Gitmo Wikileaks

[bluefrog]

LINK

For military justice expert Eugene Fidell, the documents prove not only that the detentions were unjust, but also that they were ineffective militarily.

"What becomes clear is the amateur quality of the interrogations and the chaotic nature of the work that was done during interrogations," he said.

"They would have been a lot better off had they done what the Geneva conventions require in case of doubt, which is hold an inquiry, hold a so-called competent tribunal on or near the battlefield."

The place should have been shut down a long time ago.

 

[BrianFromWA]

where would you put those detainees? Seems like it wasn't an issue of geography, but who was doing the interrogations. And who is Mr. Fidell to say whether or not they were effective militarily? Lots of bad guys went away based on those interrogations, and many who've been released were not rehabilitated.

The immediate consequences of what you seem to be advocating are summary execution based on a soldier's battlefield judgement, or summary execution based on a "so-called competent tribunal". Here's how it would go.

"Was he shooting at you, private?"
"Yes, sir"
"But then, he was incapacitated and you were able to detain him?"
"Yes, sir"
"But he wasn't wearing a uniform, or anything signifying that he wasn't a civilian, but a state-sponsored combatant?"
"No, sir"
"Well, Mr. X, were you wearing a uniform when detained?"
"No."
"Firing squad, you may fire when ready"

 

[BrianFromWA]

where would you put those detainees? Seems like it wasn't an issue of geography, but who was doing the interrogations. And who is Mr. Fidell to say whether or not they were effective militarily? Lots of bad guys went away based on those interrogations, and many who've been released were not rehabilitated.

The immediate consequences of what you seem to be advocating are summary execution based on a soldier's battlefield judgement, or summary execution based on a "so-called competent tribunal". Here's how it would go.

"Was he shooting at you, private?"
"Yes, sir"
"But then, he was incapacitated and you were able to detain him?"
"Yes, sir"
"But he wasn't wearing a uniform, or anything signifying that he wasn't a civilian, but a state-sponsored combatant?"
"No, sir"
"Well, Mr. X, were you wearing a uniform when detained?"
"No."
"Firing squad, you may fire when ready"

You don't get it both ways. Either they're combatants who can be detained until the "war" is over, or they're shot as non-uniformed, non-state-sponsored criminals on a battlefield. The US gov't steps all over its crank to "do the right thing", and yet there are still people who have a misguided view of "all that needs to be done is..."

 

[SlyPokerDog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/w...sh-for-post-september-11-attacks.html?_r=2&hp

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

[video=youtube;Hne5a_jkdyw]

 

[bluefrog]

You don't get it both ways. Either they're combatants who can be detained until the "war" is over, or they're shot as non-uniformed, non-state-sponsored criminals on a battlefield. The US gov't steps all over its crank to "do the right thing", and yet there are still people who have a misguided view of "all that needs to be done is..."

first, By defining them as combatants and holding them until "the war is over" then they are being held indefinitely because there is not end to the war on terror (just as there is not end to the war on drugs)

Second, Afghanistan was essentially absent of government (still is in most areas) so the "non-uniformed, non-state-sponsored criminals" label is not appropriate. Some of the detainees have been proven to be members of organized terrorism some have been proven not to be.

The U.S. is not trying to "do the right thing". We can't detain someone without trial, torture them and say we are taking the moral high ground. Former US Diplomats, former US government officials, former American POWs, retired US Military Officers and the UN have all condemned the detention center. It was a mistake and it needs to be closed.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think people can cherry pick from these leaked documents and find what they want to see. One document mentioned in less left leaning sources yesterday talked about one of the detainees who implicated 123 of the other detainees.

Some of those detained were wrongfully done so, but I'm pretty sure the number released from Gitmo is in the hundreds. And for sure a lot of those returned to combat against us.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Hmm, you must not be aware that some of the past detainees we have fought again. What pray tell do we do with these "peace full victims" ?

The fact is they should have been dealt with a long time ago. The hangman should have paid a visit after we pryed all the in tel we could from their lumped up and drooling carcases.

But no, this is what you get when politicians run a war.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think people can cherry pick from these leaked documents and find what they want to see. One document mentioned in less left leaning sources yesterday talked about one of the detainees who implicated 123 of the other detainees.

Some of those detained were wrongfully done so, but I'm pretty sure the number released from Gitmo is in the hundreds. And for sure a lot of those returned to combat against us.

