US wants others to deal with its problems

[banquetbear]

I was just being highly sarcastic in response to Axis Kast's dumb comment about soldiers not having to file detailed reports regarding detaining terror suspects and shit. You'd think that he'd think that any information leading to capturing terrorists would be important in an, I dunno, "War on Terror".

I have to assume that most of the individuals sitting in Bagram and Guantanamo right now were captured in arms against the United States Armed Forces or its Afghan and Iraqi allies.

Given the ages and backgrounds of some of the known detainees at Guantanamo, one easily doubts that everyone there was taken in a high-intensity snatch-and-grab based on solid prior intelligence work.

...you know, if you were really interested in who is and was kept at Guantanamo Bay and how they were captured, you would look it up. Its not hard: I mean, they probably have a wiki page! Here: I will do the work for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gu ... _detainees
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Combata ... unals.html

You have presumably gone to the effort of reading the report compiled by Professor Mark Denbeaux, of Seton Hall University School of Law.

http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantan ... _08_06.pdf

Some of the key conclusions of the report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist
group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United StatesThis 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostlyUighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

But you knew all of this right? I mean that report came out in 2006, was never disputed by the US government, this information has been in the public domain for ages. You can't be this ignorant.

Surely you've heard of the Badr Brothers, Murat Kurnaz, the Tipton three, Abu Bakker Qassim Abassin Sayed. You must have heard of "Half Head Bob", a guy with a "combat lobotomy" who had a report that said "'No value, no value, don't send him" who ended up at Guantanamo. Or the first prisoner to be released: "Wild Bill", who would sit and eat his own shit: surely you've heard of him?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 968458.stm
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-gitmo22dec ... 4365.story

Text from leaflets distributed around Afghanistan post US invasion in 2002.

"You can receive millions of dollars for helping the Anti-Taliban Force catch Al-Qaida and Taliban murderers.
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."
[...]
"Dear countrymen: The al-Qaida terrorists are our enemy. They are the enemy of your independence and freedom. Come on. Let us find their most secret hiding places. Search them out and inform the intelligence service of the province
and get the big prize."

Only 5% of detainees were captured by US Forces. Prisoners were sometimes shipped to Guantanemo because of paperwork errors, and sometimes because they were annoying. Before the thirty or so high profile detainees arrived in late 2006 the highest ranking detainee was Bin Laden's driver.

I can confidently assert that your assumption:

I have to assume that most of the individuals sitting in Bagram and Guantanamo right now were captured in arms against the United States Armed Forces or its Afghan and Iraqi allies.

is stupidly niave and based on fantastic propeganda created by the US government.

[Darth Wong]

This Guantanamo Logic is great! I think we can use it to safely assume that all prisoners in US federal prisons are serial killers. All we have to do is cite an example of a serial killer who is in US federal prison, and by the Guantanamo Logic process, we can arrive at the conclusion that they must all be serial killers. If anyone questions that, we can cite a dozen more, and then say "case closed".

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This Guantanamo Logic is great! I think we can use it to safely assume that all prisoners in US federal prisons are serial killers. All we have to do is cite an example of a serial killer who is in US federal prison, and by the Guantanamo Logic process, we can arrive at the conclusion that they must all be serial killers. If anyone questions that, we can cite a dozen more, and then say "case closed".

*shrug* it's also an argument the average American is likely to respond positively to, Mike, which was the point I very badly tried to convey. And the fundamental problem, because Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will say we're releasing killers into America, and congress will vote to stop the release from happening, lest they anger their constituents who 'know' that killers are being released into America.

[Alyeska]

