WikiLeaks Releases Guantanamo Prisoner Files

HungryHobo writes with news that WikiLeaks has started to release a collection of 779 files involving the detainees in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. "The details for every detainee will be released daily over the coming month. ... In thousands of pages of documents dating from 2002 to 2008 and never seen before by members of the public or the media, the cases of the majority of the prisoners held at Guantánamo — 758 out of 779 in total — are described in detail in memoranda from JTF-GTMO, the Joint Task Force at Guantánamo Bay, to US Southern Command in Miami, Florida. These memoranda, which contain JTF-GTMO's recommendations about whether the prisoners in question should continue to be held, or should be released (transferred to their home governments, or to other governments) contain a wealth of important and previously undisclosed information, including health assessments, for example, and, in the cases of the majority of the 171 prisoners who are still held, photos (mostly for the first time ever)." Reader rrayst notes that according to one such document, if you use a Casio F-91W wristwatch, you might be a member of al-Qaida.

Comments

Hell Yes

[ae1294]

This is going to be good reading!

Re:Hell Yes

[jjetson]

I think I'll wait for the DVD or Blurays.

Re:Hell Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Waiting to count the number of Japanese school girls in Gitmo in an uniform. Their teacher might be there as well..

Re:Hell Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

But why would they bother with The details for every detainee will be released daily... . I mean, really - you only need to release them once, right? After that, releasing them again seems a bit redundant.

Re:Hell Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me when they release Obama's birth certificate.

Re:Hell Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks really figured out how to manipulate the media well. Beat them at their own stupid game. Since the fucking media's attention span is only a day to a week at most, stuff like a massive outpour of information would get overlooked. Smart thinking.

If You See Suspicious Activity

[Anonymous Coward]

call 1-800-JMC-CAIN.

Thanks for your PatRIOTism.

Yours In Osh,
K. Trout

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[MightyMartian]

Patriotism, the last refuge of the fucking moron.

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[Anonymous Coward]

You just insulted my entire america!

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah didums. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[Kagura]

Patriotism, the last refuge of the fucking moron.

I'm not allowed to be proud of the society and way of life that brought me and my personality to being, making me what I am today? I'm grateful for the role played by my government, generally speaking, in shaping me as a person and giving me a great start in life compared to others in the world.

I'm not a moron. Blind patriotism is silly just like blind "anything", but patriotism itself is a little underrated.

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[TheRaven64]

No, you're not. It's like being proud of your parents. The society that formed you may be proud of you, and you can be proud of a society that you help to create, but being proud of a society just because you happen to have been born within the borders that it nominally occupies is misplaced.

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[Kreigaffe]

You do realize that when people say "I love America" they mean less "I love the part of the planet, right here, from this place to that" and more "I love the noble beliefs and ideals upon which this nation that I am a part of is based", right?

We've made missteps aplenty, but don't be so quick to join the popular kids by hating on America. There's some pretty damned good shit that America stands for, and is based on. Go ahead and point out how that wonderful idealism has been muddied and corrupted into the same old shit you see anywhere else, and I'll agree with you, but that hardly makes "I love America" a.. misplaced.. thing to say.

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[uninformedLuddite]

You do realize that when people say "I love America" they mean less "I love the part of the planet, right here, from this place to that" and more "I love the noble beliefs and ideals upon which this nation that I am a part of is based", right?

You actually think that the majority of people from the USA have any concept of nobility, morality, or, even what the word ideals actually means?

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[ppanon]

While it's great to love the ideals that are in stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, you have to keep in mind the reality and how well it matches. For instance legalized slavery for nearly 100 years after Independence, and institutionalized racism for much longer. The USA has done a lot of nasty brutal things in the last 100 years in Central and South America and in the Middle East and a lot of the problems it faces now are blowback for those actions.

It certainly isn't the only developed country with that problem of course. But it's kind of like falling in love with your ideal of an airbrushed woman (or man) in a magazine and asking them to marry you, not realizing that they are a chain smoking, philandering, alcoholic. Now, they may be one of the best available chain smoking, philandering, alcoholics, but...

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[TheRaven64]

We've made missteps aplenty, but don't be so quick to join the popular kids by hating on America.

Where did I say that? Since I'm not American, hating American would be a pretty nationalist thing for me to do...

Anyway, you've now moved from pride to love. Go back to my analogy - there's nothing wrong with loving your parents, but pride in them is misplaced. If you want to feel pride in your country, contribute to making it a better place, and then have pride in what you have achieved.

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[ciderbrew]

I'm still amazed by the Scottish influence on the US Declaration of Independence. So eat stovies and drink IRN-BRU to be more American.

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[Risen888]

-1 Angsty.

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[marcello_dl]

Feeling part of something bigger than your own self, that is your family, your country, geekdom, whatever, means a lot of things. Discussing which ones are appropriate or misplaced is fair, making general statements is a waste of time.

A person who knows and respects its own culture (going also beyond the national flag, which often is artificial), listens to facts of life coming from his parents, his relatives, his neighbours, ends up with more ways to filter out propaganda, which currently pushes the idea that identity is at odds with peaceful co-existence. Maybe it is, but surely the absence of identity is *good* for a system of power based on money, because it removes scruples that may clash with the bitchy pursuit of wealth.

