Article

2003-06-17 Terror Networks

Inmates Released from GuantÃ¡namo Tell Tales of Despair

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tu3031 2003-06-17 04:27 pm|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I saw this little bit of ~~journalistic~~ propagandistic writing early this AM. The only thing they did not include was:

1-800-WAHWAAH for a supporting sympathetic recorded message for GITMO vets.

Posted by Alaska Paul 6/17/2003 5:35:24 PM|| 6/17/2003 5:35:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 God Almighty WTF?! The NYT just can't help themselves. Every week they just keep diggin' themselves deeper - but this is so far over the line. Violent, gut wrenching nausea is the only rational reaction to this load of crap. This is not reporting, therefore it is not news. It is aid and comfort to the enemy and Pinchy & Co. should be brought up on charges then thrown the mercies (or lack thereof) of surviving family members of Afghanistan, 9/11 and all the previous Islamofascist assaults on our sovereignty

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-06-17 17:17:14|| 2003-06-17 17:17:14|| Front Page Top

#3 I saw this little bit of ~~journalistic~~ propagandistic writing early this AM. The only thing they did not include was:

1-800-WAHWAAH for a supporting sympathetic recorded message for GITMO vets.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-06-17 17:35:24|| 2003-06-17 17:35:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Man I really feel sorry for those Islamo-bastards in gitmo. It could have been worse, we could have hired NOW as guards!

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) 2003-06-17 18:20:37|| 2003-06-17 18:20:37|| Front Page Top

#5 "...before being released without charges"

Ok, am I the only one who seems a bit puzzled? Obviously these people weren't terrorists or they would not have been released, right? And from what I read some people should really not have been sent to Guantanamo in the first place. I said some, ok?

But those who clearly had no connection with terrorism, shouldn't they get some compensation for 18 months in a box? What's so wrong about that?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-17 18:37:30|| 2003-06-17 18:37:30|| Front Page Top

#6 TGA: I'm good for a buck, how about you? You disgusting piece of euro-trash.

Posted by kelly 2003-06-17 19:06:34|| 2003-06-17 19:06:34|| Front Page Top

#7 TGA: This is off-topic, but do you happen to know the names of those four German soldiers who died in Afghanistan last week? I want to remember them.

Posted by Matt 2003-06-17 19:49:55|| 2003-06-17 19:49:55|| Front Page Top

#8 TGA, I think the Gitmo detainees deserve to be there because otherwise they would not be there in the first place. (the flip-side of your contention; your mistrust of the US is showing)
Just because they were released without charges doesn't mean they did not deserve to be there. There could be other considerations in releasing someone, ie, too much expense for too little a fish. And if some were tried and convicted, they would be let go anyway because of the amount of time they were detained.

Posted by RW 2003-06-17 20:30:59|| 2003-06-17 20:30:59|| Front Page Top

#9 Matt, I'm not sure but only one name has been released: Andrejas Beljio. Can't find the names of the others, it's likely that their families didn't want the public attention. Thanks for asking anyway.

RW, please don't get me wrong here: I'm not asking for compensation for anyone even losely affiliated with terrorists. I don't know why these people were released without charges: Could be the "little fish" thing, but with thousands of inmates don't you think that some plain errors occurred, too? A mix up of names? Or some enemies of the guy who told the U.S. that he was Al Qaeda to get rid of him? (I was told that these cases happened). Do you believe in infallibility? Let's assume that there were a few guys sent home because the U.S. found out that they didn't have anything to to with terror? That this Ali Baba was not the Ali Baba they were looking for? In that case, do you think compensation is o.k.? Or just tell the guy, tough luck? I can understand every security concern about Gitmo, but this doesn't mean that errors can't be corrected.
If Gitmo wasn't shrouded in such secrecy I would probably not have asked. This isn't about "mistrust" of the U.S.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-17 20:59:42|| 2003-06-17 20:59:42|| Front Page Top

#10 The US sent to gitmo all AQ captured in Afghan. They are not all active terrorists - they ARE all illegal combatants - its a mistake to think of them as uncharged criminals - rather they are like POWS, but since they were not legal combatants under Geneva, they do not have rights as POW's. Some among them are terrorists. Those who are deemed not to be may well be released early if holding them deemed not of any use. Where there have been mixups the US has released individuals at the behest of the Afghan govt. Article does not state that these were among them.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2003-06-17 21:05:55|| 2003-06-17 21:05:55|| Front Page Top

#11 Where I'm concerned mistrust of *any* country's government is a very good thing to have. So saying to someone that his mistrust of the US is showing, would get from me the response "Good.". As would mistrust of UK, or of France, or of the Greek government.

