140 to be released from Camp X-ray

Hobbes

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20031130_209.html

Someone please try and defend how everyone at Camp X-Ray is a terrorist when you have crap like this going on.

According to Time, activities leading toward release of the 140 prisoners have accelerated since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It said U.S. officials had concluded some detainees were kidnapped for reward money offered for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

More details on one such person whos only crime was to pick up the wrong passenger (he is a taxi driver)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/World/afghanistan_guantanamo_031130-1.html

Offers of $5,000 for the capture of suspected Taliban and al Qaeda fighters encouraged local warlords and militia to round up suspects for the American military.

He also details torture at the camp. Something the US denies. The whole camp is a disgrace.

mr_angry

The taxi driver sounds like a pretty nice bloke too - saying he's not bitter about things. Although, in fairness, it was his own police force (no dount the Northern Alliance) who sold him to the Americans.

Sand

[nitpicking] Camp X-Ray has been closed down for a long time, the terrorist suspects are held at Camp Delta. Just thought youd want to know. [/nitpicking]

bonkey

I'm still waiting for any one of the posters who insisted that due process wasn't required for the Gitmo captives, because they were all clearly terrorist scum to have the guts to come into a discussion like this.

I don't want them to explain why the US was wrong, and why it was still all for the good. I want them to explain how far up their ass their head was when they posted such crap back when all of this happened.

After all, every "Ra Ra Team USA" poster here just luuuuurvs to post up the latest "look, it isn't as bad as you make it out to be" poll, report, or whatever at every opportunity and try and dismiss the nay-sayers as loonies one and all....

So what about it lads....anyone want to come in and defend their insistence that these people are clearly guilty and that due process would only let them get off scott free, and how they deserved little better than just being shot summarily????

I'm actually tempted to go back through teh old threads and dig out a sample of the choice quotes we had to that effect......

ic

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098604,00.html

Guardian has another good long story of who and what goes on there.

*edited* Whoops.. mistread, thanks Meh.

Meh

Originally posted by Hobbes
What was more disturbing about this story was that apart from the kids/teenagers kept there which is publically known about, there is also supposed to be an area where 2-5 year olds are kept.

The Guardian has also learned that a very small number of prisoners, thought to be between two and five, are kept permanently isolated in a special, super-secure facility within Camp Delta.

It's clearly the number of prisoners that is between two and five, not their age.

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20031130_209.html

Someone please try and defend how everyone at Camp X-Ray is a terrorist when you have crap like this going on.

Huh ? What evidence have you that they are innocent ? one supposed case of a 'claimed' taxi driver ?

They were caught in situ, in flagrante as it were.

chill

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm still waiting for any one of the posters who insisted that due process wasn't required for the Gitmo captives, because they were all clearly terrorist scum to have the guts to come into a discussion like this.

More loud mouthed testosterone clouds from mr bonkey then...

I don't want them to explain why the US was wrong, and why it was still all for the good. I want them to explain how far up their ass their head was when they posted such crap back when all of this happened.

These guys should be thanking their God that the Amercians didn't treat them the way they treated their victims.

After all, every "Ra Ra Team USA" poster here just luuuuurvs to post up the latest "look, it isn't as bad as you make it out to be" poll, report, or whatever at every opportunity and try and dismiss the nay-sayers as loonies one and all....

They get better food, better health care than they ever got at home.

So what about it lads....anyone want to come in and defend their insistence that these people are clearly guilty and that due process would only let them get off scott free, and how they deserved little better than just being shot summarily????

They are all guilty. They were caught in battle and they deserve to be treated as such. Perhaps you think we should bring them all to Ireland and admire they lovely smiles... ?

I'm actually tempted to go back through teh old threads and dig out a sample of the choice quotes we had to that effect......

Work away. Most of the drivel comes from the apologists for the terrorists and anti american bunch.

Hobbes

Chil it amazes me your not banned for blatant trolling or just straight out stupidity (or based on your current post possibly a racist).

Originally posted by chill
These guys should be thanking their God that the Amercians didn't treat them the way they treated their victims.

