Guantanamo bay

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
But this whole camp thing is wrong and ultimately counter productive on a lot of levels. I think the Administration are looking for a face saving way out of it. It's becoming a big embarrassment. Also must be hugely expensive and corrosive of morale out there.

Corrosive of morale - naaah, Gitmo is a complete ****hole anyway.

As a long term solution, it's ridiculous - once we've got useful intel out of these people, we need to figure out a solution, and figure out who gets shipped back where they come from, and who gets solved, and get done with it.

[Whaleboy]

"let them kill you and declare jihad against you, but let live anyway, because it's all a big ****ing cultural misunderstanding?

Jesus, you must be a censors nightmare!! Don't let them kill you, defend yourself, but the best way to do that is at the airports, in the cities, using intelligence personell, not military. Militaries are designed to attack nationstates. America has billions of dollars worth of redundant equipment. It has been deployed thus far to great effect in two nations, yet terrorism is still as much of a threat now as ever!!! All I'm saying is that we should impose upon them in any way, including Guantanamo incidentally, as this will only make the problem worse. Of course, big military spending is fantastic for winning votes, lets not be too naive here.

Read al Qutb and/or al Maududi and form your own judgments

Kill Westerners, kill jews, kill men, kill women, kill children, fly planes into buildings etc, and justify in the name of god. From my and your point of view, they believe in some crazy ****, but let them. You want to do something about it? Make them not think that by creating the appropriate conditions. And those conditions do not involve hoodings, and treatment that would literally not be fit for animals!

[Whaleboy]

And you really ought to study the ideology of modern Islamic fundamentalism before you expose yourself as even more of a misguided western fool who buys into al Qaeda soundbites

You think I agree with Al Qaeda?!?!? . They are an anethema to me, but that wouldn't give me the excuse to go and bomb them!!

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

As a long term solution, it's ridiculous - once we've got useful intel out of these people, we need to figure out a solution, and figure out who gets shipped back where they come from, and who gets solved, and get done with it.

Ya the intel is the thing. My personal view is this whole war on terror op should be security/intelligence/police lead rather than military lead/dominated. A good agent is worth a thousand troops.

But that doesn't win votes like a nice cruise missile up someone's clacker

[Whaleboy]

Alex's Horse:

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by elijah
Jesus, you must be a censors nightmare!! Don't let them kill you, defend yourself, but the best way to do that is at the airports, in the cities, using intelligence personell, not military. Militaries are designed to attack nationstates. America has billions of dollars worth of redundant equipment. It has been deployed thus far to great effect in two nations, yet terrorism is still as much of a threat now as ever!!! All I'm saying is that we should impose upon them in any way, including Guantanamo incidentally, as this will only make the problem worse. Of course, big military spending is fantastic for winning votes, lets not be too naive here.

Defensive measures are doomed to eventually fail a certain percent of the time, unless you can also be proactive and take the threat back to it's origin. It's also enormously expensive, and the economic disruption from the security measures is itself a form of successful attack.

Kill Westerners, kill jews, kill men, kill women, kill children, fly planes into buildings etc, and justify in the name of god. From my and your point of view, they believe in some crazy ****, but let them.

That's the typical redneck reaction. Unfortunately, there is a lot more depth and substance to it.

You want to do something about it? Make them not think that by creating the appropriate conditions. And those conditions do not involve hoodings, and treatment that would literally not be fit for animals!

I agree we shouldn't have allowed photography of our security measures for handling the *******s. And no, I wouldn't treat animals the way I'd treat these *******s, and for a number of very good reasons.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by elijah


You think I agree with Al Qaeda?!?!? . They are an anethema to me, but that wouldn't give me the excuse to go and bomb them!!

If you buy into the foreign policy argument, as presented in OBL's video directed in part towards western audiences, then yes, to that extent, you have bought into their BS.

[Whaleboy]

Defensive measures are doomed to eventually fail a certain percent of the time, unless you can also be proactive and take the threat back to it's origin. It's also enormously expensive, and the economic disruption from the security measures is itself a form of successful attack

Assuming a constant attack, which is not the case. In a battle between a single active terrorist cell and the security services of any western nation, I bet on the latter. 9/11 only occured because the CIA cocked up. If you want to root out all terrorists, force won't work, you need peace and love!

That's the typical redneck reaction. Unfortunately, there is a lot more depth and substance to it

First I'm an Al Qaeda sympathiser, now I'm a redneck??? I'm sure there is more depth and substance to it, there can be as much depth and substance as they want, its their view, they are entitled to it, but we should examine what has caused them to have that view, and it is us ourselves. Theyre not targetting us for some spurious reason fabricated out of thin air you know.