If I were locked up in Gitmo I'd be pointing the finger at everyone else too.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Former US diplomats, former US gov't officials, former American POWs, retired US military officers have said that there should be a military justice system for these people and Guantanamo's the best we have right now. Now what? The UN says it's torture, but...

(The UN is) alleging a host of violations of human rights and torture.
They did not visit the site because they were not allowed to conduct interviews with the prisoners.

So basically, they're making wide accusations without seeing for themselves. Sounds a bit like the UN.

We ARE trying to do the right thing and I can't fathom how people don't get that. We don't act like the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Russians, Bosnians, Hutus, Tsutsis, Congolese, Vietnamese, etc all have in the last 70 years of warfare. We don't summarily execute prisoners, or cannabalize them, or rape women, or loot from civilians. We have taken people off the battlefield that our soldiers deemed necessary to do so. Do I disagree with unskilled interrogators doing the questioning? Of course. Do I abhor when guards don't behave correctly or are improperly trained. Yes. Do I think that these people should be thanking their lucky stars each and every day that it was an American that captured them, instead of someone else? Yes. And it's a bit frightening to me when people in our country, for whatever reason (ideological, hatred for the military, ignorance of the facts due to how they're reported, etc) think somehow that we're the bad guys and if our prison were shut down or our troops were better behaved then there wouldn't be all this trouble in the world. The head of the Belgian FBI-equivalent Grignard came as part of a welfare inspection on behalf of EU and claimed

it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons

.

If you listen to Amnesty International and the like, most of the Western world is complicit in our "torture" activities. Most of the rest of the world doesn't want the detainees back, and in some places they will be killed regardless of their innocence or guilt.

 

[BrianFromWA]

The U.S. is not trying to "do the right thing". We can't detain someone without trial, torture them and say we are taking the moral high ground.

Who says that we can't detain someone without trial? I know plenty of guys in WWII who were just taken from their place on the battlefield (usually wounded), and put into a prisoner enclosure. The moral high ground would've been what? To shoot them on the battlefield? Or when they're arrested? You're offering a lot of opinion without better answers.

It was a mistake and it needs to be closed.

Where to put them, then? 48 of the "harmless" ones who were let go have already been identified as follow-on offenders, including multiple suicide bombers. Are you going to tell the families of the people that got blown up that, you're sorry, but the moral high ground dictates that we're not supposed to keep bad people in solitary confinement or out of the populace. Sorry 'bout that. This combatant-out-of-uniform wasn't read Miranda rights--oh, you don't know what that is?-- and so he must be innocent of all wrongdoing. Hope your boy has a nice funeral.

No, it seems as if you're saying that we try to not do the right thing and somehow it's our fault. I just happen to disagree.

 

[barfo]

48 of the "harmless" ones who were let go have already been identified as follow-on offenders, including multiple suicide bombers.

You know someone is badass when they become a serial suicide bomber.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You know someone is badass when they become a serial suicide bomber.

barfo

It's overkill, no one needs that many virgins.

 

[bluefrog]

So the moral high ground would've been what? To shoot them on the battlefield? Or when they're arrested? You're offering a lot of opinion without better answers.

Why are our only options shooting them or detaining them indefinitely in legal limbo? They should have been given a trial after they were captured in Afghanistan. Why go through all the effort of setting up a facility outside of any jurisdiction?

Where to put them, then? 48 of the "harmless" ones who were let go have already been identified as follow-on offenders, including multiple suicide bombers. Are you going to tell the families of the people that got blown up that, you're sorry, but the moral high ground dictates that we're not supposed to keep bad people in solitary confinement or out of the populace. Sorry 'bout that. This combatant-out-of-uniform wasn't read Miranda rights--oh, you don't know what that is?-- and so he must be innocent of all wrongdoing. Hope your boy has a nice funeral.

Nobody in their right mind believed then or now that there aren't people who want to do real harm to the U.S. (if they didn't before they were detained then they definitely want to now)

I think the terrorist controversy over Gitmo points out a big weakness in our legal system. Where do you draw the line between individual rights and the need to protect society? The law seems to be at one place while the World is making that line questionable. We should reach an accommodation which allows us to handle these criminals here in our country while not jeopardizing our ability to incarcerate them.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I guess that my point just comes from the side that there isn't (and to my limited knowledge, hasn't ever been) a way that we could ensure that the legal rights of a citizen of another country and the legal rights of that person if they were a US citizen would be sanctified on a battlefield or in a battle situation. Maybe there's precedent for doing so as part of an intel/CIA operation, which I grant some of these detainees were, but I just don't know.