So, "be proud of your parents because they are yours", which had been mainstream for ages, today is revolutionary. Go figure.

Re:If You See Suspicious Activity

[dave420]

Being proud of the accomplishments of others is like feeling full after someone else eats a meal - a well-meant gesture, I'm sure, but ultimately empty.

So yes, you can be proud of the accomplishments of others, just know that it makes no sense and is merely pointless posturing.

You didn't make your government, you didn't make your country's history, and you didn't accomplish the greatness you attribute to it. Other people did.

Shitstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy, here we go. It'll definitely be interesting how the media tries to spin this in a negative light.

Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Black Art]

Well now I know what to give for Christmas...

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[MightyMartian]

"Don't be silly Bob. Of course I don't hold giving the promotion to Dick against you. Just to show you there's no hard feelings, here's a Casio watch. That's right, just stand by the window over there."

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else think of donating one to each of the whitehouse staff? They might appreciate the thought...

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/thank-you:

For security reasons, please do not send perishable gifts -- such as food, liquids or flowers -- to the White House. The White House is unable to accept cash, checks, bonds, gift certificates, foreign currency, or other monetary equivalents. Additionally, items sent to the White House are often significantly delayed and can be irreparably harmed during the security screening process. Therefore, please do not send items of personal importance, such as family photographs, because items may not be returned.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[goombah99]

If you read the article:

"The Casio was known to be given to the students at al-Qaida bomb-making training courses in Afghanistan at which the students received instruction in the preparation of timing devices using the watch.

"Approximately one-third of the JTF-GTMO detainees that were captured with these models of watches have known connections to explosives, either having attended explosives training, having association with a facility where IEDs were made or where explosives training was given, or having association with a person identified as an explosives expert."

More than 50 detainee reports refer to the Casio timepieces. The records of 32 detainees refer to the black Casio F-91W, while a further 20 make reference to the silver version, the A-159W.

It's not silly at all. But it's not the reason they arrested them either.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters like to assume incredible incompetence and irrationality on the part of anybody they have ideological differences with. Well, most people do that, not just slashdotters, but slashdotters publicly post their biased assumptions on a public website.

Of course the brand of watch is only one factor of many, many pieces of information that is part of the analysis of these people. If it is given due weight, not too much, and not too little, it is perfectly reasonable.

I fear many other factoids will be ripped from these documents and repeated over and over on the net without any real idea of the context or true validity.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[trb]

boingboing advocated this watch last december. it wasn't until I bought one and googled for the product manual that I found out that it was an al-qaeda favorite.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The silliness enters the picture when you consider how many non-terrorists own such watches, not when you just look at all the suspected or actual terrorists who do.

Pretty much any watch with reasonably user-accessible alarm buzzer drive leads and adequate timer features is a potential bomb trigger. The techniques for each would differ mostly in pinout, and wouldn't strike a competent electronics hobbyist as anything special. Why chose those Casios? Because they are dirt cheap, ubiquitous, and have reasonably robust timer features.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Lazareth]

Welcome to media in general. We're soaking in it.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we get the terrorits to change to Rolex and cartier etc by default thinkg of all the ceo's and politicians theyd get as. A win - win for justice!

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[stanlyb]

So, if they have Nike shoes, ill suited T-shirt, and drive Ford.......well, that's pretty much 90% of all Americans, being suspected of unclear intention.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[_Sprocket_]

The silliness enters the picture when you consider how many non-terrorists own such watches, not when you just look at all the suspected or actual terrorists who do.

How many people running around Afghanistan wear digital watches, much less this particular model? If it's very common in the region, I would agree. But I honestly don't know.

Pretty much any watch with reasonably user-accessible alarm buzzer drive leads and adequate timer features is a potential bomb trigger. The techniques for each would differ mostly in pinout, and wouldn't strike a competent electronics hobbyist as anything special. Why chose those Casios? Because they are dirt cheap, ubiquitous, and have reasonably robust timer features.

But we're not talking about electronics hobbyists here. We're talking about a course in bomb making; Step A, then Step B, etc.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[_Sprocket_]

Apparently you missed the comments back in December that noted the link to Al-Qaeda.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[0100010001010011]

By that logic:

"The skin pigmentation was known to be consistent to the students at an al-Qaida bomb-making training course in Afghanistan."

"Approximately 3/4 of the JTF-GTMO detainees that were captured being brown have known connections to explosives, either having attended explosives training, having an association with a facility where IEDs were made or where explosives training was given, or having association with a person identified as an explosives expert"

"More than 50 detainees appear to be brown. The skin pigmentation of 32 detainees appear to be "Mexicanish", while a further 20 appear to be "Almost Italian".

Not silly at all.... Except there are a whole hell of a lot of brown people. And equally a whole hell of a lot of people with these watches. Hell It looks to be very similar to the first watch I ever got around when I was 10. Not to mention if I started making decisions on 33% accuracy, I'd get fired.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

This 5-star review from Amazon doesn't help:

5.0 out of 5 stars This watch is the bomb!
This is the most reliable watch I've ever owned. I buy them all the time!
Published 11 months ago by K. Aubuchon

And if they're so reliable, why do you need so many of them?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey chief! All these people we arrested because they had casio watches all apear to have casio watches. I think we can safely assume from this that they are all terrorists and therefore make the hypothesis that all terrorists wear casio watches which justifies keeping them here foreever without a trial. Thank God for the superior intelligence we must obviously have since we captured all these terrorist.

