PDA

View Full Version : Most Gitmo detainees to be sent to home countries



Leader
05 Aug 05,, 22:41
US 'deal' to transfer Guantanamo inmates
05/08/2005 - 18:52:20

The US Government is in negotiations which could see almost 70% of detainees transferred from Guantanamo Bay to three countries in the Middle East.

A deal has been struck to transfer most of the 110 Afghan terror suspects to the “exclusive custody and control” of the Afghanistan government.

Similar deals are in the pipeline with authorities in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Matt Waxman, deputy assistant secretary of defence for detainee affairs, stressed the plan was not to shut down Guantanamo.

“We don’t want to be the world’s jailer,” he said. “We think a more prudent course is to share responsibility with our coalition partners for keeping these individuals from fighting us again.

“In waging the war against al Qaida and the Taliban we will continue to capture enemy fighters and need to prevent them from returning to the battlefield, but it need not be the US who detains them for the long term.”

The US has agreed to help Afghanistan build an appropriate prison and to train its guards.

Pierre-Richard Prosper, ambassador at large for war crimes, who led a US delegation to the Middle East this week, told the Washington Post the government was working to send 129 Saudis and 107 Yemenis from Guantanamo to the custody of their home countries.

The long-term goal is understood to be to reduce the Guantanamo population to those who pose the highest security risk and to shift the focus from intelligence gathering to long-term detention.

Some 510 prisoners are currently being held by the US at the Cuban detention camp which has been the subject of much criticism in recent months.

The Naval base has been the focus of alleged torture and human rights violations and detainees are held and interrogated without charge.

Guantanamo was initially established to hold terror suspects from Afghanistan.

At its peak it held 750 prisoners but more than 100 have been released and 65 dispatched to foreign countries, including seven Britons who were all later released without charge.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=151749758&p=y5y75x464

Ray
06 Aug 05,, 05:51
The idea is interesting.

However, this would raise the following questions:

1. What were the problems which prevented this not being done earlier in the initial stages? If it had been done, then the US would have saved itself all the hassles that were raised along time.

2. Does it mean that there is no requirement to hold these men in custody;? Does it mean that there were no cases and were being held merely to keep doubtful cases out of circulation?

3. In the ME, no govt would be in a position to hold onto these "martyrs of the Islamic ideals". How far would this achieve the aim (for whatever be the reason) of having kept them so long in custody in the US base?

3. Further, even if they are kept in custody or even tried in the ME or Afghanistan, the rules of law are different for each country and hence some hardcore may get released because of the political and religious environment prevelant in such countries.

Afghanistan has many problems as such including the reappearance of the Taleban from across the borders. Will they be able to hold on to these people before a jailbreak occurs? If terrorists can escape from Bagram, then what is an Afghan prison?

Either they were not guilty or they were guilty. If there is even an iota of doubt of their being guilty and they are released where they are being sent or they make a "jailbreak", then would we not be putting them back into circulation?

What is the problem of charging them in the US and sentencing them or releasing them from the US, which in the first place captured or arrested them?

In the US they all would have an uniform legal platform.

SloMax
25 Aug 05,, 09:16
Chinese Detainees Are Men Without a Country
By Robin Wright

In late 2003, the Pentagon quietly decided that 15 Chinese Muslims detained at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be released. Five were people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, some of them picked up by Pakistani bounty hunters for U.S. payoffs. The other 10 were deemed low-risk detainees whose enemy was China's communist government -- not the United States, according to senior U.S. officials.

More than 20 months later, the 15 still languish at Guantanamo Bay, imprisoned and sometimes shackled, with most of their families unaware whether they are even alive.

They are men without a country. The Bush administration has chosen not to send them home for fear China will imprison, persecute or torture them, as the United States charges has happened to other members of China's Muslim minority. But the State Department has also been unable to find another country to take them in, according to U.S. officials and recently filed court documents.

Other detainees cleared of terrorism charges have also languished for years at Guantanamo Bay, but all have been sent home or are in the process of being transferred. For the Chinese Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurs ), there is no end in sight. About 20 countries -- including Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Turkey and a Latin American country -- have turned down U.S. overtures to give them asylum, according to U.S. officials.

The State Department says it is still working behind the scenes to find the Uighurs a home. A senior official called their situation "unfortunate."

This month, lawyers and human rights groups appealed to the United States to take in the stranded Uighurs. "It's not like these people were once considered to be a threat and now are not," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "These people need to be released, either in another country or the U.S. They're America's responsibility."

But the Bush administration has balked at allowing them to enter the United States, even under restricted supervision, or to appear in a court that is hearing two of the men's cases, according to U.S. officials and court documents.

