What to those poor Gitmo detainees do when sprung from the clutches of Uncle Sam?

[Patrick]

One example:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133581,00.html

[Charlie Monoxide]

It just goes to show the total lack of appreciation at being housed for 12+ months and being given 3 squares a day.

Charlie (ungrateful insurgents!) Monoxide

[Patrick]

It just goes to show the total lack of appreciation

What? They have total appreciation - for the pasty-faced peace creeps who sprung them (any one of whose necks the Taliban would be delighted to slit from ear to ear - and nothing personal, just fatwah.)

[demon]

"pasty-faced peace creeps"

Good one LOL

[Kopji]

Quote:

U.S. military officials said they could not immediately confirm Ghaffar had once been in U.S. custody.

Am looking forward to this confirmation. I find it difficult to believe that the Taleban would welcome back any members who had been released from Gitmo.

They would need to ask themselves what would make the US release him instead of others?

Anyway, seems very improbable. Knowing Fox's penchant for Right Wing propaganda instead of actual news, I'd wait before I made too much of this.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
One example:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133581,00.html

What do you expect, he went back turned, called in information alllowing his unit and others to get caught, and is now on his way to some place comfy with a different name.

Now, ask me if I really believe that.

[a_unique_person]

The question has never been, are some of the detainees guilty of war crimes or not. The Taliban aren't top of my list best friends. The problem has been the process used to arrest, detain and try these people. By resorting to such methods, the US is telling the world it has as much respect for the law as the extremists they are fighting.

[Jim Bowen]

The appalling situation surrounding the entire Guantuanamo issue has done wonders at muddying the question of moral high ground. The people held without trial at Belmarsh prison are a lot less visible and so Britain has acquired little condemnation for this, so far.

[Patrick]

The problem has been the process used to arrest, detain and try these people. By resorting to such methods, the US is telling the world it has as much respect for the law as the extremists they are fighting.

Nonsense - you're using Clintonista-pre-9/11-think. The individuals at Gitmo are enemy combatants, who can be held until cessation of hostilities, by long international custom and practice.

[Zep]

Quote:

What do those poor Gitmo detainees do when sprung from the clutches of Uncle Sam?

Two of them, one innocent and another probably innocent, will go home to Australia, as Australian citizens are entitled to.

But meanwhile, of course, since they were "captured" in Afghanistan and Pakistan by local forces there, they are obviously AMERICAN POW's, and as such are entitled to be shackled, humiliated, mistreated, and denied all access to legal justice or even legal representation and contact with family, in a prison located on a tropical island owned by a government the US does not officially recognise.

Of course, as one of the three countries in the Coalition of the Willing supplying troops and materiel in Afghanistan and Iraq, Australia obviously has no right whatsoever to have any say or legal access to its own citizens being held in a US military prison.

Don't you agree, Patrick?? Hmmm?

[Beerina]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The question has never been, are some of the detainees guilty of war crimes or not. The Taliban aren't top of my list best friends. The problem has been the process used to arrest, detain and try these people. By resorting to such methods, the US is telling the world it has as much respect for the law as the extremists they are fighting.

Dude, do you even listen to yourself? We did not take them out and shoot them in the back of the head, or in the back (if a child), or slit their throats, or saw their heads off.

If anything, they think the US weak because we don't do those things (silly civilized us.)

[Tmy]

Heres what likely happens.

Innocent guy in the wrong spot gets taken into custody. Hes dragged to gitmo, interrgated and treated like **** for months. They realize they have the wrong guy and ship him home.

Now what are the odds that the guy will be so pissed off that he would then JOIN the terrorists in order to enact his revenge. Id say pretty good.

[gnome]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beerina
Dude, do you even listen to yourself? We did not take them out and shoot them in the back of the head, or in the back (if a child), or slit their throats, or saw their heads off.

If anything, they think the US weak because we don't do those things (silly civilized us.)

So as long as we don't stoop to the extreme brutality of the examples you mentioned, anything else is fair game regardless of rule of law?

If policemen regularly beat suspects, would you argue, "Hey, at least they arent murdering and robbing people, like CRIMINALS do."

[Patrick]

But meanwhile, of course, since they were "captured" in Afghanistan and Pakistan by local forces there, they are obviously AMERICAN POW's, and as such are entitled to be shackled, humiliated, mistreated, and denied all access to legal justice or even legal representation and contact with family, in a prison located on a tropical island owned by a government the US does not officially recognise.


Turn the noise down in your imbecile skull for just thirty seconds .... all ready?? Sure? THEY AREN'T CRIMINALS (unless they turn out to be war criminals) "LEGAL REPRESENTATION" ISN'T RELEVENT - THEY'RE POWS. Reread that sentence ten times while the noise level is still down.


What does the island crap have to do with anything? The U.S. leased that base from the previous government, all of whose obligations Castro inherited.

[Patrick]

Innocent guy in the wrong spot gets taken into custody. Hes dragged to gitmo, interrgated and treated like s**t for months. They realize they have the wrong guy and ship him home.


SUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRE dumbass - he was just, uh, on vacation --- just sort of camping out, maybe doing a little fishing, in the middle of an Afghanistan battlefield no man's land, when he just innocently got swept up in all this. And the AK-47? Why, that coulda been for the fish, ya know?

[AWPrime]

As if that happened with all of them.

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
If policemen regularly beat suspects, would you argue, "Hey, at least they arent murdering and robbing people, like CRIMINALS do."

False analogy.

[Patrick]

As if that happened with all of them.

YOU don't know if it happened to none of them, some of them, or all of them.

[gnome]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
False analogy.

I don't see how... but rather than argue the finer details, would you say that the standard of proper treatment of detainess is the same whether or not "they" habitually perform brutal acts?

Or is it justified as long as "they" are worse barbarians than us?

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
I don't see how...

The cop/criminal relationship is radically different than the soldier/soldier relationship.

Quote:

would you say that the standard of proper treatment of detainess is the same whether or not "they" habitually perform brutal acts?

Yes I would. But as bad as we have been, we haven't even entered the same ballpark as the practitioners of the religion of peace. I think that was Beerina's point.

Quote:

Or is it justified as long as "they" are worse barbarians than us?

No, but we need to recognize that, yes, "they" are worse barbarians than us. Forgetting that fact only serves to cloud the issue (which was AUP's intention).

[gnome]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
The cop/criminal relationship is radically different than the soldier/soldier relationship.

My analogy was more of a good guy/bad guy relationship.

Quote:

Yes I would. But as bad as we have been, we haven't even entered the same ballpark as the practitioners of the religion of peace. I think that was Beerina's point.

No, but we need to recognize that, yes, "they" are worse barbarians than us. Forgetting that fact only serves to cloud the issue (which was AUP's intention).

I will grant that as long as it is not used as an excuse to dismiss the crimes of our own.

[fishbob]

Patrick says:

Quote:

THEY AREN'T CRIMINALS (unless they turn out to be war criminals) "LEGAL REPRESENTATION" ISN'T RELEVENT - THEY'RE POWS.

The rules for treatment of criminals are different from the rules for treatment of POWs. The treatment of the 'detainees' apparently had no rules. Hide some from the Red Cross, beat some until dead, that kind of thing. So, Patrick - turn the noise down in your imbecile skull, or at least step away from the computer when the noise gets loud.

[Crossbow]

Well gee whiz Patrick!

Some of these folks have been guests of the USA for for over three years,
without charges,
without advocates,
without mail from home, and
in the meantime over 10,000 of their fellow citizens have been killed by the USA and hundreds of other Iraqis under USA custody have been killed and tortured.

So did you expect them to bake a cake for Bush?

[Patrick]

Hide some from the Red Cross, beat some until dead, that kind of thing.

You got a fish hook in your cerebral cortex - they HAVE been visited by the IRC, and they weren't beaten until dead -- what looneyblog did you get that from?

[Patrick]

Well gee whiz Patrick!

Some of these folks have been guests of the USA for for over three years,
without charges,
without advocates,
without mail from home, and
in the meantime over 10,000 of their fellow citizens have been killed by the USA and hundreds of other Iraqis under USA custody have been killed and tortured.




Many thousands of germans and italians were guests of the US for over three years in WWII; once again (slowing way down here for the ADS people)
......."charges"......aren't ........relevent......to.......POWs.........
........"advocates".......aren't.....relevent..... .to.......POWs.........
10,000 killed? sounds like you're mixing up afghan detainees with iraqi casualties in a big jumble in your brain. Civilians get killed during wars???? Gasp! Why was this crucial fact withheld from the american people???? Civilian casualties!!! Who woulda thunk it!! The "hundreds of other Iraqis under USA custody have been killed and tortured" is pure fiction.

[Zep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
THEY AREN'T CRIMINALS (unless they turn out to be war criminals) "LEGAL REPRESENTATION" ISN'T RELEVENT - THEY'RE POWS.

To be POWs they have to be captured enemy combatants. For the two Australians at least, after years in Gitmo, not even this has been established yet. And POW's are entitled to communicate with their families, and mail, and freedom of movement while in captivity (that means being able to walk around and converse with other POW's, decent meals, some home comforts, etc), and they are NOT entitled to be shackled and tortured (as has been shown to be the case in Gitmo).

So let me just update you with the fact that these two Australian citizens who have yet to have their POW status confirmed or criminal accusations laid have been subject to the same degrading conditions enforced on other so-called POW's, and have not had any communication with the outside world until last month.

BTW, was Australia an "enemy state" in that last Afghani & Iraqi fracas last year? No...don't think so...but let's have a look at the record. Y'know, my memory was right after all - WE WERE ALLIES OF THE USA AT THE TIME! Still are, actually.

Tell me, Patrick - if this sort of shameful treatment was dealt out to US citizens, do you think you would stand for it? I suspect you would be wanting to be in there guns blazing like Rambo, wouldn't you. Perhaps you should in this case - Gitmo IS a concentration camp for unconvicted people. Just that it's being run by the US government and not some other country you despise...