I wonder how the selection of different watch brands is in the local street venders in the middle east. My bet is that casio is a popular brand not just with terrorists.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

heifer.org + froogle = teh lulz ?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[rmstar]

Slashdotters like to assume incredible incompetence and irrationality on the part of anybody they have ideological differences with. Well, most people do that, not just slashdotters, but slashdotters publicly post their biased assumptions on a public website.

I'd say actually less than you would find on other fora.

Of course the brand of watch is only one factor of many, many pieces of information that is part of the analysis of these people. If it is given due weight, not too much, and not too little, it is perfectly reasonable.

In theory, yes. But when the difference between guantanamo or not is a cheap casio watch, then things are very different.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Teun]

Because the battery runs out.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's good enough for Al Qaida, it's good enough for me!

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[ledow]

I have that watch. In fact, it's the only type of watch that I've bought since I was a kid. I've had others given to me but always use that EXACT model. The only thing that goes wrong with them is the strap and they are cheap enough to throw away and replace.

I've *never* had a problem buying that model, in the last, what, 15-20 years? It's always the cheapest digital watch available in any high-street store (i.e. not cheapy 50p kiddies things).

- It has a digital display.
- It's waterproof. I regularly go swimming with one without even thinking about it any more.
- I've never had to replace a battery in one (even the strapless ones I kept are still going).
- It has a cheap standard battery if I ever do.
- It shows date, day and time on a single display without pressing anything.
- It has alarm and stopwatch if you need it.
- You can turn all the stupid bleeps and bloops off.
- It has a light that's powerful enough to see the display perfectly in complete darkness (later models have an "electroluminscence" display that's even better) and doesn't run your batteries down even with every-day use over a long period and also to semi-illuminate other things in an emergency (I have read an entire novel by that light!)
- It keeps good time and is easy to change when timezones changes

Gimme an MSF (radio-sync) version, with electroluminesence and a decent strap and I'll give you a hefty sum and never have to buy another watch again!.

But as a terrorist marker? Not unless you can trace back that watch's serial number to a particular batch - you can buy it EVERYWHERE, even abroad, without any hassle at all. And I don't even think they *have* serial numbers (I've never seen one). It's like saying all the terrorists were wearing shoes. Equally as true. Equally as useless as a marker.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[osu-neko]

It's not silly at all.

It very well may be. The fact that you think it isn't based on what you quoted, which does not have sufficient information to determine that, shows you suffer from the same logical fallacy that the military apparently does.

Here's a fact to consider: 100% of known terrorists breath oxygen. Therefore, if you find someone breathing oxygen, it's an extremely strong indicator that they're a terrorist, no? Well, no, it isn't, because there's no less strong an association between oxygen-breathing and non-terrorists. Having a high incidence among terrorists only makes it an indicator if it has a low incidence among the general population.

The watch in question is consistently one of the cheapest reliable watches you can buy (anything cheaper is essentially a child's toy). Oddly enough, these things sell by the millions to non-terrorists around the world...

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[hairyfeet]

I'd say the bigger question is what is it about THAT watch that makes it attractive? is it easy to hack into the timing circuits? But I would also say correlation != causation, it may just be someone in that area has a shitload of those cheap ass watches and therefor everybody has them. If they start surveillance simply based on the watch that would be as dumb as saying "everyone with a Tracphone is a meth dealer" because most meth dealers use throw away Tracphones.

Either way it doesn't change the fact that Manning is an American hero and that his contribution to the truth will one day be looked at like the Pentagon papers. The amount of double dealing, back stabbing, and just plain old evil uncovered in that dump should have heads rolling and the fact that it didn't and Manning is allowed to be tortured just shows that the MSM is now nothing but a puppet for the PTB. Maybe when China dumps the US Dollar as they are about to and we have a full on collapse we'll get something better, as it is now we have a country BY the megacorps FOR the megacorps and the people can fuck right off.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

*chuckle*

To have some fun, they should issue all of their recruits one certified Apple Iphone.

Half the US would be arrested :D

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Gorath99]

The silliness enters the picture when you consider how many non-terrorists own such watches, not when you just look at all the suspected or actual terrorists who do.

How many people running around Afghanistan wear digital watches, much less this particular model? If it's very common in the region, I would agree. But I honestly don't know.

I remember seeing these in many stores in The Netherlands in the '90s. Owned one myself. In many ways it's a better watch than the fancy Swiss one I've got now. Very reliable, user-friendly, incredibly long battery life (people report 8+ years; I know I never had to change the battery in mine), and dirt cheap to boot ($8 on the web). I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's still popular in places like Afghanistan. If it wasn't so ugly I'd still be wearing mine.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[stanlyb]

What about iPhone? Maybe they even have the appropriate App for this. I wonder, what would be the name of this App.....

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[rnaiguy]

And we'd know EXACTLY where to find them.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[yndrd1984]

100% of known terrorists breath oxygen. Therefore, if you find someone breathing oxygen, it's an extremely strong indicator that they're a terrorist, no? Well, no, it isn't...

