US wants others to deal with its problems

[JointStrikeFighter]

He doesn't need to have a better idea to say that your idea is fucking wrong.

[Tiriol]

What's wrong with it? Apparently we can't simply dump them on China, even though they're Chinese nationals, and China wants them and is pissed that they're not getting them. They may or may not be a security risk if released on US soil, so why not simply dump them back where they were found?

It makes the assumption that everyone is a security risk. It also makes the assumption that they are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever.

And frankly, it is a disgusting viewpoint. "Oh hey, we locked you up and tortured you for years, but whatever, here is a sack of rations, off you go." Yeah, that is how a civilized society is supposed to behave.

As long as America is a democracy, no American politician will release Gitmo prisoners into the United States, for all that I personally think they'd probably just spend all their time going crazy over women who show their ankles and leave us alone. So what better idea do you have?

That's the problem, isn't it? If you send them to some God-forsaken mountainside in the middle of Afghanistan, where the rule of law and human rights carry very little meaning, to the world at large you are just continuing the Bush administration's party line "Who cares about those uppity prisoners, they're not AMERICANS/REAL PEOPLE!". Some, most or all of them may be imprisoned because some greedy bastard turned an actually innocent person in because he knew that there was a reward awaiting him. To overlook that important detail is simply to continue down the path that has already made the United States look arrogant, uncivilized, totally self-centered and heedless of any humanitarian costs. Surely you wouldn't be happy if you were an innocent person to all the horrible crimes you've been accused of, and then, once "released", you are just dumbed in the middle of Afghanistan and told "tough luck, we can't prove anything against you, you are free to go to die in a mountainous desert". Other nations don't want them for good reasons, because it would set up a bad predecent (and quite frankly, they ARE USA's problem); and your very own laws forbid them to be shipped to China where they could suffer inhumane treatment and torture (although to these hapless fellows it might just be business as usual, the name of their captor changed, that's all).

Everything above could have been avoided if your politicians AND your countrymen would have been a little more cautious and a little more willing to engage themselves in some fore-thought or at least listened to their allies and Western critics, but no. Almost everyone demanded blood and vengeance. America has gotten its vengeance for 9/11, but now the part of the world that was wronged in that search cries out for vengeance; and USA has no idea how to deal with the mess that came after. This problem is not going away by rhetorically speaking throwing people to the lions: if Obama administration sends these prisoners to Afghanistan so that they wouldn't have to think about them any more, it has just proved that never was about any other change than a change of leadership, at least when dealing with ideas of justice and rule of law. And those men - at least those who survive in that hell-hole - will seek vengeance, as others do now.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

He doesn't need to have a better idea to say that your idea is fucking wrong.

That presumes that I was seriously proposing it, in the same way that many people apparently believed Swift thought the Irish should turn to Cannibalism. The idea that I proposed is so blatantly ridiculous that it could only take a particular sort of uptight person on the internet to take it seriously, and the fact that someone actually defended it, Bass, is actually very illustrative of WHY in the practical, as opposed to ideal ethical world, these men will never be released in the United States. And if you wish to condemn the United States based on that point, then by all means go ahead, but there is no point in spending time demanding their release on the internet, when it's very clear that's simply out of the question for the American citizenry who elected these politicians in the first place, and therefore, the politicians will never release them. The average American does not understand the European obsession with human rights, and probably will not do so for decades to come or longer.

[PainRack]

[
Jesus Christ, Coyote, someone back me up. This stuff is like Standard Operating Procedure.

I don't go around capturing people, and military policemen are a special case in point, but there is a reason why we're supposed to carry a little black book on ops. Corporal(NS) Lee Hock Tian, caught smoking one cigeratte at North East exit National Stadium at 1500 hours.

There is a reason why the Guard commander has this little book where he reports what happened during his shift and a report passed on to the next .

I also know my WO had to file shit like movement of prisoners and events of what happened when prisoners were released from detention barracks for compassionate reasons.

And frankly, at the HQ level, there had to be some form of unit diary and other paperwork which tabulates data about said prisoners, when and where they were picked up for military intelligence purposes if nothing else. Afterall, unless the press are running their own intelligence ops in Iraq and Afghanistan, they must be receiving government sources when they reveal that Al Mahmad etc was captured at Al shithole on etc etc and detained without trial for 2 years.

Hell, one of the reasons why MPs NEED to write down such stuff is so that it could be used in the relevent judgements at the batt level and or even up at a court martial later.

[Lord of the Abyss]

He doesn't need to have a better idea to say that your idea is fucking wrong.