Because Fatass and Hannity are fucking lying. Our politics are determined by those assholes.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I really think it bears worth repeating, and it seems Broomstick agrees with me on at least some level, but releasing these guys in the U.S is probobly just as bad as sending some of them to China. Check out the stuff at http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=134770 to see vigilante justice. This is dealing with apparently a Hispanic (guessing by the name) pedophile/rapist, can you even begin to imagine what would happen if it were the "Evil Muslim Terrorist?" I honestly don't think releasing these guys on U.S. soil is an option even if they wanted it, from a moral standpoint. Yes, the U.S. screwed their lives up and owe them. Yes, damn Bush and those who knowingly supported him and his war crimes. Heck, I'll even go so far as to say its also the fault to some degree of the gullible people who were too stupid/ignorant and who they conned into supporting them.(this even includes me for the initial invasion of Iraq, though not Gitmo, albiet I was definitely younger, stupider and far less jaded then) Releasing these people into the U.S. is probably the equivalent of a death sentence at the hands of an angry mob. Honestly, if it were to occur I could even see rioting on the scale of that in Los Angelos following the whole Rodney King affair as a distinct possibility, and this would probably end up including every survivalist/"militia" nutjub to boot. The sad thing is the rioters/lynch mobs would probably go unpunished due to tacit approval of people in the government, seeing as those assholes who assualted people in the story Cairber brought up apparently ended up getting some kind of medal. That people is the truly ugly part of all of this, far worse in my eyes than the fact that any of it happened in the first place.

//Edited for typos.

[LMSx]

I really think it bears worth repeating, and it seems Broomstick agrees with me on at least some level, but releasing these guys in the U.S is probobly just as bad as sending some of them to China. Check out the stuff at http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=134770 to see vigilante justice. This is dealing with apparently a Hispanic (guessing by the name) pedophile/rapist, can you even begin to imagine what would happen if it were the "Evil Muslim Terrorist?" I honestly don't think releasing these guys on U.S. soil is an option even if they wanted it, from a moral standpoint. Yes, the U.S. screwed their lives up and owe them. Yes, damn Bush and those who knowingly supported him and his war crimes. Heck, I'll even go so far as to say its also the fault to some degree of the gullible people who were too stupid/ignorant and who they conned into supporting them.(this even includes me for the initial invasion of Iraq, though not Gitmo, albiet I was definitely younger, stupider and far less jaded then) Releasing these people into the U.S. is probably the equivalent of a death sentence at the hands of an angry mob. Honestly, if it were to occur I could even see rioting on the scale of that in Los Angelos following the whole Rodney King affair as a distinct possibility, and this would probably end up including every survivalist/"militia" nutjub to boot. The sad thing is the rioters/lynch mobs would probably go unpunished due to tacit approval of people in the government, seeing as those assholes who assualted people in the story Cairber brought up apparently ended up getting some kind of medal. That people is the truly ugly part of all of this, far worse in my eyes than the fact that any of it happened in the first place.

//Edited for typos.

Why would witness protection not work in this instance? Are you equating the ability of the Chinese government to beat up someone in their own country, with that of a lone wacko in the US? And why does "you're being imprisoned for your own protection" sound so creepy?

[PainRack]

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

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

Fuck you. These two paragraphs show the entire hypocrisy of your stance. They must have special information to initate transfer to Gitmo, they don't have enough details to start a criminal prosecution.

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.

No you asshole. The two points are NOT seperate.
First of all, there is no plausible rational reason for the US not to be trying to create a case for conviction, because the relevent details are important intelligence in a counter-insurgency. Details such as the motive, intention and capabilities of said insurgent to commit an act of violence against Americans are VITAL if they wish to shut down the insurgency in Iraq and protect more american lives. Such details would easily serve as evidence in a court of law(if they were legally obtained. And we already know of various methods to protect sensitive security data in a court, both military or civil).
Fuck. In order NOT to be sending prisoners to Gitmo for no rhyme or reason, the US military HAD to have been creating such a case for said prisoners.


On one hand, you're attempting to justify the US detention of innocents by proclaiming that the US can't plausibly create and sustain investigations for every detainee they capture(which raise the issue of why said detainee is STILL being held without evidence), and on the other, you're justifying the detention by claiming there ARE no innocents because the US knows they're terrorists.......... because they know so even though they can't sustain investigations.

[Stark]

This Guantanamo Logic is great! I think we can use it to safely assume that all prisoners in US federal prisons are serial killers. All we have to do is cite an example of a serial killer who is in US federal prison, and by the Guantanamo Logic process, we can arrive at the conclusion that they must all be serial killers. If anyone questions that, we can cite a dozen more, and then say "case closed".

This is HARDLY the first thread we've seen this asinine 'response' to illegal detention; it's been a favourite of some posters for years. 'This one guy was actually a terrorist so the illegal detention is working as intended', or 'this one guy was released and returned to terrorism, so we should keep them all forever'.

