It’s difficult to know whether the United Nations’ scathing new report on the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba is accurate, or whether, as the White House claims, it is based on disinformation deliberately spread by terror groups. But this confusion is part of the problem.
Who really knows what is happening there? The U.N. investigation team wanted to go to Gitmo, but the United States refused to let it interview the prisoners — then criticized the investigators for writing a report based on secondhand information. Are the prisoners there really dangerous terrorists and important informants, or are they mostly foot soldiers who don’t pose a serious threat? How long will we hold them? Until the war on terror is over? Will it ever be over?
Unfortunately, the U.N. report, which calls on the United States to close the camp “without further delay,” hurts our nation’s standing as a human-rights champion. That, in and of itself, should cause the Bush administration to rethink whether the detention camp is doing our country more harm than good.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
48 Comments
Are you sure there are no instances in American history where we did NOT champion human rights? Are you sure foot soldiers of terrorist organizations don’t pose a serious threat to our country? What the hell do they train them for then? Delivering milk and newspapers to American households? The 9/11 hi-jackers are considered “foot-soldiers” or the guys who carry out / execute the mission, different from the intel guys who posed as hot-dog vendors in downtown Manhattan taking pictures of the trade center and providing the logisitcs to those benign “foot-soldiers” that you talk about. So are foot soldiers dangerous? They were the ones who took 3 747s and crashed 2 of em into the WTC leaving a smoking smoldering hole in the ground for months. (I can still remember the dust in the air, and you could see the billowing smoke from Trenton!) So in answer to YOUR questions:How long will we hold them?As long as it takes, then kill em.Until the war on terror is over?If needs be.Will it ever be over?most definitely not, but I don’t have a moral crisis killin terrorists.Finally, who gives a shit what the U.N. thinks or does? All they do is make political debates all day in their headquarters in New York. True, they send aid to needy countries, but the U.N. as a peacekeeping force is ridiculous! They can’t even protect their own damn soldiers much less protect the citizens of other countries! Just look at what went down in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans.
“foot soldiers who don’t pose a serious threat..”
Get off the crack! It was your so-called “foot soldiers” who flew planes into NY, DC and PA.
It was “foot soldiers” who blew up the USS Cole.
It was “foot soldiers” who blew up not ONE but TWO embassys in Africa…
NEED I GO ON???
Get a grip.. WE ARE AT WAR and you don’t return “foot soldiers” to the battlefield.
Keep them there.
Here in the US, they would be set free in a couple of weeks.
“foot soldiers”. Interesting term. Is that another term for suicide bombers? Murderers? Rabidly fanatical killers?
Keeping them in Gitmo keeps them from killing more Americans. But, what does the UN care..after all, Americans are only good for providing free rent and paying over 2/3rds of the cost of the UN.
“We don’t know what is happening there.”
We know enough if we know (as we know) that prisoners are kept for years charged with no crime and never brought to trial.
If the Bush administration has good reason to hold them, then let’s hear it in open court.
If they don’t, then re-patriate them to their home country.
Holding people for years without trial is punishment without trial.
That’s what we rightly criticise OTHER countries for . . .
“Keeping them in Gitmo keeps them from killing more Americans.”
And you base that statement on what, Raptor?
THE TRIAL EVIDENCE?
Oh, no, I guess not, because these men were never brought to trial. They weren’t even charged with a crime.
Somebody (we don’t know who) believe that they (we don’t know who) posed a threat (we don’t know what) and we are just supposed to say, okay?
You make a good little Nazi, Raptor.
So, anyone disagreeing with you is a Nazi?
Maybe my earlier comment was an assertion, or (God Forbid) an OPINION, but it does not deserve your slanderous labelling.
Proudlib,
These people were captured on the battle field as enemy combatants and terrorists.
Please stop pretending like they were innocent people who just happened to get snatched up by evil Bush.
NATHAN,
If they are guilty of the crimes you say, then CHARGE THEM.
Why is it so much easier to capture the Carr Brothers, try them, and execute them than it is to do the same to these “clearly guilty war criminals”?
