Guantanamo suicides confirmed

oralloy wrote:

msolga wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
In some ways this is a lot worse than a suicide bombing. This will get the world's attention and sympathy. The administration has to do something about Gitmo. It's become an international disgrace.

What is disgraceful about holding captured unlawful combatants incommunicado until the end of the war?

We certainly aren't going to let them go free once we've captured them. About the only alternative is to execute them on the spot when they are caught on the battlefield.

It wasn't a "war". It was an invasion by the US of Iraq. For absolutely no defensible reason. There were no WMDs. Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11.

I don't think Iraq has anything to do with the detainees at Guantanamo.

This is most definitely a war.

But I think the US occupation of Iraq does have a great deal to do with the treatment of these prisoners. (I'm not going to call them unlawful combatants. To be detained at Guantanamo Bay for 4+ years without a proper trial & any convincing, credible proof of guilt is wrongful imprisonment). They have been held in detention for duration of the US occupation of Iraq. They have been the victims of "the war on terrorism", apparently considered by pro-Bush supporters to be as guilty & as dangerous as the "insurgents" in Iraq. That's certainly how they've been treated. Unless, of course, they happened to be British citizens. Apparently Guatanamo detainees from the UK were found to be less guilty, simply because their government refused to cooperate with the US & demanded that their detainees be released & dealt with at home. How many of them are now locked up in prisons in the UK? Too bad for those whose governments (like my own) were too spineless to stand up to the US. Bad luck, they can just rot at Guatanamo Bay until the US government can find a face-saving way out of this political embarrassment! But Guantanamo Bay is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait till more details of "extraordinary rendition" are released.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

But I think the US occupation of Iraq does have a great deal to do with the treatment of these prisoners.

Such as?

msolga wrote:

(I'm not going to call them unlawful combatants.

Why not? They clearly didn't follow the rules of war.

msolga wrote:

To be detained at Guantanamo Bay for 4+ years without a proper trial & any convincing, credible proof of guilt is wrongful imprisonment).

Not according to the Geneva Conventions.

msolga wrote:

They have been held in detention for duration of the US occupation of Iraq.

And they'll probably be held long after the war in Iraq is over.

msolga wrote:

They have been the victims of "the war on terrorism",

They started it.

msolga wrote:

apparently considered by pro-Bush supporters to be as guilty & as dangerous as the "insurgents" in Iraq.

A whole lot more dangerous, most likely.

msolga wrote:

Bad luck, they can just rot at Guatanamo Bay until the US government can find a face-saving way out of this political embarrassment!

A way out? How about just leaving them as they are until the war is over, then putting them in front of a military tribunal for war crimes charges?

0 Replies

Quote:

"They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own.

One of the detainees was a mid- or high-level Qaeda operative, another had been captured in Afghanistan and the third was a member of a splinter group,

Most likely these spineless bastards were wearing women's clothing and/or hiding behind children when caught.

They can rot in Gitmo until the end of time as far as I'm concerned. And if any of them want to commit suicide and go to their 'virgin' reward provided by allah (piss and pig's blood be upon his name) well, fine by me.

457 left to go.

0 Replies

I'm not going to go over & over points about the Geneva convention/when is a POW not a POW, etc, that have already been covered very well by others on this thread, ob.

I'm curious about your opinion about the treatment of the British detainees, compared to those still held at Guantanamo Bay. I mean, Blair was/is Bush's staunchest ally in the "war on terror". Bush's strongest "coalition" member. Yet he refused to cooperate with Bush when it came to British citizens detained at Guatanamo Bay. The US government accepted that UK citizens be treated differently to detained citizens from other countries. This seems a strange state of affairs to me. Certainly not consistent. If, as you claim, the Guantanamo detainees are a "whole lot more dangerous" than the "insurgents" in Iraq, why were the British allowed to go free? Were they tried before any US tribunal to establish their guilt or otherwise? I'd say that their release was a pragmatic political decision (to placate the outraged British public), the same as keeping the current detainees locked up is a political decision. How does the US government justify 4+ years in detention without losing even more face with its own supporters? (When they've completely lost credibility with so many others, already) I'm sure they'd love to get out of Iraq, too, post haste. But how to do that without the political consequences? It seems to me to be simply a case of not being able to admit very serious misjudgements because the political consequences are so enormous.