In the meantime, the men are still treated as prisoners. Sabin P. Willett, a Boston lawyer who volunteered to take the cases of two Uighurs in March, finally met with them last month, after he and his team went through their own FBI clearances. One of the Uighurs was "chained to the floor" in a "box with no windows," Willett said in an Aug. 1 court hearing.

"You're not talking about your client?" asked Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court in Washington.

"I'm talking about my client," Willett said.

"He was chained to a floor?" Robertson asked again.

"He had a leg shackle that was chained to a bolt in the floor," Willett replied.

For more than three years, Willett's clients -- Abu Bakker Qassim, 36, and Adel Abdu Hakim, 31 -- had been denied legal counsel. Then, in March, another detainee with an attorney asked his lawyer to help them find representation through a legal process called "next friend authorization."

Most facts in the Uighur cases are still classified secrets. Lawyers are not allowed to provide information unless facts are revealed in court papers or hearings. But the basics are beginning to come to light -- and Robertson is now pressing for action. This past Friday, the judge ordered the government to disclose the status of efforts to relocate the two men at a hearing on Thursday.

All 15 Uighurs have actually been cleared for release from Guantanamo Bay twice, once after a Pentagon review in late 2003 and again last March, U.S. officials said. Seven other Uighurs were ruled to be enemy combatants and will continue to be detained.

Even after the second decision, however, the government did not notify the 15 men for several months that they had been cleared. "They clearly were keeping secret that these men were acquitted. They were found not to be al Qaeda and not to be Taliban," Willett said. "But the government still refused to provide a transcript of the tribunal that acquitted them to the detainees, their new lawyers or a U.S. court."

Through the next friend authorization process, Willett and his team have now taken on the cases of 10 other Uighur detainees -- although they know only the first names of nine of their new clients.

Uighurs are a Muslim minority whose heartland is in northwestern China. They are a Turkic people who speak a language similar to others in neighboring Central Asian nations and have long sought autonomy in China's Xinjiang province -- a region Uighurs refer to as East Turkistan.

Uighur dissidents have engaged in sporadic attacks against the Chinese government in Xinjiang province. Chinese authorities accuse Uighur separatists of a committing a series of bombings and assassinations since 1990, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ironically, many view the United States as a "beacon of hope" that "will assist in the Uighurs' quest for fundamental freedom and human dignity," said Nury Turkel, a U.S.-trained lawyer and president of the Uighur American Association in Washington.

"They are not soldiers. They are not criminals. They are just Uighur people," Willett argued in court. ". . . There might not be a more pro-U.S. Muslim group in the world. The Uighurs have traditionally suffered under religious and political oppression at the hands of the Communist Chinese, and I can remember a time when that made a person someone we liked in this country."

Information on how the Uighurs ended up at Guantanamo is scarce and limited to U.S. summations from interrogations. Qassim and Hakim fled the city of Ghulja in China to Central Asia in 2001. They met in Kyrgyzstan and traveled to Pakistan, then to Afghanistan, where they received training in use of small arms, according to a recent court statement by Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

After the United States attacked Afghanistan in 2001, they fled to Pakistan, where they were captured by bounty hunters, according to their lawyers and court papers.

Transcripts from the tribunals, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, indicate why the Uighurs ended up in Guantanamo Bay and what their intentions were.

"That is true, I went to Afghanistan," said one detainee who is clearly a Uighur based on information in the transcript. "The reason is number one: I am scared of the torture from my home country. Second: if I go there I will get some training to fight back against the Chinese government."

"We have nothing to do with the Taliban or the Arabs. We have nothing to do with the U.S. government or coalition forces. We never thought about fighting with the Americans," another testified. "I want you to understand what our goal is: just to fight against the Chinese government. If there is nothing happening in the future, we would like to stay wherever, abroad, to do our business."

In court papers, the administration acknowledged the dangers facing Uighurs if they are returned to China. Yet Chinese officials were allowed to visit and question the Uighurs two years ago, according to their lawyers. In recently declassified material, Hakim said that a Chinese interrogator was allowed to take a photo of him with the help of Guantanamo personnel and despite his efforts to resist.

The Justice Department has argued in court that it has no obligation to release the Uighurs because of "wind-up power," which gives a government the time necessary at the end of a conflict to figure out what to do with detainees. As a precedent, it cited the treatment of Italians held in the United States after World War II.

Lawyers and human rights groups are concerned that incarceration has tainted the Uighurs forever.

"These people are branded by being in Guantanamo. Even if cleared for doing nothing wrong, it doesn't erase the stain," said Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the New York-based nonprofit organization that found volunteer attorneys for Qassim and Hakim. "It's a terrible toll to place on people for our mistakes."