It makes perfect sense if you're a fucking retard.

[Axis Kast]

Fuck you. These two paragraphs show the entire hypocrisy of your stance. They must have special information to initate transfer to Gitmo, they don't have enough details to start a criminal prosecution.

You sure do have a short temper. Take a chill pill, pal. It's the Internet.

My statement to Lord of the Abyss was that the costs involved with transferring somebody to Guantanamo probably indicated that those who ended up there were caught during combat operations, an assumption that has anyway now been proven wrong.

The second point related to the quality of that information. Military detention and criminal prosecution do not operate on the same principles. The intelligence snippets that do (or don't) get one "through the gate" at Guantamao presumably wouldn't be sufficient to hold up in a domestic court of law.

First of all, there is no plausible rational reason for the US not to be trying to create a case for conviction, because the relevent details are important intelligence in a counter-insurgency.

Intelligence and evidence are not identical. Your entire argument turns on false equivalence. It also ignores the evidence provided earlier regarding the actual circumstances surrounding the detained.

On one hand, you're attempting to justify the US detention of innocents by proclaiming that the US can't plausibly create and sustain investigations for every detainee they capture(which raise the issue of why said detainee is STILL being held without evidence), and on the other, you're justifying the detention by claiming there ARE no innocents because the US knows they're terrorists.......... because they know so even though they can't sustain investigations.

I'm attempting to do no such thing. You're just too stupid to actually digest what you read.

One last time, I'll spell it out for you.

The United States cannot plausible create and sustain investigations for every detainee it captures. Nor can it provide them with a legal process that resembles anything approaching the domestic standard afforded its citizens. The United States will not classify these detainees as prisoners-of-war: they are non-state actors, and as such, ineligible. Therefore, we may need a special judicial competency, perhaps something along the lines of what the French have established. Of course, for the reasons indicated above, the standards of evidence will be measurably inferior to criminal courts of law. Intelligence, once again, is not evidence. Want proof? Ask yourself how the Israeli system operates. Who will adjudicate truth? Intelligence is partly educated guesswork.

[Darth Wong]

My statement to Lord of the Abyss was that the costs involved with transferring somebody to Guantanamo probably indicated that those who ended up there were caught during combat operations, an assumption that has anyway now been proven wrong.

I think the most salient question in your mind now should be: "what thought process led me to make that erroneous assumption in the first place, and should I rethink my basic approach to this whole situation instead of making a minor correction and then carrying on?"

[PainRack]

Intelligence and evidence are not identical. Your entire argument turns on false equivalence. It also ignores the evidence provided earlier regarding the actual circumstances surrounding the detained.

Don't try to equivocate your way out of there. Your two points together are idiotic, and even if examined in single, is similarly nonsensical.

And no, it doesn't "ignore" the evidence insofar as my points were directed at your singularly nonsensical stances.

The United States cannot plausible create and sustain investigations for every detainee it captures. Nor can it provide them with a legal process that resembles anything approaching the domestic standard afforded its citizens. The United States will not classify these detainees as prisoners-of-war: they are non-state actors, and as such, ineligible. Therefore, we may need a special judicial competency, perhaps something along the lines of what the French have established. Of course, for the reasons indicated above, the standards of evidence will be measurably inferior to criminal courts of law. Intelligence, once again, is not evidence. Want proof? Ask yourself how the Israeli system operates. Who will adjudicate truth? Intelligence is partly educated guesswork.

Shit. Let me see, there are multiple angles why your point is once again wrong. Let's start from the begining.

1. That was NOT what you were attempting to argue. Your first argument about the US not being able to have a proper legal process(even though such legal processes do exist) did touch on this, but you quickly ventured off to state that there MUST had been a reason why people are being held at Guantamano, thus, the US MUST had some form of investigations and evidence showing why they were held there. Note: This is YOUR argument and not the facts as it is.

2. Secondly, you're distorting what is meant by intelligence and the records being held. Ask yourself one thing. How was it that above said professor KNEW that the Guantamo detainees were indeed captured by Northern Alliance fighters and sent over to the US for bounties? Oh right, there were records, and the US subsequent investigations showed that they had not comitted any known hostiles.. Of course, they're still being detained while said investigation runs the course, but fuck, this UTTERLY destroys your argument that there is no possibility of the US being able to investigate and thus create a criminal conviction for said detainee.


