Jackson Free Press

"They are smart, they are creative, they are committed. They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us." - Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., commander of the detention center at Guantanamo, on June 10, after three prisoners hanged themselves in their cells.

There is apparently no limit to what Al-Qaeda will do. After all, they have now denied the U.S. the right to execute them. They should be held in contempt of court. They should be charged with treason for withholding their secrets from us.

Of course, they were not in contempt of court, let alone treason, because they had never appeared before a court at all. They may not even have been in Al-Qaeda. The military assures us they were, but these men never even appeared before a military tribunal. Only 10 of 465 men at Guantanamo have appeared before such a tribunal after more than four years of detention and interrogation.

They were like suicide bombers without the bombs.

Of course, the lawyers for those detainees who have representation said the suicides "resulted from the deep despair felt by inmates who are being held indefinitely."

"We all had the sense that these men were getting more and more hopeless. There's been a general sense of desperation that's been growing," said Bill Goodman, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Sgt Erik Saar, who served as a linguist at Guantanamo from 2002-2003, has said there were many more suicide attempts in the camp than the US government has ever admitted. He also said that initial reaction force teams beat prisoners "numerous" times.

An FBI memo from 2004 described a range of abuses, from a female interrogator grabbing a male prisoner's genitals and bending back his thumbs, to a dog being used in an "aggressive manner to intimidate a detainee." This same prisoner was subjected to intense isolation in a room that was always flooded with light.

The New York Times writes: Over one eight-day period in August 2003, 23 detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves, including 10 on a single day. But the Pentagon did not disclose the episode until January 2005. ...

In late 2003, military officials at Guantánamo began to re-classify many of the suicide attempts as "manipulative, self-injurious behavior."

In February, the Times reported that detainees who refused to eat were strapped into metal "restraint chairs" and force-fed.

After two suicide attempts on May 17, detainees violently attacked guards in searches of their cells. A few of the detainees have since told their lawyers that the upheaval was provoked by guards who mistreated the prisoners' Korans as they tore through their cells.

On May 19, the U.N. Committee Against Torture, which is charged with monitoring compliance with the 1984 U.N. Convention Against Torture, a treaty which the United States has ratified, called on the U.S. to close Guantanamo and grant the prisoners judicial review.

The committee urged the Bush administration to establish a law criminalizing torture and to eliminate some of its most controversial interrogation techniques, including sexual humiliation, the use of dogs to induce fear and "water boarding," a practice that involves simulating the sensation of near-drowning.

It also pressed the administration to "promptly, thoroughly, and impartially investigate" senior military or civilian officials responsible for "authorizing, acquiescing or consenting" to torture committed by subordinates.

Welcome to the American gulag.

Previous Comments

ID

87799

Comment

German prisoners-of-war were held in Mississippi during WWII. None were ever charged with anything or given a day in court. After the war ended German prisoners were held an extra year (in contravention of the Geneva Convention) in order to educate them on what had been discovered in the extermination camps for Jews. The UN Committee on Torture refused a US invitation to come to Gitmo. Prisoners at Gitmo who have been released have showed up on the battlefield again killing Americans.

Author

pneville

Date

2006-06-11T07:24:42-06:00

ID

87800

Comment

The only "gulag" ever maintained by the US was established by President Roosevelt during WWII to intern Japanese American citizens who had committed no crime and were never charged with any offense. I say lets kick Roosevelt's memorial off the mall and have the congress censure him.

