News from inside Guantanamo

[Narith]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article ... 0000000001

Which further goes to show why torture should never be used as interrogation tactics, beat someone long enough and hard enough and they will tell you they are a giant blue whale on the way home from a Nicks game if that's what you want to hear. Can we say yay for another prison scandel?

[Relbeek Einre]

I wonder if anyone is really surprised here.

I also wonder if any of those "They HAVE to be secretive. Those are terrorists down there and knowing who's down there could cost us intelligence" assholes will cop to being tragically wrong.

[Klast Brell]

If we lock them in a "stress position" in a "controlled environment" they will cop to it for sure.

[Ddrak]

It should also be remembered that these are still "alleged" abuses. I'd be interested in seeing the opposing side from the military, and their responses to anything substantiated.

Dd

[Partha]

A sample: Abdul Latif Al-Banna. A Jordanian businessman granted refugee status by Britain who is alleged to have connections to Abu Qatada, a convicted Al-Qaeda member who is currently jailed by Britain. However, Britain LET HIM GO travel to Gambia, where he stayed for about a month before US embassy people had him grabbed and shipped to Bagram, and then Guantanamo. Which, of course, is a clear violation of the agreement we had with Britain on terrorism:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/detainees/a ... lbanna.pdf

After carefully reviewing the Tribunal Decision report, there is one question
that remains unanswered: What did Detainee t~ do in Gambia that
required the United States (rather than the United Kingdom or even Gambia)
to take him in to custody?
Part of the definition of an enemy combatant states, "against the United
States or its coalition partners..." Since the United Kingdom is a very strong
coalition partner, not a disinterested party, it is doubtful that they are unable
to prosecute actions that take place on their sovereign soil.
Abu Qatada is a dangerous person. Qatada was convicted in the United
Kingdom’s courts and is currently serving a prison sentence. The British
government was well aware of the actions of Detainee t~ on their
sovereign soil as they relate to Qatada. For this reason, this Detainee should
have been subject to British (or even Gambian) authority for his actions in
Gambia, rather than the authority of the USA. The record is insufficient to
show Detainee t~ should be classified as an enemy combatant for his
actions in Gambia.

[vaulos]

It is amazing how many people conflate Abu Garib with Guantanamo. It is also amazing how easily, how quickly, and how eagerly many people on this board attribute truth to these individuals and lying to our men-at-arms. I do not make this comment to suggest that our men in uniform are not sometimes liars, but rather to point out that the automatic assumption is that they are lying, when they say something contrary to what thier prisoners say.

[Ddrak]

Which is exactly my point above. :)

Dd

[vaulos]

I know, but it just didn't sound angry enough- or relate enough of a sense of moral objection!

[Ddrak]

lol

:)

Dd

[Partha]

It is also amazing how easily, how quickly, and how eagerly many people on this board attribute truth to these individuals and lying to our men-at-arms.

You really should stop letting Jecks post on your computer.

[vaulos]

Is that the best argument you can make in favor of this behavior?

[Partha]

Wasn't aware that snark was an argument anywhere but in your own mind. Carry on, though, it's fun watching you tilt at a windmill.

[vaulos]

Ahh, but Ddrak and I have agreed that it is a problem! That's two people, and therefore a consensus reality!

But seriously, when a guy just released from Guantanamo says something and the military denies that it happened, many people (up to and apparently including you) take the former prisoner's word over the military's. Or worse, you take Amnesty International's word, which is a lot like taking Green Peace's word. *shiver* It's what you are doing...whether you want to accept it when couched in such clear terms or not.

[Partha]

Funny, in this thread, I haven't taken anyone's word for anything, except for the Personal Representative of the Tribunal. Who's a military man, last I recall.

[Relbeek Einre]

The evidence against the military in Guantanamo is substantial, and the secrecy of the government is suspicious. I'm consequently predisposed to believe allegations of abuse.

[vaulos]

That's what I'm talking about, Keebler. What evidence? Do you mean heresay? Or did you mean the fact that Amnesty International said so?

[Ddrak]

There's been about a dozen substantiated incidents of prisoner abuse in Gitmo, Vaulos. That's from the military's records which were given to the AP under the FOIA. It is enough of a pattern to give some credibility to the new complaints, but as always it's good to wait for the opposing side's statements before casting judgement. I don't believe there's been any official word from the military yet, unless you could Bush's "zomg! Americans would never do that!" line.

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

What Dd said, Vaulos.

[vaulos]

I am hardly arguing that abuse does not happen. After all, I started out with a reference to Abu Garib. What I am arguing is that these reports are often the result of Al-Qaeda prisoners who have been taught to make allegations of abuse, simply to make the US look bad. No doubt some incidents of abuse are valid, and all must be followed up on. However, what seems to often be expressed by people on this board is a sense that the government is covering up a systematic abuse regime in Guantanamo. There simply is no evidence for it. What most are calling "evidence" is simply heresay or accusation with no real "evidence" behind them.

Take the headline that stirred the pot in the Middle East- "US flushes Koran down toilet". It turns out that the prisoner who made this complaint later told investigators that it never happened. Yet, if you look at those FOIA documents, what you find is "Prisoner accused US of flushing Koran down toilet", and so people think that it has legitimacy...because the US government was so kind as to document the accusation, and then release it to the media. What an amazing job of covering up systematic abuse by the US government/military, eh?

Abuses happen, and the military takes it seriously when they do (more seriously than many of you probably realize). They even document these cases, and then make them avaliable to the public for goodness sakes. Coverup? Secret torture camps? Don't make me laugh.

[Partha]

Then explain the Gulfstream.