3. Lastly, if you were UNABLE to sustain a criminal conviction for said detainee, why the fuck are you still holding on to them? Suspicion that he's a terrorist? Even though according to your idiotic stance, the US is NOT investigation the possibility that he's one?

[MKSheppard]

You have presumably gone to the effort of reading the report compiled by Professor Mark Denbeaux, of Seton Hall University School of Law.

You mean the report by someone who's counsel to two gitmo inmates? It jumps through the hoops to try and parse words; but in the end, the overwhelming majority of people in Gitmo ended up there because they chose the wrong side -- read: Al Quaeda/Taliban against the US.

[Darth Wong]

You have presumably gone to the effort of reading the report compiled by Professor Mark Denbeaux, of Seton Hall University School of Law.

You mean the report by someone who's counsel to two gitmo inmates? It jumps through the hoops to try and parse words; but in the end, the overwhelming majority of people in Gitmo ended up there because they chose the wrong side -- read: Al Quaeda/Taliban against the US.

"Chose the wrong side" is not a criminal offense. You have to show that they committed criminal acts. We don't imprison people merely for being sympathizers or associates of bad people.

[MKSheppard]

"Chose the wrong side" is not a criminal offense. You have to show that they committed criminal acts. We don't imprison people merely for being sympathizers or associates of bad people.

Oh really? Then I guess we better tell the Nuremberg Tribunals that they made a boo boo by making membership in the SS a criminal offense.

[Shroom Man 777]

Did a Nazi Party-member stenogrpaher or an SS deckswabber get the same penalties as, say, someone working on the concentration camps and driving Jews in the Mengele-mobiles?

Hell, look at Otto Skorzeny.

[MKSheppard]

Did a Nazi Party-member stenogrpaher or an SS deckswabber get the same penalties as, say, someone working on the concentration camps and driving Jews in the Mengele-mobiles?

You were effectively unemployable IIRC, in the post-war germany if you had that "SS" on your file. At least for the early reconstruction period. Stas can probably fill us in better on this.

[Elfdart]

the overwhelming majority of people in Gitmo ended up there because they chose the wrong side -- read: Al Quaeda/Taliban against the US.

You'll post evidence for this claim, right?

[MKSheppard]

You'll post evidence for this claim, right?

If you want. USG breaks down detainees at Gitmo into six categories:

1. al Quaeda (32%)
2. al Quaeda & Taliban (28%)
3. Taliban (22%)
4. al Qaeda OR Taliban (7%)
5. Unidentified Affiliation (10%)
6. Other (1%)

Even if we assume like Denbeaux that 4 isn't provable; that still leaves 82% of people having picked the wrong side in the war against the US.

Even if we play further semantic games and limit things to Al Quaeda operatives (groups 1 and 2); that still leaves 60% of Gitmo's population as Al Q scumbags.

[Vympel]

Did a Nazi Party-member stenogrpaher or an SS deckswabber get the same penalties as, say, someone working on the concentration camps and driving Jews in the Mengele-mobiles?

From basic ICL (International Criminal Law) principles, I'd say no. For example, though international tribunals provide for guilt under a joint criminal enterprise (i.e. - you're a guard at an extermination camp - you are guilty of genocide as much as the camp commander). However, you won't get as severe a sentence after you're found guilty.

[Elfdart]

You'll post evidence for this claim, right?

If you want. USG breaks down detainees at Gitmo into six categories:

1. al Quaeda (32%)
2. al Quaeda & Taliban (28%)
3. Taliban (22%)
4. al Qaeda OR Taliban (7%)
5. Unidentified Affiliation (10%)
6. Other (1%)

Even if we assume like Denbeaux that 4 isn't provable; that still leaves 82% of people having picked the wrong side in the war against the US.

Even if we play further semantic games and limit things to Al Quaeda operatives (groups 1 and 2); that still leaves 60% of Gitmo's population as Al Q scumbags.

The USG also claims that they didn't torture anyone -a proven lie.

By the way, where did you get those numbers?