That presumes that I was seriously proposing it, in the same way that many people apparently believed Swift thought the Irish should turn to Cannibalism. The idea that I proposed is so blatantly ridiculous that it could only take a particular sort of uptight person on the internet to take it seriously,

Huh ? We've just dumped prisoners we decided to get rid of on their own in the middle of nowhere in the past. Or worse. For your comparison to work, Swift and his fellow Irish would have to already have been cannibals - in which case it then would be reasonable to take him seriously. Your proposal is if anything mild compared to others, and it being taken seriously doesn't prove any gullibility on other people's part.

and the fact that someone actually defended it, Bass, is actually very illustrative of WHY in the practical, as opposed to ideal ethical world, these men will never be released in the United States. And if you wish to condemn the United States based on that point, then by all means go ahead, but there is no point in spending time demanding their release on the internet, when it's very clear that's simply out of the question for the American citizenry who elected these politicians in the first place, and therefore, the politicians will never release them. The average American does not understand the European obsession with human rights, and probably will not do so for decades to come or longer.

What point are you trying to make ? That America is full of sociopaths and talking about it won't change anything ? We already knew that, that's why this entire situation exists. Of course America won't do the right thing, any right thing; if we were the sort to do the right thing this situation wouldn't have happened.

[Axis Kast]

Given the ages and backgrounds of some of the known detainees at Guantanomo, one doubts that US military personnel do not routinely write after action reports after doing particularly important stuff like, I don't know, capturing some Iraqi insurgents.

Do you think soldiering and shit is totally devoid of any paperwork? That the men and women of the American armed forces are unable and incapable of writing after action reports to describe their actions and activities on the field for posterity? Mang.

I think that the men and women of the United States Armed Forces do not go about building cases of the sort that would guarantee the conviction of their detainees in a court of law.

Furthermore, I challenge you to explain the presence of out-and-out juveniles among the prisoner population at Guantanamo. I'm just taking a crack at it, but I'd guess that those persons were not, in fact, senior leadership by any stretch of the imagination.

"Soldier, you're in court martial. What happened during your fire mission on June 32, 2029?"

"What happened on your fire mission?" and, "Prove to me that this man should be treated differently than the other detainees we keep in Iraq or Afghanistan and presumably administer differently," are not the same things. Please do stop frothing at the mouth over things I've never said, and which you have only imagined.

Have you actually been paying attention the last few years ? We've grabbed people for no good reason; we've killed people for no good reason. We invaded an entire country based on lies, and you think we actually care if our victims are guilty of something ?

So your contention is that we ship people to Guantanamo without the least bit of seemingly credible evidence that they might be terrorists? You need to get in touch with Shroom.

Someone accused them of being terrorists to collect the bounty, or because they were tortured by us into making a false accusation, or were themselves tortured into a false confession. Just off the top of my head.

We presumably have dealt with thousands of false accusations at least. Why do some end up in Guantanamo, others not?

How, exactly, do we torture an individual whom we have not previously captured? Also, if torture is occuring regularly among populations of prisoners even under the guard of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, then why are there not more self-confessed terrorists in Cuba?

And frankly, at the HQ level, there had to be some form of unit diary and other paperwork which tabulates data about said prisoners, when and where they were picked up for military intelligence purposes if nothing else. Afterall, unless the press are running their own intelligence ops in Iraq and Afghanistan, they must be receiving government sources when they reveal that Al Mahmad etc was captured at Al shithole on etc etc and detained without trial for 2 years.

And this is going to stand up in a court of law?

[Thanas]

He doesn't need to have a better idea to say that your idea is fucking wrong.

That presumes that I was seriously proposing it, in the same way that many people apparently believed Swift thought the Irish should turn to Cannibalism. The idea that I proposed is so blatantly ridiculous that it could only take a particular sort of uptight person on the internet to take it seriously,

Your suggestion was not worded in a sarcastic manner and fits very well with earlier oversimplified "suggestions" you made to other problems. How the heck should I know whether you are joking or not when there is a pattern of you making all manners of blatantly ridiculous suggestions on the internet?

and the fact that someone actually defended it, Bass, is actually very illustrative of WHY in the practical, as opposed to ideal ethical world, these men will never be released in the United States. And if you wish to condemn the United States based on that point, then by all means go ahead, but there is no point in spending time demanding their release on the internet, when it's very clear that's simply out of the question for the American citizenry who elected these politicians in the first place, and therefore, the politicians will never release them.

So your point is I shall cease protesting against an unethical solution because at this time, there is just no practical solution to it that will be supported by a majority of the american people. Guess how that would never change? If people stop protesting against it.

I find it deeply offensive that you ascribe to this viewpoint, especially as you are a champion of a cause that was considered very impractical a mere 8 years ago.

The average American does not understand the European obsession with human rights, and probably will not do so for decades to come or longer.

It is not an obsession. And coming from an american, that statement is quite ridiculous. Which country led a recent crusade with bringing democracy and human rights to savages in mind? Oh, and weren't you chearleading the effort to do so at the time as well?

