direct involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

There have been increasing displays of defiance from prisoners, many of whom have maintained their innocence. Until now, Guantanamo officials have said there have been 41 suicide attempts by 25 detainees and no deaths since the United States began taking prisoners there. Defense lawyers contend the number of suicide attempts is higher.

On May 18, in one of the prison's most violent occurrences , a detainee staged a suicide attempt to lure guards into a cellblock, where they were attacked by prisoners armed with makeshift weapons. Earlier that day, two detainees overdosed on antidepressants they collected from other detainees and hoarded in their cells. The men have since recovered.

There also has been a hunger strike since August. The number of inmates refusing food dropped to 18 by last weekend from a high of 131. The military has at times used force-feeding methods, including a restraint chair.

Prisoners live in five compounds known collectively as Camp Delta. Camp X-Ray, where prisoners were held in open-air cages during the first four months of detention, was built on the site where those identified as troublemakers were held apart from the rest of the population when Guantanamo housed more than 45,000 Cuban and Haitian migrants during the mid-1990s.

SOURCES: Reuters, Associated Press


Now, from the Whitehouse... (Whitehouse.gov)

Quote:
Fact Sheet
Status of Detainees at Guantanamo

United States Policy.
# The United States is treating and will continue to treat all of the individuals detained at Guantanamo humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

# The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees.

# Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status.

# Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs.

# Therefore, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaida detainees are entitled to POW status.

# Even though the detainees are not entitled to POW privileges, they will be provided many POW privileges as a matter of policy.

All detainees at Guantanamo are being provided:

* three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws
* water
* medical care
* clothing and shoes
* shelter
* showers
* soap and toilet articles
* foam sleeping pads and blankets
* towels and washcloths
* the opportunity to worship
* correspondence materials, and the means to send mail
* the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening

The detainees will not be subjected to physical or mental abuse or cruel treatment. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to be able to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

Housing. We are building facilities in Guantanamo more appropriate for housing the detainees on a long-term basis. The detainees now at Guantanamo are being housed in temporary open-air shelters until these more long-term facilities can be arranged. Their current shelters are reasonable in light of the serious security risk posed by these detainees and the mild climate of Cuba.

POW Privileges the Detainees will not receive. The detainees will receive much of the treatment normally afforded to POWs by the Third Geneva Convention. However, the detainees will not receive some of the specific privileges afforded to POWs, including:

* access to a canteen to purchase food, soap, and tobacco
* a monthly advance of pay
* the ability to have and consult personal financial accounts
* the ability to receive scientific equipment, musical instruments, or sports outfits

Many detainees at Guantanamo pose a severe security risk to those responsible for guarding them and to each other. Some of these individuals demonstrated how dangerous they are in uprisings at Mazar-e-Sharif and in Pakistan. The United States must take into account the need for security in establishing the conditions for detention at Guantanamo.

Background on Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 is an international treaty designed to protect prisoners of war from inhumane treatment at the hands of their captors in conflicts covered by the Convention. It is among four treaties concluded in the wake of WWII to reduce the human suffering caused by war. These four treaties provide protections for four different classes of people: the military wounded and sick in land conflicts; the military wounded, sick and shipwrecked in conflicts at sea; military persons and civilians accompanying the armed forces in the field who are captured and qualify as prisoners of war; and civilian non-combatants who are interned or otherwise found in the hands of a party (e.g. in a military occupation) during an armed conflict.


And since I know Michelle Malkin really upsets you (likely because the truth hurts), I'll give you some more...

Quote:
The Truth About Gitmo that Islamist Sympathizers Don't Want You to hear

by Michelle Malkin
Posted Jun 03, 2005

The mainstream media and international human rights organizations have relentlessly portrayed the Guantanamo Bay detention facility as a depraved torture chamber operated by sadistic American military officials defiling Islam at every turn. It's the "gulag of our time," wails Amnesty International. It's the "anti-Statue of Liberty," bemoans New York Times columnist Tom Friedman.

Have there been abuses? Yes. But here is the rest of the story -- the story that the Islamists and their sympathizers don't want you to hear.

According to recently released FBI documents, which are inaccurately heralded by civil liberties activists and military-bashers as irrefutable evidence of widespread "atrocities" at Gitmo:

A significant number of detainees' complaints were either exaggerated or fabricated (no surprise given al Qaeda's explicit instructions to trainees to lie). One detainee who claimed to have been "beaten, spit upon and treated worse than a dog" could not provide a single detail pertaining to mistreatment by U.S. military personnel. Another detainee claimed that guards were physically abusive, but admitted he hadn't seen it.

