Ironworks Gaming Forum - The true background of Guantanemo detainees

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - The true background of Guantanemo detainees (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78875)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4708946.stm

It's nothing that prominent human rights groups haven't been telling us for the last few years, but at least we now have something more thorough and more likely to be considered seriously by those who usually give human rights organisations short shrift.

I'd be interested to know if anyone else has heard stuff about these lawyers and their report.

Uncomfortable reading at any rate, the whole article.

Quote:

No surprises in the war on terror

By John Simpson
BBC World Affairs Editor

In the past few days we have seen two uncomfortable facets of the war on terror.

One was from Basra, where the two-year-old video of British soldiers brutally beating young Iraqi stone-throwers has surfaced in the pages of a British tabloid newspaper.

British soldiers have mostly behaved well in Iraq, but not always.

Long after they have withdrawn they will be remembered there and throughout the Islamic world for the occasional moments of brutality, not for the rest of their behaviour.

It is a different world nowadays. It is harder to hide things permanently. And a quick, angry reaction which might have been common enough in the past no longer looks good when people find out about it.

Those who are under attack often feel justified in hitting back in whatever way comes to hand. And you only have to look at online discussions of the beatings in Basra to see that the soldiers who carried them out have their supporters.

Guantanamo unrest

The other uncomfortable details which have emerged in the past few days relate to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, where 517 men are being held without trial.

After the appalling attacks of 11 September 2001, most Americans supported the idea of locking up men who had fought for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Maybe the majority of those who went on hunger strike were telling the truth when they said they had no links to terrorist organisations

President George W Bush himself has assured them that the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay are "the worst of the worst".

During the past few weeks there has been a widespread hunger strike among the prisoners there.

It was effectively ended last week when the prison authorities took tough action to deal with the hunger strikers.

It seems as though they were worried about the effect on international opinion if one or more of the prisoners were to die.

The hunger strikers were strapped into "restraint chairs" and forcibly fed. The Pentagon says the tactics used were humane and compassionate.

According to American lawyers representing some of the prisoners, one of the methods was for riot control soldiers to hold the prisoners down while long plastic tubes were inserted into their nasal passages and down into their stomachs.

A Washington lawyer who visited Guantanamo last week called it "a disgrace".

Confused truth

But why did the prisoners decide to go on hunger strike in the first place?

Because they claimed that they had no link to al-Qaeda or other extreme Islamist groups, and were demanding to be released.

That could just be a tactic, of course. Yet a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence lawyer of information released by the US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.

Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

In total, 60% are there because they have been accused of being associated with a group which the US government regards as a terrorist organisation.

Most detainees are regarded as enemy combatants.

Among the criteria reportedly used to define an enemy combatant are these: possession of a rifle; possession of a Casio watch; and wearing olive drab clothing.

In Afghanistan it has long been regarded as normal for every adult male to have a gun, because there was so much violence in the country.

Casio watches and olive-coloured clothes can be bought in every market in every town in the country.

But where do all these prisoners come from, anyway?

According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves.

Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.

"This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."

So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of these bounties.

Shocked, not surprised

Let's recapitulate briefly. According to the US Department of Defense, only 8% of the prisoners at Guantanamo were al-Qaeda fighters, and only 5% of them were captured by the Americans themselves.

The overwhelming majority of the others were handed over to the Americans by people who could reasonably be called bounty hunters.

Maybe the majority of those who went on hunger strike were telling the truth when they said they had no links to terrorist organisations.

When the video apparently showing British soldiers beating up young stone-throwers was shown around the world on Sunday, a spokesman for al-Fadhila, an important moderate political party in Basra and southern Iraq, was asked for his reaction.

He was, he said, "shocked but not surprised".

Many other moderate people throughout the Islamic world and beyond will feel the same way about this.

And about the official figures which show the true background of the prisoners at Guantanamo.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...st/4708946.stm

Published: 2006/02/13 15:02:33 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Keeping those folks locked up is resulting in only one definite outcome--it is costing money that could be spent elsewhere. You cannot fight against terrorism by locking them away, because for every person you lock up one another will step forward to take his place.

At this point, once those guys are released they are going to be more likely to attack than they were when they were first captured.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lanesra:
Who cares?

What a stupid comment. If you don't care, why are you here? Why bother posting if its just to spew trash like this? These are PEOPLE. They may be disgusting, primitive people, but they're still people, human beings, homo sapiens, the image of God. Shoot them, torture, hell, do whatever, but PLEASE don't just brush this off.

This all just leaves me speechless...

The insanity that is Guantanamo Bay has been allowed to go on for far, far too long.