[Lord of the Abyss]

So your contention is that we ship people to Guantanamo without the least bit of seemingly credible evidence that they might be terrorists?

Yes. Since when have we cared about evidence ?

We presumably have dealt with thousands of false accusations at least. Why do some end up in Guantanamo, others not?

I expect a lot end up in the rest of our overseas prisons, or "renditioned" to third parties for imprisonment and torture.

How, exactly, do we torture an individual whom we have not previously captured?

We don't; we torture them after capture, of course. Then they "admit" that we were right to do so.

Also, if torture is occuring regularly among populations of prisoners even under the guard of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, then why are there not more self-confessed terrorists in Cuba?

Because we don't send everyone there. And I expect that we just murder quite a few out of hand. They're "terrorists" after all.

[Tiriol]

That presumes that I was seriously proposing it, in the same way that many people apparently believed Swift thought the Irish should turn to Cannibalism. The idea that I proposed is so blatantly ridiculous that it could only take a particular sort of uptight person on the internet to take it seriously, and the fact that someone actually defended it, Bass, is actually very illustrative of WHY in the practical, as opposed to ideal ethical world, these men will never be released in the United States. And if you wish to condemn the United States based on that point, then by all means go ahead, but there is no point in spending time demanding their release on the internet, when it's very clear that's simply out of the question for the American citizenry who elected these politicians in the first place, and therefore, the politicians will never release them. The average American does not understand the European obsession with human rights, and probably will not do so for decades to come or longer.

Disregarding your statement about "obsession with human rights", your post is still quite strange and reeks of covering one's mistake.

You know, it occurs to me that it's a real shame there isn't some tiny fuck-head Islamic country run by the local version of the Taleban which for whatever reason decided funding terrorism was stupid and has hence never been invaded that would love to have more conservative Muslims in it. Unfortunately, basically every Muslim country in the world does in fact subscribe to more moderate versions of Islam than these people do, and thus doesn't want them.

When it comes down to it I think the best solution is to drop them in the hills of Afghanistan--they'll either end up living in the local villages, or the locals will kill them, or they're rejoin the Taleban/al-Qaeda and get machine-gunned by our guys sooner or later. The enemy already has a basically unlimited amount of manpower in the region, so whereas they could kill hundreds of Americans if released in America, they're going to maybe wound a couple professional soldiers before they get splattered to pieces if they're in A-stan. Thus, if it is unethical for us to keep them imprisoned, nobody else will take them, and it's unsafe for us to release them in the United States, the least-bad option would just seem to be the option of dropping them on a hillside in A-stan with a water bottle, backpack full of rations, and a hearty "Tally ho! Remember to be sporting, old chap" and just wait for them to come into the sights of an M-2 gunner whilst holding AKs.

THIS is what you originally said. There is no mention that it was made in an ironic or humorous manner; there is NOTHING to suggest that you didn't truly mean it. The fine art of making a small statement "I don't actually mean this/subscribe to this view" may have escaped you, but you cannot blame others for it.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hell, one of the reasons why MPs NEED to write down such stuff is so that it could be used in the relevent judgements at the batt level and or even up at a court martial later.

Exactly, if there is an inquiry, then beforehand someone must have recorded the WHO the WHAT the WHEN and the WHERE for the sake of posterity and kept it in record. Jesus Christ, that stuff is standard in places from fast food restaurants where the staff spit on the food, to provincial hospitals where sutures are washed and reused for circumcisions.

EDIT:

Do you work in the military?

[PainRack]

Exactly, if there is an inquiry, then beforehand someone must have recorded the WHO the WHAT the WHEN and the WHERE for the sake of posterity and kept it in record. Jesus Christ, that stuff is standard in places from fast food restaurants where the staff spit on the food, to provincial hospitals where sutures are washed and reused for circumcisions.

EDIT:

Do you work in the military?

Nope. I'm a conscript, spent the better part of half a year training to be a MP, then got packed off to the Airforce Customs & Immigration section to process the SAF as well as other nations personel transiting through our airbases.
My current role is in the Field Defence Squadron, essentially, light infantry seconded to the airforce to act as security.

I think that the men and women of the United States Armed Forces do not go about building cases of the sort that would guarantee the conviction of their detainees in a court of law.

You're shifting the burden. You're arguing that US soldiers do not spend time detailing the why and how of the incidents regarding the capture and detention of Iraqi or Afghanistan detainees. That's clearly is not true. At SOME level, some officer must had done so because we are getting details from the Press about their capture and detention.

As for guranteeing their conviction in a court of law, guess what? That's why there's a speciality called military investigators. Fuck. Are you now telling me the US Provost has NO investigational branch? Even though the US military have a fucking JAG office?
Frankly, nix that. I KNOW the US has an investigational branch, just not the insitutional details.

