Many at Guantanamo 'not dangerous'

perseus

Active member
Wikileaks: Many at Guantanamo 'not dangerous'

_52329878_011695003-1.jpg


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.
 
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!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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'!
 
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.
 
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).
 
Well oh' grumpy old Chief.

What's the difference between a person in civilian clothes taking up arms against coallition forces in Afghanistan, and a civilian in posession of a firearm in Afghanistan?

Maybe nothing, the said civilian could be a Taliban fighter during night raids, and a caring father and village peasant on daytime.
Or he could be just another one of the vast majority of Afghan people who are in posession of one or several firearms of different sorts, and had the misfortune of having the coallition forces knocking at the door one day.
Or have the coallition forces knocking down the same door one night...

As for myself, I would be pretty pissed off if some gung-ho Hummwee-jocks picked me up on a hunting trip on the Afghan border and had me tossed into cage at Guantanamo Bay, especially if they tried to have me reading the Quaran there!
But I would most definately NOT turn to Islam or terrorism, unless making angry prank calls to the US staff during nighttime could be called terrorism.
 
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.

Ah Seno - and what would you want if you were about to have to jump from the top of Twin-towers? Or in a plane about to make head-on collision with Twin-towers; your young kids with you and your captors gloating.

Surely you would want a Guantanamo if one did not yet exist; very,very dangerous characters are held there still; USA doesn't want them, no-one else wants them; does your country want them? How many lives has G. saved, I wonder? Once again, why blame USA for having to do the job?

This is the first time I have joined the big G. debate, but now in the cold light of dawn, I am just putting forward the other side of the coin.

My personal verdict? I do not have the ability or knowledge and I am not man enough to take such decisions; I thank God that is someone else's decision. All I do know, because I have eyes to see, and ears to hear, is that the characters represented as victims now in G have no interest in dealing out mercy, consider it a weakness, respect only power and can't wait to get their skates on to go again. A few exceptions, well perhaps, their positions would have been sieved over and over again to get rid of them.

I happen to be a very merciful person but I watched 9/11 live as it happenned, and unfortunately I have not been blessed with the judgement of Soloman.

These are my thoughts as I sit here.
 
Ah Seno - and what would you want if you were about to have to jump from the top of Twin-towers? Or in a plane about to make head-on collision with Twin-towers; your young kids with you and your captors gloating.
That was not the question, and for that reason not my answer.

Just because someone,... in fact anyone, e.g. good old Adolph Hitler, commits an atrocity does not mean that we can go around imprisoning innocent persons and/or torturing them to death. It makes us as bad as those we accuse.

It takes a lot less "brain power" to know right from wrong, than it does to try and justify criminal behaviour.
 
Last edited:
That was not the question, and for that reason not my answer.

Just because someone,... in fact anyone, e.g. good old Adolph Hitler, commits an atrocity does not mean that we can go around imprisoning innocent persons and/or torturing them to death. It makes us as bad as those we accuse.

It takes a lot less "brain power" to know right from wrong, than it does to try and justify criminal behaviour.

"I waited for an answer, answer came there none".:)

But I will do you the honour. I am sure a great many Nazis were imprisoned with questions to answer regarding highly suspicious circumstances of their involvement in Hitlers' monstrosity of a strategy.
I can think of no alternative to making such inquiries. Torturers should of course be dealt with , and I am in no way justifying criminal behaviour, especially as vast as 9/11 and such all over the globe. Criminal behaviour which glorifies the removal of heads by blunt blade as television entertainment. IMHO it is good to recognise the limits of our own 'brain power' particularly when measured against that of those charged with protecting us.

I have spent my life attempting to sieve right and wrong, and it often seems to me that that equation regularly boils down to 'I'm right - you're wrong'. I prefer to put myself on the scales as honestly as possible.

I am not lining up against you on this one, just considering that it ain't easy; you have to keep your mitts up if you want to defend yourself.

'Touch me not with impunity' needs to be impressed on dangerous minds.
IMHO.
 
Last edited:
That was not the question, and for that reason not my answer.

Just because someone,... in fact anyone, e.g. good old Adolph Hitler, commits an atrocity does not mean that we can go around imprisoning innocent persons and/or torturing them to death. It makes us as bad as those we accuse.

It takes a lot less "brain power" to know right from wrong, than it does to try and justify criminal behaviour.

Seno ....

What the hell are you talking about??? "Torture someone to death"?????

When did anybody in Guatanamo die from torture??? Matter of fact, when has that EVER happened to a prisoner held by the American military.

That one would still be in the headlines and I sure don't remember seeing it on the news.
 
Seno ....
Matter of fact, when has that EVER happened to a prisoner held by the American military.