Yes, yes it is. And we encourage everyone to do their utmost to end this threat by destroying all oxygen-breathing organisms.

Sincerely,

The Society of Anaerobes

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

If 0.5% of the general population wears those watches, and 25% of known terrorists wear those watches, it is an important indicator. No, it doesn't establish guilt, and yes, you have to be very careful of false positives. However, it would be foolhardy to completely ignore such statistical indicators. I doubt there is any current detainee being held solely because of their watch. It's just another piece of corroborating evidence.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you are looking for a statistical correlation between X and Y. In your example, you would expect the skin pigmentation of the people at the training courses to roughly match that of the local population, so having a certain color skin does not represent an increased chance of you being a terrorist. However, assuming few people own this wristwatch in the given area, except a significant fraction of the people who attended a particular course all own this watch, than owning the watch is indeed a valid marker for being a terrorist. No one is saying the relationship is anywhere near 1:1, but to discount it, or to compare it to skin color is stupid.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[c6gunner]

The silliness enters the picture when you consider how many non-terrorists own such watches, not when you just look at all the suspected or actual terrorists who do.

Well, yes, that would be silly. Why would you want to do something like that?

A lot of people drive a blue For Taurus, so I suppose it would be unreasonable for police to put out an APB stating 4 suspects in a blue Ford Taurus had just robbed a bank at the intersection of X Street and Y Avenue.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[_Sprocket_]

I remember seeing these in many stores in The Netherlands in the '90s. Owned one myself. In many ways it's a better watch than the fancy Swiss one I've got now. Very reliable, user-friendly, incredibly long battery life (people report 8+ years; I know I never had to change the battery in mine), and dirt cheap to boot ($8 on the web). I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's still popular in places like Afghanistan. If it wasn't so ugly I'd still be wearing mine.

I'm sure the watch was picked by Al-quaeda for good reasons - availability, performance, price. I don't doubt that you'll find these things all over the world. The question is, how common are they in Afghanistan? Unless you're implying there's a socio-economic parallel between The Netherlands and Afghanistan.

When I was a fresh recruit in the military, we were given a particular running shoe. They weren't special military running shoes; they were mass produced civilian products - but a particular product with particular coloring. But if you went through training, you got a pair. Consequently, you'd see new recruits fresh out of training walking around wearing the things as they did appear civilian enough. But I don't remember ever seeing those particular shoes in any civilian shoe stores in the area (probably wouldn't sell very well anyway as the local market wouldn't be too strong). So if you saw someone with a short haircut and these shoes walking around the community near base you could be pretty sure they were fresh recruits just out of training.

Granted - there's a bit of a difference between wearing military issued clothes and choosing a watch favored by bomb makers. The point here is that common civilian items can stand out if they are favored above normal selection by a local population. And so the question goes back to how common these watches are in Afghanistan?

I wouldn't be surprised either way. On one hand, I would imagine $8USD would go a long way in Afghanistan and a digital watch might not be the first thing someone in that region would go out and buy. But at the same time, it can be amazing how things like clothing and consumer electronics (radios, mobile phones, etc.) permeate all but the very most remote regions of the world.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you have managed to farcically impose a level of stupidity upon yourself purely for the sake of argument which exceeds your normal level.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Mindcontrolled]

What are you saying here? We should detain everyone with a certain brand of running shoes because that is indicative of them being war criminals?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Lemmy Caution]

Except that's not what's happening. More like the police are trying to crack down on bank robbers in general by pulling over people in blue Tauruses, after they learn that a couple bank robbers elsewhere had them.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[trb]

Apparently you missed the comments back in December that noted the link to Al-Qaeda.

correct, i saw the article about a decent $10 watch and i didn't read the comments at that time. even with the comments, and even with the fact that al-qaeda uses casio watches as timers for bombs, that doesn't imply anything about people who buy casio watches. if you don't understand why, search wikipedia for "fallacy."

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[stealth_finger]

it wasn't until I bought one and googled for the product manual that I found out that it was an al-qaeda favorite.

Did you find out when the FBI kicked down your door and arrested you for being a terrorist based solely on your internet search?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[_Sprocket_]

Right. And if you had seen the comments, you would have seen that it was known to be an Al-Qaeda favorite well before you Googled. But I see now you were trying to make a point, not just tell an amusing story. Yes. I'm sure there are people the world over buying Casio watches who aren't in Al-Qaeda. After all, it would be a pretty limited market for Casio to go after.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate freedom?

-- GW Bush

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Scrameustache]

it's not the reason they arrested them

It sometimes was:
"In a handful of cases the detainee's possession of a Casio watch or the wearing olive-drab clothing is cited as evidence that the detainee is an enemy combatant. No basis is given to explain why such evidence makes the detainee an enemy combatant."

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

- It has alarm and stopwatch if you need it.

Actually that's exactly what I need...

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Reliability, durability, and longevity don't encourage increased disposable consumption, and thus is a threat to our American way of life.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[meglon]

It's not even that simple. It's like saying the police picked up everyone who owned a blue Taurus, threw them in jail for years, tortured them, without any evidence they were anything other than someone just driving along.

In fact, it's probably worse than that, considering the amount of money that was being given out for "possible" terrorists to be identified early on in Afghanistan... it'd be like the police doing all that because someone was paid enormous amounts of money to suggested you might have once driven a blue Taurus.