Author

pneville

Date

2006-06-11T07:35:10-06:00

ID

87801

Comment

pneville sez: Prisoners at Gitmo who have been released have showed up on the battlefield again killing Americans. Got links? While it certainly seems possible that someone could have been released from Gitmo and then returned to "the battlefield," the question isn't whether that's a remote possibility or not -- the question is whether putting these prisoners through due process -- an ideal that this country is supposed to stand pretty firm on -- wouldn't be the better choice. Esteemed judges in the UK -- our staunchest ally in the "war on terror" has huge problems with Gitmo. The UN has problems with Gitmo. And as for "rejected the invitation," there's a reason: The five U.N. experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo since 2002. Three were invited last year, but refused to go in November after being told they could not interview detainees. Here's what I'm not saying: That I know how "good" or "bad" the people in Gitmo are, and whether or not they present a clear-and-present danger to the American people. If they do, they certainly should not be released. Here's what I am saying: Clearly, the Bush Administration has a pretty bad track-record on prisons and torture, and doesn't seem to know it's ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to handling the "war on terror." So I'm a bit skeptical. What *do* we know about the prisoners in Gitmo? Apparently, we've recently learned that 92% of them are not al Qaeda fighters. Here's the report (pdf) compiled by the Seton Hall law school. Some key points: 1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. 2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. 3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified. 4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies. 5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants. Here's what I don't get. Why are conservatives so against the idea of rule of law in these situations? Find the fighters, charge them, try them, fry them, move on. Otherwise, it starts to seem like the Bushies are just holding these guys because (a.) they don't know what else to do with the mess they've created or (b.) they actually *want* to turn them into martyrs.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-06-11T10:27:37-06:00

ID

87802

Comment

The only "gulag" ever maintained by the US was established by President Roosevelt during WWII to intern Japanese American citizens who had committed no crime and were never charged with any offense. I say lets kick Roosevelt's memorial off the mall and have the congress censure him. Again, a common (tired?) refrain among Gitmo-Bushie "dead-enders" on the Internets and talk radio. Interesting that your defense (deflection?) for the current Gitmo situation is to bring up one of the most gross miscarriages of justice in American history, one for which Ronald Reagan, when president, officially apologized for on behalf of the American people and for which the country has paid billions of dollars in reparations. Got a better example, maybe?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-06-11T10:41:02-06:00

ID

87803

Comment

todds-Why are you ignoring my point that German POWs were not entitled to trial and were held until the war was over.

Author

pneville

Date

2006-06-11T11:01:16-06:00

ID

87804

Comment

todds-I take it from your comments that you are in favor of removing the war criminal Roosevelt from his position of honor on the mall?

Author

pneville

Date

2006-06-11T11:16:52-06:00

ID

87805

Comment

todds-I take it from your comments that you are in favor of removing the war criminal Roosevelt from his position of honor on the mall? Certainly, particularly if, as you've so deftly demonstrated, he's the moral equivalent of a George W. Bush. ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-06-11T11:19:32-06:00

ID

87806

Comment

todds-Why are you ignoring my point that German POWs were not entitled to trial and were held until the war was over. Are you the ignored? Or the ignorer? Address some of my other points, link to something about the German POWs and include it in your broader discussion.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-06-11T11:22:21-06:00

ID

87807

Comment

Neville, For one thing, German POWs were POWs, not detainees. The Bush administration has been at great pains to make that distinction, so please recognize it as you defend them. It does not violate the Geneva Convention to hold POWs until the end of a war. Of course, it helps if you've actually declared war, like we used to do in the good old days, and if you declare war against ... you know, an actual country instead of an idea. That way, there's a good chance the war will actually end. Beyond legalities, it's horse byproduct to compare German POWs in Mississippi with the prisoners at Gitmo. These base camps had most of the facilities and services that could be found in a small town--dentists, doctors, libraries, movies, educational facilities (English language was the most popular course) and athletics (soccer was the most popular sport). ... If the POWs worked outside the compound, they received a payment of 80 cents a day. This was enough money to buy cigarettes and other items that were available in the prison canteen. ... It really does sound like a lackidaisical affair. More than thirty POWs walked away from a camp at Belzoni. The local police, FBI, state highway patrol, and volunteers searched the surrounding area. The missing POWS were soon found walking the streets of Belzoni looking into the store windows. They explained that they had become bored in the camp. Does that sound anything at all like the descriptions of Gitmo above? By the way, why are you ignoring all of Todd's points? Particularly, give us some links on all of those terrorists foolishly released from Gitmo who then rushed back to the battlefield.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-11T11:27:47-06:00

