I got in a discussion with a friend from Austrailia over the United States' invasion of Afganistan. In my personal opinion the Afgan war was justified, seeing as the taliban pretty much controlled all of the country at that time, and that they were known to be assisting Al-Queda. (Iraq, on the other hand, is a totally different story. BS war)

My friend brought up the Guantanamo Bay controversy, saying that the US just took a bunch of villages and moved them into Guantanamo, with nothing more than "suspicion". He cites the movie "The Road to Guantanamo" as his reference. However, I have trouble believing this story. I just have this feeling that the movie is a Michael Moore-esque bs documentary. I haven't seen it yet, but I intend to. But regardless, with all the stupid controversy behind Guantanamo, it's hard to decide what is the truth, whether the US is lying (quite possible), the inmates are lying (also possible), or both (even more possible).

So what's your thoughts? Lots of sources makes me a happy person! I've been googling this thing for hours now and so far only Wikipedia has managed to even attempt an unbiased, sourced, and understandable description of the events.

Oh, and for God's sake, keep the flames out. If you hate the US, think Guantanamo is a perfect example of American tyranny, or believe that the towelheads should all be cruicified, that's fine and dandy. But don't post unless you're gonna give a level-headed sourced argument. Thanks :p

Discuss

Just shooting my mouth off, but isn't the controversy that these guys are being imprisoned indefinitely without any prospect of a trial? And then there's the claims that the sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation treatment is on a par with torture?
I think the controversy transcends whether or not the war itself was wrong or whether the inmates are guilty of anything or not.

Yeah I forgot about that.

The facts are (from Wikipedia) that the vast majority of those at GITMO are being released without even seeing a trial. Something like 10% are scheduled for a trial in the near future, and the others are still in "limbo". It IS a detainment camp, with the sole purpose of holding people they suspect of doing something/knowing something important. The problem is, do they have reasonable suspicion? (You know, like the same level of suspicion that can get you arrested for a crime and held in jail before trial)

And also, I've yet to see any decent evidence to real tortore use or not. The inmates seem to swear it happens, and the US denies it. Not much happening with a he said she said.

Why would the US admit to torture, with the hot water they're already in?

US Soldiers hold bounties for "enemy combatants" in Iraq and Afghanistan. People turn in Shiites, turn in Sunnis, turn in Kurds, turn in Christians, go against their own people and religious beliefs just to make a buck, seeing as the economy is ruined in both countries (Afghanistan to a lesser extent, since they've still got a thriving opium crop). This results in lots of people that shouldn't be held there. Alot of people sold to the US for these bounties are tortured in US holding cells, admitting to things that aren't true, and are sent to GITMO without any recourse, left with no rights or ability to make their case.

But see that's the thing. It's all guessing. No one knows for sure. You can't trust what the US says cause they'd probably hide if they did something really bad. And the inmates would be more than happy to make news by making up stories about what happened.

I'm only looking for facts, not guesses :p

Well, uh.

AMERICANS ARE AT IT AGAIN.

JOB WELL DONE!

BURGERBOYS.

Guantanamo Bay seems like one part of a much larger problem, that is known as the human race. Kthxbye!

To say that the US is just letting them sit there and asking nicely for information is hopelessly optimistic and a dangerous way to think. And when you say "Oh, the testimony from people from GITMO doesn't count", it doesn't leave us with much, since the press isn't allowed into GITMO.

And it is a fact that they put up bounties for "enemy combatants", leaving the door open for people to turn in anyone.

I don't pretend to think that it's a little jail. I just don't think that the "more extreme" measures are occuring. But I don't know, because there's seriously no sources on it.

And do you understand why I don't think testimony from people in GITMO is applicable?

GITMO is just the pawn for the public that you are supposed to know about

I have little doubt that these inmates are indeed tortured.

You see; the government tries very hard to deny it, instead of coming up with ways to prove it. If there's nobody being tortured, there should be a way to prove that and thereby get rid of the stories.

Not that I doubt torture is occuring at Guantanamo Bay, but the fact that the government can't disprove it doesn't mean much. It's always very, very hard to prove that something is not happening.

Give a few reporters full access (though with a guard being with them constantly so there won't be any chance of said reporters accidentally leaving doors open) for a several months. If they come to the conclusion nothing indicates the inmates being tortured, compare the physical health of the inmates claiming to be tortured to the health they were at before the reporters came. If it shows any drastic improvements, it's basically proof that there were such activities. If it doesn't, well, then you could not completely disprove it, but at least make it very hard to believe.