If that's all we need to do, there's a whole bunch of people i'd be happy to tell whomever it is in charge that they once may have had a watch like this.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[2short]

No, it doesn't. Well, I assume it would eventually, if I went that long without losing my watch; but I don't. If you want a watch with all the basic digital watch features (stopwatch, alarm, etc), it's great and cheap. I've lost a half dozen of them over a few decades. Which is no problem: you look behind the sofa cushions and find either the watch or enough change for a new one.

At least once I've managed to hold onto one for 4-5 years without the battery giving out.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[savuporo]

Soo .. you are the part of the population that thinks that digital watches are a pretty neat idea ?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[_Sprocket_]

What are you saying here?

Let me quote the paragraph you overlooked:

Granted - there's a bit of a difference between wearing military issued clothes and choosing a watch favored by bomb makers. The point here is that common civilian items can stand out if they are favored above normal selection by a local population. And so the question goes back to how common these watches are in Afghanistan?

You're welcome. Reading is fundamental.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[jrumney]

It's not the reason they arrested approximately a third of them, at least.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the cops won't government agents who are detaining people won't be fired based on such percentages. If anything they get promoted. Especially if they say they'll return us to pre-9'11 security and lift stupid illogical pseudo-security precautions. The only problem is they then can't, don't, or won't actually do it. Instead they'll go and try and get even MORE dumb security policies added.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[ledow]

Yeah.

Sorry, I see no reason to over-complicate a numbered metric for sake of historical attitudes towards "doing things the hard way" by taking splices of an arc and estimating their swept area to come to a numeral, when all I care about IS the numeral (whether approximate 15-minute intervals and/or split-second accuracy, and with digital displays I can get both in one device without moving parts, the absence of which gives this particular model some of its durability).

Oh, and to be fussy: does your analogue clock have roman numerals on it? Are you sure? What about number 4? (hint: if your clock says "IV", it's tradition-horologically wrong; if it says "IIII", it's historically wrong).

There's nothing wrong with a digital clock. I hesitate to waste the time to teach my child an analogue clock and if/when I do, it will be to avoid such "social embarrassment" more than to improve her numeracy or time-keeping. As far as I'm concerned, the only use for an analogue dial is to show kids how to find North in daylight.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

as dumb as saying "everyone with a Tracphone is a meth dealer" because most meth dealers use throw away Tracphones.

As a tracfone user, I can bust that myth. I bought the phone, but nobody even checked to see if I attended the "mandatory" drug-dealer training sessions. I'm sure plenty of others have found that loophole.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was making a reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[c6gunner]

Except that's not what's happening.

Really? Wow. Apparently you have sources of information that I don't have access to. Could you share, or is it all classified?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Kreigaffe]

It's probably more that the watch is 20 years old and cheap as dirt -- I assume it's simple to find in any and every part of the world. It's probably also got a good strong current going to its alarm, and probably it's easy to access that alarm.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[sumdumass]

The problem is that in this situation, it would be like 90% or all Americans in a foreign country. What's normal for you here, is not normal there and can be a sign of something being out of place or wrong.

So imagine someone in a Nike shoes, Ill suited T-Shirt, and driving a ford, in the middle of Afghanistan were ford car haven't been sold in ages. IT not narrows the field down to a few people indicating something other then normality and most likely with someone commonly bonding them to those choices..

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Scrameustache]

Of course the brand of watch is only one factor of many, many pieces of information that is part of the analysis of these people. If it is given due weight, not too much, and not too little, it is perfectly reasonable.

If... but in this case it's !if:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_detainees_accused_of_possessing_Casio_F91W_watches

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[X0563511]

iTroll?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[cavreader]

You win the award for putting the most BS in one post. Manning is not and will not ever be considered some kind of a hero. He broke the law and will be judged for his actions in a court of law. So far the information released has not did any harm to the US other than forcing the government to re-assign diplomatic personnel because of unflattering remarks they made in their private correspondence. If anything the released data effected other countries much more than the US. Manning's efforts will only result in more security being put in place to prevent this from happening in the future. It will reduce the openness and make collaboration between various agencies more problematic. China only holds about 6% of all outstanding treasury certificates and they hold those because they consider the US to be a good investment when compared to other countries. They are not lending the US money they are investing in it. If the US was to collapse so would the rest of the world. Contrary to popular belief the US still has the largest economy as well as being the top manufacture on the planet. China has narrowed the gap but it will take years for them to catch the US and that is assuming they have no problems of their own along the way. They just reported their first trade deficit and are having inflationary problems which will increase the cost of their exports there by reducing the low labor costs that they depend on to compete internationally. They will also face competition from countries like India and Brazil. Why do you assume if the US collapses something better would emerge? The current way of doing things has been slowly built up over the last 100 years or so. Today's pattern of non-cooperation due to ideological differences would impede the creation of a stable replacement any time soon. There are problems today but there have always been problems in the US, a lot of them were much more serious than the problems we have today. How long do you think it would take to create, approve, and enact a new Constitution or Bill of Rights? I am still amazed that our forefathers were able to produce these items because of the compromises needed which our leaders today avoid like the plague.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Sumtingwong]

What fucking troll modded this comment up?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[LordLimecat]

Holy hyperbole, you mean to say the headline / summary are sensationalist?

