TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Guantanamo Bay inquiry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Guantanamo Bay inquiry

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
Has anybody read the FBI's report? http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/guantanamo.htm Part 1 is a summary, Part 2 copies of the actual reports.
IMO, Gitmo is an abomination. The people being held there haven't been indicted, or convicted of terrorism. They are suspects. Many who were held for years have been released. Are they going to receive any compensation? How can the U.S. government do this? Why have abuses been allowed?
post #2 of 23
I haven't read the report and without doing so I'm going to go ahead and give my opinion on Gitmo. Short and to the point.

I have no problem with Gitmo being used to hold convicted terrorists and known terrorists awaiting trial. That said, they need to weed out who the terrorists are and let the ones who were captured that were caught up in the fighting go. The answer probably isn't that cut and dry because terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. I'm not sure if the "soldiers" in the Taliban are but any captured soldiers from the Iraqi Army under Saddam would be protected by the Convention. I guess I really don't have an answer to any of your questions.

Bryan
post #3 of 23
its called war. and last i looked the fighting was still going on.
post #4 of 23
I only have two words re Guantanamo Bay. David Hicks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98
its called war. and last i looked the fighting was still going on.
That doesn't mean that it's ok to break the law. `War' doesn't mean `free license to do whatever you want'. Even though it is war there are still international civil and humanitarian laws that should be adhered to.

Do you have the same attitude about the holocaust? (I only ask because you brought that up in a different thread). Over six million innocent people killed because the last Hitler looked, well, the fighting was still going on. Yep, that makes sense! It was a war, after all.
post #5 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
I only have two words re Guantanamo Bay. David Hicks.



That doesn't mean that it's ok to break the law. `War' doesn't mean `free license to do whatever you want'. Even though it is war there are still international civil and humanitarian laws that should be adhered to.

Do you have the same attitude about the holocaust? (I only ask because you brought that up in a different thread). Over six million innocent people killed because the last Hitler looked, well, the fighting was still going on. Yep, that makes sense! It was a war, after all.
different i am to busy to link stuff. But i dont see big gas chambers being stuff full of arabs do you? Do you see lines and lines of men women and childen naked and lined up waiting for there "final solution" has there been a increase in orders for zyklon b? Where is the western version of mengele? Are dwarfs and twins being subjected to medical experiments? are prisoners be used n high altitude and freezing test? if you do please link the pics or the facts. you cant compare that to the forced labor camps of Nazi germany. Dont even try.

The only rights they have is A) not to be shot hung etc. B) food and housing C) medical care D) and not be mistreated.(granted some of that part has been broken) and needs to be fixed.

Am i saying all is perfect, No way. i dont agree with some ways they are treated. Nor do i agree with people being turned over to countries where they may be abused. And i have written my congress people etc about that. until there is no more wars, or the only wars we fight are in video games, it will never be pretty or fair.

I brought that up in different thread due to the number of people who keep saying and doing the campare thing. Also the people that died during the holocaust where not enemy combants. they were people who did not match hilters idea of racial purity.jews, gypsy(spelling i know), and several other groups.
post #6 of 23
No they weren't enemy combatants - which makes it even worse obviously!

I'm glad you explained further, because your feelings certainly didn't come out clearly in your original post!

The thing is, many MANY of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay aren't enemy combatants, either. Many of them have been detained for years without any kind of charge, simply on suspicion alone, and they're most certainly not all Arabs (not that that would make any difference to me - not all Arabs deserve to be thrown in prison!)

I wasn't comparing the holocaust with that prison, either, actually. I used it as an example more to point out that what you said about `It's called war' could apply to ALL wars if that's the only argument you're going to use. Prisoners are taken in all wars, yes, but most of the prisoners in Gitmo don't have anything to do with the war. David Hicks again being an example of that.

A large proportion of the prisoners at Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan. Nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Actually, the vast majority of prisoners there have nothing to do with this war. That's why I found your first comment strange.
post #7 of 23
Do you think we're not at war in Afghanistan? That the Taliban isn't trying to regain control of the region? That Afghanistan wasn't directly linked to 9/11 and the actions supported by the majority of the world? It isn't being reported by the media. I guess they would rather focus on the action that is less popular and add fuel to that fire. But it is still ongoing, there are still casualties happening, and the Taliban is definitely trying to regain control.
post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Do you think we're not at war in Afghanistan? That the Taliban isn't trying to regain control of the region? That Afghanistan wasn't directly linked to 9/11 and the actions supported by the majority of the world? It isn't being reported by the media. I guess they would rather focus on the action that is less popular and add fuel to that fire. But it is still ongoing, there are still casualties happening, and the Taliban is definitely trying to regain control.
Our Canadian troops (Peacekeepers) in Afghanistan certainly must suspect there is a war going on since a number of them have been killed.

