1
   

Death camp at Guantanamo?

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 11:48 am
A link for Wolf's post:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0882821962/qid=1055785371/sr=2-1/104-0216893-0328715?v=glance&s=books
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2003 12:54 pm
More stuff on detainees


Quote:
Names of 9/11 Detainees Can Remain Secret, Court Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Filed at 1:11 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department properly withheld the names and other details about hundreds of foreigners detained in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. The powerful decision was deferential to the Bush administration's arguments over continued threats to America from terrorists.

In a 2-1 ruling that represents a major victory for President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, a panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined that disclosing such information could provide a roadmap of the government's Sept. 11 investigation for international terrorists.

Federal judges asked to compel such disclosures should defer to White House concerns that it might help the nation's enemies, the appeals panel said.

``America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore,'' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle. He said judges are ``in an extremely poor position to second-guess the executive's judgment in this area of national security.''

In a harsh dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge David S. Tatel accused his colleagues of ``uncritical deference to the government's vague, poorly explained arguments for withholding broad categories of information about the detainees.''

Tatel said the decision to withhold the information prevents U.S. citizens from learning whether the Bush administration ``is violating the constitutional rights of the hundreds of persons whom it has detained in connection with its terrorism investigation.''

The courtroom battle focused on information about at least 762 foreigners who were inside the United States illegally and were detained following the Sept. 11 terror attacks as part of the FBI's investigation. More than 500 have been deported so far.

A recent audit by the inspector general at the Justice Department found ``significant problems'' with the detentions, including allegations of physical abuse. Civil liberties groups have noted that only one of those detained, Zacarias Moussaoui, has been charged with any terrorism-related crime.

Ashcroft told lawmakers earlier this month that some of the foreigners ``had strong links to the terrorists,'' but that in some cases evidence was insufficient or too sensitive to bring criminal charges against them in public courts.

Ashcroft has publicly described one detainee as a roommate of one of the hijackers; another acknowledged training in a terrorist camp in Afghanistan; another traveled from New York on Sept. 11 with a pilot's license and flight materials; and another was found with 30 photographs of the World Trade Center and papers that Ashcroft described as ``Jihad materials.''

The new appeals decision rejected arguments by the Center for National Security Studies and other public interest groups that the Justice Department should publicly provide the names of the detainees, names of their lawyers, dates they were picked up and the reasons they were detained.

``We're disappointed that for the first time ever, a U.S. court has sanctioned secret arrests,'' said Kate Martin, a lawyer for the center. She said the organization plans to pursue the case.

The court affirmed that the information can properly be withheld under an existing exemption in the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. That provision exempts information from disclosure if it's compiled for law enforcement purposes and if revealing it ``could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.''

``It's disturbing that the court takes the position that the war on terrorism trumps all other considerations,'' said David B. Sobel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who also participated in the case.

The appeals decision did not refer directly to the inspector general's findings critical of the detentions, although lawyers said they privately sent a copy of the audit report to the appeals court before Tuesday's ruling.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the government last August to release detainees' names but delayed enforcing her order to let the government appeal. Kessler also had ruled that the Justice Department could withhold the other information.

Tuesday's appeals decision, however, permits the Bush administration to withhold even the names of the foreigners and their lawyers. Sentelle and Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson ruled that the list of names could ``constitute a comprehensive diagram of the law enforcement investigation.''

Disclosing the list ``would give terrorist organizations a composite picture of the government investigation,'' Sentelle wrote. ``And since these organizations would generally know the activities and locations of its members on or about September 11, disclosure would inform terrorists of both the substantive and geographic focus of the investigation.''

Tatel, in his dissenting opinion, said the ruling ``eviscerates'' the Freedom of Information Act and principles of openness in government.

``Just as the government has a compelling interest in ensuring citizens safety, so do citizens have a compelling interest in ensuring that their government does not, in discharging its duties, abuse one of its most awesome powers, the power to arrest and jail,'' Tatel wrote.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2003 04:02 pm
McGentrix, could you explain the link between 9/11 and these men held at Guantanamo?

I never saw one.

Or maybe you should read up on this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

I'm sure you'll call this conspiracy nutcase stuff; it sure is well documented nutcase stuff then. And where's your proof then?