Another detainee disputed one of the now-globally infamous claims that American guards had mistreated the Koran. The detainee said that riots resulted from claims that a guard dropped the Koran. In actuality, the detainee said, a detainee dropped the Koran then blamed a guard. Other detainees who complained about abuse of the Koran admitted they had never personally witnessed any such abuse, but one said he had heard that non-Muslim soldiers touched the Koran when searching it for contraband.

In one case, Gitmo interrogators apologized to a detainee for interviewing him prior to the end of Ramadan.

Several detainees indicated they had not experienced any mistreatment. Others complained about lack of privacy, lack of bed sheets, being unwillingly photographed, the guards' use of profanity, and bad food.

If this is unacceptable, "gulag"-style "torture," then every inmate in America is a victim of human rights violations. (Oh, never mind, there are civil liberties chicken littles who actually believe that.)

Erik Saar, who served as an army sergeant at Gitmo for six months and co-authored a negative, tell-all book about his experience titled Inside the Wire, inadvertently provides us more firsthand details showing just how restrained, and sensitive to Islam -- to a fault, I believe -- the officials at the detention facility have been.

Each detainee's cell has a sink installed low to the ground, "to make it easier for the detainees to wash their feet" before Muslim prayer, Saar reports. Detainees get "two hot halal, or religiously correct, meals" a day in addition to an MRE (meal ready to eat). Loudspeakers broadcast the Muslims' call to prayer five times a day.

Every detainee gets a prayer mat, cap and Koran. Every cell has a stenciled arrow pointing toward Mecca. Moreover, Gitmo's library -- yes, library -- is stocked with Jihadi books. "I was surprised that we'd be making that concession to the religious zealotry of the terrorists," Saar admits. "[I]t seemed to me that the camp command was helping to facilitate the terrorists' religious devotion." Saar notes that one FBI special agent involved in interrogations even grew a beard like the detainees "as a sort of show of respect for their faith."

Unreality-based liberals would have us believe that America is systematically torturing innocent Muslims out of spite at Guantanamo Bay. Meanwhile, our own MPs have endured little-publicized abuse at the hands of manipulative, hate-mongering enemy combatants. Detainees have spit on and hurled water, urine and feces on the MPs. Causing disturbances is a source of entertainment for detainees who, as Gen. Richard Myers points out, "would turn right around and try to slit our throats, slit our children's throats" if released.

The same unreality-based liberals whine about the Bush administration's failure to gather intelligence and prevent terrorism. Yet, these hysterical critics have no viable alternative to detention and interrogation -- and there is no doubt they would be the first to lambaste the White House and Pentagon if a released detainee went on to commit an act of mass terrorism on American soil.

Guantanamo Bay will not be the death of this country. The unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting Left is a far greater threat.


:edit:
I'm just curious... if (and when) the MSM tells you that aliens have taken over the White House, how blindly will YOU follow? Wink

The Conspirator
Quote:
The fact remains, there is no certification of US approved torture at Gitmo.

Publicaly, but what people say puplicly is not allways what is going on.
Quote:
Oops, I closed the tab before I copied the source, but I think I originally found it here.. http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=1680

Question: How do you know that site is reliable, there allot of crap on the internet. Which is why I never post anything I find on the internet as fact unless I know the souce is reliable.
Quote:
Now, from the Whitehouse...

That even less reliable than the internet.
S3nd K3ys
The Conspirator wrote:

Question: How do you know that site is reliable, there allot of crap on the internet. Which is why I never post anything I find on the internet as fact unless I know the souce is reliable.
Quote:
Now, from the Whitehouse...

That even less reliable than the internet.


I'm starting to see a pattern here...
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Charlie Daniels wrote:
The truth is that these scum bags are not only being treated humanely, but they are probably better off health-wise and medically than they've ever been in their lives.

That has to be the most definitive piece of evidence ever.

Closely contested by -
S3nd K3ys wrote:
According to recently released FBI documents
S3nd K3ys wrote:
from the Whitehouse... (Whitehouse.gov)


"Reality-based" Charlie here knows that the detainees are "scum bags" and knows of their past medical records as well!


S3nd K3ys wrote:
Charlie Daniels wrote:
Unreality-based liberals would have us believe...

The unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting left is a far greater threat.

What do democrats and liberals have to do with this anyway?
Can no conservative republican be concerned with human rights?
Was Lynddie England a conservative republican?

Why are your debates always about political advertising?