ID

87808

Comment

Did I miss the part where anyone in this conversation is (a) glorifying Roosevelt or (b) justifying the horrifying German POW situation? You'd think we would have learned lessons from that dark chapter of our history that, perhaps, we could apply to what's going on now. Neville, it looks like you're arguing with your own shadow here. You might as well return to the topic at hand, because your more recent comments seem to be weakening your original premise.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-11T11:31:15-06:00

ID

87809

Comment

When we think about how we treat prisoners, we must always remember that some of the prisoners are innocent. First, there are the numbers Todd describes above. Then, consider these four men, who even the U.S. government acknowledges were held for four-and-a-half years for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Read what one of the prisoners, Qassim, said of Guantanamo: Guantanamo is like a hell where there is no justice or respect for human dignity. Our life there was very, very miserable, especially the last one year after being told that we are innocent and still living behind wired walls. ... That place is not the normal, usual prison. So I would say that it is a hell. ... I wouldn't (say I'm) angry. I would rather describe it as extreme disappointment. The Uighur people see the United States as a country that promotes democratic freedom and protects human rights of the people, particularly people like the Uighurs, my people. We look up to the United States as a source of hope, inspiration for our liberty. And because of that image that we hold of the United States and what we have experienced in Guantanamo, we feel extremely disappointed. ... Where is our national conscience?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-11T12:21:35-06:00

ID

87810

Comment

Indeed. I often think that Osama bin Laden knew exactly what he was doing by instilling more hate and fear of others in the U.S.—thus leading us to do the things that make others hate us even more. We beat him by rising above those kinds of expectations and continuing to be what America is supposed to be about—not becoming like the worst of our enemies. Unfortunately, we haven't had leaders who seem to understand this at all. We can't give up, though—even as the evil among us grow more evil (see Coulter thread), that can free more of us to band together to find our national conscience. We must ... if not, we're no better than our enemies say we are. The irony is that we "give comfort" to our enemies by doing exactly what they expec/want us to do—make them martyrs. We just can't be such fools for too long, can we?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-11T12:35:42-06:00

ID

87811

Comment

Osama declared war against us during the Clinton administration and attacked us repeatedly without response until his second attack on the World Towers during the Bush administration. His second attack killed over 3000 innocent humans and I "hate" that. I hate Islamofascism and want to see it crushed. I do not want to give it its day in court I want to stop these barbarians from killing more Americans and for that matter I want to keep them from killing each other, from subjecting women to unspeakable horrors and from enslaving Black Africans. Their Geneva Convention is set out in the Koran and it calls for prisoners to be enslaved or have their throats cut preferrably the latter for infidels. That is why they cut off the heads of those who fall in their hands. Even with the Nazis we have never encountered the inhuman carnage with which we are now threatened. They do not operate from "self interest" but from religious dictate. That dictate is to war with infidels until there is submission. To die in battle with the infidel or to commit suicide to kill infidels brings a promise from their God that they will be rewarded in paradise with 72 virgins. Do you let these prisoners walk among us? No I do not believe President Roosevelt was a war criminal. I believe he was doing what he believed necessary to protect American lives. If he made mistakes I forgive him because his first love was for this country and for the people he was sworn to protect. If the left would just extend as much understanding to the current commander and chief we would be a better country.