Raptor–
You don’t believe in the Constitution of the United States, the part about a fair and speedy trial, the part about being able to confront your accusers.
It’s not a slander. It’s a logical conclusion based on your disregard for the legal foundation this country was built upon.
That’s why you’re a Nazi.
Here is a thought…haven’t POW’s been held in captivity WHILE THE WAR IS GOING ON???
Seems to me that is how things have been going for the last few hundred years.
Course, we didn’t have PL around to tell us how to operate things then.
When I saw this BLOG I immediately went and got out my ‘Club Gitmo’ t-shirt!
The Geneva Convention allows field commanders to summarily execute the human debris we have locked up at club Gitmo. Instead we treat them with dignity and let them live.
50 years ago they would be dead and good ridance!
Hank
PL, please point out to me where in the Constitution the RIGHT to a speedy trial is afforded Prisoners of War?
Where is it written that POW’s are afforded all the RIGHTS afforded citizens of this country?
Please illustrate for me which section applies to enemies captured DURING A WAR?
Wring your hands all you want about their RIGHTS…when they are PRISONERS OF WAR. They are not citizens of the US, and as such are not afforded the rights of the US Constitution.
By the way, I can disagree with you without name calling, disparaging your ancestry, or resorting to insults. Would be amazing if you were capable of the same…
Rapt,I do recall something about all men being endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. It didn’t say just American citizens were!
You got it, Jed. A line from the Declaration of Independence.
Now, please find me the section that gives fulls rights of citizenship to enemy prisoners.
The Constitution of the United States is not the Constitution of the entire World. You can’t apply American constitutional law to other countries who have their own drafted constitutions. Consequently the reverse is also true. To do so would infringe on our national sovereignty as well as theirs, respectively.
Do you know the difference between war time actions and domestic law enforcement actions Proudlib?
PLHaving sworn an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” while in uniform and trained to fight for my country suggests that I do believe in the Constitution.
Your insulting and childish slander is inexcusable.
I wonder if this would be a good time to point out that prisoners at Gitmo aren’t classified as “prisoners of war”? Also, many of the prisoners were NOT captured on the battlefield. A lot of them were picked up in security sweeps. They simply had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And Hank,”50 years ago they would be dead and good ridance!”
Tuck in your shirttail, old man. Your cruel streak is showing.
Well, then, anon…since they are harmless and obviously not any threat, are you going to invite them to your home?
If POWs they are covered by Geneva. Otherwise by other International Law.
Back in the 1940s America interned thousands of Citizens of japanese descent and turned over their property to certain corporations. That was a stain on our history. I fear we are repeating that mistake.
Ben…vast difference. Those were American citizens who had the misfortune of having Japanese ancestors.
The people detained in Guantanamo were taken into custody during military actions. It is not their ancestry that is the basis of their incarceration. It is their actions.
Granted, some people here seem to think that the US Military has nothing better to do that sweep up innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever and incarcerate them.
If that were the case, it would be a lot easier to round up Arab Americans in this country and jail them en masse…without having to go to Irag.
Ben Huie,
Good call coconut, we are today at war with islam yet thanks to our treasonous government we continue to allow Saudis and other filth to come to America on student and tourist visas! Third worlders are a national security threat and they should all be deported!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Raptor,”Well, then, anon…since they are harmless and obviously not any threat, are you going to invite them to your home?”And how did you leap to that conclusion?I don’t particularly like Arabs, so I doubt if I’d “invite them to my home”.But that doesn’t change the fact that they weren’t all captured on the battlefield. I think we need to do something besides hold them in perpetuity (at taxpayer expense). Either give them a fair trial, put them before a tribunal, or turn them loose. (I submit the tribunal idea because I know you neoconservatives are averse to fair trials)
And of course there’s nothing like this little gem to put the lie to Nathan’s obvious lie:”These people were captured on the battle field as enemy combatants and terrorists.”
“only 11% of the Guantanamo prisoners were captured on the battlefield by coalition forces. A full two-thirds of them were rounded up in Pakistan and turned over to the United States, likely in response to flyers like this distributed by the United States:
Get wealth and power beyond your dreams….You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.”
http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
Nathan, get a life. Try reading something besides old Rush transcripts.