If we cant trust a slashdot summary to keep things spin-free, who CAN we trust?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[ppanon]

Well, if you're going to the trouble to teach people how to make IED's to attack an occupying force, then you will probably try to teach them how to do it with materials that are easily available locally. So I think you can expect that, while Casios may not have been the most popular watch in Afghanistan, they were probably readily available and moderately popular.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Gimme an MSF (radio-sync) version, with electroluminesence and a decent strap and I'll give you a hefty sum and never have to buy another watch again!.

This might be what you're looking for (radio sync'd, EL, resin strap, and solar powered!)
http://www.amazon.com/Casio-GWM850-1CR-Atomic-Solar-Shock/dp/B001BY9BW2/ref=sr_1_11?s=watches&ie=UTF8&qid=1303801057&sr=1-11

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Gogo0]

iED

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[tehcyder]

Why would you let recruits wear army issued clothing off the base anyway? Don't they let you have any personal effects in the US army?

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way your argument makes any sense is if you're claiming that the color of skin is an indicator of a person's choices in the past or plans for the future.

Skin color is something you're born with, but other than giving some clues as to a person's ancestry it doesn't tell you jack shit about them.
Wearing a watch is a conscious decision a person makes, and they have a reason for doing so. Also, they obtained this watch somewhere, somehow, and at some point in time. Finding out the details of how, why, and where DOES tell you a lot about a person.

It makes perfect sense to be on the lookout for people brought into custody who are in possession of equipment known to be commonly issued by a certain group.

The scandal here is NOT about the watch. You're entirely missing the point. The Scandal is that this is evidence that despite media reports, this watch could constitute a "common style of dress or equipment" which in normal people language is "a Uniform". If it is discovered that Al-Quada is issuing standardized equipment, that could potentially make them qualify for Geneva Protections, which they do not currently have since they are not fighting under a flag or wearing a uniform.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[miffo.swe]

Manning will be considered a hero in time, if not for his release then it will be for being the tinder lighting the fire under the US backed Dictators in the middle east. Once it was proven those had backroom dealings in total opposition to common views in their own countries, they were toast.

China is very much lending money to the US. Calling it a good investment is pretty funny considering the US is on the brink of economic collapse. China needs the US economy, much because the US has dismantled its own factories and because of this imports an insane amount of goods.

When China overtakes the US i for one will worry. A country without money or power but access to boatloads of weapons is something to really worry about, much more so than a shitty backwater country like Iran that seems pretty happy sitting in its own corner without bothering everyone like the US does (as the wikileaks release shows with painful clarity).

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Eunuchswear]

It's all classified.

But you can read it if you want to.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Eunuchswear]

But, but, Dick and Rummie tell me they're everywhere. Sounds like a pretty good market to me.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[quenda]

Afghanistan. A country so amazingly primitive, they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[ACE209]

signed
just missed the mentioning of religious delusions - wich makes for an even more worrying constellation.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[ACE209]

iDetonate

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

You friggin' towel head bomb-making bastard! You are responsible for 9/11 and you WILL ROT IN HELL!

Wait... did you say it has an electroluminscence display? SWEET!

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[mikechant]

I always find that the strap breaks before I lose* it or the battery runs out; I've ended up just keeping one loose* in my pocket.
Maybe that's not a good idea and looks extra suspicious?

* Note that this post is particularly useful since it correctly illustrates the use of the words 'lose' and 'loose', which may be helpful to many slashdot posters.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Thing 1]

Yeah that can backfire; those people are probably similarly inclined to tell lies about you.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[mysidia]

I'd say the bigger question is what is it about THAT watch that makes it attractive?

The low price the unit sells for ~$7.50? Water resistance? Reliability? The fact it has a calendar and daily alarm function?

My hunch: I doubt the explosives people are hacking into timing circuits; it's probable they are doing something simpler like gluing the alarm speaker to something vibration sensitive, or attaching leads to alarm outputs on the watches.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[mysidia]

More than 50 detainee reports refer to the Casio timepieces. The records of 32 detainees refer to the black Casio F-91W, while a further 20 make reference to the silver version, the A-159W.

It's not silly at all. But it's not the reason they arrested them either.

They could make reports about what kind of socks detainees are wearing and find 100 wearing black brand X socks and 30 wearing silver brand X socks.

That doesn't make it any less silly to characterize detainees by type of sock.

The association with the watches and being terrorist is just a heuristic guest/wild speculation, unless they can actually compare/characterize Casio F91W/A159W ownership rates among terrorists versus the general population.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[mysidia]

In theory, yes. But when the difference between guantanamo or not is a cheap casio watch, then things are very different.

Yes, but we have to hand it to them.... at least Casio watch ownership is not 'racial profiling'.

