Hunger strikers protesting indefinite detention at Gitmo

[GlennB]

86 Detainees cleared for release. From past experience, we can assume that 20-25 of them will go right back to terrorism upon release. We can only speculate on how many more will choose that path over time.

My bolding.

What makes you think those 20-25 were engaged in terrorism before Gitmo, rather than being propelled into it by their Gitmo experience?

 

[mikedenk]

My bolding.

What makes you think those 20-25 were engaged in terrorism before Gitmo, rather than being propelled into it by their Gitmo experience?

Most detainees were captured as unlawful/enemy combatants. They were actively supporting terrorist organizations when they punched their ticket to Gitmo.

Are there likely a few who were screwed over by their fellow Afghans in exchange for a reward? I'll buy that, but I reject the notion that more than just a few were minding their own business one day and BOOM! Gitmo.

 

[HawksFan]

And now many of those 20-25 wouldn't have gone on to terrorism if they hadn't been holed up in Gitmo for all these years?

 

[joesixpack]

Most detainees were captured as unlawful/enemy combatants. They were actively supporting terrorist organizations when they punched their ticket to Gitmo.

Are there likely a few who were screwed over by their fellow Afghans in exchange for a reward? I'll buy that, but I reject the notion that more than just a few were minding their own business one day and BOOM! Gitmo.

How many were part of an armed group as a result of the objective material conditions in Afghanistan? You're talking about a part of the world where being a member of a warlord's army is one of the only career choices available to a young man.

The Bush/Obama administration is making hay with vague legal definitions; Someone must be classified as either a prisoner of war or a criminal. A prisoner of war has rights, and a criminal must be tried. The sorry state of affairs that these modern-day Lestangs find themselves in is neither, and to allow that state of affairs to continue devalues the Constitution to the same status as fish wrapper. Apparently your "patriotism" doesn't actually encompass anything other than geography.

 

[GlennB]

Most detainees were captured as unlawful/enemy combatants.

Then prosecute them proper trials based on actual evidence.

Your attitude would have it that every person arrested must be guilty simply because they're been arrested.

 

[Silhouette]

Most detainees were captured as unlawful/enemy combatants. They were actively supporting terrorist organizations when they punched their ticket to Gitmo.

Are there likely a few who were screwed over by their fellow Afghans in exchange for a reward? I'll buy that, but I reject the notion that more than just a few were minding their own business one day and BOOM! Gitmo.

The captured detainees are prisoners of war. The Bush administration conjured up the name "unlawful/enemy combatants" as a way of distinguishing these opposing forces as being some kind of new breed of enemy that couldn't be handled the usual way (you know, legally), so they could justify their torture program and ratchet up the jingoism to gain support for the war.

A lot of people are in denial that innocent people have been abused and tortured by the Bush administration, there is ample evidence to support it. One only has to look up Abu Ghraib to see the actual photos that prove it. Some of the POWs that were captured may have very well had links to terrorism, but how will we know for sure if we don't allow actual trials in a federal court to determine it? It isn't enough to presume guilt by racial profiling. Why is it so inconceivable that a lot of these people were actually minding their own business when they became swept up by unscrupulous opportunists?

 

[ddt]

In 2012, the Director of National Intelligence claimed that more than 1 in 4 released prisoners had been confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight.

Because the Gitmo "innocent victims cleared for release" crowd is running at about a 30% Actual Terrorist Rate. And many have only been out for a few years, so we can count on that number steadily climbing.

So we're going from 1 in 4 (=25%) to 30% in one post? 14 more posts of yours and it's 100%?

Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? If there's evidence that any one of them was a terrorist, put them on trial and show the evidence and do your best to get them convicted.

Instead, their constitutional and basic human rights have been trampled on. Held for years, without any indictment, without any trial in sight, and meanwhile tortured in various ways, ranging from water boarding to force feeding - yes, that's a human rights violation too.

Has any study been done if some of them have actually become terrorists because of the way the US has treated them?

 

[mikedenk]

So we're going from 1 in 4 (=25%) to 30% in one post? 14 more posts of yours and it's 100%?

Good try. But minus 10 points for dishonest tactics.

Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? If there's evidence that any one of them was a terrorist, put them on trial and show the evidence and do your best to get them convicted.

Instead, their constitutional and basic human rights have been trampled on. Held for years, without any indictment, without any trial in sight, and meanwhile tortured in various ways, ranging from water boarding to force feeding - yes, that's a human rights violation too.

I'm not really concerned with the rights of terrorists. Fortunately for the sake of the US, we have serious people in charge who feel the same way I do.

Due process for terrorists and their associates? How about a Hellfire missile instead.
Ooh, poor KSM got some water up his nose? For God and Country, Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo.

Has any study been done if some of them have actually become terrorists because of the way the US has treated them?

Probably, check the bleeding hearts over at Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, he'd have been all over closing Gitmo

----[The Joke]--->

.....Fishstick.....

 

[ddt]

I'm not really concerned with the rights of terrorists. Fortunately for the sake of the US, we have serious people in charge who feel the same way I do.