Your sources - FBI and Whitehouse and Charlie and President Bush and Defense secretary Rumsfeld have already declared them all to be terrorists.
How come people are released from Guantanamo after years of ordeal without any charge?
Now we know. But you still don't want to.



S3nd K3ys wrote:
Has anyone disproven the fact that EVERYONE at Gitmo has access to the International Red Cross?

Badarzaman Badar wrote:
The first time I received our message through Red Cross. I wrote my first message in Kandahar but it arrived home after 8 months and we received our first message after one year and most of the messages were coming through Red Cross and they used to censor and erased just those lines which they didn't like - you can see these.

Don't pretend that it's the most generous act of humanity ever, even the American pilots caught in Kosovo were allowed access to Red cross.
Do you know that Red cross is a neutral organization and cannot publicly reveal any information it might have from its privileged access to the detainees?
Do you know that Red cross is in no power to stop anything that the US does with the detainees?
They can only give out medicines, which I'm sure American doctors already do. And they can carry letters, which the American authorities are free to censor.

For making tall claims, why doesn't America allow UN to visit the camp and contact the detainees? or Amnesty international? or human rights watch?
Because they might actually tell on them?
Even China allows UN unrestricted access to their prisons.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Or that they have FREE lawyers?

Quote:
Christine Huskey, an American lawyer representing 28 Kuwaiti inmates, told the BBC she had had "absolutely" no access to them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Or that they are, in fact, treated better than most prisoners in the US, and likely in many other countries? Or that the extreme extent of condoned torture by the US is finger poking in the chest and shaving a face?

What about stripping them down naked even as the AC is turned up enough to frost their shackles?
What about holding them underwater for several minutes at a stretch?
What about beating someone to death?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1646014,00.html

S3nd K3ys wrote:
The fact remains, there is no certification of US approved torture at Gitmo.

What is an acceptable certifying authority according to you?
President Bush? Charlie Daniels?
Declassified document permitting use of special "counter-Resistance techniques" signed by Defense secretary Rumsfeld?

The fact remains, there is no certification of the crimes of these detainees.
Or of their humane treatment within the camp.

The fact remains, you and your divine sources of information still haven't told us the reason why the detention camp is located in Cuba. Or why American born detainees were moved out to military prisons within USA. Or why UN investigators were not allowed to inspect the camp or allowed access to the detainees. Or why they have all been declared terrorists without any trial or tribunal whatsoever.
lib
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Typical left wing rhetoric. If you can't dispute it, use any means necessary to discredit the sources.

Well, then in this case, I agree with the left. If the sources are crap, then leave them out. I wonder since when you have started using biased sources... I suppose I have been away from Frihost longer than I thought. All the raving and ranting about liberal-biased media, and the need to use unbiased sources... and then going and using right-oriented writers and sources. Nice going.


Quote:
The fact remains, there is no certification of US approved torture at Gitmo.

Once again, I call for logic. Do you think the US government or the army will let an official certification out that detainees in "Gitmo" are tortured? Did they do that for Abu Ghraib initially?


Quote:
Has anyone disproven the fact that EVERYONE at Gitmo has access to the International Red Cross? Or that they have FREE lawyers? Or that they are, in fact, treated better than most prisoners in the US, and likely in many other countries? Or that the extreme extent of condoned torture by the US is finger poking in the chest and shaving a face?

Hasn't the Red Cross itself reported inhuman action at "Gitmo"?
The fact remains that we have testimonials from ex-detainees and relatives of current prisoners repeatedly giving similar accounts of torture and mandhandling. These cannot be proven yet, of course. Also, if you blindly choose to believe the army when they say "We have not tortured anyone", that's thicker than believing the accounts of ex-prisoners and current prisoners.
And by the way, in one of the links provided in the source, many lawyers of the defendants have reported being unable to have access to their clients.

By the way, W admits Guantanamo is not the prisoner's paradise you claim it is. Let me quote a perfectly diplomatic Presidential quote:
Dubya wrote:
"No question, Guantanamo sends, you know, a signal to some of our friends — provides an excuse, for example, to say, 'The United States is not upholding the values that they're trying encourage other countries to adhere to’.”

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/14/192850.php
More from that article
Quote:
The Guardian reported that the military ordered all journalists to leave Gitmo “amid unprecedented criticism of the camp and follows yesterday's publication of one of the most frank media reports, by the Charlotte Observer, yet to have emerged from the tightly controlled base.”

It has always been difficult for journalists to get access to the prison camp, needing permission from the US military's joint task force and office of military commissions. The situation took a turn for the worse after the Observer article reported on “scenes of officials discussing harsh treatment of detainees, including a planned operation to forcibly strip British detainee Ahmed Errachidi and put him in a new uniform.”