I know reading the actual article is hard for some but in the first post it points out that the Northern Alliance and warlords (the groups you so fondly love for liberating Afganistan) were basically handing over totally innocent people to collect a $5000 reward (Were not terrorists or Taliban).

They get better food, better health care than they ever got at home.

Yes and all it took was a hunger strike by the people being detained to get it (RTFA).

What evidence have you that they are innocent

I suppose the fact they have been released as innocent might a slight clue don't you think?

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
Huh ? What evidence have you that they are innocent ? one supposed case of a 'claimed' taxi driver ?

They were caught in situ, in flagrante as it were.

Er .. what evidence do you actually have that any of them are guilty?

None of them have been charged, or had any form of trial or legal proceedings. Now the US are releasing detainies that obviously had nothing to do with the fighting. The US has said that some of them "may" have been kidnapped and handed over for reward money. They are finding this out now, 2 years later?

It makes the US look not only stupid, but like mindless thugs, who accepted anyone turned over to them, no questions asked.

Chill the only evidence you seem to think the US needs to detain someone is that they were in Afganistan in 2002.

gandalf

Chill I have a feeling you are trolling !!! I want you to back up everything you have said with linked facts.

Prove to me the following

They get better food, better health care than they ever got at home.

They are all guilty. They were caught in battle and they deserve to be treated as such.

Well there is the thing called the Geneva Convention which covers this, but alas the US tore this up and decided to treat these people in a sub humane fashion. But Guess who would be the 1st bunch to cry if their troops weren't treated according to the Geneva Convention.

Also from the linked articles posted at the start of this thread its quite obvious to all but the most blinkered that gross injustices have occured and innocent people have been tortured and held without proper and adequate proof that they were combatents let alone members of any terrorist organisations.

Work away. Most of the drivel comes from the apologists for the terrorists and anti american bunch.

Nope most of the unfounded drivel is coming from Pro Bush apologists like you. Now back up all you have said of leave this forum !!!!

Gandalf.

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
Chil it amazes me your not banned for blatant trolling or just straight out stupidity (or based on your current post possibly a racist).

An interesting, if not original, line in personal abuse.

I wonder if the moderator will comment on this as much as on my slips of the tongue....

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
I know reading the actual article is hard for some but in the first post it points out that the Northern Alliance and warlords (the groups you so fondly love for liberating Afganistan) were basically handing over totally innocent people to collect a $5000 reward (Were not terrorists or Taliban).

You conveniently ignore the fact that the newspaper report you quote says "According to Time..." so it is only a quote of a newspaper report. - hardly an indisputable fact.
Or are you now claiming that it is 'trolling' to point that out to you ?

Yes and all it took was a hunger strike by the people being detained to get it (RTFA).

They've been well fed since the day they were captured.

I suppose the fact they have been released as innocent might a slight clue don't you think?

Oh dear... I must have missed that... where exactly have they been cleared as innocent ? No way. But I guess anyone pointing out the flaws in all of your posts must be 'stupid' or 'trolling' ?

.

chill

Originally posted by Wicknight
Er .. what evidence do you actually have that any of them are guilty?

They were captured while attacking and killing US forces.

chill

Originally posted by gandalf
Chill I have a feeling you are trolling !!!

Join the queue. You guys canot seem to accept people with opposing views can you ? Sad really.

I want you to back up everything you have said with linked facts.

What you want and what you get are two different things - didn't you Mum teach you that ?

Prove to me the following

I don't have to. Those that made the claims need to back them up. There is no evidence that they weren't fed properly and they were captured in battle while fighting the US forces.

Well there is the thing called the Geneva Convention which covers this, but alas the US tore this up and decided to treat these people in a sub humane fashion. But Guess who would be the 1st bunch to cry if their troops weren't treated according to the Geneva Convention.

I believe they should be held on US soil myself. They haven't been treated as sub humans at all. I haven't seen any proof of this.

Also from the linked articles posted at the start of this thread its quite obvious to all but the most blinkered that gross injustices have occured and innocent people have been tortured and held without proper and adequate proof that they were combatents let alone members of any terrorist organisations.

