CAMP X-RAY BRIT TRIES TO HANG HIMSELF (Mirror UK)

[huckleberry]

"One of the Britons due to face trial at Guantanamo Bay has tried to kill himself.

Feroz Abbasi, 23, attempted to hang himself with a towel - one of the few possessions allowed in the harsh Cuban detention centre.

He was spotted by a guard at the US military base who alerted marines. They raced to the tiny wire cell where he has been incarcerated for 18 months to rescue him.

Abbasi, from Croydon, South London, is said to be increasingly withdrawn. The suicide attempt will increase the pressure on Tony Blair to raise the case of British terror suspects held in Camp Delta when he meets President George Bush on Thursday."

more at
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13169968_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-CAMP-X-RAY-BRIT-TRIES-TO-HANG-HIMSELF-name_page.html

[BoatsTwice]

1. Odd, I didn't know that the Army and Marines had

set up shop in Croydon, South London, to capture British subjects for long trips to Cuba. He couldn't possibly be an enemy combatant "tourist" caught in a country where the United States is still conducting military operations and sniffing around for OBL, could he?

Sorry, but I have absolutely zip sympathy for any of those guys in Gitmo. They aren't being tortured in any way that can be contained by the term itself without torturing its definition.

[RainDog]

3. you don't know the truth about this man

...and no one else does, either, because Ashcroft is refusing to honor the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

Our allies, the Brits, however, do not want Ashcroft's Saddamite tribunals to substitute for justice, and neither should any American who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[thx1138A]

5. Tortured Wording

I too have no sympathy for terrorists (my former office was at 7WTC)... That said, why are the prisoners in Camp-X-Ray not subject to the Geneva Conventions? Why are the "detainees" classified as "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war. We are, after all, in a war on terrorism -- President Bush said so. The reasoning for our self-exemption from the conventions has never been explained adequately. If it so we can question them, maybe. But how much reliable information can they provide after 2 years??? It's not as if Al Qaueda were some static, state-based organziation fixed in one place. We're always lecturing others about freedom and rule of law and this is what we have as an example.

The tortured wording is, sadly, coming from this administration, not a British tabloid.

[ex_jew]

7. 7WTC and terrorism ?

What's the connection ? You seem to imply that the collapse of 7WTC had something to do with the airplanes crashing into the two larger towers, but it didn't. Two planes destroyed three buildings ? Not in a million years.

[BoatsTwice]

9. If you want to be treated as a POW under the GC

You'd better damn well be a "regular" in the uniform of the official army of the enemy nation or a perceived "state" bit player. AQ is an international extragovenmental organization--it is stateless and actual and suspected AQ members are not subject. Then again, they are not citizens under the Constitution. Tough place to be legally--too bad. These types of captured fighters receive little or no protection from the Convention.

Try reading it. One can find easy support for declaring the type of people held at Gitmo to be whatever the armed forces wishes to declare them. As it is exceedingly likely that none of them were likely official members of the Afghani Armed Forces, their non-subject status is hardly a mystery.

The Geneva Convention Part I, Article 4:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (Whoops, Al-Qaeda was a distinct force seperate from the Taliban, guests of the regime and not part of the Afghani Armed Forces, Strike One).

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (Al-Qaeda operatives or suspected operatives did not "belong to a Party" as they are an extra-governmental organization. Strike Two.)

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; Maybe.

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; Oops. Strike Three.

(c) That of carrying arms openly; AQ was definitely doing this.

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. I think AQ would get a failing grade here from any Western army.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (Nope. Strike Four. How many strikes do we need to retire the red herring that AQ and suspected AQ members are subject to the GC?)

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. Nope.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. Nope.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. No again.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. How many strikes against subject status are we up to now?

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. Nope.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.


This all adds up to an indefinite stay at Gitmo pretty easily.

[RainDog]

32. and since "terror" is not a country

does that mean Bush cannot declare war on it?

The issue for me is the one which Americans always claim about themselves, but when their govt does not abide by those ideals, then they don't want to know, or it's someone else's fault.