Miami Herald executive editor Tom Fiedler told the Guardian that expelling journalists was not the way to diffuse criticism of conditions at the camp.

"Government should operate as transparently as possible," he said. "It is in the best interests of the administration for there to be independent corroboration of their claim that the detainees are well treated. They need to allow access there otherwise they are asking the world to take their word for it, and right now their credibility is severely strained."


Even more interesting:
Quote:
Ironically, Salon ran a story today, based on interviews with high-ranking military brass, that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “was personally involved in the late 2002 interrogation of a high-value al-Qaida detainee known in intelligence circles as ‘the 20th hijacker.' " He also communicated weekly with the man in charge of the interrogation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the controversial commander of the Guantánamo Bay detention center.

At the same time, another prisoner, Mohammed al-Kahtani, was treated to what Army investigators have called “degrading and abusive treatment” based on interrogation plans approved by the Defense Secretary. “Kahtani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, and was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform ‘dog tricks’ on a leash. He received 18- to 20-hour interrogations during 48 of 54 days.”

In early 2005, Rumsfeld “expressed puzzlement” that he could have had anything to do with the abusive treatment, but, this week, Salon received the December 20, 2005 Army inspector general’s report which includes transcripts with Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt and Gen. James T. Hill. These transcripts offer new evidence on the role that Rumsfeld and Miller in developing protocols for prisoner treatment and interrogation.



Quote:
According to Salon, Schmidt discussed “the open-ended policies Rumsfeld approved, and that the apparent lack of supervision of day-to-day interrogations permitted the abusive conduct to take place. ‘Where is the throttle on this stuff?’ asked Schmidt, an Air Force fighter pilot, who said in his interview under oath with the inspector general that he had concerns about the length and repetition of the harsh interrogation methods. ‘There were no limits.' " He also compared the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo to that at Abu Gharib prison in Iraq.

So the world is left with a president who acknowledges that the prison at Gitmo should be closed but has no plan to do so, with the expulsion of journalists — the only independent sources of information at the prison, and continued allegations of Rumsfeld’s involvement in questionable interrogation methods.


And as for your theory of it all being a PR Move and a war move, well, looks like the US govt realized this tactic is bullshit:
Quote:
The US state department has distanced itself from comments by a top official that the three suicides by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were "a good PR move".

Colleen Graffy told the BBC the deaths were part of a strategy and "a tactic to further the jihadi cause", but taking their own lives was unnecessary.

"I would not say that it was a PR stunt," said spokesman Sean McCormack.

Meanwhile, a US lawyer has said that one of three who killed themselves was due to be freed but did not know it.

He said the prisoner was not told because US officials had not decided which country he would be sent to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5073634.stm

And some more light-shedding:
Quote:
What are Combatant Status Review Tribunals?

These were a mechanism instituted by the US military in which Guantanamo detainees could challenge the rules under which they were being held and their designation as "enemy combatants".

Every prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay was assessed under CSRTs held between August 2004 and March 2005. Of the 558 cases assessed, 520 were held to be "enemy combatants" and 38 people as "non-enemy combatants". The CSRT process will be applied to any new prisoner at the camp.

The hearings were controversial not least because the detainees were not allowed access to lawyers. Nor could they hear classified material that might have formed part of the evidence against them. Rights groups - and the United Nations - say hearings set up by the military violate prisoners' rights to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body.

Why were CSRTs held?

The US Government designated the prisoners - accused of having links to Afghanistan's ousted Taleban regime or al-Qaeda - as "enemy combatants", not lawful members of a national army who would have been considered prisoners of war, protected under the Geneva Conventions and released at the end of hostilities.

It said that as unlawful "enemy combatants", the men could be held indefinitely even if not charged. And as they were held in a camp built on territory leased from Cuba, the US government also argued that civilian courts had no jurisdiction because they were not in sovereign US territory.


Those assumptions were challenged through the legal system by some detainees. The US Supreme Court ruled in July 2004 that civilian courts did have the right to consider challenges to the legality of foreign nationals captured abroad and held at Guantanamo Bay.

Although the military base is on rented land, the US had "complete jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay and therefore the courts had jurisdiction, a majority of the judges decided.

The US government then announced there would be military commissions to review the status of detainees, in a move correspondents say was designed to pre-empt matters coming before civilian judges.