Please stop taking us for fools. It's all so transparant.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2003 04:19 pm
What's happening at Guantanamo has a precedent: Vietnam.

Quote:
About Phoenix 'Interrogation' centers

"I never knew in the course of all those operations any detainee to live through interrogation. They all died. There was never any reasonable establishment of the fact that any one of those individuals was, in fact, cooperating with the VC, but they all died and the majority were either tortured to death or things like thrown from helicopters."
Bart Osborn in testimony to Congress in 1971. Cited in: "The Phoenix Program" By Douglas Valentine


Source: Douglas Valentine

Could we please - at least - agree that this is fascism? Or maybe it's compassionate conservatism.

Maybe it's just insane.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2003 04:25 pm
For some reason, the key figures that are supposed to be our target always seem to get away. First it was Osama, now it's Saddam. I guess the next target will be the leader of Iran, what's his name? c.i.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2003 04:58 pm
So THAT's what they meant by compassionate conservatism! Thanks, Wolf -- just haven't been able to figure that out till now...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2003 06:26 pm
First link:

Quote:
Bush, oil and the Taliban
Two French authors allege that before Sept. 11, the White House put oil interests ahead of national security.

Many people allege a lot of things. It we put any weight behind every "alleged" plot, we would still be in the stone age. Nothing else this article says holds any weight.

Quote:
Brisard claims O'Neill told him that "the main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia."

Again, the author CLAIMS statements made by a dead person. Their entire book is based on 10 pages of unverifiable interviews with a dead guy.

Second Link: This dissertation revolves around the fact that the US helped train Al Queada operatives and had connections with Osama Bin Laden. Facts that are not in dispute. During the cold war Osama was an important cog in the machinery of stopping Russia from spreading communism. It then goes into more details, about other things that the US has done to protect it citizenry in other places. It relies on false implications of misdeeds and makes a final summation that would make Dr. Suess proud.

Third link: Goes WAY out on a limb to basically say that George H.W. Bush is a terrorist by affiliation.
Quote:
The former president, the father of President Bush, worked for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, meeting with them at least twice. The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had supposedly been "disowned" by his family, which runs a multi-billion dollar business in Saudi Arabia and was a major investor in the senior Bush's firm. Other reports have stated his Saudi family have not truly cut off Osama bin Laden.

A great paragraph full of prejudicial speech and implications.
Quote:
In the wake of Judicial Watch and other criticism of its ties to the bin Laden family business, the Carlyle Group reportedly no longer does business with the bin Laden conglomerate. Yet the Group, among other conflicts of interest, reportedly has a major business relationship with the Saudi Arabian government, which many have criticized for its lack of cooperation in America's war on terrorism and its financial and other support for terrorist attacks on Israel and U.S. interests.

Yeah. Because of the "in depth" attention by Judicial Watch, the Carlyle group stopped doing business. They take credit for actions they have no responsibility for and then accuse them of further acts of terrorism through inference. Nice.
This whole article just makes me want to fly off the handle because people like Wolf will believe it. There is NO truth to be found here, only the spread of lies.

Fourth link: I'm not sure what this one was about. But, I failed to see the relevence.

How you can equate fascism of todays administration via these links is still a mystery to me. Has our government done many underhanded things? Sure. Have they done things their moms wouldn't be proud of? Sure. I have no excuses for it, I'm not in charge.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2003 10:46 pm
The decision by the DC Circuit (one of the two most conservative ones) is being appealed, and may go to the Supremes. A victory for Ashcroft is not a victory for the country.

Further on Ashcroft - when he was being confirmed for the post, he was asked if his very strong personal convictions would stand in the way of his administering his oath of office. One of the things he was asked about specifically was his stance on homosexuality (to him it is an abomination). He replied that wouldn't be the case. And yet, the department's own Gay Pride celebration (which had been held annually at department expense) was denied this year. After all the news about it, the explanation given was that Bush hadn't declared a Gay Pride day. When this was shown up for the nonsense it was, the department then said they could have their day, but at their own expense. What comes from Ashcroft is not admirable.