Author

pneville

Date

2006-06-11T13:40:29-06:00

ID

87812

Comment

I do not want to give it its day in court Well, you can't give "it" a day in court. Only a person. We haven't caught the person you're talking about in order to give him/it a day in court. And at least some of the people we have imprisoned haven't been proved to be helping bin Laden commit these horrible atrocities. It sounds like you're trying to skip over a vital part of what it means to be American—the principle that someone has to be proved guilty. Your comment about liberals-loving-Bush-more is absurd. He doesn't listen to anybody anyway except his echo chamber. We obviously would be in exactly the same boat if every citizen was as blind as the shrinking number who can believe he does no wrong. Or we'd likely be much worse off because there wouldn't be a single check or balance to keep these people in line. We'd probably be watching Reality Torture on TV every night to teach them heathens a lesson. You have officially lost me, neville. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn't understand the most basic of American principles, ideals, freedoms. We have no starting point or basis for a real conversation. Everything you write seems dripping with hate that you just want to throw toward somebody who doesn't think exactly like you do with no proof, no backup, no logic, no moral basis. The others can, er, "debate" with you should they care to. Your views are so marginal that they're not worth my time to try to discuss with you. You're not hearing anything but hate. And that's your right. But I don't need to wallow around in that mud pit with you. My life is too short to hate so much, and spending too much time with haters makes it rub off. I'm out.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-11T13:53:43-06:00

ID

87813

Comment

Actually, Donna, I gave up trying to debate with pneville in the Coulter thread. Earlier, in our thread about the Supreme Court, I said I'd underestimated him. I take that back. My gut impression was obviously dead-on. He is doing nothing but parroting talking points. This is not a conversation; it's a guy interrupting a conversation by repeating the same soliloquy over and over until everyone else shuts up out of sheer exhaustion. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-11T14:01:27-06:00

ID

87814

Comment

Agreed, Tom. Neville, please try harder to actually discuss. For instance, both Todd and Brian have asked you for backup for a statement you made above. A good-faith start toward having real conversation would be to provide those links so the discussion could be built on top. As it is, you seem to be just spewing half-backed talking points that aren't going to get you very far in a crowd that doesn't just follow a Hannity script and knows how to back up their statements. As I said, this ain't talk radio, and the same tricks won't work here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-11T14:05:16-06:00

ID

87815

Comment

Way to kill the thread Neville. You are not engaging in honest debate. You're not even bothering to respond to points others are making. Be gone. I admit that I am personally bothered by what we are doing in Guantanamo and around the world. Of course, it is stupid strategically because it is so gratuitous--we alienate the entire world, which is not how Truman, Eisenhower or even Nixon led. Strategery aside, there is only one word for what we are doing in Guantanamo: evil. Did not Jesus say, "As you do to the least among you, so you do unto me." It's not a "liberal" talking point that some of the prisoners are innocent--this shouldn't be a partisan issue at all, and the fact that so many Republicans are happily tying this anchor around their necks and treading water for Bush is one of many reasons they will lose the House in November. Can you at least try to imagine what it would be like to be kidnapped by bounty hunters and sold as Al-Qaeda to the U.S.? To spend four-and-a-half years in an interrogation camp, where you have no access to an attorney and are never charged with a crime? Where you are routinely interrogated in the presence of snarling dogs, locked for days in isolation rooms filled with white light and beaten by guards? What if Russia kidnapped an American Christian, charged them with being a Chechan sympathizer, and did the same? You would be OK with that? I hate to be messianic, but God is watching and he's pissed. After all, He doesn't care about global strategery. He cares about the man in a cell in Guantanamo who has been pushed so far over the edge that he would rather kill himself than face another day in American custody. That man's despair will follow us like a curse.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-11T14:23:21-06:00

ID

87816

Comment

My principal source for the threat we face from Islamic fundalmists is "Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq; Prometheus Books 1995. Warraq wrote the book after Rushdie was condemned to death for writing a book critical of Islam. The description of the massacre of the last Jewish Tribe in Medina in 627 AD by Muhammed beginning at page 91 sets the tone for all we face. The Jews who had been Muhammed's allies when he arrived in Madena were abandoned when he decided to pray toward Mecca instead of Jerusalem. He accused them of not fighting hard enough against the pagans from Mecca and ordered that all of the adult males be executed. He ordered that the women and children be enslaved. He stole all of their property. While he watched 800 Jewish men were beheaded and that evening Muhammed raped one of their widows. Now while Mohammed has never claimed divinity his words and actions are still considered infalliable. Moreover, this not some scandal unearthed by skeptics it is from official biographes of Mohammed. They are proud of this action by their Prophet. Now don't tell me about the brutality of the Crusades. Christ did not lead the Crusades. His teachings were to forgive not kill your enemy. The first Crusade was actually when Islamic imperial armies swept out of the Arabian desert in the Seventh Century to rape and pillage their way through the Middle East and North Africa (Page 198). Read this book and try to escape the multi-cultural clap trap you have been indoctrinated with. Islamic fundamentalism means what is fundamental to Islam. The brutality of Mohammed is fundamental to the religion and to Osama Ben Laden.