And who gets to decide who is a terrorist? You first have to prove someone is a terrorist. And that's exactly what a criminal trial is about. Claiming before that that someone is a terrorist and using that as an excuse to suspend their basic rights is perversion of the basis of the whole justice system.

Due process for terrorists and their associates? How about a Hellfire missile instead.

On the battlefield, yes. In the justice system, no.

Ooh, poor KSM got some water up his nose?

More than just a bit of water up his nose. Water boarding is unequivocally torture. Have you seen the video of Christopher Hitchens trying it?

For God and Country, Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo.

Ah yes, referencing the genocide of the native Americans really helps your case.

Probably, check the bleeding hearts over at Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.

They watch over your rights too. Must I cite pastor Niemöller? First they came for the Jews...

 

[Natan]

So we're going from 1 in 4 (=25%) to 30% in one post? 14 more posts of yours and it's 100%?

It's worse than that. From the figures he himself gave, that 25% is composed of around 15% confirmed returned to terrorism and 10% suspected. So out of 86 detainees cleared for release, from past experience, we can assume that around 13 of them will go right back to terrorism upon release. Contrast this with 20-25.

But hey, it won't be our friends and family caught in their path, amiright? Probably just some poor 3rd-world nobodies. I'm sure they're more than happy to sacrifice themselves in order to assuage liberal guilt.

Quite rich from the man who would JDAM those very same poor 3rd world nobodies if there's a suspected terrorist in a 20 mile radius.

 

[Watanabe]

[..]Instead, their constitutional and basic human rights have been trampled on. Held for years, without any indictment, without any trial in sight, and meanwhile tortured in various ways, ranging from water boarding to force feeding - yes, that's a human rights violation too.
[..]

Yes.
But this is irrelevant as such "terrorists" (and their Governments) are not US citizens have no bargaining power with the US Government.

 

[autumn1971]

Lol, no.

If you're going to go completely over-the-top, might as well just say it will be regarded as a greater shame than slavery.

Say, how many of those incarcerated Japanese-Americans turned out to actually be spies or traitors? Because the Gitmo "innocent victims cleared for release" crowd is running at about a 30% Actual Terrorist Rate. And many have only been out for a few years, so we can count on that number steadily climbing.

If I'm ever incarcerated without trial or indictment, not allowed to know what evidence is being used to incarcerate me, and then held for no reason for a few years, I can promise that I will do my best to destroy everyone responsible. And I would be entirely morally and ethically correct in doing so.

 

[autumn1971]

Most detainees were captured as unlawful/enemy combatants. They were actively supporting terrorist organizations when they punched their ticket to Gitmo.

Are there likely a few who were screwed over by their fellow Afghans in exchange for a reward? I'll buy that, but I reject the notion that more than just a few were minding their own business one day and BOOM! Gitmo.

Your first statement could be proven quite nicely if the US government treated the captured as the US agreed to do in the Geneva Conventions. Or if the captured were treated under the provisions of the US Constitution.
Show me that they need to be incarcerated or imprisoned and I'm right with you.
A government without transparency can never be just.

 

[joesixpack]

Yes.
But this is irrelevant as such "terrorists" (and their Governments) are not US citizens have no bargaining power with the US Government.

Clearly, you are under the impression that the bill of rights does not cover non-citizens. You are wrong.

 

[autumn1971]

Yes.
But this is irrelevant as such "terrorists" (and their Governments) are not US citizens have no bargaining power with the US Government.

In fact, non-US citizens have a whole lot of rights under US law, as evidenced by the many treaties that the US government, as well as others, has ratified to make sure that such people retain human rights. Also note that the US Constitution explicitly states that these treaties have the full weight of Federal law.

 

[triforcharity]

You do realize that only one in four is WAY better than the recidivism rate of ordinary American ex prisoners?

Bureau of Justice Statistics:
In a 15 State study, over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years
http://bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm​

That means Gitmo is chock full of innocents and/or that having been locked up there actually works as a deterrent.

For the same crime they were originally imprisoned for? That would be a relevant stat. Do you have that? I'm genuinely curious, as I couldn't view the link for some reason.

 

[Watanabe]

Clearly, you are under the impression that the bill of rights does not cover non-citizens. You are wrong.

You are pretty naive if you think the US (or any other) Government cares a heck about the "bill of rights".

In fact, non-US citizens have a whole lot of rights under US law, as evidenced by the many treaties that the US government, as well as others, has ratified to make sure that such people retain human rights. Also note that the US Constitution explicitly states that these treaties have the full weight of Federal law.

On the paper, yes.
On the paper North Korea is a democracy.

 

[Natan]

For the same crime they were originally imprisoned for? That would be a relevant stat. Do you have that? I'm genuinely curious, as I couldn't view the link for some reason.

Link works fine to me. The percentages look generally the same across a number of crimes (all,violent,property,drug,public disorder) listed there, around 60%.

 

[pipelineaudio]

between the usual US Marine and the Taliban fighting for their own country

Taliban was a pakistani movement, not an afghan one