What I see here is people that are not being tried for the crimes they committed/are accused of. This may be too simplistic a viewpoint, but there you go.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-17 21:21:38|| 2003-06-17 21:21:38|| Front Page Top

#12 What exactly is a "illegal combatant"? I mean, this term didn't exist before Afghanistan. Is there a clear legal definition for it. Is this a new phenomenon or has this existed before (and was just named and treated differently)? Why can a mass murderer have a legal status and "illegal combatants" can not? (They might not even have killed anyone). I do understand the security thing but does this exclude legal status and certain rights?
Again, I think with "terrorists" it's clear. But the term "illegal combatant" is a very foggy one. Would an Afghan peasant qualify who took arms against American "invaders" (in his view they are) just because he didn't have a uniform?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-17 21:27:04|| 2003-06-17 21:27:04|| Front Page Top

#13 Aris, you sure you're not an American? I agree with you on the trust thing. Hence the mistrust of Old Europe by the Americans, and the whole ICC thing. What goes around, comes around.

Posted by RW 2003-06-17 21:34:29|| 2003-06-17 21:34:29|| Front Page Top

#14 do you think compensation is o.k.?

Every time a teacher asked me something I didn't know the answer to, I would say "can I have some time to think about that please?"
I realize this is treading on your territory TGA and so I should be careful not to step on a landmine :)

Posted by RW 2003-06-17 21:39:56|| 2003-06-17 21:39:56|| Front Page Top

#15 TGA, ARIS: Refer to the Geneva Convention (you know, adapted after the last time we freed Europe)and treatment of lawful combatants (i.e. 'distinctive sign' refered to in this link.)http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Posted by kelly 2003-06-17 21:44:59|| 2003-06-17 21:44:59|| Front Page Top

#16 The Geneva Convention (of 1949) has this:

Article 5
"The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Which "competent tribunal" has determined the status? The Pentagon? The President?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-17 21:46:33|| 2003-06-17 21:46:33|| Front Page Top

#17 Lucky they all weren't shot. Maybe Achmed forgot about that angle.

Posted by Raj 2003-06-17 23:08:27|| [angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2003-06-17 23:08:27|| Front Page Top

#18 All due respect TGA, but you are selective in your quoting of the GC. The convention places requirements on those who want to be covered by the convention. Wearing of uniforms, identifiable command structure, etc. Pirates [and they do still exist - check the maritime reporting sites] by the nature of their actions disqualify themselves from coverage and protection of the GC. They lack legitimate standing. Likewise, AQ does not represent a sovereign govenment, they do not wear uniforms or designation as called for, and do not conduct themselves in accordence with the GC. Ergo, they constitute illegal combatants if captured on the battlefield. Of course, caught out of uniform, on a battlefield and armed, these individuals could be shot summarily, as AQ shot a couple of our troops summarily on the battlefield in Afghanistan [even though they did conform to the GC requirements for military personnel]. Or have we forgot that incident already?

As to competent tribunal, as custodians of these illegal combatants, we act in accordance with our Constitution which in Article 1 proscribes that Congress shall make all laws governing land and naval forces. The tribunals are convened and conducted under Title 10 United States Code as instituted by Congressional authority. The executive branch, the President and the military officers appointed by Congress under him, simply carry out that law.

Posted by Don 2003-06-17 23:30:33|| 2003-06-17 23:30:33|| Front Page Top

#19 Found it:
The Guantanamo Thirteen
Packing on the pounds at America's toughest prison.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2083612/

Must've been hell. Were they pissed they didn't have butlers?

Posted by tu3031 2003-06-17 23:35:25|| 2003-06-17 23:35:25|| Front Page Top

#20 Don, pirates have a legal status... they are criminals. AQ are terrorists and criminals.
Just the idea of an "illegal combattant" is foggy to me. Because it's a new term. And I'm just trying to relate it to something I know: Do they compare to Yugoslav partisans or French Resistants?
And just because someone doesn't meet the criteria of the GC doesn't mean he loses every legal rights. We haven't even been told why those guys that were sent back were sent to Gitmo in the first place. It's that secrecy that makes people think.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-18 10:38:09|| 2003-06-18 10:38:09|| Front Page Top

10:38 True German Ally
08:23 raptor
07:55 raptor
07:36 raptor
07:16 raptor
02:26 JFM
02:16 JFM
00:48 Becky
23:35 tu3031
23:30 Don
23:20 Tresho
23:08 Raj
22:55 Hodadenon
22:21 tu3031
22:13 tu3031
21:46 True German Ally
21:44 kelly
21:39 RW
21:38 Liberalhawk
21:34 RW
21:30 tipper
21:29 Liberalhawk
21:27 RW
21:27 True German Ally