And that's the idea of being the "good cop" and all that.

So, though you can cite statements about the rules for prisoners, does that mean it is not in our best interests, and maybe the right thing to do anyway, to abide by the Geneva Conventions in order to also fight the propaganda war?

that's my take on it.

you don't win the "hearts and minds" for little things like diplomacy and for entire populations of the world by being the thing you despise.

[BoatsTwice]

35. There's plenty to fault Bush for

The tax cut, Iraq, judicial nominations. However, I do not think you'll find too many credible critics in the US of the Gitmo policy. Looks to me like the same pro-criminal crowd and one-eyed human rights activists that always come out for this type of noisemaking.

I'm liberal on a lot of issues, but everyone connected to 9/11 needs to be smoked or caught, never to see "home" again while they draw breath.

"The War on Terror" is a rhetorical device. The more proper strategic term for what we are doing to al-Qaeda is a "punitive expedition." Since we are fighting self-declared non-state actors, they deserve to be treated as such until we can prove to ourselves that we are holding someone who no longer bears detention.

It's a classical damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Had we let the local indigenous commanders warehouse al-Qaeda detainees there'd be even more shrill whining about their status and conditions, though they'd have earned their spot on an overcrowded dungeon floor in Afghanistan. So we transport them from a Third World Hell to a First World Shithole and still there is complaint. It is not as if they are being daily beaten and force-fed pork BBQ. Prison sucks, don't put yourself in a position to wind up in one.

I'll join the chorus of those who wish for a disposition of the detainees if and when OBL is caught or killed. Until then, nothing is settled about whether AQ detainees should be tried because the full scope of their involvement is not known.

[Skittles]

39. PRO-CRIMINAL????????????

A CLASSIC RNC TALKING POINT.

[Set]

40. Correct me if I'm wrong here...

but I thought that if a person was under arms and not in uniform when captured, the GC says they can be summarily executed. IIRC, this goes back a LONG ways...they're classified the same as spies and people caught wearing the uniform of the people they're fighting. The US executed a fair number of Germans caught wearing US uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge in WWII....and this was deemed NOT to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions...

Another case of this principle at work was that VC Lt. executed in Saigon that was the subject of the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo that was so recently in the news with the political cartoon, with W as the shot Lt. He (the VC Lt in the picture) was caught in "plain clothes" immediately after assassinating some locals, and was summarily executed in accordance to the rules of war.


If you're caught in uniform, you've got pretty good protection under the GC. If you're not, well, the GC says your life isn't worth squat.

[roguevalley]

2. hmmmm

I wonder what the CHILDREN being held there did to deserve it?

[prolesunited]

4. Here's a link

Some 660 prisoners from 42 countries are held, many captured during the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Officials have declined to identify them, their countries or any other details about them, including the exact number held.
<snip>

Johnson would not say how old the youngest prisoner is. He confirmed their presence Tuesday following a report by Australia's ABC television that youths were being held at the camp. "That the U.S. sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become about respecting human rights," said Amnesty International spokesman Alistair Hodgett.

Human Rights Watch said the United States was exacerbating a contentious situation.
The detention of youths "reflects our broader concerns that the U.S. never properly determined the legal status of those held in the conflict," said James Ross, legal adviser for Human Rights Watch in New York. Holding "captured children … obviously makes the problem worse."

<snip>

Lawyers have blamed the indefinite detentions for increasing depression and suicide attempts at the camp, which received the first detainees in January 2002. Johnson reported a repeat attempt at suicide Monday night by a detainee who was under close supervision in the acute care unit of a new mental health ward. That brings the number of suicide attempts to 25 by 17 individuals, with 15 attempts made this year, according to the military.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/06/attack/main552500.shtml

[BoatsTwice]

6. Maybe the suicide attempters should be freed

They cannot be a too devout type of Islamic fanatic, as that religion has a strict bar on suicide.:eyes:

[ex_jew]

8. So we should only punish the devout ? Huh ?

What about if we only punish those guilty of something ? Or is that just old-fashioned thinking on my part.