My second question is: What rights does a citizen of Afghanistan shooting at me in Afghanistan while not state-sponsored or (even set apart through uniforms, badges, etc.) have? If we had turned that person over to Karzai he'd have been summarily executed, in accordance with whatever whim of a law they have over there. If we turn the Chinese ones over to China the reports are that China, even today, will summarily execute them according to their law. Why should a potentially bad guy get the benefit of getting a US set of rights when he's not entitled to any of them, not even as an "illegal immigrant"--by virtue that he's never stepped foot in the US. OTOH, what right does the Attorney General/judicial system have to try him? He's not a US citizen, and the alleged "crime" wasn't committed on US soil. This isn't even extradition-worthy, is it?

You can't constitutionally (again, to my limited knowledge) have uniformed members of the military rounding up people for judicial trials--at least in the US. Why do they have the responsibility to do so in some sandbox somewhere?

 

[PapaG]

Iraq-AQ link in 1998 discovered in Gitmo Leaks.

Funny how this one didn't make the NYT?

A former Guantanamo detainee “was identified as an Iraqi intelligence officer who relocated to Afghanistan (AF) in 1998 where he served as a senior Taliban Intelligence Directorate officer in Mazar-E-Sharif,” according to a recently leaked assessment written by American intelligence analysts. The former detainee, an Iraqi named Jawad Jabber Sadkhan, “admittedly forged official documents and reportedly provided liaison between the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Sadkhan’s al Qaeda ties reached all the way to Osama bin Laden, according to the intelligence assessment. He reportedly received money from Osama bin Laden both before and after the September 11 attacks

In Afghanistan, Sadkhan served under another Iraqi al Qaeda member: Abdul Hadi al Iraqi. According to the Gitmo analysts’ assessment, al Iraqi “identified [Sadkhan] in a letter as an Iraqi intelligence officer who relocated to Afghanistan where he was associated with Taliban and al-Qaida leadership.”

Abdul Hadi al Iraqi’s identification of Sadkhan is especially important. Al Iraqi was a major in Saddam Hussein’s military before relocating to Afghanistan, where he became one of Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants in the 1990s. Al Iraqi led al Qaeda’s elite Arab 055 Brigade, which fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In addition to being a top al Qaeda and Taliban military commander, al Iraqi was also involved in al Qaeda’s international operations. For example, al Iraqi met with two of the July 7, 2005 London bombers in northern Pakistan. Although the two had volunteered to fight against coalition forces in Afghanistan or Iraq, al Iraqi recognized their potential for committing attacks in the West and repurposed them for the 7/7 operation.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wikileaks-iraq-al-qaeda-connection-confirmed-again_558271.html

 

[maxiep]

Lesson: It sucks to fight against the US. The bottom line is we treat these fuckers better than they have any right to expect. As for the UN, you let me know when the countries throwing brickbats at us treat their citizens as well as we do. Say, is Iran still chairing the UN Human Rights Commission?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

we could always just take them to a secret prison and torture them with electrocution, rape, vicious beatings, amputation, etc, before the sweet release of death by beheading

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Iraq-AQ link in 1998 discovered in Gitmo Leaks.

Funny how this one didn't make the NYT?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wikileaks-iraq-al-qaeda-connection-confirmed-again_558271.html

Probably because it's a non-story. That's the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

dbl post

 

[DaLincolnJones]

we could always just take them to a secret prison and torture them with electrocution, rape, vicious beatings, amputation, etc, before the sweet release of death by beheading

No shit.

When those bastards are cutting of civilian workers heads on TV with dull knives...
Kidnapping, torturing and killing their own because of a difference in sects..
Their own leaders committing genocide enmass...
Bringing their terror to our shores..

Yeah..we are the bad guys..

 

[bluefrog]

When those bastards are cutting of civilian workers heads on TV with dull knives...
Kidnapping, torturing and killing their own because of a difference in sects..
Their own leaders committing genocide enmass...
Bringing their terror to our shores..

Yeah..we are the bad guys..