Although it might be proportionally unfair to people who can only afford cheap watches.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[cavreader]

Dude do have a problem with critical analysis or do you just naturally use unsupported statements to validate your ideology? China's purchase of US securities is indeed an investment by them in the US. The US is not on the brink of economic collapse if you look at the economic figures and stop believing all the political clap trap surrounding the issue. Just one example would be Japan, their debt to GDP ratio is -200%. The US is 37th on the list of ranking debt versus GDP and posesses the resources to manage the debt taken on. Also compare the US GDP per person figures with China's. Your cheerleading for China is incredibly short sighted and you judge them in a vacuum while ignoring the fact that they are already facing greater competition from the emerging South Asian countries that are starting to get their shit together. China's sole advantage is the low labor cost which makes their exports cheaper and that advantage is shrinking. A rapidly growing economy is good but it can't go on forever without running into problems like inflation. China also needs to avoid problems with their citizens demanding change. I imagine they are more than a little concerned about what is going on in the world today in regards to citizen uprisings. Regardless of their efforts to censor the internet the news of world events today is getting through. And take a look at the manufacturing statistics by country. The US is still the leader. There are even foreign companies moving manufacturing jobs to the US, especially in the auto industry. I don't mean to give the impression that everything is perfect in the US and some changes are needed but spouting unsupported dogma is just silly.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one, kick any old man in pajamas I see, he's bound to be a retired Caribbean dictator.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[_Sprocket_]

Why would you let recruits wear army issued clothing off the base anyway?

Regulations allow for wearing a limited number of issued / uniform items with civilian attire. I don't remember the letter of the regulation but I want to say it was something like 2 items. Also - those items shouldn't have all the normal insignia / patches / markings. So a BDU shirt as one would wear in uniform wasn't OK but if you remove rank insignia, name tapes, etc. it's OK. Needless to say - wearing issued running shoes was completely within regulations.

I should probably also note that this isn't the US Army. Different branches of service tend to have variations in regulations. The exact letter of US Army regs may be different.

Don't they let you have any personal effects in the US army?

Indeed they do. Let me stress that it tended to be new recruits running around in their issued shoes. I never did. And the shoes weren't common among most of the military population. If I were to speculate, I'd guess it's a combination of re-adjusting to "normal" life and waiting to either buy new shoes or for all your personal effects to get shipped to your new location.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

I just looked it up in google.

I think that is the watch I had when I was about 10 years old and in school.

Good thing that was about 20 years ago. Or else I will probably be in the "suspect" list.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[_Sprocket_]

Well, if you're going to the trouble to teach people how to make IED's to attack an occupying force, then you will probably try to teach them how to do it with materials that are easily available locally. So I think you can expect that, while Casios may not have been the most popular watch in Afghanistan, they were probably readily available and moderately popular.

I agree with the general concept - that these watches are probably readily available. But I don't think that implies that they are common. By this line of reasoning, the munitions they re-purpose for bombs must also be common within the population. Which strikes me as an absurd notion. The bombs require certain components and instructions are based on the most available examples of those components. But it doesn't mean any given component is going to be easily found within the population itself.

The point here is that there seems to be an assumption of absurdity ("those watches are all over the world") that may not be so absurd in the given environment. After all, I would expect certain clothing styles are common within the region yet you don't see those listed along with watches. The fact that this particular item is singled out may very well have significance in a region that's very different than where most of us live. Or it might be as silly as it sounds at face value. I don't know - I'm not familiar with Afghanistan. And I suspect that many of the people reeling from the perceived ludicrous singling out of watches are likewise not familiar with the actual environment.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[meglon]

.... and that is the point.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Olive-drab is the new pink.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[Thing 1]

Gotcha.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[dylan_-]

If 0.5% of the general population wears those watches, and 25% of known terrorists wear those watches, it is an important indicator.

No, you need to know what proportion of your population are terrorists to evaluate whether it's an important indicator or not.

Consider an extreme example, where you have a population of 1 million people and only 4 are terrorists. You will have 1 terrorist wearing a watch and 5000 innocent people. This makes it a useless indicator.

Consider an opposite extreme where you have a population of 1 million people and half are terrorists. In this scenario 2500 innocents will have such a watch and 125,000 terrorists will. This makes it a much more useful indicator.

In short, if only a small proportion of your population are terrorists, none of these individual indicators are particularly useful.

Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch

[hardaker]

I have that watch

Hmmm... I'd have posted that as an AC :-)

GITMO still open?

[ShavedOrangutan]

Where's all that Hope and Change?

Re:GITMO still open?

[MightyMartian]

In the trash can next to habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the toilet along with our freedoms and economy.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Dyinobal]

Like the cake it too was a lie.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Rei]

Awaiting congress to overturn the line in the last defense spending bill which prohibited the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US courts system. Of course, even without that, all of the evidence against the key detainees is irrevocably tainted by torture and other factors.

Re:GITMO still open?

[petermgreen]

Of course, even without that, all of the evidence against the key detainees is irrevocably tainted by torture and other factors.

BINGO Afaict there is no way to give these detainees a fair and effective trial. So the choice essentially comes down to either releasing them, convicting them in a show trial or continuing to detain them without trial. None of which are very attractive options.

There is also the side problem that even if they weren't enemies of the USA to begin with they are very likely to have become enemies of the USA after experiancing gitmo.

Re:GITMO still open?

[ShavedOrangutan]

Where's all that Hope and Change?

Alright, that went to Score 0: Flamebait in five minutes. How about this:

It's Bush's fault!

Re:GITMO still open?