Author

pneville

Date

2006-06-11T17:09:25-06:00

ID

87817

Comment

pneville, this is why you should not get your principal information on Islam from a book called Why I Am Not a Muslim. He will ignore my point, and will probably repeat himself until the rest of us get bored and let the entire thread die. (Victory by attrition, I suppose.) But for the benefit of Muslims, and anyone reading this who actually cares about facts, pneville is referring to the Banu Qurayza conflict (though he probably doesn't know it). The only text that refers to the slaughter of 800-900 Jewish men is the hadith of Ibn Ishaq, which is not regarded as authoritative by most Muslims. The Qur'an, which is regarded as authoritative (to say the least), condemns the slaughter of civilians under all circumstances (see particularly Surah 5 verse 32, though many other citations are available). Unlike Christianity (in its purest Gospel form), Islam does allow for violence in self-defense and as part of war--but never directed against the innocent. The barter suggested in Ibn Ishaq's narrative would not be accepted by most Muslims as characteristic of the Prophet Muhammad. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-11T17:27:31-06:00

ID

87818

Comment

Incidentally, one of the reasons Ibn Ishaq's hadith is not regarded as authoritative is because it contradicts other, more reliable hadiths. The concept of a single narrative "official biography" of Muhammad is not found within Islam. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-11T17:33:12-06:00

ID

87819

Comment

Some of the other hadiths give identical versions. "Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri: When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah." Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362 (nearly identical to Muslim Book 019, Number 4364): Narrated Ibn Umar: Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again) . He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa, the tribe of Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina. Abu Dawud, Book 14 Number 2665: Narrated Aisha: No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed." TH you need to read your sources before post them. Warraq was a Muslim and converted.

Author

pneville

Date

2006-06-11T18:24:15-06:00

ID

87820

Comment

pneville, this is why you should not get your principal information on Islam from a book called Why I Am Not a Muslim. Now, that is the Quote o' the Month. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-11T18:43:24-06:00

ID

87821

Comment

Let me see if I can get this straight, neville. You believe that detainees in Gitmo should not be subject to due process, or even proved to be guilty of why they're being detained, because you adhere to a radical, and largely discredited, view of what fundamentalist Muslims believe? This is really starting to sound like outright bashing of an entire group of people here, neville, and the Jackson Free Press is not the place for that. We've ejected far smarter people than you for doing the very same thing. Move on. You're done here. There are places where your brand of hate is welcome, and it's not here. Of course, your bashing of the 9-11 widows should have drawn your one-way ticket out of here sooner, but I was feeling magnanimous. Not any more. Take your ignorance elsewhere.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-11T18:54:03-06:00

ID

87822

Comment

pneville's original claim: The "authorized biography" of Muhammad has him responsible for killing an entire village's 800-900 male civilians. My response: Well, no, actually that comes from the noncanonical hadith of Ibn Ishaq. Slaughter of civilians is prohibited in Islam, but killing enemy warriors is acceptable under the just war doctrine. pneville's new claim: Other authorized hadiths say that Muhammad's men killed enemy warriors, and the noncanonical hadith of Aisha refers to a woman killed for laughing. Oh, and by the way, this anti-Muslim book published by Prometheus Books, which specializes in titles dealing with skepticism and atheism, was written by an embittered ex-Muslim. Ergo, every claim it makes must be true. Where to begin? Here's an idea: I won't. pneville's argument, or lack thereof, speaks for itself. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-11T18:58:16-06:00