You see 'proof' where you want to because you're desparate to find it. I see unsubstantiated quotes of other newspaper organisations.

Nope most of the unfounded drivel is coming from Pro Bush apologists like you. Now back up all you have said of leave this forum !!!!

Are you having some kind of mid life crisis ? There's a Personal Issues section on Boards that might come in handy.

Sparks

chill, those posts were so factually incorrect, I don't even know where to begin.

So I won't.

Instead, I'll tell you to actually go take in some news broadcasts that don't originate from fox, or actually read some news from non-us sources in Iraq, like the BBC or even the more professional US sources like the AP and Reuters.

Mind you, anyone that swallows what you'd have to swallow to post what you've posted.... well, I hold no real hope of you managing to educate yourself.

chill

Originally posted by Sparks
So I won't.

I'm hurt - so hurt....;)

Sparks

Originally posted by chill
I'm hurt - so hurt....;)

I wouldn't waste emotion like that chill.
You'll need it for when the US reintroduces the draft, your economy finally succumbs to it's incredibly large deficet and trade imbalance, and for when Bush finally decides that that irritating Free Speech thing is just too much of a risk to national security....

popinfresh

Chill, go back to the basics, what was the justification to capture members of the taliban. What, they dared be in the way of america's ambitions? If I remember correctly the Taliban asked to negociate with the Us to hand over Osamma. To which USA replies "We don't negociate with terrorists". The fact is that the taliban did not do anything to america. The war on Afghanistan WAS a pre-emptive strike on a nation that did not ask for it or for that matter do anything to deserve it. Sure they sympathised with Al Quaeda, but it seems likely that a lot American people support Bush. By the same logic that's a good enough reason to throw them all into concentration camps. And don't fall back on the old safety net of "well, they were an evil people anyway, so USA can do as they please" This is pants, because earlier in 2001 the USA donated money to the Taliban, for their work in stopping the heroin trade. So you could say, the USA supports evil governments. Therefore it has no right to strike against governments for being evil. In fact it has no right to question "evil" governments. All I'm reading from world politics ATM is that there is a narrow minded, ruthless, propeganda using, ambitious government trying to dictate how they want the world to be like. (Give them oil) That country is the USA. No matter how you look at it, unfortunately the once New world and Land of Opportunity has been hijacked be hyper propeganda using idiots. Driving the USA down the same road as 1930's Germany.

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
They were captured while attacking and killing US forces.

Not all of them ... some, as the article says (and something the US military confirms) were handed in by N.A troops who were then paid for them. How are they guilty?

Even if they were captured while attacking US forces, why are they still being held. What ever you feel about the Taliban, the US attacked them. Why is it necessary to detain members of an army you fought and defeated 2 years ago.

Also please explain to me what exact they are guilty of? They fought for their army to defend their country against a foreign invader? Yes the Taliban was a very destructive and oppressive government, but the soldiers on the group didn't control anything? Why hold them without charge? If they were people in charge then charge them with war crimes. The fact that they haven't been charged would imply they issued no orders or had any control over the war. You wouldn't hold a US service man/woman for the crimes of George Bush.

You are supposed to hold POW until the war is over and then return them. Even if the army does not meet the standard to be classified as offical POW it is not morally or legal justifiable to detain soldiers 2 years after the war is over.

Fionnan

Well said Chill,
Perhaps ur detractors think SS men were just defending their country too?
THe taliban harboured OBL and Al-Qaeda and did nothing to stop them. NEgotiations with the Taliban? If they were sincere they should have handed OBL over immeditately to the Americans or a neutral country such as Switzerland, but then i supppose they would have lost the support of all those Al-Qaeda fighters that kept them in power.

Sparks

Originally posted by Fionnan
Perhaps ur detractors think SS men were just defending their country too?

The SS were rightly prosecuted for what they did to their own countrymen, not for fighting against the allies.
Mind you, it's still just Godwin's law.