Staff writer Josh White and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050824/pl_washpost/chinese_detainees_are_men_without_a_country

Stuck in Guantanamo and nobody wants them. Taking about being in a wrong place at a wrong time…

Asim Aquil
25 Aug 05,, 11:21
There are many, wrong place, wrong time type cases. It will always happen when human beings are not given trials. And they only kept releasing the detainees, each time with an "oops". Now they're releasing (I'm still guessing, not all) the bulk of the 510 detainees. All the released detainees are now going to go rushing to the media. Everyone's being released as "not guilty", end result, a lot more people pissed off at America. All these people will go tell other people.

To deduce, Guantanmo was such an amature/novice move by the United States. It has caused more harm to their goals than benefit. With a little more effort they could've just arrested the key people, tried them in some terrorism courts, and then they would've been pronounced GUILTY.

I repeat 510 "not guilty" (your gut feeling may say otherwise, but it means nothing) people are being released now.

Shek
25 Aug 05,, 13:20
The idea is interesting.

However, this would raise the following questions:

1. What were the problems which prevented this not being done earlier in the initial stages? If it had been done, then the US would have saved itself all the hassles that were raised along time.

2. Does it mean that there is no requirement to hold these men in custody;? Does it mean that there were no cases and were being held merely to keep doubtful cases out of circulation?

3. In the ME, no govt would be in a position to hold onto these "martyrs of the Islamic ideals". How far would this achieve the aim (for whatever be the reason) of having kept them so long in custody in the US base?

3. Further, even if they are kept in custody or even tried in the ME or Afghanistan, the rules of law are different for each country and hence some hardcore may get released because of the political and religious environment prevelant in such countries.

Afghanistan has many problems as such including the reappearance of the Taleban from across the borders. Will they be able to hold on to these people before a jailbreak occurs? If terrorists can escape from Bagram, then what is an Afghan prison?

Either they were not guilty or they were guilty. If there is even an iota of doubt of their being guilty and they are released where they are being sent or they make a "jailbreak", then would we not be putting them back into circulation?

What is the problem of charging them in the US and sentencing them or releasing them from the US, which in the first place captured or arrested them?

In the US they all would have an uniform legal platform.

Sir,

These men were detained as illegal enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention, not on criminal charges. As such, there is no need for a trial, but rather can be held until the end of the conflict. Additionally, the decision was made to prioritize gaining information from interrogations that would prevent future terrorist attacks and attacks against US/coalition forces rather than follow Miranda and other procedures that are required to all evidence to be admissible in US courts of law, but would limit the ability to collect information that could save lives.

As far as not releasing detainees to their home countries earlier, my guess is that this is for several reasons. For starters, I know that Afghanistan for wasn't prepared to handle the security responsibilities. Also, I'm sure that we have required assurances from countries that they won't just turn around and put the detainees back into circulation where they can commit future terrorist attacks. Another reason is that many of the detainees have probably passed their point of utility - i.e. they no longer provide insights or information into the inner workings of AQ and thus, provide no actionable intel.

I'm not so sure on your analysis that ME governments will be forced to release these "martyrs." They have a pretty good track record on cracking down on extremists within their own countries, although I'd agree that it is a tough call for them due to the potential of causing internal dissidence in favor of the extremists.

Shek
25 Aug 05,, 13:27
There are many, wrong place, wrong time type cases. It will always happen when human beings are not given trials. And they only kept releasing the detainees, each time with an "oops". Now they're releasing (I'm still guessing, not all) the bulk of the 510 detainees. All the released detainees are now going to go rushing to the media. Everyone's being released as "not guilty", end result, a lot more people pissed off at America. All these people will go tell other people.

To deduce, Guantanmo was such an amature/novice move by the United States. It has caused more harm to their goals than benefit. With a little more effort they could've just arrested the key people, tried them in some terrorism courts, and then they would've been pronounced GUILTY.

I repeat 510 "not guilty" (your gut feeling may say otherwise, but it means nothing) people are being released now.

Asim,
I agree that they have been some wrong place at the wrong time cases. As these cases have been confirmed, the detainee status review boards have released these individuals. Additionally, detainees that were determined to no longer pose a threat have been released, although there have also been cases of these former detainees going straight back into action against Afghanistan and the US.

However, your argument that there are 510 "not guilty" cases is a strawman. They were never detained for criminal trials. As I stated in my post to Ray, they were detained under the Geneva Convention and declared illegal enemy combatants because they weren't following the requirements of the Geneva Convention.