The Emperor has decreed that you are all enemy combatants. Soldiers, take them to GITMO.

What they do is break someone down mentally instead of physically. I would argue it's some of the worst kind of torture, not simply being "on par."

I've seen "The Road to Guantanamo" and I don't remember anyone saying that those people being held there are just villagers. There may be some cases where the inmates say they were farmers and stuff but I don't think the US is going to spend millions of dollars holding these people incommunicado without some proof of terrorist ties.

I believe Gitmo is a stain on the US' image, but I also believe that at least 95% of the people there deserve what they're getting.

No.

Of course it's applicable.... sheesh... These are real human beings we're talking about here... just making sure you knew that...

Does anyone else find it disturbing that your government can detain someone for over 5 years without charge or sight of fair trial on purely suspicion? I find it rather disconcerting. Also some of the prisoners were turned in for cash rewards by Afghani civilians and they are still yet to see fair process, if that isnt a recipe for an innocent man being incarcerated I dont know what is.

I also dont like how they specifically designed GTMO to slip through loopholes of international laws such as the Geneva Convention.

According to Wiki Out of 775 detainees who have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 340 have been released, leaving 435 detainees. Of those 435, 110 have been labeled as ready for release. Of the other 325, only "more than 70" will face trial, the Pentagon says. That leaves about 250 who may be held indefinitely'.

So about 10% of detainees are lawfully held and receive a trial after potentially years of incarceration and alleged torture. Are alarm bells ringing for anyone else?

Because they're easily biased? Duh? For all you know they plan to make up the biggest story possible about their treatment in GITMO, just because they know no one can prove it.

Just a thought.

So would the Jews in the holocaust.

No really, if they were kept there and treated with enough decency that's warranted for someone who is quite possibly innocent, then released, most of them would just be glad to go home. You don't often get dudes making up huge stories just to get attention.

If you believe that there's no smoke without fire, then the Military Commissions Act that was passed last year should raise some alarm bells.

Initially it was deemed by critics as the "torture bill" because it seemed to be barring suspects from legally challenging their treatment at all. It went through in the end, with a clause that declared that torture and rape against a prisoner would still be illegal. As I understand it the definition of torture being used is that defined by the Geneva convention and would still allow treatment (such as sleep and sensory deprivation) that most ordinary folk would consider torture to go unchallenged.
Still, those deemed alien unlawful combatants no longer have a right to challenge their detention or treatment any more and hearsay may be used as evidence for a criminal conviction if it's deemed to be reliable enough. That the law now differs whether you're a US national or not is, frankly, scummy. It's also interesting that the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" is decided in a military tribunal.
It's a law that effectively creates a blackhole into which you can throw almost anyone as long as you can find some way to define them as an alien unlawful enemy combatant. It doesn't even need to be a good case against that person because once in there, they can't appeal against their incarceration! When the US govt. makes laws like these it's not hard to believe many of the stories from Guantanamo.

It's a travesty that this managed to slip under the radar of most people's noses while the media caused a big fuss about some horny pervy congressman sending inappropriate IMs to congressional pages.


Those 5% of inmates are the reason why it needs to go. It's the same reason why we assume innocence until proven guilty: it's better to let a guilty man go than to risk hanging an innocent.

In any case, I don't think we'll ever know what really happened, unless someone wants to invade :p

Heh, here we go again. This must be the third time I'm citing this.

[Quote=Dutch News Article]

According to a report published in February 2006 by two lawyers of suspected terrorists, more than half (55%) of some 500 suspected terrorists imprisoned on the American Navy Base in Guantanamo Bay did not commit any acts of hostility against the US.

The vast majority of people being held in Camp Delta have never been officially charged with anything, although many of them have been locked up for several years.

The two councillors have been closely studying documents of the American Government, about the argumentations against the suspects. Some turn out to be imprisoned based on suspected ties with organizations that do not appear on any official list of terrorist organizations. Only 8% percent of them are booked as 'Al Qaida warrior'.

The lawyers further write that of all the prisoners, only 7% have been arrested by the Americans themselves, or their allies.

Pakistan arrested 36% of the detainees, warlords of the Northern Alliance 11%. Of 44% of all the prisoners, it is unknown how they fell into American hands.

According to the lawyers, the Americans are offering huge rewards for arresting possible terrorists and enemy combatants. Often they pay first, and ask questions later. The reliability of the bounty hunters and the prisoners they turn in, are not sufficiently checked out, is their conclusion.[/quote]

I like how he asks for sources, and all he gets is hate on the U.S. So I'll skip the middle where I like to reside, and give you the other end of the spectrum.