THe taliban harboured OBL and Al-Qaeda and did nothing to stop them. NEgotiations with the Taliban? If they were sincere they should have handed OBL over immeditately to the Americans or a neutral country such as Switzerland, but then i supppose they would have lost the support of all those Al-Qaeda fighters that kept them in power.

Actually, the US donated more money to the Taliban than anyone else.
Thing is though, no matter how bad we think they are, when an alcoholic drug addict with fundamentalist religious beliefs, a very dodgy criminal record, a plain and simple record as a deserter during time of war, and an overly simplistic world view in general gets to decide who gets to be in government anywhere on the planet, we've got a bigger problem than OBL ever was.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Fionnan
THe taliban harboured OBL and Al-Qaeda and did nothing to stop them.

As did other countries, among which *gasp* the USA. The US didn't have a problem when the OBL was working for them to commit terrorist acts, along with other terrorist groups.

NEgotiations with the Taliban? If they were sincere they should have handed OBL over immeditately to the Americans or a neutral country

Actually they said they would hand OBL over to a neutral country as they said he wouldn't get a fair trial in the USA. The US told them to GFT.

The AQ did not keep the Taliban in power, the Taliban kept the Taliban in power. The US had no problem reconising the Taliban as the controllers of Afganistan when a lot of countries refused to.

Originally posted by chill
You conveniently ignore the fact that the newspaper report you quote says "According to Time..." so it is only a quote of a newspaper report. - hardly an indisputable fact.

Read around some more, or do you want me to find every story for you.

They've been well fed since the day they were captured.

He had been held by the Northern Alliance for a month in Shebergan prison, in crowded conditions with little food,... They were given a single blanket each. It was winter. Razaq says that the bottled water they were given to drink would be frozen in the mornings. .... "We were only given 10 minutes for eating. I tried to pray and four or five commandos came and they beat me up. If someone would try to make a call for prayer they would beat him up and gag him. After one-and-a-half months, we went on hunger strike."

http://mailman.efn.org/pipermail/local_activists/2002-November/000775.html
"At first, they did not allow us to pray or speak together, but after a two-day hunger strike, a superior officer came, allowed us to pray, and
allowed us half an hour to eat," he said.


They were not being treated humanely until they had a hunger strike.


As for lives being destroyed by illegal detentions..

soldiers told me that I would get $400 for every month of detention, but I only received $100 when I arrived in Islamabad... For a year, my family had to borrow to survive, and now, how am I going to pay it back?

and he isn't the only person who is being fuked up this way. The first incident was a boston taxi driver during 9/11 who was detained without rights and when he was finally released as innocent he found because no one knew where he was he had lost his home and his job.

where exactly have they been cleared as innocent ? No way.

Well technically seeing as no one in the camp has been charged with anything they are all innocent, you do remember 'innocent unless proven guilty'? Isn't that one of the basis tenents that US is founded on?

Something Bush forgot with his comment "the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people."

But the stories say that they are innocent. If you bother your ass you will see there are already a number of interviews with people who have been released as innocent also or do you think it is terrrible that the US are just letting terrorists roam free after being let go from the camp?

Zombrex

Originally posted by Fionnan
Well said Chill,
Perhaps ur detractors think SS men were just defending their country too?
THe taliban harboured OBL and Al-Qaeda and did nothing to stop them. NEgotiations with the Taliban? If they were sincere they should have handed OBL over immeditately to the Americans or a neutral country such as Switzerland, but then i supppose they would have lost the support of all those Al-Qaeda fighters that kept them in power.

Actually the US said to the Taliban hand Al Qaeda over now or we will go to war with you. The Taliban said, "hang on a minute, we will not negotiate under the threat of violence and terror." The US said right then and invaded Afganistan.

Kinda ironic isn't it.

Hobbes

I had an idea to solve everyones problems...

each person that is released as innocent should shop in two of his friends. He gets $10,000 (minus a cut to the warlords for helping out). His friends get to stay at the US 1 star hotel getting a tan and some fresh sea air (with fun filled nights of sleepless interrogation). After they come out innocent the US doesn't have to pay them anything, and they shop 2 friends.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, the US donated more money to the Taliban than anyone else.

