CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Go Go Gitmo!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Go Go Gitmo!!!

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
US plans death camp in Guantanamo

WASHINGTON: The US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp, with its own death row and execution chamber.

Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported recently.

The plans were revealed by Major-General Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge of 680 suspects from 43 countries, including two Australians. The suspects have been held at Camp Delta on Cuba without charge for 18 months.

General Miller said building a death row was one plan. Another was to have a permanent jail, with possibly an execution chamber.

The Mail on Sunday reported the move is seen as logical by the US, which has been attacked worldwide for breaching the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war since it established the camp at a naval base to hold alleged terrorists from Afghanistan.

But it has horrified human rights groups and lawyers representing detainees.

They see it as the clearest indication America has no intention of falling in line with internationally recognised justice.

The US has already said detainees would be tried by tribunals, without juries or appeals to a higher court. Detainees will be allowed only US lawyers.

British activist Stephen Jakobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, said: “The US is kicking and screaming against any pressure to conform with British or any other kind of international justice.”

American law professor Jonathan Turley, who has led US civil rights group protests against the military tribunals planned to hear cases at Guantanamo Bay, said: “It is not surprising the authorities are building a death row because they have said they plan to try capital cases before these tribunals.

“This camp was created to execute people. The administration has no interest in long-term prison sentences for people it regards as hard-core terrorists.”

Britain admitted it had been kept in the dark about the plans.

A Downing St spokesman said: “The US Government is well aware of the British Government’s position on the death penalty.” —The Courier Mail
post #2 of 46
And the hits just keep on coming. Another foolish move.
post #3 of 46
Quote:
Just another Ronin Daywalker:
And the hits just keep on coming. Another foolish move.
Indeed.
post #4 of 46
I can't tell if Grifter wants them to be Death Camps or not, and I'm afraid to ask.
post #5 of 46
Well, it's gotta end sometime. I mean, them dudes been held up for up to 18 months without trial. Hell, we've all forgotten that there's detainees still there. Gotta resolve this situation and the alternatives are an expensive jail to keep them in forever, let them go, or kill them. I think we all know what the cheapest and safest solution is.

Don't worry though, I'm sure the tribunals will be very fair!
post #6 of 46
link?
post #7 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Jacob Singer:
I can't tell if Grifter wants them to be Death Camps or not, and I'm afraid to ask.
No, I do not want "death camps", however I also do not want these war criminals to be molly coddled and treated with kid gloves. Military tribunal is fine. If found guilty, and sentenced to death, then do it. Quickly.

Here's the link.
<a href="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-5-2003_pg4_2" target="_blank">Link to story</a>
post #8 of 46
I think it would be best to bring outside observers (no special interest groups) to make sure the proceedings are done correctly. I admit this is a new situation for America in the detaining of terrorists who are techinically not POWs.

If they believe nothing is wrong with how they are going about this than there should be no problem with educated observers being around during proceedings.

I am sure there is far more to this though.
post #9 of 46
Quote:
Grifter:
Quote:
Jacob Singer:
I can't tell if Grifter wants them to be Death Camps or not, and I'm afraid to ask.
No, I do not want "death camps", however I also do not want these war criminals to be molly coddled and treated with kid gloves. Military tribunal is fine. If found guilty, and sentenced to death, then do it. Quickly.

Here's the link.
<a href="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-5-2003_pg4_2" target="_blank">Link to story</a>
Whilst it is reasonble to classify the Al Qaida prisoners as terrorists who has decided that the Taliban are war criminals. Criminals in which war exactly? They technically aren't even terrorists.
post #10 of 46
This is insane. I'm sure if this were 1939 the title would be something along the lines of "Go Go Gestapo!"
post #11 of 46
If there's enough evidence to justify a convinction, why not use the regular courts?

Couldn't this mean that the US government has no proof that these men are criminals?

Doesn't it mean that the US now follows a policy of detaining foreign nationals without justification, holding them for as long as it wishes, denying them a trial, then killing them?