[BoatsTwice]

10. You don't have to be guilty to be detained as an extralegal

"warrior." They can rot. They are not subject to the GC.

[FlaGranny]

11. Since when

are combatants captured during an invasion of another country labeled "terrorists?" Probably some actually are terrorists. Probably many are just people defending their country from an invasion. We'll never know though, will we? That's the problem, isn't it? - because there is no way of knowing who they actually have there.

[BoatsTwice]

12. Yes, we can be absolutely certain that the Briton in the article

was defending London while being captured in Afghanistan. :eyes:

Yes, let's take up the cause of suspected AQ members in Cuba--it'll be a kick-ass way to win the presidency by carping about those sympathetic heroes down in Guantanamo.

[LifeDuringWartime]

13. you seem like you know everything, don't you.

you know just as much as we know about the people there, which is very close to jack shit. we dont know who they are, except for that britsh person, and we dont know exactly why they are there, or how they are being treated.

[mbperrin]

14. If the only way to win the presidency is to

act like Asscrack and his loyal SS, oh, excuse me, HS stormtroopers, and detain people in gulags with no trial and no representation, then fuck it!

Oh, and while we're doing this shit, I would sure avoid traveling anywhere that trouble could break out, like oh, oil company employees in Nigeria - wouldn't want to get picked up and held in cages away from anyone and anything we know, would we?

If we no longer believe in a jury system, then let's just get some bulldozers out and start knocking over houses for people that owe parking fines! That'll show the little bastards they can't terrorize this government!

Ain't gonna become a Nazi, ain't gonna do it, and I will fuck with those who wanna be.

[FlaGranny]

15. It must be very easy

to have such a black and white view. They bad, we good. I have no doubts that some of those "detainees" in Cuba are of the bad variety and that they should receive sentences for whatever they've done. The trouble is, other than that Briton and a few others and the number of adolescents they have there, we don't know who is there or what they've done. Some are probably merely soldiers. What don't you understand or agree with about fair trials?

[BoatsTwice]

16. Trials?

Well I have cited two supposed bases from which the alleged rights these detainees have may spring, and no one, absolutely no one in this thread has pointed to any legal language that applies to them.

Laws and rights--in this context--are derived from a legal framework. Pray tell which one applies to these detainees? They are not "of the people" for purposes of the US Constitution, and therefore have no cognizable rights under our system. I have also demonstrated, without refutation so far, that since no one is claiming the detainees are Afghani regulars or militia, that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them.

International covenants concering criminal law do not apply to them either as there has not been a formal cessation of hostilities in the current US-Afghan conflict. Until that cessation occurs, there can be no rights to a "speedy trial" or "habeus corpus" such as certain of us seem to be wanting to impose on a situation that does not warrant it legally.

The result is black and white because any gray area is imagined by the policy's critics. Rail all you want, but point to something that covers their situation while you are at it and I'll be more impressed. It is funny how there seems to be a prescribed orthodoxy of belief on certain subjects or one is automatically a Nazi to some. Such a cogent and authoritative line of argument that is.:boring:

[w4rma]

17. Heck some might have been standing next to a soldier

or might have had a friend who was involved with a soldier.
or might have talked to a soldier.
or might be some soldier's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.

The problem is, as you say FlaGranny, that noone knows except some of the proven liars in the Bush administration.

[BoatsTwice]

18. "660 prisoners from 42 different countries"

I suppose most of them were just popping in for a holiday in Fundamentalistland?

[w4rma]

19. "from 42 different countries": which of these 42 countries is that?

Do you have information on the potential variety of places that they were picked up at?

[BoatsTwice]

26. Not a lot but I have this:

Not even Human Rights Watch thinks al-Qaeda detainess would qualify for Geneva Convention protections.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm

Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state´s armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not quality. Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.