Who in this thread said "We are the bad guys"????

And who are "those bastards"? Iraqis? Afghanis? Saudi Arabians? Egyptians? Arabs? Muslims? Sunni? Shiite? Kurds? Taliban?

If you're using the Taliban as a measuring stick then you're setting the bar pretty low.

 

[Ed O]

The place should have been shut down a long time ago.

Agreed. Wikileaks sucks.

Ed O.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Who in this thread said "We are the bad guys"????

Well, you must believe that we are in the wrong, kind of makes us the "bad guys" in your opinion.

And who are "those bastards"? Iraqis? Afghanis? Saudi Arabians? Egyptians? Arabs? Muslims? Sunni? Shiite? Kurds? Taliban?

Fact is there are some of each in that place, the common thread that they share is religion.

If you're using the Taliban as a measuring stick then you're setting the bar pretty low.

Tailban is a symptom of a mindset, its the mind set that I abhor.

We should stop looking th treat these fuckers as though they were citizens of this country, no more kid gloves.

Apply the laws of their own country's, turn them into toast, and put the fear of god in the survivors by burying them with pigs

 

[bluefrog]

Agreed. Wikileaks sucks.

Ed O.

Careful what you say unless you want to face the fury of the "hacktivists"

 

[bluefrog]

Well, you must believe that we are in the wrong, kind of makes us the "bad guys" in your opinion.

C'mon, I don't put words in your mouth, please don't put any in mine. Criticizing Gitmo doesn't mean I think we are "bad guys". I know there are dangerous people there, I've stated that in this thread.

We should stop looking th treat these fuckers as though they were citizens of this country, no more kid gloves.

Apply the laws of their own country's, turn them into toast, and put the fear of god in the survivors by burying them with pigs

If we do that then we are no better than the Taliban. Do you want revenge or justice because you can't have both.

 

[Ed O]

Careful what you say unless you want to face the fury of the "hacktivists"

It would take anonymous about 13 seconds (combined) to know way, way too much about me

I still think that Wikileaks is bad. Illegally obtained information should not be able to be legally housed on the internet IMO, whether it's music or political paperwork.

Ed O.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

C'mon, I don't put words in your mouth, please don't put any in mine. Criticizing Gitmo doesn't mean I think we are "bad guys". I know there are dangerous people there, I've stated that in this thread.



If we do that then we are no better than the Taliban. Do you want revenge or justice because you can't have both.

Ok, you never said "bad guys", but your argument parrells Demo party lines, and has the feel of the same shit I have read and heard from the left.

I will make no bones about it. I want these guys gone or dead. If their own countries will not put them on trial and convict them, then we should execute anyone who we may again meet on the field of battle or have any fear that they may continue on their ways of terror.

This is a war. We should prosecute it as such. We had the balls to fire bomb Germany in WW2 to make sure that they would not want to start a new war. We dropped the atom bomb on Japan and they lost their will to wage war.

We need to have the same determination now that we had then. The mindset of limited war has been tryed and has failed, see VN, Look at what a mess we now have on our hands. We can not try and win their minds, we must break their will.

 

[Klinky]

I will make no bones about it. I want these guys gone or dead.

If their own countries will not put them on trial and convict them, then we should execute anyone who we may again meet on the field of battle or have any fear that they may continue on their ways of terror.

Glad you're all too happy to use the Geneva Convetion as toilet paper.

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

This is a war. We should prosecute it as such.

Sounds more like you want genocide than proper prosecution of enemy combatants or war criminals.

We had the balls to fire bomb Germany in WW2 to make sure that they would not want to start a new war. We dropped the atom bomb on Japan and they lost their will to wage war.

So when should we drop the bomb on Iraq & Afghanistan? I am sure everyone in those countries is guilty of crimes against our freedoms. Unless they're not...

We need to have the same determination now that we had then. The mindset of limited war has been tryed and has failed, see VN, Look at what a mess we now have on our hands. We can not try and win their minds, we must break their will.

Convert by the sword & rule with an iron fist. Smells like freedom.

 

[MARIS61]

I think people can cherry pick from these leaked documents and find what they want to see. One document mentioned in less left leaning sources yesterday talked about one of the detainees who implicated 123 of the other detainees.

You would too if you were imprisoned and tortured.

Means no more than me saying David Stern is 7 ft tall.