I am curious as to your thoughts on what the anti-American propaganda would be if we had set up terrorist courts and had pursued convicting these individuals? My thoughts are that we would still be portrayed as the great Satan, although I do agree that there'd be less fodder of propaganda value. Would it really have changed anything?

Leader
25 Aug 05,, 21:54
There are many, wrong place, wrong time type cases. It will always happen when human beings are not given trials. And they only kept releasing the detainees, each time with an "oops". Now they're releasing (I'm still guessing, not all) the bulk of the 510 detainees. All the released detainees are now going to go rushing to the media. Everyone's being released as "not guilty", end result, a lot more people pissed off at America. All these people will go tell other people.

To deduce, Guantanmo was such an amature/novice move by the United States. It has caused more harm to their goals than benefit. With a little more effort they could've just arrested the key people, tried them in some terrorism courts, and then they would've been pronounced GUILTY.

I repeat 510 "not guilty" (your gut feeling may say otherwise, but it means nothing) people are being released now.
You’re right it is amateurish. We shouldn't be telling anyone who we're holding, where they are, or how they're being treated. It only serves to give people reasons to attack us. We should take these people in, do what we need to do. If they're not guilty, in our minds, release them. If they are, we get what we need and then put an end to their existence. No more press. No more whining.

clovely81
26 Aug 05,, 01:47
You’re right it is amateurish. We shouldn't be telling anyone who we're holding, where they are, or how they're being treated. It only serves to give people reasons to attack us. We should take these people in, do what we need to do. If they're not guilty, in our minds, release them. If they are, we get what we need and then put an end to their existence. No more press. No more whining.
That would be great if it wasn't for the bleeding-heart liberals that want to scream "Constitution!" in favor of those that have no rights or claim to it.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 04:07
That would be great if it wasn't for the bleeding-heart liberals that want to scream "Constitution!" in favor of those that have no rights or claim to it.

I agree this has nothing to do with the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned in a time of war those that act outside the law aren't entitled to it's protections. If the terrorists want trails and fair treatment, they can put on uniforms and stop using civilians as shields.

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 05:20
I think they should just close Gitmo down. It is too controversial and the international community looks down on America now because of what has been happening at GItmo and the prisons in Iraq. I don't know about GItmo, but the stuff that happened in prisons like Abu Gharib is too horrible to even imagine. Children were raped in front of their parents by contractors as a form of torture, women and children were tortured and raped and some people were even executed. When we invade a country claiming that we are spreading democracy, freedom and human rights, we should not be torturing and killing innocent people.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 05:31
I think they should just close Gitmo down. It is too controversial and the international community looks down on America now because of what has been happening at GItmo and the prisons in Iraq. I don't know about GItmo, but the stuff that happened in prisons like Abu Gharib is too horrible to even imagine. Children were raped in front of their parents by contractors as a form of torture, women and children were tortured and raped and some people were even executed. When we invade a country claiming that we are spreading democracy, freedom and human rights, we should not be torturing and killing innocent people.

**** you! That's ****ing bull ****. None of that happened. Get the **** out of here.

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 07:27
Do you want proof? I have pictures that were released by the pentagon. THey only show women being raped though. The Pentagon refused to release the other images of children being raped even though courts ordered them to(i kind of understand why they did that though...if a false story about soldiers flushing a quran down a toilet(is it even possible to flush a book down a toilet?) made all these crazy muslim people riot and kill each other, think what those pictures would do.).

Here are my sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119632,00.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/43796

Nobody is perfect, other countries have done much worse. The only thing that makes this case stand out is the fact that the US said it was a champion of human rights and democracy. Other countries that did this kind of stuff never claimed to protect human rights.


By the way, i am not very fond of islamic countries and this islamic terrorism crap...so don;t think i am supporting terrorists or anything.

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 07:30
**** you! That's ****ing bull ****. None of that happened. Get the **** out of here.
I should have expected this. Right wingers will never accept that the Bush administration ahs made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. They will continue with this illusion that Bush is the greatest president in US history, that the Iraq war is going extremly well and that we are in Iraq for good reasons.

And by the way, i'm not blaiming individual soldiers for this stuff...i am blaming the officers who gave them commands and the unsupervised ocntractors that were roaming the prison. I don't think low level clerks like Lindie England and the others should have been thrown in prison for 15 years just because they were blindly following orders.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 08:05
I should have expected this.

Damn right.


Right wingers will never accept that the Bush administration ahs made a lot of mistakes in Iraq.

You prove that bull **** and I'll accept it.


They will continue with this illusion that Bush is the greatest president in US history,

What are the other choices Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson?


that the Iraq war is going extremly well

Who did you imagine saying that?


and that we are in Iraq for good reasons.

Of course, anyone that disagrees with you just believes in "illusions."


