Many at Guantanamo 'not dangerous'




 
--
Many at Guantanamo 'not dangerous'
 
April 25th, 2011  
perseus
 
 

Topic: Many at Guantanamo 'not dangerous'


Many at Guantanamo 'not dangerous'
Wikileaks: Many at Guantanamo 'not dangerous'



President Obama pledged in January 2009 to close the prison within a year

Files released by the whistleblowing website Wikileaks have revealed that the US believed many of those held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent or only low-level operatives

Continue reading the main story

Sort of confirms what we always expected. Guantanamo was more of a instrument of terror to deter potential Taliban recruits rather than a serous interrogation centre.
April 25th, 2011  
Warwick
 
The problem was made worse when bountys were offered in Afghanistan and every Tom, Dick and Harry were dobbing each other in to the security forces!!
April 26th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
This was announced years ago, by military analysts. However it would have been too politically embarrassing to act on it, so the innocents were just left to rot hoping it would become someone else's problem.

And we wonder why we have no credibility in the world.
--
Many at Guantanamo 'not dangerous'
April 29th, 2011  
-- Dusty
 
 
Good point. Lock people up because in the future they might become terrorists.

Don't get me wrong, I think that terrorists must be dealt with accordingly. Which I think means none of this jail nonsense, just pop a cap in them and be done with it.

But I know that there was a list sometime back of people that have been arrested and detained yet they were not terrorists. I recall one was a Canadian, and after his ordeal (IIRC it was a couple years long) not only did they authorities finally find out he didn't have any connections as alleged, but he couldn't sue. TI, come on. Let's be realistic. Put yourself in his shoes. You get arrested, detained and tortured, and after a couple of years released back to your family. Tell me you'd be a happy camper. I'm inclined to think thay looking at it from his position, you may actually agree.

That man, and for the life of me cannot remember his name, is a better person than I'd ever be. He shruged it off. No radicalism, no terrorist in the making, and since he can't sue, all he does is tell people about such atrocities. What would you do? Honestly, I'd do what a lot of those listed in your links did- I'd fight those that did that to me, tooth and nail.

I am not saying that all of those that went to terrorism after being released were justified, in fact none of them are if they became terrorists. But it wasn't just terrorists that were locked up. And it wasn't just former terrorists that "joined the dark side".

I say just do it- pop a cap in them and be done with it. After a while the terrorism will diminish. Because they'll run out of men brave enough to get killed, and the newbies will see what comes of those caught.
April 30th, 2011  
Warwick
 
Pop a cap in who Dusty???? Thats the problem, who are the terrorists.......
April 30th, 2011  
-- Dusty
 
 
Precisely, Warwick. When you lock up people that have no involvement in a "movement", as suspects, this gives the impression that perhaps the "movement" is right.

You don't win allies by locking up the innocent.

But as you said (generalized), "who are the terrorists"? Who IS innocent? Who is guilty? I know that our military has far more to go on than just the speculation that someone might be involved in a terrorist group. I know that they know a billion times more than what they tell the public. But that is the problem. Because the public does not see it. They do not know. And that puts a bad image, though likely to be false, on the US Military.

Out guys are fighting a war on multiple fronts. On one side the insurgents. On the other, the terrorists. And then from behind, the media and the lack of information.
May 30th, 2011  
AVON
 

Topic: Re: Many at Guantanamo 'not dangerous'


Of the numerous detainees from Guantanamo Bay, intelligence services have track most all of those who have been released. Approximately one out of every seven detainees (14.3%) returns or goes to terrorist groups. The detainees that remain are generally there because the country they came from does not want them to come back home! The programs to "re-integrate" these detainees has had limited success. The USA doesn't want them so now these people are 'a people without a country'!
May 30th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVON
Of the numerous detainees from Guantanamo Bay, intelligence services have track most all of those who have been released. Approximately one out of every seven detainees (14.3%) returns or goes to terrorist groups. The detainees that remain are generally there because the country they came from does not want them to come back home! The programs to "re-integrate" these detainees has had limited success. The USA doesn't want them so now these people are 'a people without a country'!
Only one in seven? Sheeesh!... If it were me locked in there for no reason at all I'd be applying for Gold Membership in Al Quaeda once I got out, I'd want revenge.
May 30th, 2011  
Chief Bones
 
 
Considering the fact that taking up arms against US and NATO forces while in civilian garb, is classified as terrorism .. makes every single person who was thusly captured and who is incarcerated in Guantanamo, an enemy who uses terrorism and terrorist tactics against humanity. Whether you like that or not is moot. The fact remains that they were for the most part, captured on the battlefield while they were attacking US or NATO forces. These combatants were NOT members of an organized national military ... that makes them terrorists ... PERIOD.

For those who were NOT captured while bearing arms, there was enough information available that their questionable activities raised warning flags - which lead to their arrests. I agree that those who are part of this last group, should definitely appear before a military tribunal and have their cases heard. Those who are found guilty of crimes against humanity should draw the firing squad. For the odd case where the information was questionable, those individuals should be immediately repatriated to their countries (if they will accept them).

For info: Like a couple of other forum members, I'd rather cap a terrorist than look at them. That's just a personal preference (I've lost friends to terrorist attacks).
 


Similar Topics
"Jęgerkorpset" wants dangerous missions!
Guantanamo made Omar Khadr more dangerous, doctor says (Reuters)
US Army: Guantįnamo abuse 'allowable'
GUANTANAMO BAY GETS A WHAT?
Most dangerous nation in the world