Isn't this among the most evil things you've ever heard?
post #12 of 46
Quote:
there is no mastronikolas:
If there's enough evidence to justify a convinction, why not use the regular courts?

Couldn't this mean that the US government has no proof that these men are criminals?
Shame on you!!

Why the American government has as much proof of this as of Iraq's WMDs.

Oh....hang on.....

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2944298.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2944298.stm</a>
post #13 of 46
From an Amnesty International report issued today:

Quote:
“The USA continued to detain prisoners from the war in Afghanistan in defiance of international humanitarian law, turned a blind eye to reports of torture or ill-treatment of suspects by its officials and allies, and sought to undermine the International Criminal Court through bilateral agreements. In the process, it undermined its own moral authority to speak out against human rights violations in other parts of the world.

Action that makes people feel insecure cannot make states or societies secure. Because of the real or alleged actions of a few individuals, entire communities identified by race, religion or national origin are being viewed with suspicion. The result is growing unease and uncertainty among large sections of the population.”
post #14 of 46
This is horrible and sickening.
post #15 of 46
Not a good thing. I can see why they would want to do it this way (the al Qaeda people get sentenced, but they can't use a court as some sort of pulpit to spread their dogma, a la Zacharias Mossaoui (sp?), but they shouldn't do this. If you are going to start executing prisoners, you ought to make sure it is in a fair, open trial of some sort (even with a military judge) so that everyone knows you are above the level.
post #16 of 46
"The way it works in America is that the president can call the CIA director in and take a walk in the Rose Garden and something bad can happen and it’s never connected to him, and that bothers me. It shouldn’t happen that way. That’s not what democracy is. I don’t make light of the fact that we all know in Washington that some of the people that are arrested now—the Al Qaeda people—we know where they’re going, to Thailand, Diego Garcia, they’re going to lose a quarter of a finger a day.... We’re doing torture. We can pass it off to third parties. That’s wrong, and we shouldn’t be doing that...."

--Seymour Hersh

<a href="http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/march04/iraq1.html" target="_blank">http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/march04/iraq1.html</a>
post #17 of 46
Thread Starter 
Correct, focused, intense torture has actually proven quite useful.
post #18 of 46
Quote:
Grifter:
Correct, focused, intense torture has actually proven quite useful.
I would type a response to this, but my head just exploded.
post #19 of 46
Shit torture anyone and they'll tell you the future if you want! Course if they do know something they will tell you too. Its like drawing straws though.
post #20 of 46
Quote:
Grifter:
Correct, focused, intense torture has actually proven quite useful.
From a completely objective, amoral viewpoint this is, of course, quite right. But are you advocating the use of this torture on suspected Al Qaeda prisoners - or indeed anyone else the US deems evil?
post #21 of 46
You ever seen The Siege? This is what we're heading for.
post #22 of 46
Of course. The next step after putting actual combatants in a prison under military jurisdiction is putting innocent people in a prison under military jurisdiction.
post #23 of 46
Gee, sorro, we stand corrected. After all, our civilian justice system works almost perfectly, so I'm sure a military justice system with no checks or balances would never unfairly target someone or exaggerate an offense. How could we conceive of such a thing?
post #24 of 46
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
Of course. The next step after putting actual combatants in a prison under military jurisdiction is putting innocent people in a prison under military jurisdiction.
How do you know that these people aren't innocent? They've not had a trial. What are they guilty of, exactly? Fighting back against US forces?

When the US threatens to act like the very bad guys they're supposedly fighting, what's the point? Where's the moral compass pointing in this whole sorry mess? Saving the world from prisoner-executing, civilian-spying, torture-approving dictators, in order to make it safe for the good prisoner-executing, civilian-spying, torture-approving US?

I don't see much to be proud of in that scenario.
post #25 of 46
Quote:
Dan Whitehead:
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
Of course. The next step after putting actual combatants in a prison under military jurisdiction is putting innocent people in a prison under military jurisdiction.
How do you know that these people aren't innocent? They've not had a trial. What are they guilty of, exactly? Fighting back against US forces?
That's the key point for me. Where the Taliban are concerned that is basically what they were doing, fighting back against an invasion.