Everything this addministration has done has been allowed to go on far too long. This is the first time in my life I feel helpless and taken advantage of by our gov. The worst part is I'm not sure if they are going to hold the administration responsible or not. The way congress and the supreme court are stacked I just don't see it. It is definately dark times for us as citizens. I think the second amendment was made with an administration just like the one we have now in mind.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nightwing:
Everything this addministration has done has been allowed to go on far too long. This is the first time in my life I feel helpless and taken advantage of by our gov. The worst part is I'm not sure if they are going to hold the administration responsible or not. The way congress and the supreme court are stacked I just don't see it. It is definately dark times for us as citizens. I think the second amendment was made with an administration just like the one we have now in mind.

[img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] How exactly are you being effected by Guantanamo Bay? Are you incarcerated there?

In what way(s) are you being "taken advantage of"?

If you feel helpless, then get active in politics and help elect the kind of people you want representing you in Washington, D. C.

Those questions having been asked...yes--the Second Amendment was made with exactly "that" in mind. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

"And keeping the king of England outta your face." [/Moe Sczyslak]

[ 02-15-2006, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Degrader:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lanesra:
Who cares?

It effects me because they are people and as a citizen I am responsible for the actions of my Gov. I am active and I do vote, right now that doesn't seem to be doing the job. It has no effect.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lanesra:
Sorry mate - I just assumed they were all muslims.

Of course they're exaggerated. It would naive to believe otherwise.

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lanesra:
Sorry mate - I just assumed they were all muslims.

I guess one good chain-yanking isn't enough for you, so you have to do it again. :rolleyes: Quit being such an obvious baiter, it doesn't make you look any cleverer.

Now, who wants to challenge the presumption that all those percentages and stats are accurate? Again, Me. [/QUOTE]The first one was a simple question. Who cares? The assumption was made that I didn't!

Why don't you answer Timber Loftis rather than attacking me (with the obligatory hackneyed rolleyes smiley)

Do you care? After all they are not American citizens. Do you care what is being done by your Government in your name? Do you care that prisoners can be held indefinitely without charge?

They are not outside the US legal system because of geography - they are where they are so that they can be kept outside of the US legal system.

Is it not a self evident truth that all men are created equal?

Quote:

Originally posted by Lanesra:

Is it not a self evident truth that all men are created equal?

You know, I've never been convinced by this. Is it self evident?

Yup, I'm sure the figures are generous, although I wonder whether the massaging is enough to be material.

I wish it gave more specific detail, but we shouldn't forget the sources cited:

"according to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves"

and

"According to the US Department of Defense, only 8% of the prisoners at Guantanamo were al-Qaeda fighters, and only 5% of them were captured by the Americans themselves."

Presumably the Pentagon & DoD has a vested interest in making the figures look as favourable as possible, although I do wish it had links to press releases etc from the DoD so they could be independently corroborated.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lanesra:
Why don't you answer Timber Loftis rather than attacking me (with the obligatory hackneyed rolleyes smiley)

If you will scroll up and note, the first post after your "Who cares?" question is me saying "Me."

Quote:

Is it not a self evident truth that all men are created equal?

No, it isn't, not at all. I wish it were. All men should be treated equally by the law, though, for the most part.

I wouldn't suggest you don't care, I think you do. I thought you posted the "Who cares?" post as sarcasm aimed at the U.S. attitude. That's why I said you were "chain-yanking."

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Is it not a self evident truth that all men are created equal?

No, it isn't, not at all. I wish it were. All men should be treated equally by the law, though, for the most part.[/QB][/QUOTE]Would you care to expand on that if you have a minute? Are you saying that the law should treat some differently, or even that some people should be subject to extra-judicial rule? I'm quite curious [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-16-2006, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Quote:

Originally posted by shamrock_uk:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4708946.stm

It's nothing that prominent human rights groups haven't been telling us for the last few years, but at least we now have something more thorough and more likely to be considered seriously by those who usually give human rights organisations short shrift.

I'd be interested to know if anyone else has heard stuff about these lawyers and their report.

Uncomfortable reading at any rate, the whole article.

Do not detainees at Guantanemo go through extensive psychological profiling?

What do you mean exactly? Figuring out how crazy they really are?

I would be surprised personally, but would of course be open to contradiction if you had an article on it.

I've never heard any interviews with either detainees or American soldiers where they mention any form of profiling beyond the simple colour system for the level of danger, but its quite possible I guess.

By psychological profiling I mean figuring out if they are the type of person to do anything that is required to get what they want. Figuring out if they are lying or telling the truth or if they have extremist views. Trying to get as much information from a detainee as possible.

I seem to remember reports on the news where there was mention of CIA interviews of detainees in Afghanistan, although this was a few years ago, it seems to be a logical conclusion that they are still doing this.

Gitmo must be closed down immediately.