That one would still be in the headlines and I sure don't remember seeing it on the news.
Jeez,... uz Chief ,... F'Christ's sakes, where do you live, on the moon? These poor bastards never even made it to Gitmo, in fact Dilawar never even made it to interrogation, he was merely being "softened up" prior to interrogation. You really need to read some World News.
Dilawar

The findings of Mr. Dilawar's autopsy were succinct.[4] Leaked internal United States Army documentation, a death certificate dated 13. December 2002, ruled that his death was due to a direct result of assaults and attacks he sustained at the hands of interrogators of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion of the US army during his stay at Bagram. The document was signed by Lt. Col. Elizabeth A. Rouse of the Air Force, a pathologist with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington DC, , and listed as its finding that the "mode of death" was "homicide," and not "natural," "accident" and "suicide"[5] and that the cause of death was "blunt-force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease".[6]
A subsequent autopsy revealed that his legs had been "pulpified," and that even if Dilawar had survived, it would have been necessary to amputate his legs.[7]

In August 2005, lead interrogator Specialist Glendale Wells of the US army pleaded guilty at a military court to pushing Dilawar against a wall and doing nothing to prevent other soldiers from abusing him. Wells was subsequently sentenced to two months in a military prison. Two other soldiers convicted in connection with the case escaped custodial sentences. The sentences were criticized by Human Rights Watch.[9]
In March 2006, the CBS News program, "60 Minutes" investigated the deaths of two Afghan prisoners, including Dilawar, revealing that authorization for the abuse came from the "very top of the United States government". "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley interviewed retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was appointed chief of staff by Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002, during George W. Bush’s first administration. Willie V. Brand, one of the soldiers convicted of assault and maiming in the deaths of the two prisoners, and Brand’s commanding officer, Capt. Christopher Beiring, were also featured in the program. Wilkerson told “60 Minutes” the he could “smell” a cover-up and was asked by Powell to investigate how American soldiers had come to use torture and stated; "I was developing the picture as to how this all got started in the first place, and that alarmed me as much as the abuse itself because it looked like authorization for the abuse went to the very top of the United States government". Brand and Beiring confirmed that several of their leaders had witnessed and knew about the abuse and torture of the prisoners.[10]
Beiring and Brand showed no remorse when recounting the torture. Beiring was charged with dereliction of duty, a charge that was later dropped. Brand was convicted at his court martial, but rather than the 16 years in prison he was facing from the charges brought against him, he was given nothing more than a reduction in his rank.[10]
In August 2005, Sgt. Selena M. Salcedo, a female interrogator with the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, admitted to mistreating Dilawar. In a military court Salcedo pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty and assault, admitting she kicked the prisoner, grabbed his head and forced him against a wall several times. Two related charges were dropped and she was reduced in rank to corporal or specialist, given a letter of reprimand and docked $250 a month in pay for four months. She could have gotten a year in prison, loss of a year’s pay, reduction in rank to private, and a bad-conduct discharge.[11]
Habibullah

Main article: Habibullah (torture victim)
Habibullah died on December 4, 2002. Several U.S. soldiers hit the chained man with so-called "peroneal strikes," or severe blows to the side of the leg above the knee. This incapacitates the leg by hitting the common peroneal nerve.[4] According to the New York Times:
By Dec. 3, Mr. Habibullah's reputation for defiance seemed to make him an open target. [He had taken at least 9 peroneal strikes from two M.P.'s for being "noncompliant and combative."]... When Sgt. James P. Boland saw Mr. Habibullah on Dec. 3, he was in one of the isolation cells, tethered to the ceiling by two sets of handcuffs and a chain around his waist. His body was slumped forward, held up by the chains. Sergeant Boland ... had entered the cell with [Specialists Anthony M. Morden and Brian E. Cammack]...kneeing the prisoner sharply in the thigh, "maybe a couple" of times. Mr. Habibullah's limp body swayed back and forth in the chains.[5] When medics arrived, they found Habibullah dead.
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected then .....

I guess there is ALWAYS one exception .....

It definitely ISN'T the rule (like it is with middle eastern terrorist groups).
 
I stand corrected then .....

I guess there is ALWAYS one exception .....

It definitely ISN'T the rule (like it is with middle eastern terrorist groups).
US admits 25 deaths in custody

By Marian Wilkinson, Herald Correspondent in Washington
May 6, 2004
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/05/1083635207631.html This was only after considerable pressure and i would put money on the fact that it is seriously understated.
In light of the large number of detainees who continue to be taken and held in US custody in settings with limited judicial or public oversight, deaths of detainees warrant scrutiny. We have undertaken the task of reviewing all known detainee deaths between 2002 and early 2005 based on reports available in the public domain. Using documents obtained from the Department of Defense through a Freedom of Information Act request, combined with a review of anecdotal published press accounts, 112 cases of death of detainees in United States custody (105 in Iraq, 7 in Afghanistan) during the period from 2002 to early 2005 were identified. Homicide accounted for the largest number of deaths (43) followed by enemy mortar attacks against the detention facility (36). Deaths attributed to natural causes numbered 20. Nine were listed as unknown cause of death, and 4 were reported as accidental or natural. A clustering of 8 deaths ascribed to natural causes in Iraq in August 2003 raises questions about the adequacy and availability of medical care, as well as other conditions of confinement that may have had an impact on the mortality rate.
You obviously never read the part I highlighted in my previous post. Deaths may not necessarily be every day events, but there have been a lot more than ONE, and it has been clearly shown that there is a culture of harrassment, violence and torture that would bring a smile of delight to the face of Idi Amin.

I always liked to think that, they are supposed to be the terrorists,.. we are supposed to be the professionals.


 
Last edited:
Then let's be professional.

Ass-rape them with a .50 at 1,000 meters. No STD's and you keep your dress uniform clean, that way.
 
Then let's be professional.

Ass-rape them with a .50 at 1,000 meters. No STD's and you keep your dress uniform clean, that way.
You realise of course that this thread is about the innocent persons in custody?

It's "shoot from the lip attitudes such as this" that have lost us the credibility war.
 
Back
Top