[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hello? The people at Club Gitmo were not uniformed members of an army. They were roving bands of thugs and killers.
Or tourists whose Arab name translated the same way in English like a slightly different Arab name…
Or someone who was sold to the US forces because 5000$ is a lot of money in Afghanistan…[/quote]
Or the English muslims that were on a pilgrimage to Pakistan and were arrested and tortured at Gitmo, before being released without charge…
[quote]orion wrote:
They are covered if you can identify them as a militia. The very least they must do is to carry their weapons openly to be able to tell them apart from non-combatants i.e. civilians.[/quote]
Also, (these are more post facto) they must make a concerted effort not to target civilians and must not hide among civilians (i.e. human shields). With normal militia/resistance forces these last two aren’t a problem, but in this war, clearly carrying a gun openly does not a soldier make.
If nobody can be arrested because an innocent person might be picked up accidently then you will quickly have anarchy and lawlessness.
The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.
And I thought my thread was dead.
I think it’s pretty irrelevant regarding the Gitmo detainees what is happening Iraq now, as most of them have been locked up there before the war.
And, let’s have a look at who they are:
"[…] a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence lawyer of information released by the US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.
Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.
In total, 60% are there because they have been accused of being associated with a group which the US government regards as a terrorist organisation.
Most detainees are regarded as enemy combatants.
Among the criteria reportedly used to define an enemy combatant are these: possession of a rifle; possession of a Casio watch; and wearing olive drab clothing.
In Afghanistan it has long been regarded as normal for every adult male to have a gun, because there was so much violence in the country.
Casio watches and olive-coloured clothes can be bought in every market in every town in the country.
But where do all these prisoners come from, anyway?
According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves.
Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams… You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.
“This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life.”
So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of these bounties.
[…]
Let’s recapitulate briefly. According to the US Department of Defense, only 8% of the prisoners at Guantanamo were al-Qaeda fighters, and only 5% of them were captured by the Americans themselves.
The overwhelming majority of the others were handed over to the Americans by people who could reasonably be called bounty hunters. […]
So, with 22% that had to be let gone (based on our last thread on the topic), the USSC ruling and now the White House begrudgingly accepting that they were wrong, I see some light at the end of the tunnel in this mess.
1-Pack, as often, I agree with you: A champion of democracy and freedom cannot compromise on due process and humane treatment; regardless of what “the others” do.
Makkun
[quote]hedo wrote:
If nobody can be arrested because an innocent person might be picked up accidently then you will quickly have anarchy and lawlessness[/quote]
If everybody was arrested and tortured because a guilty person might get away we’d have…Oh wait. That IS what happened…
[quote]hedo wrote:
If nobody can be arrested because an innocent person might be picked up accidently then you will quickly have anarchy and lawlessness.
[/quote]
But they can be arrested, IF they get a fair trial, WHICH is guaranteed by the Geneva Convention.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.
[/quote]
People tend to forget that!
[quote]makkun wrote:
And I thought my thread was dead.
I think it’s pretty irrelevant regarding the Gitmo detainees what is happening Iraq now, as most of them have been locked up there before the war.
And, let’s have a look at who they are:
"[…] a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence lawyer of information released by the US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.
Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.
…[/quote]
So of the 92% that were not “Al-Qaeda fighters” most were Taliban or had a clear connection to Al-Qaeda?
Looks like a defense lawyer trying to spin statistics to me.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:
The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.
People tend to forget that![/quote]
No-one forgot it. It’s just unacceptable.
[quote]makkun wrote:
And I thought my thread was dead.
I think it’s pretty irrelevant regarding the Gitmo detainees what is happening Iraq now, as most of them have been locked up there before the war.
And, let’s have a look at who they are:
"[…] a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence lawyer of information released by the US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.
Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.
In total, 60% are there because they have been accused of being associated with a group which the US government regards as a terrorist organisation.
Most detainees are regarded as enemy combatants.
Among the criteria reportedly used to define an enemy combatant are these: possession of a rifle; possession of a Casio watch; and wearing olive drab clothing.
In Afghanistan it has long been regarded as normal for every adult male to have a gun, because there was so much violence in the country.
Casio watches and olive-coloured clothes can be bought in every market in every town in the country.
But where do all these prisoners come from, anyway?
According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves.
Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams… You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.
“This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life.”
So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of these bounties.
[…]
Let’s recapitulate briefly. According to the US Department of Defense, only 8% of the prisoners at Guantanamo were al-Qaeda fighters, and only 5% of them were captured by the Americans themselves.
The overwhelming majority of the others were handed over to the Americans by people who could reasonably be called bounty hunters. […]
So, with 22% that had to be let gone (based on our last thread on the topic), the USSC ruling and now the White House begrudgingly accepting that they were wrong, I see some light at the end of the tunnel in this mess.