Unfortunately, us lower folks on the totem poles don't know half of what really goes on and our newspapers and media reports are half BS and the other half speculation on some eager newshounds part.

I think if we knew what was really happening it would scare the pants off most of us.

Terrorism is alive and well and I for one applaud anyone strong enough to take a stand and not give in to these terrorists. I can't help but wonder what circumstances brought them to Gauntanemo (sp) Bay in the first place. Were they just standing around minding their own business and the US forces grabbed them for no reason and put them there? This reminds me of all the prisoners in our systems that vow they are innocent. Right!
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite
Our Canadian troops (Peacekeepers) in Afghanistan certainly must suspect there is a war going on since a number of them have been killed.
From talking to vets that were in Afghanistan they say that it's just as bad/dangerous there as it is in Iraq but it doesn't get anywhere near the media attention because Iraq is the bigger stage.
post #10 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
From talking to vets that were in Afghanistan they say that it's just as bad/dangerous there as it is in Iraq but it doesn't get anywhere near the media attention because Iraq is the bigger stage.
That's right. We had a GI (fighting in Afghanistan) staying with us just before Christmas, and he was rather upset about the lack of media/public attention to what's going on there.
post #11 of 23
I'm afraid that Guantanamo Bay is another 13th hour result of an administration that had no idea what they were getting into. The Taliban was going to come out fighting and fight to the death, or so they thought. I don't believe that any consideration was given in prior planning to even having prisoners.

I still keep in touch with 2 guys that were with me in Beirut in '83, and we were all aboard for this war, buying into the hype. But them Rumsfeld made his "greet us with flowers" remark, and we were all "huh??? Persians and Arabs greeting a foreign army with flowers?? Oh, man, this guy ain't got a clue!!"

It was that moment that we started thinking that this might not be a good idea afterall. They don't do parades and flowers there, they go dig up the rifle they'd been hiding and say "lets go get some payback!"

Just life in the desert.
post #12 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I'm afraid that Guantanamo Bay is another 13th hour result of an administration that had no idea what they were getting into. The Taliban was going to come out fighting and fight to the death, or so they thought. I don't believe that any consideration was given in prior planning to even having prisoners.

I still keep in touch with 2 guys that were with me in Beirut in '83, and we were all aboard for this war, buying into the hype. But them Rumsfeld made his "greet us with flowers" remark, and we were all "huh??? Persians and Arabs greeting a foreign army with flowers?? Oh, man, this guy ain't got a clue!!"

It was that moment that we started thinking that this might not be a good idea afterall. They don't do parades and flowers there, they go dig up the rifle they'd been hiding and say "lets go get some payback!"

Just life in the desert.
I believe things would be going better in Afghanistan (and things would be moving faster in Gitmo) if the Administration had concentrated on really routing the Taliban there, preventing their return, and reconstructing the country, instead of spreading our forces too thin by invading Iraq.
It was very ill-advised. I live in Germany, and I know there are thousands of German troops in Afghanistan, but the German government views their job as helping to reconstruct northern Afghanistan, not fighting Taliban in the south. So the UK and Canada are suffering more losses than necessary. Why didn't the Bush Administration anticipate that problem? Why couldn't it concentrate on Afghanistan, which obviously was a real threat to the U.S., unlike Saddam?
Why has it left the U.S. open to accusations of human rights' abuses in Guantanamo?
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
I believe things would be going better in Afghanistan (and things would be moving faster in Gitmo) if the Administration had concentrated on really routing the Taliban there, preventing their return, and reconstructing the country, instead of spreading our forces too thin by invading Iraq.
It was very ill-advised. I live in Germany, and I know there are thousands of German troops in Afghanistan, but the German government views their job as helping to reconstruct northern Afghanistan, not fighting Taliban in the south. So the UK and Canada are suffering more losses than necessary. Why didn't the Bush Administration anticipate that problem? Why couldn't it concentrate on Afghanistan, which obviously was a real threat to the U.S., unlike Saddam?
Why has it left the U.S. open to accusations of human rights' abuses in Guantanamo?
It kind of goes back to my post...I don't believe that the Bush administration did a very good job of anticipating anything, and had very little understanding of the people that were fighting, and even less understanding of the people they are "liberating" in Iraq. The soldiers understand, but apparently Bush isn't giving their input any more consideration than he is the American people's.
post #14 of 23
I don't have any problems with the people being held at Gitmo.
I feel the vast majority are most definitely terrorists or would-be terrorists.
post #15 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I don't have any problems with the people being held at Gitmo.
I feel the vast majority are most definitely terrorists or would-be terrorists.
Then why have many been released, often after years, without charges being brought against them? Is it "okay" to mistreat "would-be" terrorists, some of whom were teenagers (one was just 14!) when captured?
How can you hope to spread the idea of democracy, due process, and human rights by setting such a bad example? It has gone beyond rumors of abuse, or accusations made by NGOs - these reports were made by FBI personnel.
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
or would-be terrorists.
I have got to say, that particular line causes me some anticipation. Locking people away based on "would be's" is setting a VERY dangerous precedent. Everyone on the planet can be considered a "would be" drug addict. Anyone that owns a sporting shotgun and a hacksaw has a "would be" sawed off shotgun. Anyone that visits the al jazeera website could be considered a "would be" traitor. Anyone that uses grow-lights for their tomatoes are "would be" marijuana cultivators. Anyone that owns an airplane or powerboat are "would be" smugglers. Let us stick to Black's Law dictionary and rules of evidence.
post #17 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I have got to say, that particular line causes me some anticipation. Locking people away based on "would be's" is setting a VERY dangerous precedent. Everyone on the planet can be considered a "would be" drug addict. Anyone that owns a sporting shotgun and a hacksaw has a "would be" sawed off shotgun. Anyone that visits the al jazeera website could be considered a "would be" traitor. Anyone that uses grow-lights for their tomatoes are "would be" marijuana cultivators. Anyone that owns an airplane or powerboat are "would be" smugglers. Let us stick to Black's Law dictionary and rules of evidence.
I'm not very good at expressing myself, but that's what I wish I'd said!
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Then why have many been released, often after years, without charges being brought against them? Is it "okay" to mistreat "would-be" terrorists, some of whom were teenagers (one was just 14!) when captured? How can you hope to spread the idea of democracy, due process, and human rights by setting such a bad example? It has gone beyond rumors of abuse, or accusations made by NGOs - these reports were made by FBI personnel.