And damn those fascist judges:
http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/12/int13.htm

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled US courts lack jurisdiction to hear the challenges that also were brought on behalf of 12 Kuwaitis. All 16 detainees are being held at the base after their capture during the war in Afghanistan.
"They cannot seek release based on violations of the Constitution or treaties or federal law; the courts are not open to them," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in the 18-page ruling.

It appears that Saudis are number one at Gitmo, Yemenis are number two:

http://www.wbbm780.com/asp/ViewMoreDetails.asp?ID=6686

I'm sure that like in every prison worldwide they're all innocent.:eyes:

[w4rma]

30. Area's top FBI agent: "It doesn't take much to get on that list,"

Area's top FBI agent stepping down
Tenure marked by sensitivity to balance of rights, security

On Columbus Day, just a few weeks after 9/11, FBI Special Agent in Charge Charlie Mandigo stood in front of the bureau's downtown Seattle office looking exhausted. Exhaustion was the norm for months among FBI agents after that horrible day. They were desperate to uncover any information that could prevent further attacks on the nation.

Agents around the country had been knocking on doors of Arab immigrants, ever mindful of a newly created Federal Bureau of Investigation "list" of people wanted for questioning. Being on that list could mean instant detention.

Mandigo sighed and shook his head with concern about the delicate balance between civil rights and national security. "It doesn't take much to get on that list," he said that day.
...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/130604_fbi12.html

[Set]

47. Different lists....

there's quite a legal difference between being on a list of suspects in the US, and being captured with a gun while fighting in an unconventional war overseas.

[NYC]

22. Some have been declared "innocent" and released.

I suppose you have no sympathy for them, either? If not, why not?

[BoatsTwice]

24. No, no sympathy.

But the fact that some are released cuts both ways. Perhaps we have detained some of the wrong people, but we are also letting them go after we sort out if they are worthy of continued imprisonment.

[NYC]

31. Can you envision yourself in the position of being falsely accused?

I think not.

[BoatsTwice]

33. Let's put it this way

If I went to Chechnya to fight the good fight against the Russians and I got caught redhanded as a combatant, I wouldn't be too surprised if I wound up down the memory hole in Siberia or even summarily executed.

People who want to play personal foreign policy abroad with their lives and freedom sometimes do deserve everything they get.

[NYC]

38. If you were fighting in Chechnya, that would be different.

Can you envision yourself as an INNOCENT person in this predicament?

[Changenow]

25. Only someone who was unpatriotic would think due process should be denied

We can win if we reamain the truly patriotic party.

If you honestly think that the US can disregard international laws and conventions why would you also believe that any other nation enforce them where an American is concerned? If there are really bad guys at Guantanamo Bay lets give them trials and punish them appropriately. But to detain people with out any due process is un-American, in fact it is anti-American. Those who love this country will also support the rule of law.

To demand that America behave in a civilized manner even when confronted with a despicable foe it the duty of every patriotic citizen. Democrats can win with that sane and true message.

[BoatsTwice]

27. Your reading comprehension is poor

These people have no rights to due process, other than the one we see fit to grant them, based on their status in international law.

BTW, American prisoners are mistreated in almost every conflict without reference to how we are treating their prisoners--so BFD.

[Set]

43. What international convention...

are we breaking by detaining them? My understanding is that under International law, people fighting that are not in uniform or part of a recognized militia that respects the rules of warfare are basically considered "fair game" to the power that captures them. They're quite literally subject to summary execution upon capture. They are NOT entitled to access to the court system, and "due process of law" literally means a bullet in the back of the head summarily delivered.

There's a reason for this...it's to encourage combatants to obey the rules of warfare by joining recognized militaries and militias, in an effort to spare innocent lives. You're more than welcome to encourage the changing of the law, but currently, the state of international law is that it's legal to shoot them (by them, I mean non-uniformed guerilla types captured while under arms) outright, even after they surrender.

It's messy, cruel, and barbaric, but that's the state of the law. Of course, war itself is also messy, cruel and barbaric, too. The GC was put into place to try and curb the excesses, and to try and make war a little bit less barbaric.