"What happened on your fire mission?" and, "Prove to me that this man should be treated differently than the other detainees we keep in Iraq or Afghanistan and presumably administer differently," are not the same things. Please do stop frothing at the mouth over things I've never said, and which you have only imagined.

You're CHANGING the basis of your argument. Shroom was attacking the basis of your "US soldiers don't document capture and detention".
And FUCK that. The very basis of your argument is similarly false. The US military must had some means of differentiating between prisoners other than just random sampling. Fuck. We do know they have some means of doing so because we had all these nice Abu Grahib reports of the CIA and US military interrograting Iraqi detainees.

So your contention is that we ship people to Guantanamo without the least bit of seemingly credible evidence that they might be terrorists? You need to get in touch with Shroom.

Hell. Let's address the very basis of your contention.
You ought to ask yourself about how one is supposed to manage such a legal process. Do soldiers file specific reports regarding the exacting conditions under which each individual prisoner was taken, and what led them to believe that those detainees were dangerous?
Hmm..... How would a military handle such a situation? I can think of dozens of ways just from reading about the Iraq war and the law.
Let's say the US went and search a house on suspicion that the inhabitant had an arms cache. Depending on the legality, there could had been anything from a search warrant sanctioned by a higher military officer to an low level initative by the respective officer on the ground(I have NO ideas what the ROEs and powers granted to US forces in Iraq are, I'm just mouthing off based on previous historical incidents from anywhere such as Somalia to other UN operations). Nevertheless, all would had left a proper paper trail where the decisions to do so was made, and the details regarding the capture and reason for doing so was archived. It could had been anything from PFC Jack Beur subjected Mohammed to a body search at an impromptu checkpoint and discovered the presence of an IED on the body. Details passed up the chain to the officer, who records this.
Then of course, the detainee would had been passed off down the line to a prisoner collection point or some other central authority, where he's processed before heading into a military camp for detention such as Abu Grahib. Well, that's all fine and dandy, that's when the US intelligence starts coming in. Whether its CIA or military investigators or whatnot, someone would had started handling the case and finding out other details, such as how and why he had said IED, what was his plans and intentions, who was he operating with and so on. Such details would had been passed on to others.

ALL of this could had been built up into a case for law and conviction. Hell, it could had been something as simple close and shut as the Nuremburg trials where victor justice comprised of lawyers digging up orders where general said "Sook Ching".

We presumably have dealt with thousands of false accusations at least. Why do some end up in Guantanamo, others not?

Space, capacity, severity of accusations, simple bad luck..... the list goes on and on. Hell, I know of a personal situation where a colonel was thrown into the ZPC station and hauled up on charges of AWOL for a military court.......... because the clerk misfiled his MC notification.

And this is going to stand up in a court of law?

You DO know that we use such testimonies and documents regularly in a court of law to show that neglience was not committed or for war crimes trials?

[PainRack]

On second thoughts, fuck this. I just read through Axis Kast statements again and realised he's essentially trying to have his cake and eat it through.

On one hand, he's arguing that the military must had some means of knowing the people at Guantamo are horrific hardcore terrorists because otherwise, they won't be there.
On the other, he's arguing that the military have NO MEANS of determing the detainees actual status, because they don't investigate cases and leave any paper documentation whatsoever,therefore, people are sent to Guantamano......... because they're terrorists because otherwise, the US militayr would had no reasons to detain them! But they have no means of knowing so and can't show it to the rest of the world! But they're terrorists!

[Axis Kast]

Yes. Since when have we cared about evidence ?

Are you capable of anything more than hyperbole?

Shipping somebody to Guantanamo requires time, money, and effort. Who's getting clearance to initiate such transfers? What information are they using?

I expect a lot end up in the rest of our overseas prisons, or "renditioned" to third parties for imprisonment and torture.

But this is speculation on your part. You haven't any empirical evidence that these populations are large.

We don't; we torture them after capture, of course. Then they "admit" that we were right to do so.

I'd like to see your evidence, because the scandals surrounding Abu Ghraib work against you. The United States Armed Forces are not primed to hide things like this.

Because we don't send everyone there. And I expect that we just murder quite a few out of hand. They're "terrorists" after all.

As usual, I await your evidence.

Exactly, if there is an inquiry, then beforehand someone must have recorded the WHO the WHAT the WHEN and the WHERE for the sake of posterity and kept it in record. Jesus Christ, that stuff is standard in places from fast food restaurants where the staff spit on the food, to provincial hospitals where sutures are washed and reused for circumcisions.

They have particulars from the field, not the stuff of criminal prosecution. You're missing my point not only repeatedly, but entirely.