0 Replies

Cute isn't it? The neocons and hench people and dupes are supporting these actions by "the land of the free".

They declare a war with no end, and no criteria given for winning.

Using this, they justify keeping prisoners endlessly...while, for propaganda purposes, declaring the wars in which they captured these people to be won.

They imprison large numbers of people, without even any attempt at a legal justification for it, relying on some kind of blind support from their stooges in the American populace who see any questioning of policy as immoral, or illegal or something, while their country is in a now eternal state of war.

They create situations where they do not have to answer to their own laws, or regard the human rights agreements they enthusiastically advocate for others, and where they can and do murder and torture. When criticised for it, they initually deny, then say it is a few bad apples, then say they deserved it, and it is unpatriotic to talk about it..or stupid, or whatever the neocon loony right insult du jour is. (Intellectual it is again, at present, isn't it? Or, if you stoop to the depths of the likes of Sierra Song, we are back to the show worn "terrorist supporter". Goddess, I thought they would be too ashamed to use that one any more, but there you are) All this without any proof that these people "deserve" anything, or, if some feeble attempt is to be made to justify their guilt, it is via kangaroo courts condemned by their own military's lawyers.

Ever heard of Catch 22?

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

Quote:
"They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own.

One of the detainees was a mid- or high-level Qaeda operative, another had been captured in Afghanistan and the third was a member of a splinter group,

Most likely these spineless bastards were wearing women's clothing and/or hiding behind children when caught.

They can rot in Gitmo until the end of time as far as I'm concerned. And if any of them want to commit suicide and go to their 'virgin' reward provided by allah (piss and pig's blood be upon his name) well, fine by me.

457 left to go.

I adore Sierra Song for the clarity and grace with which he shoots himself in the foot.

How beautifully he demonstates the thinking he condemns in others, the thinking that exactly mirrors the terrorists on the other side.

0 Replies

Just give them all rope.

0 Replies

paull wrote:

Just give them all rope.

Which folk do you want to give rope to? Would you like to elaborate?

0 Replies

Unbelievable.:

Last Update: Monday, June 12, 2006. 7:32am (AEST)

Guantanamo suicides a 'good PR move'

A senior US State Department official has described the triple suicide at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as "a good public relations move".

Three prisoners, two Saudis and a Yemeni, hanged themselves in their cells with clothes and bed sheets.

They are the first captives to die at Guantanamo since the US started sending suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban captives there in 2002.

Deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, Colleen Graffy, has dismissed the suggestions of some human rights lawyers and organisations that the suicides were the result of mounting desperation.

Ms Graffy told the BBC the deaths were "a tactic to further the jihadi cause".

"Taking their own lives was not necessary but it certainly is a good PR move to draw attention," she said.

She denied accusations that the prisoners had been killed or were allowed to take their own lives.

"When you think of all the efforts that the US Government has made to make sure that the detainees have been kept safe, it defies logic that they would kill them or allow them to kill themselves," she said.

The suicides have ignited new calls for Washington to close the camp and find a better way to deal with captured terrorist suspects.

Advocates for the prisoners blame the Bush administration for the deaths, which they say will inflame Muslims around the world.

The only outside group allowed access to the detainees is the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

ICRC spokesman Vincent Lussar says it will be seeking to visit Guantanamo as soon as possible.

"Obviously we'll want to go this week to talk, of course, with the authorities there, to talk to the other detainees and there's another element that whenever something happens at Guantanamo Bay, the families of the detainees across the world are extremely worried, so we give the inmates a possibility to write a message home," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1660550.htm

0 Replies

A tunnel without end
Zachary Katznelson*
Monday June 12, 2006
The Guardian

The US version of the Guantánamo suicides is disgraceful. The cause of death was gross injustice

.... Of these three men, little is known. They were in Camp I, a maximum-security area where prisoners are denied even a roll of toilet paper. But we do not know the dead men's stories. While most of the men in Guantánamo have lawyers who fight for their right to a fair trial, these men did not. Until May, the US refused to even tell us who was in Guantánamo. But before it finally released the names of everyone there, the Bush administration secured passage of a law barring lawsuits by the prisoners held in Guantánamo. That means that at last we know the prisoners' identities, but can do nothing legally to help them. The men who committed suicide found themselves in just this legal black hole. They had no legal recourse, just the prospect of a life in prison, in isolation, with no family, no friends, nothing. They took their lives.