[Lars39]

45. What happened to "Rule of Law"?

Republicans hammered "rule of law" until every ditto-head in the country was spouting it. What's wrong with it now?

[Tansy_Gold]

37. And how do we know they are guilty of anything?

eom

[Set]

41. they probably...

were under arms. You're familiar with the concept of "child-soldiers", right?

[bvar22]

20. So....Someone, somewhere in the world....

...connected with the US military labels someone else a terrorist, and that now labeled someone disappears into the gulag at Gitmo....no review, no accountability, no confrontation of the accuser, no communication with anyone in the real world, no appeal, no viewing of secret evidence.......and YOU ARE OK WITH THIS?????

One of the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES at the core of our Democracy is the civilian control of our military. bush* and ashcroft, both unelected, have effectively BLOCKED civilian review and control of this facility.....and YOU ARE OK WITH THIS?????

[FlaGranny]

21. Evidently he is okay with

detention and execution for the mere fact of having been detained in the general vicinity of an invasion. He doesn't seem to care that all of them might not be guilty. He's perfectly happy to sacrifice the innocent to get at the guilty, not too unlike our illustrious leader.

Edit: Evidently, he also thinks only Americans have rights. He probably also believes that Iraq is loaded with WMD and that Osama and Saddam are golfing buddies.

[BoatsTwice]

23. I'm feeling the love. Yes, they are entitled to some due process

but not until the cessation of hostilities in Afghanistan. I suppose we are supposed to take the word of the captives that they just happened to be hanging around in the general vicinity of allied and American soldiers while toting automatic weapons? I'll take the word of the military over the word of the prisoners about why they might deserved to be caged for the duration of the OBL hunt. If that takes years, that's just too damn bad.

No one as yet has pointed to any proof at all that these characters are jailed in contravention of domestic or international law or treaty.

In a nation of millions, such as Afghanistan, 660 people, most of them apparently not Afghanis, transported to Gitmo is a pretty selective culling of the people in-country at the time.

No one has been summarily executed so you can quit the breathlessness about that. The conditions have been reviewed by independent observers. Is there something about a prison camp that is supposed to be quaint and cozy?

Keep the crocodile tears coming. Anti-military sentiment is all the rage on our side of the aisle at the moment and I still don't see any segment in Congress rallying to the cause of these men "unjustly" imprisoned in the midst of hostilities.

Maybe everyone who prefers men captured with automatic weapons and no attachment to the Taliban or Afghanistan other than al-Qaeda, be imprisoned until everything is sorted out are all Nazis? Great appeal calling the majority of Americans "Nazis" will have to the electorate, since most people (and voters) in the US could give a rat's ass who is cooling their heels in Castro's backyard.:eyes:

[bvar22]

28. Lets kill them all and let god sort it out.

Most males in Afghanistan, and ALL MALES living in the boonies own and carry automatic weapons. It's a survival thing (also cultural). Your implication that owning an automatic weapon automatically convicts the owner of terrorism and entitles the USA to imprison this person in a concentration camp until Afghanistan is passified is worthy of the NeoCon propaganda machine. Kudos from richard Pearle, Wolfie, and Rummy himself.

[BoatsTwice]

29. What we are talking about at Gitmo

are not a bunch of innocent Afghanis who got caught with AK-47s. When Saudis, Yememis, and Kuwaitis lead the pack in representation at Gitmo, calling the detainees "poor peasant bastards caught in the wrong place at the wrong time" is disingenuous.

[Pastiche423]

42. No, what is disingenuous

is your belief in anything coming out of our government's mouth as to who these people are and what they have done.

YOU don't know jack shit about these human beings! YOU don't know jack shit about what they did or did not do.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGE W/A FUCKING THING!

So, how in hell can you aver that they are terrorists or if they have done anything illegal?

Quite simply, you can't.