1-Pack, as often, I agree with you: A champion of democracy and freedom cannot compromise on due process and humane treatment; regardless of what “the others” do.
Makkun[/quote]
Very good post. I didn’t know a fair bit of that but it certainly makes the point I was trying to. Respect…
[quote]makkun wrote:
1-Pack, as often, I agree with you: A champion of democracy and freedom cannot compromise on due process and humane treatment; regardless of what “the others” do.
Makkun[/quote]
Ultimately, when it comes to war, for every nation due process is conveniently shortened to the time it takes to load a live round. Anything else is by the grace of the ‘detaining nation’.
Zap Branigan,
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
[…]
So of the 92% that were not “Al-Qaeda fighters” most were Taliban or had a clear connection to Al-Qaeda?
Looks like a defense lawyer trying to spin statistics to me.[/quote]
I don’t make the statistics. These guys did:
http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
Show me other statistics, and we can debate them. This should make some interesting reading in the next weeks to follow.
But to roll it up neatly: Where is the evidence that these people are actually so bad - whom do we trust to make this judgement? The Northern Alliance? Some poor sods with guns, trying to make a buck for handing someone over to the US? As long as there is no proper process, there cannot be real justice.
Now after the USSC decision, and the White House reacting to it, it looks like there may be. I don’t get why so many here get their panties in a twist over finally giving a group of people rights to due process, of whom they don’t have any idea of their involvement in terrorism. Prove that they are guilty, and I’ll be happy to see them rot in jail (I do never see the death sentence as a real alternative). Prove that they are not, then let them go.
And - they are the US’s prisoners, and it’s the US’s system to sort this out according to its highly regarded values of freedom and democracy. Courts with secret evidence, biased trials and just no proper representation are not worthy of the US.
Makkun
lucasa,
[quote]lucasa wrote:
makkun wrote:
1-Pack, as often, I agree with you: A champion of democracy and freedom cannot compromise on due process and humane treatment; regardless of what “the others” do.
Makkun
Ultimately, when it comes to war, for every nation due process is conveniently shortened to the time it takes to load a live round. Anything else is by the grace of the ‘detaining nation’.[/quote]
That’s a poor statement - it would justify any atrocity by whoever holds the key. Totaler Krieg anyone?
“Western civilisation” left that kind of thinking behind 60 years ago.
Join us, it’s nicer here. 
Makkun
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:
The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.
People tend to forget that!
No-one forgot it. It’s just unacceptable.[/quote]
Yes. It is absolutely unacceptable that some of the people we let go because we could not prove they were terrorists indeed turned out to be terrorists.
I am glad we agree.
Makes me wonder how many of the ones with no clear connection are still connected.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
makkun wrote:
And I thought my thread was dead.
I think it’s pretty irrelevant regarding the Gitmo detainees what is happening Iraq now, as most of them have been locked up there before the war.
And, let’s have a look at who they are:
"[…] a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence lawyer of information released by the US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.
Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.
…
So of the 92% that were not “Al-Qaeda fighters” most were Taliban or had a clear connection to Al-Qaeda?
Looks like a defense lawyer trying to spin statistics to me.[/quote]
So a quick look at the numbers I see
41 AQ fighters
286 AQ clear connection (planners, moneymen, cooks etc)
104 Taliban
86 with no clear conection.
Of course some of the ones with no clear connection we let go did turn out to be terrorists.
How many of the 86 are innocent and how many are just good at not talking and giving up their connection?
If we were allowed to have military tribunals perhaps we could get to the bottom of it.
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
If nobody can be arrested because an innocent person might be picked up accidently then you will quickly have anarchy and lawlessness
If everybody was arrested and tortured because a guilty person might get away we’d have…Oh wait. That IS what happened…[/quote]
No it’s not. If you don’t have an argument an aburd statement will not suffice.
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:
The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.
People tend to forget that!
No-one forgot it. It’s just unacceptable.[/quote]
Not to the people they were terrorizing and fighting against them.
Zap Branigan,
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
[…]
Makes me wonder how many of the ones with no clear connection are still connected.
[/quote]
Let’s give them fair trials and find out! I’m fully on your side here.
Makkun
[quote]hedo wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:
The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.
People tend to forget that!
No-one forgot it. It’s just unacceptable.
Not to the people they were terrorizing and fighting against them.
[/quote]
You seem to give absolutely zero thought to what those people are going through. You only, singular concern is the US troops. They didn’t have to go in. The people of Iraq had no say in the matter of the invasion.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Zap Branigan,
Zap Branigan wrote:
[…]
Makes me wonder how many of the ones with no clear connection are still connected.
Let’s give them fair trials and find out! I’m fully on your side here.
Makkun[/quote]
Ditto… If you have faith in your legal system then it shouldn’t be a problem.