More role reversal, we used to be the country that tried to pressure other oppressive regimes to observe human rights. Now we’re on the receiving end. In Bush’s post 9/11 world, we’ve fallen through the looking glass.
Nathan says,”The people detained in Guantanamo were taken into custody during military actions. It is not their ancestry that is the basis of their incarceration. It is their actions.”
Anon writes back, “only 11% of the Guantanamo prisoners were captured on the battlefield by coalition forces. A full two-thirds of them were rounded up in Pakistan and turned over to the United States . . .”
Yup, nice find, Anon.
*****
And isn’t it conVEENient that “time of war” covers everything BushCo wants to do to whomever they want to do it to?
When Tim McVey and James Nichols blew up the Federal Building in Ok City, we didn’t declare “war” on red-necked skin-heads, did we?
We’ve been fighting a “war on drugs” for about three decades now and that doesn’t give us the right to lock people up without trial forever.
When we fought the “cold war” from 1945-1988 or so, we didn’t just round up “communists” and throw them into prison, did we?
We’ve got an undeclared “war” on a shadowy enemy that includes anyone BushCo. wants to call “enemy.”
Despite the “war on terror,” the people in Guantanamo are not considered POW’s and afforded none of the rights of POW’s.
As for Hank’s contention that 50 years ago we would have just shot them is so ignorant it hardly needs a response. But you should ask the Americans who were Nazi prisoners if they should have just been shot?
I’m betting they’ll say “no.”
But Hank wants us to be more ruthless than the Nazis.
Nice . . .
Lastly, there’s Raptor’s belief that since he served in the military, he can be judge and jury to prisoners held illegally in Cuba. For your service, I thank you.
However, had you been captured by whoever we were at war with while you were in the service, using your logic, they should have just thrown you in hole and forgot about you, since you were a potential threat.
So I regret that I called you a Nazi. Not even the Nazis did that on a regular basis to American combatents.
Thanks PL,Just trying to do my part.Raptor claims military experience. I wonder if he was ever shot at? I know it doesn’t really matter, but I notice that people who have been in wars tend to have a different kind of view about war. It doesn’t really take long to get your fill of carnage when you have to live in it for a while. Still, I notice the biggest supporters of the war are the ones who have been shot at the least (think chickenhawk).
But you should ask the Americans who were Nazi prisoners if they should have just been shot?
Are you talking about Americans that were captured during operation Overlord? Well I hate to be the one to break this to ya, but all American prisoners were shot even though they surrendered to the Wermacht. It was only later discovered 5 years or so after the war that the Pentagon found out about it. Under Field Marshal Guerring’s orders no less. Pity he swallowed that cyanide tablet, It would have been better had they strung him up like his contemoraries.
So X, is that an arguement that we should be more like the Nazis? Wouldn’t that kind of defeat the purpose of the whole exercise? I remember a time when we were a country that nailed other countries for human-rights abuse. Funny how quick things change under a republican administration.
The other X
XXX,
I was just informing him of the facts man. I don’t want anyone being like the Nazis. Bunch o marrionettes they were.
“But Hank wants us to be more ruthless than the Nazis.”
I read the other day that South Africa now has a better internationl human rights record than the u.s. Some here are proud that we could be more ruthless than nazis and more oppressive than south africa. I guess bush really is your hero.
I can hear you chanting “we’re number 1″ as you march all those “other” people to their deaths while everyone left behind is too scared to speak. A bushies dream, no?
I don’t know the significance, but no, I was not in combat. I was assigned to Germany with the US Army for 3 years (when there was still and East/West Germany). I went where ordered and did as ordered.
I never once claimed that military service entitles me to a superior opinion on anything except that I swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States in service to my country. I only brought that up after being accused of not believing in and/or supporting the Constitution in an untrue, inflammatory and personal attack because I didn’t agree with someone.
Gosh raptor, righties seem to have no problem signing something and then disagreeing with it later. Even bush, after taking a similar service oath, has been said to call the constitution a “god damn piece of paper. You fit right in if you agree that this imperial presidency is above the law.