They are not in there for denying women's rights so what are they there for?
post #26 of 46
What worries me most is that there's a witch hunt mentality in that you can cry "terrorist" and the person accused becomes guilty until proven innocent, and earns some sort of "special case" status, where traditional legal checks and measures are tossed aside under a vague blanket justification of "security".

We're treading on wafer thin ice.
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Dan Whitehead:
What worries me most is that there's a witch hunt mentality in that you can cry "terrorist" and the person accused becomes guilty until proven innocent
There's a number of other accusations you can add to that too. Knowing the media's tendency for witchhunts here, it's something I've feared for many years that would actually be taken into account.

Better hide those copies of Child's Play 3...
post #28 of 46
The quickest way to success here is to torture a suspected terrorist until he confesses something, then use the confession in his trial, then execute him based on a conviction in the trial. So, in effect, the US military is allowed to make anyone into a convicted terrorist. Works just like the Inquisition.

Americans have always been good at abject paranoia. When we identify an enemy, we tend to see the enemy hiding in every corner. Such an outdated way of thinking.

post #29 of 46
While I am not 100% sure of what these people are there for (as it is a closed camp), it isn't as though the people being held there are just civilians that the military went and picked up. Instead, they are people that fought the military, although not in uniform. They are most likely all al Qaeda and Taliban people, not innocent civilians. As I said earlier, I do not agree with the military killing these people without at least some transparency. Secretly killing them is not the way to do it. At the same time, I take stories like the following (from the US News article I posted a few days ago) to be more the rule rather than the exception:
Quote:
Some inmates left a lasting impression on their keepers, among them an emaciated fellow they called Half-Dead Bob.

The Arab fighter had come to Gitmo, as the base is called, weighing a bare 66 pounds last year. He had shrapnel wounds, suffered from tuberculosis, and had lost a lung. Army Maj. Gen. Michael Dunlavey vividly remembers his first encounter with "Bob." Dunlavey ran interrogations at the base until November of last year. By the time they met, Bob was making a rapid recovery. He had put on 50 pounds and, sitting across a table from Dunlavey, he thanked him for the food and medical treatment. "General, you are probably a good Christian," Dunlavey recalls him saying. "And you are probably a good man. But if I ever get free, I will kill you."
People like him are definitely those who should be in Gitmo. If we wanted to execute him, we need to make sure there is some oversight to the execution. We are not, however, one step away from The Siege.
post #30 of 46
What an amazing propaganda story, and all the more amazing is that you choose to believe that's the way it all is.

But at any rate, they have sent people home from Gitmo in the last few months, which means that they DID round up innocent people.
post #31 of 46
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
While I am not 100% sure of what these people are there for (as it is a closed camp), it isn't as though the people being held there are just civilians that the military went and picked up. Instead, they are people that fought the military, although not in uniform. They are most likely all al Qaeda and Taliban people, not innocent civilians.
Given that the Taliban were not terrorists and were fighting an invading force, how is it legal to hold POWs after the war has ended?
post #32 of 46
Dunlavey sounds like a real horse's ass. I bet he scored four touchdowns in the big game in college too. What a TOOL.
post #33 of 46
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
While I am not 100% sure of what these people are there for (as it is a closed camp), it isn't as though the people being held there are just civilians that the military went and picked up. Instead, they are people that fought the military, although not in uniform.
So, human rights and the values of the American forefathers are nothing more than a question of semantics?

It all comes down to the uniform. The question that there was no regular army in Afghanistan -and definitely no budget for standarised uniforms plays no importance, then.