You may recall Senator Durbin...
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/07/durbin_visits_g.html


http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShowByDate&date=20060613#2

What none of you seem willing to acknowledge is what we get in return. Our soldiers, when captured, aren't subjected to loud music. They don't suffer sleep deprivation. They are decapitated on film. Do you think that if we were just nice to them, they'd stop trying to kill us? How naive are you? The U.S. isn't allowed to fight this war properly. We are hobbled by our own media and this requirement to be 'nice'. No war can be fought this way - that's why we aren't winning. And the scary part is that the American people aren't going to open their eyes until they hit us again. And next time, it won't be airplanes into the world trade center. It will be a nuclear bomb in downtown LA, or something worse.

I'm sorry but who is "they"? Or are you just making a sweeping generalisation? And why should the US sink to the level of the terrorists they're fighting? Surely if they're in the right they don't need to do these sorts of things?
How would America go about fighting the war "properly"? Glassing over the middle east?

And since when was Bill O'Reilly ever a credible source!?
(I think this breaks my personal record for the most question marks in one post :P)

If you want to call people on U.S. hating BS, actually do so rather than making an empty claim.

It's actually based on a true story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipton_Three

One of the biggest criticisms wasn't/isn't that the US went to war in Afghanistan, but that the prisoners aren't given trials (as stated earlier) and that Bush and others in his administration have said time and time again that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them, which just about everyone else agrees is ridiculous.

For the Emperor!

We have no buisness in the middle east. We have even less buisness imprisoning people from the middle east without trial or legal representation.

I saw a documentary about a guy that has been in gitmo for the last two years. He lived in Utah. He was is an American citizen. He has been for the last 20 some years. He had a family and owned a small buisness. One fatal flaw: He was originally from Pakistan.

My life for Aiur!

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html

Oh, and we also have other secret prisons in Romania and Poland. God bless the USA!

XENO HERETIC! YOUR DESTRUCTION IS THE WILL OF THE EMPEROR!

*Kills*

Hey, they have a look in their eyes. It can only be described as non-human, and thus, rightless. **** the constitution and all of our freedoms and rights! We're at war with an evil people who would see those rights destroyed!

Oh, wiat a second...

“If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear – never to see them again – you send them to Egypt.” - Robert Baer on how the CIA deals with suspected-terrorists in the Middle East (I highly recommend all of his books to anyone who wants a unique look at U.S. Intel operations in the Middle East, but especially "See No Evil.").

One thing to note in Roach's quote is that all those countries are in the middle east. Is it a coincidence that middle eastern countries let us torture people on their soil? No, it's not.

Maybe it is just that I would rather like it if America turned into an imperialistic nation and conquered the planet, but I've never seen anything wrong with our techniques in the middle east. It sure would be a hell of a lot nicer than the whole world being a Muslim theocracy. Or, worse, Sweden! Then again, we already own the world. All the other countries just don't want to admit it, so they pretend to hate us, when really all they want is to be us.

I can stop all wars with four simple words : United States of Earth.

Was that post supposed to be a satirical?

I'm sure he wasn't seirous

What's the point of defending this country if we abandon what makes it worth fighting for?

Also, no one is saying “be nice,” we're saying that we need to be just. No one is advocating the release of terrorists. If someone is guilty of a crime, then by all means charge him, convict him, and incarcerate him. But don't just take potentially innocent people and chuck them in a cell indefinitely without a fair trail.

What are getting in return? Guantanamo Bay is eroding our already damaged reputation as a good, democratic nation. Our enemies use it as evidence of America’s evil, drawing support and recruiting more people who want to do us harm. If anything, moral and legal issues aside, Guantanamo Bay is making the United States less safe.

Where is the harm in actually honoring habeas corpus and giving people a fair trial?


Ah yes, blame the media. THAT'S why we aren't winning. I've heard this repeated quite a bit (by certain talking heads within the media, haha). How, exactly, is the media tying this administration's hands? The president has made it clear that he doesn't pay much attention to critics, so how could they possibly be losing the war for us? Isn't it more likely that the administration's poor decisions--since they are the ones that actually affect the war--are to blame?

War is obselete.

They need to spend more time listening to their military advisors.

I suppose you would all also like to pull all American troops out of Iraq immediately?

...we're discussing the policies at Guantanamo Bay. Why are you trying to change the subject?

Also, I can't speak for everyone, but you suppose incorrectly.