I agree we shouldn't have allowed photography of our security measures for handling the *******s. And no, I wouldn't treat animals the way I'd treat these *******s, and for a number of very good reasons

The more public exposure and outcry abuot Guantanamo bay the better imo. Looking back on this thread, it would appear that the legal loophole in the US constitution allows this in Guantanamo, but not on US soil. My suspicious are thus further heightened.

If you agree that the conditions are not worthy for animals, then we are agreed. We differ because I see them as humans deserving no matter what their crime (and especially since they have not been convicted, nor seemingly will be fairly convicted), whereas you see them as lucky to have their face in one piece already, hence their life is the property of the US govt.

I call humanism!

[Whaleboy]

If you buy into the foreign policy argument, as presented in OBL's video directed in part towards western audiences, then yes, to that extent, you have bought into their BS.

I didn't see that video, and I have been using the same foreign policy argument since 9/11 in the first place. Is the argument not correct just because bin laden justifies murder on that ground? I differ because I dont use it to justify murder, I use it to understand it.

[Whaleboy]

Gotta sleep, tar tar!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by elijah


Assuming a constant attack, which is not the case. In a battle between a single active terrorist cell and the security services of any western nation, I bet on the latter. 9/11 only occured because the CIA cocked up. If you want to root out all terrorists, force won't work, you need peace and love!

OBVIOUSLY , there is more than one single active cell. Peace and love are nice, but you have to bring adequate firepower to the party to deal with those who won't deal any other way.

First I'm an Al Qaeda sympathiser, now I'm a redneck???

Your level of understanding of modern Islamic fundamentalism and the Salafist viewpoints espoused by Sayyed al Qutb and Sayyed al Maududi are at that level of sophistication, yes.

I'm sure there is more depth and substance to it, there can be as much depth and substance as they want, its their view, they are entitled to it, but we should examine what has caused them to have that view, and it is us ourselves. Theyre not targetting us for some spurious reason fabricated out of thin air you know.

Your moral depravity, lack of piety, mockery of Allah, holding yourselves up as an equal to Allah, and many others. I don't see you reforming, though.

The more public exposure and outcry abuot Guantanamo bay the better imo.

Fine. If Gitmo pains you so much, we can have a backhoe dig a slit trench, bind these mother****ers' hands behind their backs, line 'em up, and have somebody walk the line with a .45, put it to the back of each one's head, pull the trigger, and be done with it. We should be able to dig the trenches in one day, and take care of the prisoner population the next. Then you won't have an ongoing "issue" to piss and moan about, and we can stop wasting time, money and personnel keeping those *******s alive.

Looking back on this thread, it would appear that the legal loophole in the US constitution allows this in Guantanamo, but not on US soil. My suspicious are thus further heightened.

No, it's much simpler than that. Ex parte Quirin provides precedent for both military trial and execution of unlawful combatants on US soil. The reason for the ruling relating to sovereignty and Gitmo was that by ruling on that ground alone, and finding there was no jurisdiction, then the courts could avoid wasting time with a billion secondary issues for the next decade or so. Why decide a whole bunch of complex and often meaningless side issues, when you can decide the entire issue on very clean, simple grounds?

If you agree that the conditions are not worthy for animals, then we are agreed. We differ because I see them as humans deserving no matter what their crime (and especially since they have not been convicted, nor seemingly will be fairly convicted), whereas you see them as lucky to have their face in one piece already, hence their life is the property of the US govt.

I call humanism!

I agree that I treat my pets better, although Velociraptor has his own Camp X-ray setup so he doesn't kill the other cats.

As for the *******s, if you or the French or somebody are so concerned about them, you should have captured them first. We got them, so their asses belong to us and Allah. And we may well send some to Him.

[Alexander's Horse]

Jeez you do a fine job of defending the indefensible.

Waiter, could you get some more smoke and mirrors for my paratrooper friend please?

[MichaeltheGreat]

What's indefensible? How would you detain and secure a bunch of *******s who think dying while attempting to kill you is a ticket to paradise and 72 virgins?

You chaps didn't do so well at Cowra, now did you? We've got a far more dangerous group of prisoners, and haven't had any problems with them yet.

[Alexander's Horse]

Eh? We did okay at Cowra. Over 50 to 1.