The information our troops are collecting isn't sufficient to initiate meaningful proceedings against each of the prisoners we capture. I'd also like to hear your response to arguments from folks like Lord of the Abyss, who has it that we simply scoop up "innocent" folk off the streets and hustle them off to torture centers.

On second thoughts, fuck this. I just read through Axis Kast statements again and realised he's essentially trying to have his cake and eat it through.

On one hand, he's arguing that the military must had some means of knowing the people at Guantamo are horrific hardcore terrorists because otherwise, they won't be there.
On the other, he's arguing that the military have NO MEANS of determing the detainees actual status, because they don't investigate cases and leave any paper documentation whatsoever,therefore, people are sent to Guantamano......... because they're terrorists because otherwise, the US militayr would had no reasons to detain them! But they have no means of knowing so and can't show it to the rest of the world! But they're terrorists!
On second thoughts, fuck this. I just read through Axis Kast statements again and realised he's essentially trying to have his cake and eat it through.

On one hand, he's arguing that the military must had some means of knowing the people at Guantamo are horrific hardcore terrorists because otherwise, they won't be there.
On the other, he's arguing that the military have NO MEANS of determing the detainees actual status, because they don't investigate cases and leave any paper documentation whatsoever,therefore, people are sent to Guantamano......... because they're terrorists because otherwise, the US militayr would had no reasons to detain them! But they have no means of knowing so and can't show it to the rest of the world! But they're terrorists!

The cake, as always, is delicious. You, meanwhile, are a moron or a liar, or both.

I am arguing that the military presumable does not ship anybody to Guantamao for no good reason at all. People are not simply snapped up off the Baghdad streets. That was in reply to Lord of the Abyss.

However, our military forces aren't collecting case material on every single prisoner. An AAR isn't the same thing as a carefully-crafted dossier. These people must either become prisoners of war, or criminal detainees. I'm pointing to our lack of an effective system for processing prisoners aside from an indefinite/summary detention process.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Yes. Since when have we cared about evidence ?

Are you capable of anything more than hyperbole?

That's not hyperbole. That's me pointing out the obvious fact that you are determinedly ignoring : We are NOT honest. We have NOT shown any concern over whether the people we attack or imprison are guilty of anything, much less what we say they are guilty of. The fact that we've been lying and torturing lies out of others has been all over the news, not to mention the forum.

Shipping somebody to Guantanamo requires time, money, and effort. Who's getting clearance to initiate such transfers? What information are they using?

Information they made up or tortured out of someone, more likely than not. That's how we've been doing business.

I expect a lot end up in the rest of our overseas prisons, or "renditioned" to third parties for imprisonment and torture.

But this is speculation on your part. You haven't any empirical evidence that these populations are large.

Yeah, suuuure. They set up a network of CIA run prisons and a system of rendition just so they could stick a handful of people in it.

We don't; we torture them after capture, of course. Then they "admit" that we were right to do so.

I'd like to see your evidence, because the scandals surrounding Abu Ghraib work against you. The United States Armed Forces are not primed to hide things like this.

Ah, yes, the torture - I mean "enhanced interrogation" - which was referred to as "Gitmoising" Abu Ghraib at the time. The place became famous because photos were leaked, not because there was anything all that special going on.

Because we don't send everyone there. And I expect that we just murder quite a few out of hand. They're "terrorists" after all.

As usual, I await your evidence.

Our slaughter of the people of Fallujah comes to mind, when we simply declared any male there to be a terrorist and killed them.

[Guardsman Bass]

On second thought, I'll delete this response. I need to think on it a bit more.

[Guardsman Bass]

For the record, I supported the idea of releasing them into Afghanistan because that's where they were captured, and because, unlike dumping them into China, you're not directly throwing them into risk of torture - not to mention that you won't have the political obstacles inherent in releasing them into the US. It's not like we release all unconvicted prisoners back in the US anyways - Iraqis were returned to Iraq, and most of the Afghani prisoners were returned to Afghanistan, where they were captured.

[Axis Kast]

That's not hyperbole. That's me pointing out the obvious fact that you are determinedly ignoring : We are NOT honest. We have NOT shown any concern over whether the people we attack or imprison are guilty of anything, much less what we say they are guilty of. The fact that we've been lying and torturing lies out of others has been all over the news, not to mention the forum.

All over the news. As in, of interest to people. Because a great many Americans are aghast. They are very interested in the fact that we have tortured people, and are deeply concerned that we should be detaining only those who are guilty of a crime. Indeed, one has to assume that American military commanders are among those most attuned to the importance of successfully drawing such distinctions.

I wonder, too, what standard of honesty you intend that governments keep. You rush so readily to make judgments of wrongdoing. Politicians are sometimes liars. Yet even more often, they are pigheaded: with the confidence of victory and popularity behind them, they are often willing to ride an ideology to the bitter end, even without the evidence to keep it afloat. This may make them stupid, but having the wrong information, or believing the wrong thing, and lying about what you do know, aren't the same thing.