Ah.. so now we know why Cuba and not the US itself. The prison is not in sovereign US territory, and hence they wanted to exempt it from any moderatorial measures by the Supreme Court.
Read the rest of this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3541126.stm

Quote:
Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 June 2006, 12:41 GMT 13:41 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Q&A: Guantanamo hearings
As a row rages over the rights of prisoners at the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the BBC News website examines the different legal processes the US military has put in place to try them.
As of 16 February 2006 there were about 490 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Since its inception in January 2002, some 267 people have been transferred or released from the camp, the Pentagon says.

What are Combatant Status Review Tribunals?

These were a mechanism instituted by the US military in which Guantanamo detainees could challenge the rules under which they were being held and their designation as "enemy combatants".


Officials say most inmates reacted "positively" to the status reviews

Every prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay was assessed under CSRTs held between August 2004 and March 2005. Of the 558 cases assessed, 520 were held to be "enemy combatants" and 38 people as "non-enemy combatants". The CSRT process will be applied to any new prisoner at the camp.

The hearings were controversial not least because the detainees were not allowed access to lawyers. Nor could they hear classified material that might have formed part of the evidence against them. Rights groups - and the United Nations - say hearings set up by the military violate prisoners' rights to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body.

Why were CSRTs held?

The US Government designated the prisoners - accused of having links to Afghanistan's ousted Taleban regime or al-Qaeda - as "enemy combatants", not lawful members of a national army who would have been considered prisoners of war, protected under the Geneva Conventions and released at the end of hostilities.

It said that as unlawful "enemy combatants", the men could be held indefinitely even if not charged. And as they were held in a camp built on territory leased from Cuba, the US government also argued that civilian courts had no jurisdiction because they were not in sovereign US territory.

Those assumptions were challenged through the legal system by some detainees. The US Supreme Court ruled in July 2004 that civilian courts did have the right to consider challenges to the legality of foreign nationals captured abroad and held at Guantanamo Bay.

Although the military base is on rented land, the US had "complete jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay and therefore the courts had jurisdiction, a majority of the judges decided.

The US government then announced there would be military commissions to review the status of detainees, in a move correspondents say was designed to pre-empt matters coming before civilian judges.

What are military commissions?

The US deems that military commissions are the appropriate way to try the men it believes are "enemy combatants". It says such military commissions have historically been used to try violations of the law of armed conflict and related offences.

The commissions involve a panel of military judges, with military prosecutors and defenders. Defendants may also hire their own civilian defence counsel, though some aspects of the trial may be held in secret and the accused may not hear all the evidence against them.

What kind of bullshit hypocrisy is this that the accused cannot even hear all the charges and evidence against him? Is this justice or justice being served blind-folded?

Quote:
The Pentagon says it is a "misconception" to think that every prisoner at Guantanamo Bay is due a trial by military commission. It sees the main purpose of the camp as stopping "enemy combatants" returning to the field of combat, although there is dispute over whether many of those held are actually combatants.

The majority of inmates are not suspected to be "enemy combatants" and the Pentagon stil has the gall to say that not all of them are due a trial? Way to go to re-assure the people that Guantanamo is not being run on the whim and fancy of the army and the govt!

Quote:
Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was formerly a driver for Osama Bin Laden, has questioned the legality of his detention and a scheduled trial by special military tribunal.

Oh look, bin Laden's driver is in prison. I wonder why the rest of Osama bin Laden's immediate family was allowed to fly out of the US?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Now, from the Whitehouse... (Whitehouse.gov)

*considers logging on to cnn.com* Wink

Michelle Malkins wrote:
According to recently released FBI documents,

Sorry ma'am, maybe I'll have to say to you the same thing I said to K3ys... USE NON-BIASED SOURCES.

Oh, and your huge pictures of crap don't really add anything of interest to this discussion. They appear to be just something you amuse yourself with... like a little kid... "MOOMY! LOOK AT THE FUNNY PICTURE OF BATMAN WITH HIS PANTS DOWN! YAY! HAHAHAHA"

The real question is how blindly will you follow everything being dished out to you by the White House and the army?


xalophus wrote:
The fact remains, you and your divine sources of information still haven't told us the reason why the detention camp is located in Cuba.

That BBC link contains a part of the answer to the puzzle.
Related topics
The justification for war
islam is...
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Guantanamo Bay
Support Danish
Tutu condemns Guantanamo
I was just hunting UFOs, says Pentagon's UK hacker
Racial Equality
First phone records and now banking records, what's next?
The Supreme court rules
collapse of USA
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
Closing the Military Prison at Guantanamo
Guantanamo still not closed ..... Obama dithering ... ???
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.