And by the way, i'm not blaiming individual soldiers for this stuff...

You shouldn't since you can't prove it happened.


i am blaming the officers who gave them commands

To rape and murder children. **** you. I hope to God you don't live in this country.


and the unsupervised ocntractors that were roaming the prison.

Prove it.


I don't think low level clerks like Lindie England and the others should have been thrown in prison for 15 years just because they were blindly following orders.

Prove it.

Asim Aquil
26 Aug 05,, 08:14
Prisons in any place, have gross human rights violations. Just watch any Prison movie. Leader, it won't be a stretch if it happened there too, there's very little tying the hands down, no fear, no limits. I didn't bother checking links, since every side has their agenda, and has their people in the media.

These aren't really bleeding hearts speaking against Gitmo. The people who scream constitution are worried about that law document falling from grace. Once you cross that line, there's no coming back. What if Americans were caught in the wrong place, wrong time? As I said, the trial is very important. Illegal combatants is very new term. Arresting them is just like kidnapping. When America refused to give them trial, the world (including 50/50 divide in America) wondered what do they have to hide?

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 08:19
Do you want proof? I have pictures that were released by the pentagon. THey only show women being raped though.

By US soldiers? I doubt it.


The Pentagon refused to release the other images of children being raped even though courts ordered them to(i kind of understand why they did that though...if a false story about soldiers flushing a quran down a toilet(is it even possible to flush a book down a toilet?) made all these crazy muslim people riot and kill each other, think what those pictures would do.).

Here are my sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119632,00.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/43796

No less the stall worth of Anti-Americanism the IRC says you're full of ****:


There is no mention of the sexual abuse of women and children in a report produced by the International Committee of the Red Cross (search) that highlighted the mistreatment of prisoners in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison and other detention facilities.

Does that proof it didn’t happen? No. do your anonymous sources prove they did? No.


Nobody is perfect, other countries have done much worse. The only thing that makes this case stand out is the fact that the US said it was a champion of human rights and democracy. Other countries that did this kind of stuff never claimed to protect human rights.


By the way, i am not very fond of islamic countries and this islamic terrorism crap...so don;t think i am supporting terrorists or anything.

While you take the side of the terrorists and disseminate their propaganda, but no no you're not on their side. Don't you think such an evil country as the US deserves to be destroyed? Along with all it’s ****ing pervert citizens. What the **** are you doing sitting on your ass typing on a computer. Go kill some evil child murdering Americans. Not being a Muslim is no excuse.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 08:37
Prisons in any place, have gross human rights violations. Just watch any Prison movie. Leader, it won't be a stretch if it happened there too, there's very little tying the hands down, no fear, no limits. I didn't bother checking links, since every side has their agenda, and has their people in the media.

These aren't really bleeding hearts speaking against Gitmo. The people who scream constitution are worried about that law document falling from grace. Once you cross that line, there's no coming back. What if Americans were caught in the wrong place, wrong time?

Such as?


As I said, the trial is very important.

I wish the world was perfect, but it isn't. In a perfect world trials make sense, you get to put the evidence out there everyone sees it. Everyone accepts the conclusion of the trial. None of that is going to happen in this world. A trial will just draw media attention. Everyone that hates us will say it’s rigged. And instead of Gitmo being the rallying call it will be that these scum bastards got railroaded. We made a mistake not taking care of these individuals quietly. Now we're paying for it.

For the troll, look I admitted a mistake. Not good enough for you thou.


Illegal combatants is very new term. Arresting them is just like kidnapping.

Then we should have shot them where they stood. The only other option to capture them is to kill them and take no prisoners. They are in violation of the laws of war. Therefore, they stand out side those laws. Maybe if we took no prisoners, we'd be better off.


When America refused to give them trial, the world (including 50/50 divide in America) wondered what do they have to hide?

Not wanting a trial does not signify we have something to hide. Also America isn't a 50/50 nation. Republicans control all branches of the federal gov't as well as a majority of governships and state legislatures.

Asim Aquil
26 Aug 05,, 09:08
Also America isn't a 50/50 nation. Republicans control all branches of the federal gov't as well as a majority of governships and state legislatures.

You have to admit though that its headed for it. All the people who are supposed to be fighting militants, want to fight them their own way, and we're getting more and more divided. The militant world is uniting, while the we are dividing.

Its important we figured out how we're going to combat militancy. And IMO a moderate approach would fit well with all. Rather than advocating going in guns blazing. Something that actually works. Something that doesn't provoke as many doubts. You don't need perfection. Moderation would do.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 09:54
You have to admit though that its headed for it. All the people who are supposed to be fighting militants, want to fight them their own way, and we're getting more and more divided. The militant world is uniting, while the we are dividing.