It's been brought to your attention before: European intelligence services corroborated our suspicions that there were WMD in Iraq. The "argument about the war" was over whether it made sense to spend blood and treasure to get rid of Hussein, and whether his presumed arsenal made him dangerous, not about whether he had very dangerous weapons, which it turned out he did not.

Your great failing is that you necessarily see intentionality in things when it may not really be there. As Graham Allison suggests, the Rational (or, in your case, Perfidious) Actor Model of analysis easy leads into the snare of teleology. It leads directly to the “implication that important events have important causes.” Yet a government’s behavior cannot simply be presumed faithful to its desires, or non-injurious to its best interests. Making those leaps of logic ignores or discards such variables as human error, chance, unexpected diversion, or policy failure. Moreover, governments are never unitary. Rather, decision-making always takes place under conditions of informational uncertainty (both because of lack of credible intelligence, as well as due to problems arising from transliteration of policy into action, which is mediated by the biases and particularistic outlooks of the organizations tasked to provide it). It often depends on the input of individuals with a set of interests actually inconsistent with the national well-being as defined by their superiors. Action may represent only what is possible rather than desired. During crises, time and capacity place bounds on the perfectibility of a response.

Information they made up or tortured out of someone, more likely than not. That's how we've been doing business.

Once again, there is a requirement that you use evidence in the defense of your argument, if not their formulation. Kindly provide evidence that this torture is taking place on a large scale.

Yeah, suuuure. They set up a network of CIA run prisons and a system of rendition just so they could stick a handful of people in it.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, this "network" involves a few hundred prisoners, at best. Indeed, the program exists mostly to "snatch" persons-of-interest, often identified by foreign intelligence agencies, from countries where that sort of thing would be politically improper.

Ah, yes, the torture - I mean "enhanced interrogation" - which was referred to as "Gitmoising" Abu Ghraib at the time. The place became famous because photos were leaked, not because there was anything all that special going on.

The photos became famous because they represented both an aberration of American values as the public understands them. The incident, and others like it, suggests that the United States Armed Forces would have trouble keeping similar secrets.

Our slaughter of the people of Fallujah comes to mind, when we simply declared any male there to be a terrorist and killed them.

Kindly provide some evidence.

[Shroom Man 777]

I think that the men and women of the United States Armed Forces do not go about building cases of the sort that would guarantee the conviction of their detainees in a court of law.

Furthermore, I challenge you to explain the presence of out-and-out juveniles among the prisoner population at Guantanamo. I'm just taking a crack at it, but I'd guess that those persons were not, in fact, senior leadership by any stretch of the imagination.

You said nothing about building cases for a court ruling to guarantee the conviction of their detainees in a court of law. This is what you said:

You ought to ask yourself about how one is supposed to manage such a legal process. Do soldiers file specific reports regarding the exacting conditions under which each individual prisoner was taken, and what led them to believe that those detainees were dangerous?

We're NOT talking about building cases with witnesses and testimonies, but the "conditions under which each individual prisoner was taken".

Namely, the US military documents WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE and HOW its prisoners were captured and by WHOM.

No, the soldiers do not have to act like lawyers and prepare a goddamn case with all sorts of briefs and boxers. But they DO have to write down DETAILS and information regarding their mission.

"What happened on your fire mission?" and, "Prove to me that this man should be treated differently than the other detainees we keep in Iraq or Afghanistan and presumably administer differently," are not the same things. Please do stop frothing at the mouth over things I've never said, and which you have only imagined.

"You ought to ask yourself about how one is supposed to manage such a legal process. Do soldiers file specific reports regarding the exacting conditions under which each individual prisoner was taken, and what led them to believe that those detainees were dangerous?"

Unless American soldiers just capture prisoners from the streets, they WILL have recordable reasons regarding WHY those individuals were captured.

"Enemy combatants surrendered at 0400 hours after engaging Bravo squad in a firefight."

"During routine patrol we found suspected insurgent in a mud hut that also contained several assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades."

"Individual was subdued near checkpoint after being fired upon by PFC Ironbeef, who saw the individual attempting to place an improvised explosive device."

[EDIT: The US soldiers DON'T have to PROVE ANYTHING they just have to state FACTS that OCCURRED during their goddamn MISSION. That's it. Unless your brave SPARTAFREEDOMERICAN soldiers got IED shrapnel in their brains turning them into debilitated morons, or had their fingers shot off by gunfire, they can WRITE REPORTS, can't they?]

So your contention is that we ship people to Guantanamo without the least bit of seemingly credible evidence that they might be terrorists? You need to get in touch with Shroom.