ID

87823

Comment

stepping back to the Gitmo - German POW camp comparison. I think the treatment of Skorzeny's Comandoes and the post war "Werewolves" is more apt, They were tried by military tribunal and shot within days of capture (as allowed by convention for tratment of illegal combatants), hence no need for a "Gitmo""

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-06-11T19:01:24-06:00

ID

87824

Comment

Donna, I think this is a wise decision. I had a high opinion of pneville early on, but his behavior here--and in the Coulter discussion--is simply thread hijacking via trolling. I can't say that it's always wrong to disrupt conversations. I will say that if someone posts on a web site with the sole intent of disrupting conversations, he should be banned. One of my favorite feminist blogs has been overtaken by antifeminist trollers (who troll in every single thread, whether it's about Barbie or Mexican rape cases, with the same soliloquy abut how feminists "don't value men as equals"), who have essentially ruined the diverse and thought-provoking community that existed there at the time--where the only people there now are antifeminists, feminists who enjoy arguing with antifeminists, and short-term visitors. It's a real shame. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-11T19:04:24-06:00

ID

87825

Comment

(And of course there's the more serious problem of hate speech--where pneville said, in effect, that it's okay to indiscriminately lock up large groups of Muslims without trial because they're Very Bad People. If he said Jews instead of Muslims, Godwin's Law would have come into effect before anyone even responded.) JLYerg, the only real advantage Gitmo has over older, more draconian POW camps is that the facilities are better-supplied. But the federal government really needs to charge these people with something or let them go. Right now, 60% of Gitmo detainees haven't even been accused of belonging to terrorist organizations. And as was pointed out earlier, 55% are noncombatants. That's ridiculous, and certainly undercuts our credibility in the Muslim world when we claim we're "spreading freedom." Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-11T19:10:01-06:00

ID

87826

Comment

Oh, and the mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters of those men our friends thinks deserve to be locked up? They tend to be devout Muslims who are proud of their culture, but also support greater progress on women's rights. Fancy that. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-11T19:13:17-06:00

ID

87827

Comment

Well, I pulled the trigger over the hate speech, but the trolling was building on itself. It's funny: I know a troll when I see them, usually after one post, and they come from the right and the left. There have been exceptions—folks who come in blazing with anger and then settle down and discuss respectfully once they get the lay of the land—thus, I give them a chance. But usually they shoot themselves in the foot within a few posts because they're not here for civil discussion. They're here to bash folks who don't agree with them. And if they're allowed to take over, exactly what happens on your feminist blog happens. It's only about that. And I will not allow that to happen here. Onward.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-11T19:26:39-06:00

ID

87828

Comment

I hate it when you do that- I was getting a nice little History lesson here (courtesy of Mr Head and others), on a topic that I know nothing about. Oh well...

Author

Rico

Date

2006-06-11T19:38:39-06:00

ID

87829

Comment

Tom, You may have missed my point. Gitmo Is not a POW camp - Iraqi POWs (uniformed legal combatants) have all been repatriated except for those accused of crimes by the Iraqi government ( Saddam. "Chenical Ali" etc.) My point is that historically illegal combatants were given very short shrift and very little mercy compared to taday.

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-06-11T19:43:11-06:00

ID

87830

Comment

There's no reason it can't keep going without the hate chat, Rico. There must be a better way than having to dodge nonsensical missiles to have this conversation. Tom? JLYerg wrote: My point is that historically illegal combatants were given very short shrift and very little mercy compared to taday. Forty years in Mississippi, blacks couldn't vote or eat in most restaurants, not to mention other horrendous things. The point is, our rule of law and dedication to democratic principles cannot be based on simply being better than we as a society, or nation, stooped to in the past. The most relevant point here is what Tom just say, and its variations up above, back to Brian starting this thread: Right now, 60% of Gitmo detainees haven't even been accused of belonging to terrorist organizations. And as was pointed out earlier, 55% are noncombatants. That's ridiculous, and certainly undercuts our credibility in the Muslim world when we claim we're "spreading freedom." We don't really have to look very far backward to see what's wrong with this very-present scenario, no?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-11T19:59:23-06:00