On Saturday, 5 August 1944 Japanese prisoners at Cowra staged a breakout that resulted in the deaths of 4 young Australians and 231 Japanese.

Maybe somebody should leave a gate open over there and oil the machine guns......

Imagine trying to escape from Australia - those hills just roll on forever in any direction. Cowra isn' far from here actually.

[oedo]

Freed prisoner demands $15.87m
By Kathy Gannon in Islamabad
10jul03

FREED after 10 months in an American prison on Guantanamo Bay, 51-year- old Pakistani Mohammed Sanghir is demanding $US10.4 million ($15.87 million) in compensation and damages from the US government, his lawyer says.

Sanghir left Guantanamo Bay in Cuba last November - the first Pakistani released from the prison currently holding about 600 inmates.

He tells of solitary confinement and being caged, and claims he was served alcohol-laced drinks, forbidden by his religion, Islam.

His legal notice was served by Pakistan lawyer Mohammed Ikram Chaudhry in Rawalpindi.

Sanghir's American captors flew him to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and then to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, after freeing him from Guantanamo.

"They said, 'You are
innocent'," Sanghir told The Associated Press at the time of his release. "They didn't say sorry. They just said, 'You can go home'."

Sanghir, who wore a green plastic wristband with his picture, name, age and prison number US9PK000143DP, said his US captors promised him $US2000 ($3050) in compensation when he got off the plane in Pakistan - but that he received only $US100($152)

For two months, he tried to get the rest of his money, he said. In December, he threatened to go to court.

Chaudhry said he had mailed the legal notice to the US embassy in Islamabad yesterday and that it named the US State Department, Defence Department and US Justice Department.

The notice demands a reply within four weeks. If there's no compensation, Chaudhry said a lawsuit would be filed in either a US or Pakistani court or both.

Sanghir's legal statement charges maltreatment by his Afghan captors and later by the Americans.

He was captured by warlord Rashid Dostum while trying to flee Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, after the US-led coalition's war on terror began in October 2001.

Sanghir had been in Afghanistan since June 2001, teaching Islam after being sent there by a nonpolitical organisation of Islamic missionaries called Jamaat Tableeghi. The organisation has branches worldwide.

While being held in northern Afghanistan, Sanghir said he was herded into overcrowded prisons and denied food.

Sanghir said he watched while others were buried alive and that hundreds of prisoners died in US bombardments of northern Afghanistan.

When US-led forces gained control of southern Kandahar in Afghanistan, Sanghir and several others were transferred there.

Sanghir's notice says he spent "18 days ... in Kandahar where Americans were in complete charge of the camp. They shaved the head, beard and mustaches of all the prisoners."

It says he and others were not allowed to sleep or pray and were "kept in (an) inhuman environment."

"Others were made to stand in the cold winter outside and asked questions about al-Qaeda, Taliban and Osama bin Laden," it said.

Sanghir was taken to Guantanamo Bay in shackles and held there for about 10 months, the notice said.

He said his cell on Guantanamo Bay was two metres by two metres and 2.1 metres high. He called it a cage "normally available in zoos."

The notice accused US personnel in Guantanamo Bay of adding alcohol - forbidden by Islam - to prisoners' drinks.

Sanghir said he was initially in solitary confinement and not allowed to pray, until a hunger strike by inmates led to a relaxation of the rules.

He said he faced relentless questioning, almost entirely about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network.

Sanghir says he was held for eight days and later for another 16 in a dark, tiny cell with cold air constantly "chilling the body of the inmate" - a punishment for not being able to help investigations.

Sanghir's release proved he knew nothing about bin Laden or al-Qaeda, the notice said.

It claims that for 10 months while in American custody at Guantanamo, Sanghir "suffered mental shock, financial loss, physical victimisation, estrangement and religious victimisation."

He wants $US10 million ($15.26 million) for mental agony and another $US400,000 ($610,220) for debts incurred by his family while he was in jail and damage to his sawmill business, it said.

http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6733441%255E401,00.html

100$ for an innocent man being captured in an hell-like place for 10 long months. the US govt hopefully won´t get away with this.

most of the Guantanamo inmates are innocents being tortured for nothing. they don´t even know, why they have been brought there. and don´t tell me anything as long as you don´t know better. some people here just claim they would be terrorists and all this ****, while these claims don´t have any substance at all.
if Sanghir will get the compensation - and I hope he will - this will becomne a very expensive mess for the US goverment, since hundreds of most likely innocent prisoneers are still captured in Guantanamo spending even more than ´only´ 10 months there.