AP - A German man was detained as a suspected terrorist at Guantanamo Bay for four years despite findings by U.S. investigators that he had no link to al-Qaida, newly released documents say.

Read more...

It's funny how they say "German man," or "Briton," when referring to immigrants with questionable loyalties to the countries they hold passports of.
But either way you shouldn't detain people like this. What a disaster.

Well - a lot if it is to do with playing safe under threat of extreme danger to the world, and of course is related to the circumstances, geographically etc., of their apprehension. Wrong place - wrong time?? Not usually, I would suggest. In a world at war, better safe than sorry, it seems to me.
Worse things happen at sea, and these guys have been collected up in sweeps of the most significantly dangerous threats to our safety.

The man is known to be innocent by their own admission for God's sake. Put yourself in his shoes for a minute, and you'd be rightfully screaming your tits off, but that's not an option so long as you are kept incommunicado.

From the available evidence, I'd say it is probably more like a great desire to hide the truth of another "monumental stuffup" from the world.

I'm afraid, that as much as I support the war on terror, the whole Guantanamo business, coupled with extraordinary rendition has left me decidedly underwhelmed.

Like I said, he shouldn't have been detained.
This Guantanamo business needs to be straightened away as soon as possible by forces from WITHIN the military and government because it'll do a lot less damage if done this way. And those innocent who were held should be compensated handsomely... and we must know that even this may not be enough, but it's the best we can do.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Like I said, he shouldn't have been detained.
This Guantanamo business needs to be straightened away as soon as possible by forces from WITHIN the military and government because it'll do a lot less damage if done this way. And those innocent who were held should be compensated handsomely... and we must know that even this may not be enough, but it's the best we can do.

Agreed but I think most people are just biding their time until the current US admin has left office, I certainly wouldn't expect changes for another 12 months or so as no one can be bothered dealing with the intransigence of the current lot.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Well - a lot if it is to do with playing safe under threat of extreme danger to the world, and of course is related to the circumstances, geographically etc., of their apprehension. Wrong place - wrong time?? Not usually, I would suggest. In a world at war, better safe than sorry, it seems to me.
Worse things happen at sea, and these guys have been collected up in sweeps of the most significantly dangerous threats to our safety.

I don't know why but just bring out the quoter in me so I think I will use this one today:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Benjamin Franklin.

The quote's a bit misleading though. Because every society has to a degree given up a little liberty for some security. Or else we wouldn't have laws now would we?

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

The quote's a bit misleading though. Because every society has to a degree given up a little liberty for some security. Or else we wouldn't have laws now would we?

Very true but the impression I get from DB's posts are that anything is acceptable for security hence the use of that particular quote.

The Federal Government here has had the bite at the apple, and failed to deliver, so, all should be cut lose.
If they had broken any laws they would already be charged and tired, they are by the Federal Governments own admission not POWs, so they cannot be held as if they were.
If they are criminals then they would, after these many years, already been disposed of as criminals and placed into the Federal Penal System.

Unless one feels that drastic times do indeed call for drastic measures, but then I noticed that there was a shooting at a mall here in the United States, drastic times indeed, so, using the same logic of keeping people safe at all costs, the Constitution here would need to be changed, and all Firearms need to be removed from the Civilian Population, in order to keep the General Population safe from those who would use a Firearm to Terrorize the Population at large.

I find it strange though that many who would like to keep Firearms are the same people who say that other Freedoms need to be given up while fighting the War on Terror.

I remember a quote from the mountain warfare school.
It went something like this. "We haven't had anyone die here at our mountain warfare school. But we've had a few who got maimed. Now this is bad because if you get maimed your families will continue to attempt to sue the Corps and we have to make changes to the training or lose a lot of money. When I was a Parachute instructor, we didn't have many maimed people. We just had the occasional fatality. Fatalities are a lot cleaner. There will be a funeral, some crying for about two weeks, but then that's it. It's over. Pay attention, don't get maimed."
Either shoot the guy or let him go if you don't have any grounds for jailing him.
The problem with prisoners is that they talk. Somewhere along the line it gets hard to tell which guy was really picked off the street for no reason and which guy was found with a remote detonator in his hand. See a guy with a remote detonator? Shoot first.