I don't see the US as significantly more divided then we used to be.


Its important we figured out how we're going to combat militancy. And IMO a moderate approach would fit well with all. Rather than advocating going in guns blazing. Something that actually works.

Don't knock it til you've tried it


Something that doesn't provoke as many doubts. You don't need perfection. Moderation would do.

I don't agree with that line of thinking. For example, our friend the troll in this thread. What action do you think would be acceptable to him? He hates America. Our actions are irrelevant to him. He'll always be able to find something so that he can say, "look America is bad." If that's the case, why not pursue the most effective reasonable means of ending this war rather then trying to convince the average liberal to approve of want needs to be done.

Shek
26 Aug 05,, 12:45
Do you want proof? I have pictures that were released by the pentagon. THey only show women being raped though. The Pentagon refused to release the other images of children being raped even though courts ordered them to(i kind of understand why they did that though...if a false story about soldiers flushing a quran down a toilet(is it even possible to flush a book down a toilet?) made all these crazy muslim people riot and kill each other, think what those pictures would do.).

Here are my sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119632,00.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/43796

Nobody is perfect, other countries have done much worse. The only thing that makes this case stand out is the fact that the US said it was a champion of human rights and democracy. Other countries that did this kind of stuff never claimed to protect human rights.


By the way, i am not very fond of islamic countries and this islamic terrorism crap...so don;t think i am supporting terrorists or anything.

DM,

Please post the pics, as I've never seen a single picture of such. I have heard allegations of rape of adult women, and I can't recall the outcome of the investigation. However, given the hype in the US press over Abu Ghraib, I would think that rape would far trump the abuse photos, so the fact that I'm not recalling any reporting beyond allegations indicates to me that it hasn't happened. As far as raping children, that is a propaganda lie by the enemies of the US. This supposed videotape would be all over the internet if it existed, spread faster than the tape of Paris Hilton!

As far as the Pentagon refusing to release additional photographs as court ordered, that was a smear by the New York Times.

Here's a blog excerpt

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011150.php#011150

The Times Blunders, and Corrects...Sort Of

Every once in a while you see a correction in a newspaper that doesn't quite do justice to the magnitude of the error committed--one where the correction really should say that the article in question never should have been written. This morning's New York Times corrections section offers an example:

An article on Saturday about a federal judge's order regarding photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal misstated a deadline and the response by Defense Department lawyers. The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it. Defense Department lawyers met that deadline, but asked the court to block the public release of the materials. They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials' release.

In order to understand the magnitude of the Times' error, you have to read the original article. As noted, it was published on Sunday, when the Times' circulation is by far the highest. The "fact" that the Times has now corrected was the entire substance of the article. The headline on the story read: "Government Defies an Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos." The article began:

Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

The lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan late Thursday that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material, which they were to have released by yesterday.

The Times reporter, Kate Zernike, managed to locate a representive of the American Civil Liberties Union, whom she quoted in the article:

The A.C.L.U. accused the government of continuing to stonewall requests for information "of critical public interest."

"The government chose the last possible moment to raise this argument," said Amrit Singh, a staff lawyer with the A.C.L.U.

But Ms. Zernike quoted no representative of the government, and apparently talked to none; if she had, she would have realized that the entire premise for her story was incorrect. So millions of people were wrongly told that the "Government"--i.e., the Bush administration--had "defied" the order of a federal judge. If true, this would have been a noteworthy story. But it was a complete falsehood. What percentage of the readers who saw the Times' headline on Sunday do you suppose read the correction in today's paper? I'd be surprised if the number was as high as 1%.

It's great to print corrections, but there is really no substitute for getting the story right in the first place. And it's hard for a correction to be adequate when the fact is that the story never should have been written at all.

Posted by John at 10:55 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the official account of the Koran desecration. 15 incidents of Koran desecration by inmates and 5 confirmed incidents of Koran desecration by US soldiers. Of the US incidents, they include:

1. Kicking a Koran
2. A water balloon that was thrown got a Koran wet
3. A detainee that had conversational English skills had both an English and an Arabic copy of the Koran. A two-word obscenity was written in the English version and the source of who wrote it couldn't be determine. Although it was possible that the detainee himself wrote the obscenity, this was considered a confirmed incident. The English Koran was removed and the detainee kept his Arabic Koran
4. An undisciplined soldier urinated near an air intake vent instead of using a latrine. His urine was sucked into the intake and droplets were sprayed onto a Koran in an adjacent detainee cell.
5. A contract interrogator stepped on a detainee's Koran.