Incorrect

The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands.

" We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, " Powell said. " We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. "

chill

Originally posted by Wicknight
Not all of them ... some, as the article says (and something the US military confirms) were handed in by N.A troops who were then paid for them. How are they guilty?

The facts are very dodgy on this and I beleive they are right to play safe when dealing with extremely dangerous people like this.

Even if they were captured while attacking US forces, why are they still being held. What ever you feel about the Taliban, the US attacked them. Why is it necessary to detain members of an army you fought and defeated 2 years ago.

They weren't part of an army. The Taliban attacked America first, that's why America took them out.

Also please explain to me what exact they are guilty of? They fought for their army to defend their country against a foreign invader?

Nope. They were illegal combatants. There's a huge difference. I would have thught you would have known this by now...

Yes the Taliban was a very destructive and oppressive government, but the soldiers on the group didn't control anything?

They weren't soldiers. They were part of an international terrorist organisation.

Why hold them without charge? If they were people in charge then charge them with war crimes.

There was never any question that I know about that they were guilty of war crimes, why charge them with that ?

You are supposed to hold POW until the war is over and then return them. Even if the army does not meet the standard to be classified as offical POW it is not morally or legal justifiable to detain soldiers 2 years after the war is over.

I don't agree. They aren't POWs and the war they are fighting isn't over. They'd be nuts to let them go.

.

chill

Originally posted by Sparks
The SS were rightly prosecuted for what they did to their own countrymen, not for fighting against the allies.
Mind you, it's still just Godwin's law.

Wrong.

Actually, the US donated more money to the Taliban than anyone else.

No. They didn't.

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
As did other countries, among which *gasp* the USA. The US didn't have a problem when the OBL was working for them to commit terrorist acts, along with other terrorist groups.

Wrong. The US didn't 'harbour' OBL and Al Queda and OBL wasn't committing any terrorists acts under instruction of the US.

Actually they said they would hand OBL over to a neutral country as they said he wouldn't get a fair trial in the USA. The US told them to GFT.

They were lying through their teeth as anyone with half a brain could see. They were inter twined with Al Qued and just as guilty. They got what they deserved.

The US had no problem reconising the Taliban as the controllers of Afganistan when a lot of countries refused to.

That's because they were in control.

Read around some more, or do you want me to find every story for you.

No thanks. The standard of your 'research' is appallingly poor.

He had been held by the Northern Alliance for a month in Shebergan prison, in crowded conditions with little food,... They were given a single blanket each. It was winter. Razaq says that the bottled water they were given to drink would be frozen in the mornings. .... "We were only given 10 minutes for eating. I tried to pray and four or five commandos came and they beat me up. If someone would try to make a call for prayer they would beat him up and gag him. After one-and-a-half months, we went on hunger strike."

Firstly that was referring to being held by the Northern Alliance and not the US. Secondly this man has no credibility and I don't believe a word he has to say. He's a liar.

They were not being treated humanely until they had a hunger strike.

I don't believe a word of it .... where's the evidence ?

Well technically seeing as no one in the camp has been charged with anything they are all innocent, you do remember 'innocent unless proven guilty'? Isn't that one of the basis tenents that US is founded on?

Bull****. These guys were captured fighting and killing American soldiers as illegal combatants. They got what they deserved and are where they deserve to be - except I'd prefer it to be inside the US.

Something Bush forgot with his comment "the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people."

He was right. Absolutely right.

But the stories say that they are innocent. If you bother your ass you will see there are already a number of interviews with people who have been released as innocent also or do you think it is terrrible that the US are just letting terrorists roam free after being let go from the camp?

They haven't been released as innocent at all. Any that have been or are about to released were guilty all right. But the US have decided they were less dangerous now and have let them go out of compassion and pragmatism.

.

chill

Originally posted by Wicknight
Actually the US said to the Taliban hand Al Qaeda over now or we will go to war with you. The Taliban said, "hang on a minute, we will not negotiate under the threat of violence and terror." The US said right then and invaded Afganistan.

Quite right of the Americans - and a damn good thing they went in destroyed most of them.