We are, scratch that, we were a country that lived by the rule of law. I am deeply ashamed of this administration and if you believe in ruling by law, you should be too.

[Set]

46. Pastiche...they don't have to be charged with anything...

being captured under arms and not in uniform means that, under international law, they have no right to a trial, et cetera...The facts and circumstances of their capture speaks for itself, and makes them liable to summary execution, or pretty much whatever else their captors want to do to them.

It's fucked up, but it's the way the law is.

[BoatsTwice]

48. No, what is really, really, really, really, really, wrong

is that anyone gives a shit about these guys in Gitmo and can't, or even better, won't articulate why these folks should be salvaged without citation to ANYTHING that should, could, or would spring them!

I don't particularly give a rat's ass who the Army or the BFEE thinks they are, just as I don't give a damn who the prisoners themselves think they are. I'm sure that many glamourous delusions about the appeal of fighting the infidels and their Great Satanic boss have been crushed into meaninglessness at Gitmo. That alone would be a worthy outcome if these yahoos ever get out to tell the tale.

There is no innocence or guilt to be sorted out.

Two really old legal principles are in play here going back to the Romans:

Statua suo clauduntur territorio nec ultra territorium disponunt. Statutes are confined to their own territory and have no extraterritorial effect. IOW, the detainees have no rights cognizable under the Constitution. Look to international law, treaty, or convention.

Stat propro ratione voluntas populi. The will of the people stands in place of a reason. This is why the GC is silent as to the status of these poor innocent tourists captured by the evil souless US military and sent to the Carribean. No one from a civilized country formulating the GC gave a shit about idiots who placed themselves outside of the protection of international law.

C'est la vie! We can keep them all until they die without processing of any kind if we wish to. As of now, I am all for it.

[Pastiche423]

49. How very sad

That's about all I can say to you w/o breaking DU rules.

But I will say this, I am ashamed to live in the same state as you do.

[BoatsTwice]

50. What has been ironic about this experience to me

Is that I am the one arguing the rule of law here. I have cited it. They have been found to be out of the bounds of its protections and no one has redeemed them.

Perhaps we need not believe the military about "why" they are all there. It is another matter to argue about the ones we know of down there as to "how" they got there.

As I stated from the start, the US military didn't abduct these gentlemen from the corners of London, Mecca, Karachi, Kuwait City, or Adan. Maybe we have incarcerated members of an international relief group? No NGO is complaining of losing staffers. Perhaps we have unjustly detained an international troupe of Islamic clowns? Their agent has yet to come forward and demand their release. Mayhap we have just captured a bunch of misunderstood college students in the wrong international youth hostel at the wrong time? Red Cresent? Medicins sans Froniteres? The UN?

Pray tell how did we come to militarily capture some 660 men in Afghanistan, from 42 different countries, without any of them being al-Queda or wannabes?

[roguevalley]

34. I don't give a damn about conventions. I think that as Americans

we are obligated to live our beliefs. Treating prisoners
like shit in captivity is crap, its unAmerican, its inhumane
and makes us dirt.

Those people haven't had legal counsel, contact with their
countries and family and some of them are children. The ass
in the White House is having orgasms over the thought of
signing their death warrants or we wouldn't have them
outside our territorial waters and in seclusion.

If we do this, we are no better than any other banana republic,
half-assed dictatorship or demented moran enclave.

RV, who remembered when America STOOD FOR SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!

[BoatsTwice]

36. Shit treatment is relative.

Chances are these guys would have been suffocated in a cargo container left in the sun by now if they weren't in our custody.

Boy soldiers are still tommorow's snakes. Besides it is logical to conclude they are not anymore than a token presence at Gitmo compared to the whole lot of "adventure tourists" we mistakenly hauled off from their "Lonely Planet" full-auto getaways.

[Set]

44. LOL!!!

Take a tour of US prisons. Want to see cruel and barbaric crap? That's as far as you need to look.

We're incapable of treating US citizens in prison with dignity and respect. WTF makes you think that we could do it to foreigners captured outside of the US?