[MKSheppard]

The USG also claims that they didn't torture anyone -a proven lie.

Technically, according to the CIA's lawyers, we didn't.

By the way, where did you get those numbers?

From a PDF someone linked earlier Link

[K. A. Pital]

Membership of the SS was a crime because it was a criminal organization. However, there has not been a tribunal of any kind, even a monkey one, which would've offered similar indciments for the Taliban. Or?

The Nuremberg Trial principles indeed allowed to indict a person for being a member of the SS, Shep 100% is correct here. However, that was based on the previously established rules for determining the nature of the SS and it's members, and whether some categories may be excluded (SS ceremonial riders were for example excluded since they were just ceremonial figures and this branch had no relevance for the activites of the Allgemeine or Waffen SS...)

[Thanas]

You were effectively unemployable IIRC, in the post-war germany if you had that "SS" on your file. At least for the early reconstruction period. Stas can probably fill us in better on this.

No, you were not effective unemployable.

[Stark]

If you want. USG breaks down detainees at Gitmo into six categories:

1. al Quaeda (32%)
2. al Quaeda & Taliban (28%)
3. Taliban (22%)
4. al Qaeda OR Taliban (7%)
5. Unidentified Affiliation (10%)
6. Other (1%)

Even if we assume like Denbeaux that 4 isn't provable; that still leaves 82% of people having picked the wrong side in the war against the US.

Even if we play further semantic games and limit things to Al Quaeda operatives (groups 1 and 2); that still leaves 60% of Gitmo's population as Al Q scumbags.

It's actually really sad you think 'UGS states xyz stats for inmates' means 'xyz stats are true' instead of 'xyz stats are a reflection of beliefs or filing convenience'. I guess it's easier for you to just accept the simplification you want to believe, instead of wondering what facts or evidence backs any of this up.

[Axis Kast]

Don't try to equivocate your way out of there. Your two points together are idiotic, and even if examined in single, is similarly nonsensical.

And no, it doesn't "ignore" the evidence insofar as my points were directed at your singularly nonsensical stances.

You are working hard to push together two vectors of argument, related only tangentially: my comments to Lord of the Abyss, and my original point that intelligence material cannot sustain criminal prosecution.

That was NOT what you were attempting to argue. Your first argument about the US not being able to have a proper legal process(even though such legal processes do exist) did touch on this, but you quickly ventured off to state that there MUST had been a reason why people are being held at Guantamano, thus, the US MUST had some form of investigations and evidence showing why they were held there. Note: This is YOUR argument and not the facts as it is.

This is your strawman of my argument, which you cling to because it provides you the basis to make your claim that you are right about something. It's really rather pathetic.

The United States does not have a special judicial competency that deals with terrorism or other cases in which prosecution depends on classified intelligence. Deciding the fate of the folks at Guantanamo Bay also involves making determinations about where we were going to release them - something for which we don't have a working adjudication process. These aren't bog-standard criminals. These aren't U.S. citizens. These aren't prisoners-of-war.

Secondly, you're distorting what is meant by intelligence and the records being held. Ask yourself one thing. How was it that above said professor KNEW that the Guantamo detainees were indeed captured by Northern Alliance fighters and sent over to the US for bounties? Oh right, there were records, and the US subsequent investigations showed that they had not comitted any known hostiles.. Of course, they're still being detained while said investigation runs the course, but fuck, this UTTERLY destroys your argument that there is no possibility of the US being able to investigate and thus create a criminal conviction for said detainee.

While what investigation runs its course? Prove that investigations are ongoing.

Once again: intelligence is educated guesswork collected by parties who are unidentifiable, and therefore not easily held accountable.

Lastly, if you were UNABLE to sustain a criminal conviction for said detainee, why the fuck are you still holding on to them? Suspicion that he's a terrorist? Even though according to your idiotic stance, the US is NOT investigation the possibility that he's one?

Much of the argumentation in this thread deals with the reason why: nobody quite knows what to do with a population that we may very well have radicalized through our mistakes.

Lastly, if you were UNABLE to sustain a criminal conviction for said detainee, why the fuck are you still holding on to them? Suspicion that he's a terrorist? Even though according to your idiotic stance, the US is NOT investigation the possibility that he's one?