ID

87831

Comment

Question - who has determined that 60% are not terrorists and 55% are noncombatants? Seton Hall? What classified access do they have? Am I to assume that the US military's head is that far up it's ass and managed to become a complete tool of the "Bushies" in less than 24 months?

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-06-11T20:14:23-06:00

ID

87832

Comment

Lord, I hope not. But the signs aren't good, are they?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-11T20:20:04-06:00

ID

87833

Comment

JLYerg writes: Question - who has determined that 60% are not terrorists and 55% are noncombatants? Seton Hall? What classified access do they have? Seton Hall researchers didn't make the determination; they compiled determinations released through the military's Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), which gave brief indications of the category each detainee was classified into--including the designations of combatant versus non-combatant, and terrorist member versus terrorist associate. Am I to assume that the US military's head is that far up it's a** and managed to become a complete tool of the "Bushies" in less than 24 months? Active-duty U.S. military leaders swear in the Oath of Enlistment to be an instrument--a "tool," if you will--of the executive branch: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Now, this isn't a blank check--there are circumstances in the UMCJ under which one can disobey a commanding officer, even if that officer is the President. But the circumstances have to be imminent. If Bush ordered a soldier to shoot a detainee, burn the body, and hide all evidence that the detainee ever existed, my understanding is that the soldier would be required to refuse and take measures to see to it that the President is held accountable for the illegal order. Indefinite detention, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-11T23:27:40-06:00

ID

87834

Comment

Here's Monday's New York Times editorial on The Deaths at Gitmo: The news that three inmates at Guantánamo Bay hanged themselves should not have surprised anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the twisted history of the camp that President Bush built for selected prisoners from Afghanistan and antiterrorist operations. It was the inevitable result of creating a netherworld of despair beyond the laws of civilized nations, where men were to be held without any hope of decent treatment, impartial justice or, in so many cases, even eventual release. It is a place where secret tribunals sat in judgment of men whose identities they barely knew and who were not permitted to see the evidence against them. Inmates were abused, humiliated, tormented and sometimes tortured. Some surely are very dangerous men, committed to a life of terrorism and deserving of harsh justice. But only 10 of the roughly 465 men at the camp have been charged with crimes. The others, according to senior officers who served there, were foot soldiers of the Taliban or men who just happened to live in a country invaded by the United States after the 9/11 attacks. Inmates at Guantánamo Bay have tried seeking help from the American courts, and one case has reached the Supreme Court. But most of these appeals were thwarted by claims of national security. Any new appeals will fall under a shocking new law that deprives the inmates of the centuries-old right to challenge their imprisonment. Government lawyers have even tried to use that law retroactively, to dismiss all pending appeals. Guantánamo Bay and other American detention centers have sparked outrage around the world — deeply harming America's image as the defender of humanity against just these sorts of abuses. Last month a United Nations panel called for the prisons to be shut down. But the administration's response to all of this has been defiance. [...] So it was not surprising in the least when inmates attempted suicide. Twenty-three tried to kill themselves over eight days in August 2003, but the military covered it up for 18 months. Now, three inmates have succeeded. Camp officials say one was a mid- or high-level Qaeda operative. One was captured in Afghanistan (doing what, we're not sure), and the other was from something the camp commander, Rear Adm. Harry Harris Jr., called a splinter group.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-12T00:54:59-06:00

ID

87835

Comment

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Thanks for the refreasher Tom, I took this oath 7 times between '78 and '99. The orders must be legal or it is your' duty to disobey them

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-06-12T02:07:03-06:00

ID

87836

Comment

Thanks for this, JLYerg. I had been told that this was the case, but am relatively unfamiliar with the UCMJ--something that I should probably remedy one of these days... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-12T03:21:45-06:00

ID

87837

Comment

Tom That's why "I was only following orders" is never accepted as a defense in the military.