What makes you think the Carlyle Group is not operating? And the binLaden family was spirited away by private plane after 9/11, very quietly. For heaven's sake, the links between government figures and the Saudis and all the others are well known and documented. A simple search would show that. Wouldn't a little simple reason lead you to question, McG, why we didn't go after the Saudis who were the acknowledged perpetrators of 9/11, but chose the Iraqis instead? If you haven't looked at the PNAC site yet, why not do so? Now there's a road map.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 03:28 am
McG, and other Bush-apologists: I'm not blaming you (nor any soldier/agent) for executing orders. It must be hard being in that line of work.

I'm not even blaming the neocons for having imperialistic ambitions - I guess that's an old sore from the Cold War.

What I'm accusing here, are the lies, the lies and the lies. The psyops, the dirty tricks, the public brainwashing, the massive coverup. Those are pure evil, and an insult to the human race, most of all to the Western world and the U.S.

As if we wouldn't know, as if we wouldn't see through it. The only reason the global community remains quiet over 9/11, is grandiose shame.

Those who want to conquer the world, should at least have the guts to do it openly. You don't need to burn your towers nor do you have to lie continuously. You just need guts.

9/11 caused such a huge trauma around the western world, including here in Europe where we barely recuperated from the evil that ended in 1945.

I was quite an optimistic, energetic person before 9/11. Since then I'm struggling daily to find the necessary reasons to make something out of life here. I will never forgive them for that.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2003 11:56 am
American military bans BBC crew from Guantanamo Bay for talking to inmates
Vikram Dodd in Guantanamo Bay
Saturday June 21, 2003
The Guardian

The US military clashed with British journalists yesterday at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay after inmates shouted to a BBC Panorama team who had been invited to tour the maximum security camp.
As the journalists walked through camp four, detainees shouted that they wanted to tell their story and the US soldiers immediately halted the tour, ordering everyone out.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,11983,982122,00.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2003 12:19 pm
Prisoners do not have the right of free speech - nor any other rights of humanity. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2003 12:45 pm
c.i.

The principal international human rights documents clearly protect the human rights of prisoners.

More here: International Human Rights Standards Governing the Treatment of Prisoners
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2003 01:11 pm
Tell that to the prisoners in Guantanamo. The US makes it's own rules. c.i.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2003 03:19 pm
Have to wonder what the military's afraid of. Or Ashcroft. Or Cheney. This administration will go down in history for many things - so far, not good. Secrecy, lies, ineptitude - the departure from the country that was once the U.S.A.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2003 03:24 pm
The very first mistake was when the Supreme Court of the land selected our president. Everything went downhill from there. c.i.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2003 04:42 pm
You mean when the supreme upheld the law as it is written? right?
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 08:57 am
Recent article on Guantanamo
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 09:07 am
McG, I'm sure you are willing to volunteer yourself as a prisoner at Guantanamo to really understand the inhumane treatment those prisoners are receiving at the hand of our military. Anybody wanting to commit suicide over living because conditions are so bad tells me more than I need to know, but evidently that's not enough for people like you. c.i.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 09:25 am
They are prisoners, remember? Confinment is usually a condition of being a prisoner. They are being treated humanely regardless of what you think.
Quote:
The detainees, who have been moved from Afghanistan to "Camp X-Ray" at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, are being housed in individual 8-by-8-foot outdoor cells with concrete floors and wooden roofs surrounded by chain-link fencing.

Inside the cells, where they will be kept until a permanent detention center can be built, prisoners each have a foam-rubber mat to lie on and two towels, one for bathing, another for a prayer mat.

They receive three meals each day, including one that meets Muslim religious requirements, according to military officials.

Officials said breakfast and dinner would be hot meals, with water as a beverage. The detainees also get packages containing cereal, raisins, peanuts and granola bars with their rations, officials said.

Detainees get daily showers and are issued a bar of soap, a bottle of shampoo, a toothbrush and toothpaste, and flip-flop sandals, officials said.

Upon arrival, each detainee gets a basic physical examination by a doctor that includes a chest X-ray and a blood sample, according to the Defense Department. Treatment is available if necessary.

"Their basic needs are regarded," U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "They have the right food, they have the right shelter, the right capacity to avoid injury."

0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 11:22 am
McG -- Please don't use statements provided by prosecutors. Makes no sense.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 11:41:05