Ironically, the only incidents involving a Koran and a toilet were at the hands of the detainees. There were three confirmed incidents of Koran's being placed in toilets, and in one case, the detainee tried to flush it down.

http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/english/2005_06/Other/pdf/PR050603a.pdf

You can find the AQ manual that speaks of complaining about treatment in prison here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_4.pdf

As far as your human rights argument, there is a system of due process for detainees both at Gitmo and Iraq. The processes in Gitmo have been upheld in US Federal Circuit Court. Those directly responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal have been punished as a result of a fellow soldier that reported the abuse and the result of internal military investigations that resulted in evidence that allowed the soldiers to be convicted in court. There is no denying that there has been some abuses; however, these have been the result of the actions of individuals and not a systematic abrogation of rights at the hands of government policy. If you would like some primary source documents like the ones that I provided above, I'd be happy to find those as well.

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 17:41
Leader: Just so you know, i live in this country and i am a US citizen. Also, don't accuse me of taking the side of terrorists. My native country has been dealing with those bastards for more than 50 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the pictures(note, i have no idea what the rest of that site is about): http://www.jerusalemites.org/iraq/photos.htm

I'm not 100% sure that the child rape happened, but there have been a lot of accusations about it by Iraqis and apparently, some soldiers even complained about it(according to those articles...ussually, western news articles don't spin things that much, so there could be a significant amount of truth in them). As for the rape of women, the pictures in the site above prove that that happened.


For Quran desecration, i really don't care about it. I wouldn't mind if US soldiers burned Qurans in front of the terrorists. Radicals in Islamic countries burn Bibles, Torahs, and Bhagavad Gitas all the time in the Middle East and they kill anyone who speaks up. But, when someone does the same to a Quran in another country, they start crying and start rioting about it.

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 17:45
I don't see the US as significantly more divided then we used to be.



Don't knock it til you've tried it



I don't agree with that line of thinking. For example, our friend the troll in this thread. What action do you think would be acceptable to him? He hates America. Our actions are irrelevant to him. He'll always be able to find something so that he can say, "look America is bad." If that's the case, why not pursue the most effective reasonable means of ending this war rather then trying to convince the average liberal to approve of want needs to be done.
Yes, i hate America so much that i own a home, land, and 3 cars in America and i am a US citizen. In every forum, hard core right wingers accuse anyone who disagrees with them of hating America. Thats all they can do, scream at people instaed of actually rebuting their comments in a decent manner. Bah, i hate these hard right and hard left people.

Shek
26 Aug 05,, 20:26
Leader: Just so you know, i live in this country and i am a US citizen. Also, don't accuse me of taking the side of terrorists. My native country has been dealing with those bastards for more than 50 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the pictures(note, i have no idea what the rest of that site is about): http://www.jerusalemites.org/iraq/photos.htm

I'm not 100% sure that the child rape happened, but there have been a lot of accusations about it by Iraqis and apparently, some soldiers even complained about it(according to those articles...ussually, western news articles don't spin things that much, so there could be a significant amount of truth in them). As for the rape of women, the pictures in the site above prove that that happened.


For Quran desecration, i really don't care about it. I wouldn't mind if US soldiers burned Qurans in front of the terrorists. Radicals in Islamic countries burn Bibles, Torahs, and Bhagavad Gitas all the time in the Middle East and they kill anyone who speaks up. But, when someone does the same to a Quran in another country, they start crying and start rioting about it.

1. The Abu Ghraib pictures are stills that involve embarassing positions and not acts (although one of the thugs did sodomize a male prisoner with a chemlight or some other object). I have seen those before.

2. The other pictures that aren't Abu Ghraib definitely don't depict US soldiers as they aren't US uniforms (sorry, we wear desert camouflage uniforms, not woodland pattern, and don't wear camouflage as it doesn't help you hide in the urban environment). There were some exceptions to the wear of woodland pattern BDUs at the beginning of OIF due to supply problems, but, the hair styles, unbloused boots, and general background of the pictures lead me to believe that these don't depict US troops. Pure propaganda.

3. I never saw a single contractor or SOF person that had camouflage that weren't US issue. Also, SOF personnel all have pockets sewn onto the sleeves, and these pictures don't have that.

As far as the rest of the site, they are a pro-Palestinian site based out of Amman, so they have an inherent anti-US bias. That doesn't mean that information they print is bad, but it should be viewed with increased scrutiny, as any biased site should be. In this case, these pictures don't stand up to any scrutiny - the MSM would be all over this if they could be verified (there's no accident that the New York Times ran dozens of front page stories on Abu Ghraib).

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 21:53
Leader: Just so you know, i live in this country and i am a US citizen.