This is sophistry of the worst kind. It's only purpose is to escuse the detaining of combatants after the end of a war and now, it seems, their execution.
post #34 of 46
But they're evil! *

* possibly.
post #35 of 46
I guess we'd all be safer if the al Qaeda at Gitmo were back on the streets, wouldn't we?
The war is not over, no matter what you might think. Sure, the battle of Afghanistan is over, but we have every right to hold these people until the end of the War on Terror. Al Qaeda has not been defeated, and to release most (if not all) of these people now would be akin to giving the Germans back their POWs before the end of World War II.
I would point to what I said earlier - I don't agree with executing any of these prisoners until they have had some sort of (at the very least) semi-transparent trial. We don't have to televise them, but we should have journalists and/or observers at the proceedings to ensure that things are fair for the accused. The prisoners at Gitmo have been treated fairly, in my opinion (given the opportunity to practice their religion, given 3 square meals a day, given medical treatment, etc), and so I don't see anything wrong with what we are doing there.
post #36 of 46
We'd all be safer if the only remaining superpower behaved like a GOOD GUY nation, not like a BAD GUY nation.
post #37 of 46
What would be the definition of a good guy nation? Slapping people on the hand and saying "don't do that again?" Capitulating to every group that threatens/attacks us?
People indoctrinated in militant Wahhabism have been taught for far too long that the enemy of the Wahhabi is the Jew and the Christian, because they are polytheists and infidels, no longer enjoying the protection Muhammed gave them back in the sixth century. The modern Wahhabi has been told that the only way to be a good Wahhabi is to fight a military jihad against the Christians and Jews, and to a lesser extent, the Shiites. It is only through military conquest that Wahhabi Islam can spread throughout the Middle East, throughout Southeast Asia, the Phillipines, Africa, and Europe. The nation that leads these polytheists is the United States. Ergo, it is their job to bring the United States to its knees. There is no bargaining with them, there is no truce, there is no way to coerce them into a peaceful settlement. The only way it can be stopped is by fighting back wherever it gains a foothold. To stop its standard bearers and roll back the gains it has made in areas like Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. Until that day comes, we can be the nicest nation in the world, just giving out love to everyone else and not doing anything on the international stage, and they will still attack. This is a battle for the very viability of the United States as presently constituted. If we are successful, the world will be better off. If we are not, it will spread like a cancer relentlessly until, one day, its goals have finally been met, to whatever extent they want to take them to.
post #38 of 46
Quote:
killbotfactory:
If they want to jail them forever, then they should put them on trial. Holding them indefinatly without trial for a year or two, and then subjecting them to an unappealable death sentance by military tribunal is just plain wrong.

Remember when it came out they were holding teenagers there? They called them "dangerous teenagers" and then released some the next week due to the controversy. How long were they locked in small cages before they figured out they were harmless? Weeks? Months? That's the kind of crap our founding fathers fought against whent they founded the country.
Again, I do think they need to be put on trial for any sort of permanent solution, be it permanent imprisonment or death. It needs to be semi-transparent, although if we let it be completely so, it will turn out like the Mossaoui trial has been - a platform for his views. We need impartial obervers to hold the court to a level of fairness equivalent to that in a traditional trial.
I tend to think the teens weren't not dangerous, but Defense had to do something to quell the storm that was brewing, and releasing some prisoners, perhaps the least dangerous among the prisoners, was the easiest way to do that.
post #39 of 46
You do realise that you, more-or-less, propose genocide, don't you?

Holding people until the end of the "War on terror" actually means holding them for ever. This is akin to the cold war and in someways even more nebulous. It's not a conflict that will ever be completely won.

And once again, the "crime" of most of these people is resisting the invasion of their homeland. I don't think a lot of them had bombing plans when detained.

As for the argument that they would use their trial as a political platform, I always thought it's a silly one. If their ideals are so warped and evil, what good would shouting about them do? Do you think that perfectly normal, law-abiding people will decide to start killing Anericans because some Al-Quaeda suspect says so in TV? Doesn't detaining the Afghanis for as long as you like and then killing them without a proper trial make the zealots more fanatic? Isn't it a nice argument to be used by the Al Quaida masterminds to make the US appear a nation of evil demons?

The US is a state founded on ideals, rather than ethnicity. when these ideals are broken, it's as much in danger as it is when someone physically attacks it.
post #40 of 46
And perhaps even more importantly, if this practice of non-transparent procedures is not challenged, what will stop the government from abducting one of us, hiding him in Guantanamo and killing him, for whatever reason?