So what now? President Bush stated this week that he wants to close Guantánamo, that he wants to give the men trials. Well, let's have them - immediately. The US has had over four years to gather evidence against the men. Surely that is enough time to prove guilt. And now it is time to show the world the evidence. As Harriet Harman, the British constitutional affairs minister, said yesterday, Guantánamo must be opened up to review or shut down. Will Britain do what is necessary to make this a reality? Because this is about even more than the fate of 460 people, it is about whether the US and its allies will lead the world by democratic example, or whether they will continue to give lip service to human rights and open societies, while denigrating those cherished notions with their actions.

If the men in Guantánamo (and the other US prisons around the world, such as the one at the Bagram air force base in Afghanistan, where over 600 men languish in Guantánamo's hidden twin) did something wrong, by all means punish them. But if they did not, they must be sent home. ...... <cont>

(*Zachary Katznelson is senior counsel at Reprieve, which represents 36 Guantánamo Bay detainees)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1795309,00.html

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Cute isn't it? The neocons and hench people and dupes are supporting these actions by "the land of the free".

They declare a war with no end, and no criteria given for winning.

Using this, they justify keeping prisoners endlessly...while, for propaganda purposes, declaring the wars in which they captured these people to be won.

They imprison large numbers of people, without even any attempt at a legal justification for it, relying on some kind of blind support from their stooges in the American populace who see any questioning of policy as immoral, or illegal or something, while their country is in a now eternal state of war.

They create situations where they do not have to answer to their own laws, or regard the human rights agreements they enthusiastically advocate for others, and where they can and do murder and torture. When criticised for it, they initually deny, then say it is a few bad apples, then say they deserved it, and it is unpatriotic to talk about it..or stupid, or whatever the neocon loony right insult du jour is. (Intellectual it is again, at present, isn't it? Or, if you stoop to the depths of the likes of Sierra Song, we are back to the show worn "terrorist supporter". Goddess, I thought they would be too ashamed to use that one any more, but there you are) All this without any proof that these people "deserve" anything, or, if some feeble attempt is to be made to justify their guilt, it is via kangaroo courts condemned by their own military's lawyers.

Ever heard of Catch 22?

4 years is now an "eternal state of war."?

What a load of BS.

0 Replies

...which would mean something, if anyone thought you could recognize a load of BS. It's obvious you can't- you're still buying whatever Bush says.

0 Replies

Quote:

4 years is now an "eternal state of war."?

What a load of BS.

What would the conditions of victory be, exactly?

When there is no more terror?

Then it would be an eternal war, because terrorism will never go away, ever.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If the 'militant islaamists' won't settle until we leave Iraq, then the war will be never-ending, because we aren't going to leave, period.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/world/middleeast/11summit.html

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

I'm not going to go over & over points about the Geneva convention/when is a POW not a POW, etc, that have already been covered very well by others on this thread, ob.

It seems that the reality of what the Geneva Conventions say is central to the issue you are discussing.

msolga wrote:

I'm curious about your opinion about the treatment of the British detainees, compared to those still held at Guantanamo Bay. I mean, Blair was/is Bush's staunchest ally in the "war on terror". Bush's strongest "coalition" member. Yet he refused to cooperate with Bush when it came to British citizens detained at Guatanamo Bay. The US government accepted that UK citizens be treated differently to detained citizens from other countries. This seems a strange state of affairs to me. Certainly not consistent. If, as you claim, the Guantanamo detainees are a "whole lot more dangerous" than the "insurgents" in Iraq, why were the British allowed to go free? Were they tried before any US tribunal to establish their guilt or otherwise? I'd say that their release was a pragmatic political decision (to placate the outraged British public), the same as keeping the current detainees locked up is a political decision.