Good enough, Raptor. We all can’t be “fortunate” enough to have served during a war. You have my respect for serving in the Armed Forces, even in peacetime. My point isn’t to denegrate your service, just to point out that people who have fought in a war tend to be a little more circumspect about going to war. The chickenhawk comment wasn’t aimed at you personally.
Grrl…
Did I wrong you in some previous life that you continually and personally attack me?
My comments about swearing an oath was in response to being called a constitution hating Nazi.
Do you hate everything?
raptor, I dont believe in past lives or life after death.:)
You have posted some pretty caustic comments yourself, and many of them directed at me or my posts. But it is ok, I dont take it personally, it is just part of the blogosphere. I am sorry if you take my posts personally.
I disagree with much of what you say, and as you point out, disagreement is not a problem. We all have our opinions. I dont mean to hurt your feelings raptor, you are just so much fun to poke!
PS–Usually my barbs get sharper when people start to whine about the delivery, not the content.
Fair ’nuff and thanks for the reply. I just take umbrage at being called a Nazi and will fight that one big time.
Yeah…we disagree. On just about everything it seems.
On the Gitmo thing…it might be a mistake. It might not be…after all, the enemy doesn’t wear uniforms in this war. They don’t have definitive battle lines, and they kill indiscriminately. Anyone want to volunteer to house them? Not me…
Gitmo is symptomatic of what threatens the very core values of American justice, and were it not for the “phony war on terrorism,” it could not find refuge in civilized behaviour.
“ou fit right in if you agree that this imperial presidency is above the law.”
First it is not an imperial presidency.
Second, I don’t know of anyone on the right that thinks they are above the law.
“the enemy doesn’t wear uniforms in this war. They don’t have definitive battle lines, and they kill indiscriminately. Anyone want to volunteer to house them? Not me…”
See, this is what drives me crazy about this discussion–it’s a perfect example of “begging the question.”
The question is, “why are these people being held without trial at Gitmo?”
Bush Co says, because they’re enemy combatants.
And the legal system says, “prove that they’re enemy combatants.”
And Bush Co says, “we know they’re enemy combatants because they’re being held at Gitmo.”
Instead of proving the conclusion, they use the conclusion to prove the conclusion.
Consider John Walker Lindh. This inDUHvidual went to Afghanistan, joined Al Qaeda, and ended up with a rifle in his hands shooting at US soldiers.
He was caught, tried, found guilty. I would have no problem having that man executed. But for whatever reason, he is serving life in prison.
That’s how it works. Capture them, charge them, try them, and convict them.
If you can’t do that, you got nothing. You’ve got feudalism. You’ve got Bloody Mary (Mary I, died in 1558) conveying Protestants to the Tower to be burnt alive in front a jeering throng and their skulls piked on the London Bridge.
Law is what keeps us from barbarism.
Well I’ll be damned proudlib.
“You’ve got Bloody Mary (Mary I, died in 1558) conveying Protestants to the Tower to be burnt alive in front a jeering throng and their skulls piked on the London Bridge.”
I had no idea that was where we got the liberal athiest tradition of ritualisticly drinking bloody marys at sunday brunch. Who knew?
“John Walker Lindh . . . is serving life in prison.”
Actually, he is serving a 20 year sentence in Federal Prison.
A home-grown terrorist gets 20 years in club Fed for treason, TREASON!!!But we give a reformed ex-gang member who wrote children’s books telling them to stay off drugs and to stay away from gangs LETHAL INJECTION!!!
Tell me, is that “equal justice under the law” to you!?
Lindh didnt kill anyone and he joined the Taliban well before 9/11 and the subsequent conflict. Tookie killed four people in cold blood and should have been lynched immediately!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Keep sleeping with Osama and Ahmadinejad and keep worshipping Hitler! You anti-American Nazi closet-self-hating Cuban fascist pig!
Why do you even bother talking to ian?
I mean really, just ignore the guy.
If you are that bored for conversation I know some people who you could have much more fun talking to :)
Okay, DD, thanks for correction.