No one will ever find out the truth, he'll just be another missing person.
post #41 of 46
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
There is no bargaining with them, there is no truce, there is no way to coerce them into a peaceful settlement. The only way it can be stopped is by fighting back wherever it gains a foothold. To stop its standard bearers and roll back the gains it has made in areas like Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. Until that day comes, we can be the nicest nation in the world, just giving out love to everyone else and not doing anything on the international stage, and they will still attack.
So this is no longer about terrorism, but about containing and preventing the spread of Islam? George W. Bush and The Last Crusade? No thanks, I have enough trouble sleeping.

Quote:
sorro reloaded:
This is a battle for the very viability of the United States as presently constituted. If we are successful, the world will be better off. If we are not, it will spread like a cancer relentlessly until, one day, its goals have finally been met, to whatever extent they want to take them to.
So what's the solution? Kill them all? Kill every muslim, every person who might possibly harbour hatred for the poor old US? Detain them all? Lock them up forever on the off-chance that they might one day do something bad?

How do you really defeat this nebulous enemy, when every bullet and bomb you use against them just inspires more people to take arms against you?

This is the most delicate and dangerous predicament the planet has ever faced, requiring tact and diplomacy to even see the problem, let alone solve it. It requires international understanding. The fact it all hinges on a President who's barely left the United States does not fill me with confidence.

"Stop hating us or we'll kill you" is not an adult solution.
post #42 of 46
This is not about preventing the spread of Islam, but about preventing the spread of a particular sect of Islam - Wahhabism. It does not represent the views of most Muslims, but whomever it does represent are dangerous to everyone else in the world. Not just Christians and Jews (although they are the main targets), but Shiites, other Sunnis, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and every other person on the planet who isn't a Wahhabi. This isn't even all Wahhabis, as Qatar and Bahrain are Wahhabi, but they aren't militant, as the Saudi Wahhabis are. That is ultimately how we will win the War on Terror - by taking the war to the center of this network - in Saudi Arabia. How we do that without angering other Muslims who would feel threatened by Christians taking over the home of some of their most sacred sites? I don't know.
post #43 of 46
Quote:
there is no mastronikolas:
And perhaps even more importantly, if this practice of non-transparent procedures is not challenged, what will stop the government from abducting one of us, hiding him in Guantanamo and killing him, for whatever reason?

No one will ever find out the truth, he'll just be another missing person.
Again, why I think there should be some sort of transparency. Attacking Wahhabism is not akin to genocide, but going after the source of the terrorism, Wahhabism, specifically its leaders (the Saudi imams and government), is what must be done if we want to eliminate the major source of world terrorism. If we prefer to let terrorism continue, we can dance around the Saudis, hitting the peripheral, but never the source of the extremism.
post #44 of 46
Well, the Inspector General of the Justice Department issued a fairly scathing report on the detainees today. Excerpted from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/02/detainees/index.html" target="_blank">CNN:</a>

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A report from the U.S. Justice Department's inspector general found "significant problems" in the detainment of non-U.S. citizens in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, including "verbal and physical abuse."

Released Monday, the 198-page report cites major delays in informing many of the 762 detainees why they were being held. It also describes unduly harsh conditions of detainee confinement.

Inspector General Glenn Fine's report criticizes the government's unwritten "no bond" policy, which kept detainees behind bars over the objections of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It blamed the FBI for delays in clearing detainees who were not tied to terrorism.

"While our review recognized the enormous challenges and difficult circumstances confronting the department in responding to the terrorist attacks, we found significant problems in the way the detainees were handled," Fine said.
post #45 of 46
As far as I can tell, those were the 911 suspects, not the Gitmo detainees. Not that I think they are fairing any better.
post #46 of 46
Crap, I thought I mentioned that in my little header. My bad. My brain is always thinking paragraphs, but my typing limits me to sentences.

I meant to mention that I wanted to add this story to this thread instead of starting a new one about the 9/11 detainees.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Go Go Gitmo!!!