It likely was to satisfy Blair.

The reason the current detainees are locked up is because the war isn't over yet.

msolga wrote:

How does the US government justify 4+ years in detention without losing even more face with its own supporters?

By pointing at the Geneva Conventions?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Cute isn't it? The neocons and hench people and dupes are supporting these actions by "the land of the free".

They declare a war with no end, and no criteria given for winning.

Using this, they justify keeping prisoners endlessly...while, for propaganda purposes, declaring the wars in which they captured these people to be won.

They imprison large numbers of people, without even any attempt at a legal justification for it, relying on some kind of blind support from their stooges in the American populace who see any questioning of policy as immoral, or illegal or something, while their country is in a now eternal state of war.

They create situations where they do not have to answer to their own laws, or regard the human rights agreements they enthusiastically advocate for others, and where they can and do murder and torture. When criticised for it, they initually deny, then say it is a few bad apples, then say they deserved it, and it is unpatriotic to talk about it..or stupid, or whatever the neocon loony right insult du jour is. (Intellectual it is again, at present, isn't it? Or, if you stoop to the depths of the likes of Sierra Song, we are back to the show worn "terrorist supporter". Goddess, I thought they would be too ashamed to use that one any more, but there you are) All this without any proof that these people "deserve" anything, or, if some feeble attempt is to be made to justify their guilt, it is via kangaroo courts condemned by their own military's lawyers.

Ever heard of Catch 22?

LOL. You had the Marines in Haditha tried, convicted and sentenced without so much as blinking an eye.

Hypocrite.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

SierraSong wrote:
Quote:
"They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own.

One of the detainees was a mid- or high-level Qaeda operative, another had been captured in Afghanistan and the third was a member of a splinter group,

Most likely these spineless bastards were wearing women's clothing and/or hiding behind children when caught.

They can rot in Gitmo until the end of time as far as I'm concerned. And if any of them want to commit suicide and go to their 'virgin' reward provided by allah (piss and pig's blood be upon his name) well, fine by me.

457 left to go.

I adore Sierra Song for the clarity and grace with which he shoots himself in the foot.

How beautifully he demonstates the thinking he condemns in others, the thinking that exactly mirrors the terrorists on the other side.

You forgot to end your rant with a whole hearted "Power to the Peeeeopaaaaaaaale!!!!!!!!"

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Cute isn't it? The neocons and hench people and dupes are supporting these actions by "the land of the free".

They declare a war with no end, and no criteria given for winning.

We didn't start the war.

dlowan wrote:

Using this, they justify keeping prisoners endlessly...while, for propaganda purposes, declaring the wars in which they captured these people to be won.

I missed the declaration that the war against al-Qa'ida has been won.

dlowan wrote:

They imprison large numbers of people, without even any attempt at a legal justification for it,

I'd say the Geneva Conventions make for pretty good legal justification.

dlowan wrote:

or, if some feeble attempt is to be made to justify their guilt, it is via kangaroo courts condemned by their own military's lawyers.

That is the fault of the people who clamor to charge the detainees now.

The proper thing to do would be to wait until the end of the war to hold the trials.

But if we are going to hold the trials during the war, military security dictates that the trials cannot be fair.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What would the conditions of victory be, exactly?

When everyone who had something to do with 9/11 is either dead or in US custody, and when al-Qa'ida and their allied organizations no longer exist.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

msolga wrote:
I'm not going to go over & over points about the Geneva convention/when is a POW not a POW, etc, that have already been covered very well by others on this thread, ob.

It seems that the reality of what the Geneva Conventions say is central to the issue you are discussing.

This is tiresome.
The US insists they are not POWs. (as defined by the Geneva Convention), therefore the US doesn't have to comply with the guidelines of the convention. Others claim that they are POWs and they are being detained illegally.
Whatever the US government chooses call it, the treatment of the detainees has been/remains appalling & thoroughly reprehensible.

0 Replies

Guantanamo suicides confirmed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know