That sucks.


Also, don't accuse me of taking the side of terrorists.

I certainly will.


My native country has been dealing with those bastards for more than 50 years.

So you're betraying them too. Good for you.


Here are the pictures(note, i have no idea what the rest of that site is about): http://www.jerusalemites.org/iraq/photos.htm

LOL you're such a sucker.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38408

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A1572_0_2_0_C/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1135389/posts

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/05/14/turners_bogus_photos/

You make me sick. When I first saw your post. I thought, "This sounds like he's talking about that porno video that the fascists think was American Soldiers doing Iraqi women. No, he can be that stupid to bring up something that is so widely refuted." But you are that stupid. I can't believe you live in this country. Those troops die for your freedom. Yet you won't even do the courtesy of checking before you accuse them of war crimes. You're a disgrace.


I'm not 100% sure that the child rape happened,

Oh really, **** you. **** you for even saying it with out proof. The next time a soldier die. Maybe you should consider how you slandered him with no proof.


but there have been a lot of accusations

And of course you jump to believe the fascist. You jumped so quick you didn't even bother to do a simple search of the internet. Sick.


about it by Iraqis and apparently, some soldiers even complained about it(according to those articles...ussually, western news articles don't spin things that much, so there could be a significant amount of truth in them). As for the rape of women, the pictures in the site above prove that that happened.

Yeah accept there fakes you moron.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 21:58
Yes, i hate America so much that i own a home, land, and 3 cars in America and i am a US citizen.

I wish you'd get out. Then we'd have one less traitor.


In every forum, hard core right wingers accuse anyone who disagrees with them of hating America.

Asim disagrees with me. I don't think he hates America. I disagree with Ray all the time, but I know he respects my county. You're different.


Thats all they can do, scream at people instaed of actually rebuting their comments in a decent manner. Bah, i hate these hard right and hard left people.

I turned your whole case to ****. Now eat it.

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 22:07
What is funny is that i live in a suburb of Boston. Also, when was i slandering individual soldiers? I was placing the blame on the leadership and the civilian contractors who worked as interogators in the prisons. The only people who should be accused of war crimes in this case are leaders, not soldiers who are just following orders.

By the way, many pornographic sites are known to pass off photos of real rapes as being done willingly by porn actresses...so the claims by your links can be refuted. Whatever, lets stop this arguments since you are so sensitive about it.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 22:14
What is funny is that i live in a suburb of Boston. Also, when was i slandering individual soldiers? I was placing the blame on the leadership and the civilian contractors who worked as interogators in the prisons. The only people who should be accused of war crimes in this case are leaders, not soldiers who are just following orders.

By the way, many pornographic sites are known to pass off photos of real rapes as being done willingly by porn actresses...so the claims by your links can be refuted. Whatever, lets stop this arguments since you are so sensitive about it.
Idiot waste. I owned you. You're argument is so obviously false. Yet you continue to side with the terrorists. You're beyond help, and I hope you get banned quickly.

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 22:14
By the way, the only disgrace here is you leader. You are another one of these hard right folks who blindly follow whatever the Bush administration says and does.

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 22:15
Idiot waste. I owned you. You're argument is so obviously false. Yet you continue to side with the terrorists. You're beyond help, and I hope you get banned quickly.

When have i sided with terrorists? I have not made even one psot in support of them. If you think i have, find a post and wuote it and i will leave this forum immediately.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 22:18
By the way, the only disgrace here is you leader. You are another one of these hard right folks who blindly follow whatever the Bush administration says and does.

You don't now anything about me, troll. Of course you don't know much about anything so that's not unusual.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 22:21
When have i sided with terrorists? I have not made even one psot in support of them. If you think i have, find a post and wuote it and i will leave this forum immediately.

When you accused the troops of my country (not your country) of rape with no proof (in fact there is proof that they are fakes), That is siding with the terrorists. Now leave. Or are you a liar too.

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 22:26
When you accused the troops of my country (not your country) of rape with no proof (in fact there is proof that they are fakes), That is siding with the terrorists. Now leave. Or are you a liar too.
Uh...that is not siding with the terrorists. Siding with terrorists would be me saying something like "9/11 was justifided" or "OBL is great".

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 22:28
Uh...that is not siding with the terrorists. Siding with terrorists would be me saying something like "9/11 was justifided" or "OBL is great".

Leave

DalerMehndi
26 Aug 05,, 22:31
No. Like i said earlier, if you can quote me saying that i support terrorists, i will leave.

Leader
26 Aug 05,, 22:38
No. Like i said earlier, if you can quote me saying that i support terrorists, i will leave.

I quote every post you've made in this thread.