I can understand wanting to protect your country in wartime, but putting people who might not even be guilty in prison, without evidence, without a trial, without due process or access to lawyers, or acknowledging their rights is just wrong. Imagine the horror of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or knowing the wrong people, or accessing the wrong website, and ending up in what seems to me to be essentially an oubliette and the only reason you're there is because you "might" be a terrorist. Not because you are a terrorist, but because you fit a certain pre-determined criteria that says you could be a terrorist.

I don't understand the mentality that says it's okay to do these things because your country is at war and because you need to protect yourselves. I love my country and I love being a Canadian, but if our government suddenly decided that the only way we could be "safe" would be to systematically strip away our civil liberties and imprison innocent people, I would feel my patriotism begin to diminish rather drastically. It's not okay because you're at war: you're at war to protect the very things you're stripping away from those you've imprisoned.
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
I don't have any problems with the people being held at Gitmo.
I feel the vast majority are most definitely terrorists or would-be terrorists.
Good Lord! YOU could be a `would-be' terrorist! I hope you don't have any objections to staying at Gitmo for four or five years, just to keep you out of the way of any `would-be' plots you might be hatching, you know, at least until we know for sure.

I hope they don't start looking for possible suspects at our local primary schools. All those toy guns the kids play with, well, you can never be too certain where the real ones might be...
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I feel the vast majority are most definitely terrorists or would-be terrorists.
What scares me about the use of "would-be terrorists" is the current administrations statements around: you are either with us or against us. That makes just about anyone that disagrees with the current administrations policies a "would-be terrorist".

Gitmo is all about racial profiling and an adomination to the founding principles of the United States.
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
Good Lord! YOU could be a `would-be' terrorist! I hope you don't have any objections to staying at Gitmo for four or five years, just to keep you out of the way of any `would-be' plots you might be hatching, you know, at least until we know for sure.

I hope they don't start looking for possible suspects at our local primary schools. All those toy guns the kids play with, well, you can never be too certain where the real ones might be...
Perhaps I'm naive, but I honestly don't believe the authorities (police, FBI, Home Security, etc.) go out and pick INNOCENT people off the streets and put them in detention. I believe they must have leads or some such information to warrant picking those people up.

It astounds me that folks cry foul so easily. One instance I can think of off the top of my head is that a few years ago in the Toronto area a young girl was hit by a bullet by the police during a high speed chase in a stolen car. There was a real outcry against the police. My first thought however, was "what was this apparently INNOCENT person doing in a stolen car in the first place?". I've been out and about on the streets of Toronto, at parties that have been "visited" by the police and I have never been treated with anything but respect. Of course, perhaps the fact that I treated them with respect also may have had something to do with the way I was treated.

So, as I say in my naivete, I cannot believe that truly innocent people are being picked up and put away. I will concede that there have been mistakes in the penal system and some folks have been put away for crimes they did not commit. But that brings me back to example above - if they weren't already known to the police for other wrongdoings, would they have been picked up and accused of the crime in the first place?
post #22 of 23
Hey, that is why it is called, IMO.

I have to say I am not against racial profiling.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Hey, that is why it is called, IMO.

I have to say I am not against racial profiling.
Well, why don't you pop on down to Gitmo with your resume? I'm sure there are always positions open for like-minded people
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Guantanamo Bay inquiry