Then maybe the credible evidence got, I don't know, written down in after-action reports by the soldiers or by intelligence dossiers by CIA officials, or whoever it was that captured and processed these prisoners?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It is not an obsession. And coming from an american, that statement is quite ridiculous. Which country led a recent crusade with bringing democracy and human rights to savages in mind? Oh, and weren't you chearleading the effort to do so at the time as well?

Yes, I was, and I'm certainly not a significantly more ethical person than the rest. The population of this board is about as reasoned and ethical as American citizens get (you can find ones that would be considered more ethical, by European standards, but they'd be doing so for irrational reasons) and the idea of indefinite detention is still a supported one. Make no mistake or think that I am trying to excuse the ridiculous decision at Gitmo. I always opposed the prison, but back in the day my proposal for dealing with illegal combatants was to shoot them, after passing the necessary laws in Congress to make this legal under the Geneva Conventions, of course (which provide for punishment for illegal combatants based on the laws of the home nation). Now, in retrospect, we know that we were wrong, and that, fundamentally, we can't succeed in what we tried. Democracy requires a multi-decade buildup of civil society to be functional.

Wrong, also, about Islam. The threat was a trivial one and magnified because American conservatives needed something they could look at, touch, and destroy to be satisfied there was actually going to be any result against al-Qaeda. It is mostly hard to distinguish between the status of women in any third world country, and a Muslim one, though the very worst are something aberrant. So, yeah, we were all wrong.

But what kind of compensation is really possible? You can't extend someone's life to make up for the wasted years, though if we ever can on the future, falsely convicted/condemned people should be first on the list for it generally.

Now, we could just keep detaining them at Gitmo forever. The rest of the world would keep trading with us; that is the way of things. We could also release them into the United States, though this would require a special enabling act in Congress directing the immigration services to ignore their past on their asylum applications. We could offer Iceland a billion dollars to take every single inhabitant of Gitmo we can't bring to trial--their economy is so desperate they'd probably do it. So all of the options I claimed are impossible, are in fact, and in reality, possible.

The problem is that the American populace wants to keep them locked up, so that's the one most likely to happen.

I am rather disenamoured lately, with the whole concept of the United States, and certainly find the national outlook inexcusable, and the idiocy and bloodthirstiness of the population wearying. Nonetheless there is no solution for the problem which can give these men back their lives, not because they're impossible, but because they're politically inexpedient. That is meant as a condemnation of America, in the sense that our populace does not share European values--more like Russian ones.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

THIS is what you originally said. There is no mention that it was made in an ironic or humorous manner; there is NOTHING to suggest that you didn't truly mean it. The fine art of making a small statement "I don't actually mean this/subscribe to this view" may have escaped you, but you cannot blame others for it.

I am not trying to blame others for it, just correct the misperception after the fact, with apologies I'll now render. As for the whole issue of the Uighur prisoners, I should like to talk to them myself, in person, to learn just what Islam is to them, but that will never happen. I do think we have previous little to fear from them, though; they'll just join all the countless other groups we have agitating against the Chinese government that we presently ignore, and which do not wreak havoc in the United States. But saying that would have been a bit of a dodge since there's a lot more men than just those at Gitmo.

[Stark]

Remember the 'obviously I was joking lol' emoticon?

[Axis Kast]

You said nothing about building cases for a court ruling to guarantee the conviction of their detainees in a court of law.

It was made evident in my second post, in case the original mention of "a legal process" didn't lead you to the correct interpretation of my argument, that I was interested in discussing the intersection between capture and subsequent treatment.

We're NOT talking about building cases with witnesses and testimonies, but the "conditions under which each individual prisoner was taken".

This is, apparently, the argument you have been having with yourself.

No, the soldiers do not have to act like lawyers and prepare a goddamn case with all sorts of briefs and boxers. But they DO have to write down DETAILS and information regarding their mission.

Which may or may not have impact on the prisoner's future. My point is that if we're not going to treat these people as prisoners of war, and are uncomfortable with blanket amnesties and indefinite detention, there has to be some other mechanism. If it is a judicial mechanism, then one way to think about it is by asking whether there will be evidence to conduct credible prosecutions. The answer is in the negative. We need some other approach. End of my input.

The US soldiers DON'T have to PROVE ANYTHING they just have to state FACTS that OCCURRED during their goddamn MISSION. That's it. Unless your brave SPARTAFREEDOMERICAN soldiers got IED shrapnel in their brains turning them into debilitated morons, or had their fingers shot off by gunfire, they can WRITE REPORTS, can't they?

Thank you for proving my point.

Then maybe the credible evidence got, I don't know, written down in after-action reports by the soldiers or by intelligence dossiers by CIA officials, or whoever it was that captured and processed these prisoners?