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-06-12T10:33:46-06:00

ID

87838

Comment

I think the "facts" about GITMO are very, very hard to come by. The testimony of those in custody is tough to use, because those that are trained as terrorists are trained to give the answers that play most effectively on the sympathies of the west. Granted, not all are terrorists (maybe not even most), but those who say we should just isolate the bad guys from the good guys seem to think that we already know who they are. Here's what I want to know. Why have GITMO at all? Why is it worth the headache to the administration? Bush has done things before to earn himeslf political points with the left; why wouldn't he close this for the same reason? My guess (and it is just a guess) is that the MILTARY has requested it stay open, because of the value of the intelligence they feel thay can gather. I know you guys may hate Bill O'Reilly, but last night he did manage to interview some interrogators at GITMO. Those guys satid they are just now beginning to get some valuable intelligence from some detainees, who have been there for several years. The problem is that there is so much political interest in GITMO, because of what it symbolizes, that it is nearly impossible to figure out what is really happening there. The American left is INVESTED in the idea that it is a torture chamber, the right is INVESTED in the idea that it is necessary for national security, and the terrorsits are INVESTED in the idea that it is a symbol of American injustice (as are many other nations, who prefer to point fingers that to look in the mirror). So there is so much incentive to distort the reality, and those that are terrorists feed on this aggressively (they have been trained to do just that). The place could be much better, or much wore than we think. Who knows? Osama Bin laden and all these other guys are waging (principally) a PR war, and this is one of the fronts. Anyway, I don't know if the place should be closed or not, but I think it is worth asking this question. WHY is it there at all, and WHO wants it there (i.e. the adminstration? The military? the CIA?)

Author

GLB

Date

2006-06-13T09:24:28-06:00

ID

87839

Comment

I think the "facts" about GITMO are very, very hard to come by That, in itself, is a huge problem then. America should not hold accused-but-not-tried prisoners in a way that facts about it are "hard to come by." There's no accountability. Unfortunately, they're winning the PR battle due to this kind of idiocy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-13T11:11:11-06:00

ID

87840

Comment

Being an unlawful combatant is a crime to the military, but I don't believe you'll find a civilian statute that addresses that. In the Army you can become a convicted felon by not getting your' hair cut (you'd have to be an idiot to fight a hair cut that far IMHO), no such thing for civilians. There are laws and conventions that apply to warfare that have no civil criminal equivilant and that to me is where the big hang up comes from.

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-06-13T12:02:47-06:00

ID

87841

Comment

GLB, There are many indications that Gitmo is Cheney's baby. For instance, he specifically authorized the use of "unconventional interrogation techniques" on a prisoner in 2002. He has pushed hardest within the administration to fight any restrictions on torture. This chicken hawk knows that when you spare the "water board," the terrorists win. Beyond that, you are wrong about us not knowing what is happening in Gitmo. We don't know everything, but a lot of what we do know comes from the FBI memo and the military's own reports.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-13T12:28:59-06:00

ID

87842

Comment

Much of the military's testimony gainsays this documentation as well. Many of the people who actually work down there insist that the people are treated humanely and with dignity, the interrogation techniques mainly just involve repeated questioning, and the prisoners are mostly die-hard Osamists who attempt to kill them whenever possible, and who have information that is of value. So who is right? Who is lying? Or maybe it's a little of both? Also, I believe at least one detainee that was released did go to Pakistan and blow himself up, killing some other folks. So if that's true (I can't confirm it absolutely, but it's not just a kooky rumor either) then that kind of thing does happen. Also, am I to believe that the only reason GITMO stays open is because Dick Cheney says it should? That seems a bit much to me. It's not like he invites all his dissenters to go duck hunting with him.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-06-13T13:58:04-06:00