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick

Turn the noise down in your imbecile skull for just thirty seconds .... all ready?? Sure? THEY AREN'T CRIMINALS (unless they turn out to be war criminals) "LEGAL REPRESENTATION" ISN'T RELEVENT - THEY'RE POWS. Reread that sentence ten times while the noise level is still down.

So you are in complete disagreement with George bush are you? He flatly denies they are POW. Funny thing...I had you pegged as a Bush supporter, how wrong can I be?

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
how wrong can I be?

I don't know; every time I see one of your posts, I realize you've once again set the bar a little higher.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
I don't know; every time I see one of your posts, I realize you've once again set the bar a little higher.

sigh....and I thought patricks cheersquad had all retired. I'll leave your little friend alone ok???

Can't say I remember how I annoyed you In the past. Its hard to remember every trivial person I debate with.

[Patrick]

Tell me, Patrick - if this sort of shameful treatment was dealt out to US citizens, do you think you would stand for it? I suspect you would be wanting to be in there guns blazing like Rambo, wouldn't you. Perhaps you should in this case - Gitmo IS a concentration camp for unconvicted people. Just that it's being run by the US government and not some other country you despise...

This "shameful treatment" (of course not agreeing with your "torture" fictions) HAS been dealt out to at least two or three americans. If it were up to me, they'd be skinned alive!

[Patrick]

So you are in complete disagreement with George bush are you? He flatly denies they are POW. Funny thing...I had you pegged as a Bush supporter, how wrong can I be?

I support Bush as the least (by far) of two evils. I get a big laugh out of the wingnut left describing Bush as a "right-winger", etc. In historical american terms, he's a dead-center moderate. I disagree with him on many issues. In case you're interested, the reason he dumped the taliban slime in Gitmo is not to have the U.S. government hogtied by a bunch of leftwing lawyers, whose every action is centered around doing everything they can to destroy the country.

[Patrick]

I'll leave your little friend alone ok???

Does this mean you're going to stop cutting and pasting your perennial "I'll miss you" post?

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
I'll leave your little friend alone ok???

Does this mean you're going to stop cutting and pasting your perennial "I'll miss you" post?

But its true pat, I will miss your zany white supremicist humour when you are gone. We get some interesting web garbage float through here, some are funny too......your one of the funny ones, not the interesting ones (if your interested).

And I don't cut and paste it pat...you get original work every time.

[Patrick]

But its true pat, I will miss your zany white supremicist humour when you are gone.

Since you have such amazing fantasies about my posts, you can probably also fantasize that I'm still here!

[AWPrime]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
As if that happened with all of them.

YOU don't know if it happened to none of them, some of them, or all of them.

Well I know that happened to some of them.

[Zep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
Tell me, Patrick - if this sort of shameful treatment was dealt out to US citizens, do you think you would stand for it? I suspect you would be wanting to be in there guns blazing like Rambo, wouldn't you. Perhaps you should in this case - Gitmo IS a concentration camp for unconvicted people. Just that it's being run by the US government and not some other country you despise...

This "shameful treatment" (of course not agreeing with your "torture" fictions) HAS been dealt out to at least two or three americans. If it were up to me, they'd be skinned alive!

I take it your "skinned alive" comment applies to the nasty horrible captors of innocent people? In which case, please re-read my posts again from the top - you have obviously missed the point hugely on the way down here.

[Patrick]

take it your "skinned alive" comment applies to the nasty horrible captors of innocent people? In which case, please re-read my posts again from the top - you have obviously missed the point hugely on the way down here.

No - you hugely don't get it -- it refers to American traitors, for whom we at least ought to fire up the electric chair.

[Lothian]

Patrick,

In the case of the ‘Tipton three’ they came back and told of the hellish conditions they endured. They told how after long spells of solitary confinements and ERF-ing they falsely confessed under interrogation to meeting Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, in Afghanistan in 2000 despite the fact that they had alibis to show they were in the UK at the time.
report

Now, I doubt things are great for them. Their two-and-a-half-year ordeal has also left them with serious physical problems including knee and back pain - because of the positions in which they were shackled - and, in the case of Rhuhel Ahmed, permanent eye damage.

Update

[Zep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
[b]No - you hugely don't get it -- it refers to American traitors, for whom we at least ought to fire up the electric chair.

So...would those be the "American traitors" who are blatantly disregarding your much-vaunted and loved very best ideals of US statehood, rights and freedoms, by detaining allied nationals in solitary confinement for years without benefit of a reason for doing so? Without charging them? Without giving them prompt and fair representation and trial? Without even any communication with family? If so, I'm with you all the way there - the electric chair it is. And let's start with their commander-in-chief, shall we?

[gnome]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
This "shameful treatment" (of course not agreeing with your "torture" fictions) HAS been dealt out to at least two or three americans. If it were up to me, they'd be skinned alive!

For being in the same area and being captured? We have nothing but our government's word that the individuals captured are guilty of any heinous crimes.

It could be likely that most of them are... but that's good enough for you to justify anything? Just being "likely" and having the government's promise? I'd love to see how you'd write the law to allow that.