He was found in a mud hut with rocket-propelled grenades. He claims he sheltered there during a firefight. We say, "Um, no."

Is that how we're going to be doing things from now on? I'm not necessarily being critical. I'm asking you a question. Hopefully, you see the difference between that kind of process and a more surefire criminal trial.

[Raj Ahten]

I think Shroom Man and some others are making a mistake by assuming all the detainees in Gitmo and other detention sites have been picked up by US troops. What about the notoriously corrupt Afghan forces? There have been cases where the afghan police have picked up people, said they were terrorists (having "found" weapons etc.) and then handed them over to US forces. In the early days there was even a bounty on taliban fighters. Why not round up some of your local enemies and say they are terrorists if the US is paying top dollar?

A good source on this sort of thing is the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side which is about a taxi driver who was picked up by the afghan police on phony charges and was then beaten to death at the detention center at Bagram Air Force Base.

Also where the fuck do you think we get Intel on some of these guys? Its not like they are doing a police investigation every time the afghan police or someone gives them a tip. If an informant says the dude is a terrorist he's likely going to be picked up and moved to a central interrogation facility like Bagram air force base. And how are you going to know the difference between a terrorist and some dude with a property beef with your informant if you have no clue as to the local history or culture?

The problem is for years has been no one has any idea what the fuck they were doing as far as getting intelligence is concerned. One thing you hear again and again in interviews from the Bush team, generals and everyone else is that there was a huge lack of intelligence on Al Queda and the Taliban after 9/11 and they really didn't know where to begin. I suspect the military and intelligence communities turned to water boarding, the abu gharaib treatment and the rest because they didn't have the language and cultural specialists they actually needed to do real intelligence work. The fact that people at the highest levels were pushing torture hasn't helped things.

Things on this front have been slowly improving but for years the whole prisoner situation has been FUBAR.

edit: cleaned up a bit.

[Edi]

The problems with the Guantanamo detainees have been known for years. Back in 2004 or 2005 already there were news reports in the press about how the prisoner processing in Afghanistan and later Iraq was fucked up. People who were minor fish and who the US officials knew were not terrorists just kept moving up the lists due to the nature of how the bureaucracy was set up and once they got on the Guantanamo flight list, it was impossible to get them off of it.

It was reported up the chain of command according to those news reports and nothing was done. So there is no use trying to pretend that Guantanamo and the transfer processes and prisoner processing have been wuth anything approaching competence. My cats could have run that thing better than has been done.

[Shroom Man 777]

You said nothing about building cases for a court ruling to guarantee the conviction of their detainees in a court of law.

It was made evident in my second post, in case the original mention of "a legal process" didn't lead you to the correct interpretation of my argument, that I was interested in discussing the intersection between capture and subsequent treatment.

A legal process doesn't have to involve the soldiers as lawyers, a legal process can also use facts and information submitted by the soldiers in their after action reports - the details of how they captured the prisoner, when and where, and the circumstances leading to that.

He was found in a mud hut with rocket-propelled grenades. He claims he sheltered there during a firefight. We say, "Um, no."

Is that how we're going to be doing things from now on? I'm not necessarily being critical. I'm asking you a question. Hopefully, you see the difference between that kind of process and a more surefire criminal trial.

Ah schiesse.

I get your point. That the act of capturing insurgents or something is different from capturing a criminal or even a POW, since criminals get representation and there are all sorts of processes leading to their incarceration. Traditional prisoners of war, on the other hand, are also not treated in the same way as captured insurgents because normal POWs are soldiers for another nation or an army, and there are protocols in dealing with captured enemy soldiers (not insurgents) - like to return them after the war is over, or something. Hell, it even worked that way in the first Gulf War, with the Iraqis keeping downed US airmen and the Americans keeping surrendered Iraqi soldiers.

On the other hand, insurgents can't be treated like POWs because they're not part of any regular military or government (and as seen in this topic, they're not part of any nation too - no one wants them). And they can't be treated like criminals because the military does not have the procedures and the legal apparatuses of the civilian government, judiciary and law enforcement and all that stuff.

They're not enemy soldiers, and they're not treated like the traditional POW. They're not criminals (or, at least, they can't be tried as such by the military*), they're terrorists. Back in the day, they could get arrested by the FBI or something and get tried normally - but in this case, it's not the FBI or whoever who are arresting them, but the US military, which is totally not suited for this kind of thing, especially when insurgents are being captured en masse.

*Because neither military nor intelligence dudes are meant for putting people on trial or shit. They're simply not. The military either blows shit up or interns POWs. The intelligence dudes... we know what the intelligence dudes do, and it's good if they just torture and thumbscrew people in discreet Eastern European prisons, but when they do it en masse and it gets visible and publicly scrutinized, well, shit.