[Lemmy Caution]

This criticism is sound only if it comes either from the far left - for whom Obama was, barely, the lesser of two evils - or the anti-war right (American Conservative magazine, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul - sort of - etc), who were fighting the Bush administration every step of the way. Obama is guilty for having failed to disassemble Gitmo and for carrying on the obsession with "global security" (we used to be interested in *defense.* Now we're interested in "security." See a problem here?)

But when that charge comes from someone who more or less supported the Bush administration or is in the Republican mainstream (or the more bellicose corners of the Tea Party) then its worse than hypocrisy. It's like shitting in your room and complaining that your brother isn't cleaning it fast enough.

Re:GITMO still open?

[tripleevenfall]

What do you mean? Gitmo is closed down. He promised he would during the campaign.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Hatta]

That's a bullshit excuse. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution. When Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President has to challenge it. Obama has done no such thing.

Also, there are other ways to close Guantanamo. He's forbidden from using budgeted funds to close Guantanamo. So, lets have a bake sale. If Obama asked for donations to go towards closing Guantanamo I'd gladly pony up $100. I bet there are a few tens of thousands of freedom loving Americans who would do the same. But Obama hasn't tried anything, so it's hard to look at this as anything but an excuse.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Obama's Justice Department hasn't indicted anyone for torture. Not one. He can't blame that on Congress. Obama condones torture.

In every way shape and form Obama has failed to deliver on his promises of change. He has no one to blame for this but himself.

Re:GITMO still open?

[h4rr4r]

What?
You let them go. Plain and simple, if you have no admissible evidence that is the rule. There is no choice involved.

As to your side problem, maybe someone should have thought of that before kidnapping and torturing them?

Re:GITMO still open?

[alex67500]

Habeas Corpus. If you want to sound clever, at least spell it right!

Re:GITMO still open?

[shermo]

Ha, that's pretty optimistic. Obama would take the money and Guantanamo would remain open because of some other reason.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet there are a few tens of thousands of freedom loving Americans who would do the same.

I suppose it's possible that there are that many people who can't manage the mental task of understanding that GITMO is a place, and that closing it doesn't change the circumstances that caused it to be used to detail the people who were detained. Just like Obama's "I'll close GITMO!" campaign promise was a shallow, one-dimensional talking point aimed at un-informed people he hoped would support him, saying that closing it is simply a matter of getting him the money is fantastically out of touch with reality.

What's needed is a legislative definition for how to prosecute the people being held (who aren't local criminals, but neither are they classical military combatants), or the willingness to simply try them in the manner that (shocking!) the AG just decided - after all of that craven political huffing and puffing - is appropriate after all.

Re:GITMO still open?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

But when that charge comes from someone who more or less supported the Bush administration or is in the Republican mainstream (or the more bellicose corners of the Tea Party) then its worse than hypocrisy. It's like shitting in your room and complaining that your brother isn't cleaning it fast enough.

As a member of the tea party movement (and I congratulate you on being smarter than the slashdotters who seem to think we're some top down monolithic organization because their favorite pundits say so) that supported the actions in Afghanistan (going after the terrorists that committed 9/11) and Iraq (we had more than enough UN authorization stating that Saddam wasn't acting according to his agreements, we did find WMDs despite the continuing memes, etc), but doesn't support the war in Libya (we have absolutely no interests there, if Europe wants to fight that war, they can without us... and yes, it is purely a war for oil or else Europe would be intervening in about half the countries around the world where despots are harming the citizens)...

It isn't hypocritical for me to mock Obama for not shutting down Obama. I'm just doing to him what every Democrat does to "family values Republicans" that fail to live up to their own values, pointing out their hypocrisy. See, Democrats are generally immune to charges of cheating on spouses and whatnot since they don't profess to support "family values" which is why Clinton constantly gets a pass. So, as someone that supported and continues to support Gitmo, I'm not the least bit hypocritical for pointing out that Obama fails to live up to his beliefs regardless of my opinions on that subject.

Don't blame me... just like the left, I learned it from Saul Alinsky:

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)


RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Re:GITMO still open?

[Hatta]

GITMO is a place outside US borders, where the previous administration decided the Constitution doesn't apply. Closing GITMO will prevent this disingenuous argument from happening again.

Saying that closing Guantanamo is just a matter of getting him the money is out of touch with reality. But that's *Obama's* excuse, not mine.

Also, the AG didn't decide that military tribunals were appropriate. He decided that they were the least inappropriate option he had available. Acting like that's the same thing is, again, disingenuous.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Belial6]

There is nothing new about what these people are. Actual "combatants" that don't wear uniforms predate those that do. Spy's are nothing new. Collaborators are nothing new. Special ops who sneak in in disguise and blow things up is nothing new. I wish people would stop pretending like there is anything new here. All we have is a new word coined to pretend like the laws of our nation don't apply.

Re:GITMO still open?

[The End Of Days]

Not that I am in favor of infinite detention or this whole debacle, really, but who made that rule? GITMO isn't part of the American criminal justice system, and "International Law" doesn't actually exist.

Re:GITMO still open?

[memnock]

Saying the Constitution doesn't apply to someone, especially just because of a political boundary, seems pretty ridiculous to me. I'm not saying Hatta is the one responsible for saying that, I'm referring more to the lawyers and officials who came up with that. The principle of inherent human value found in the Constitution should have no boundaries. It should apply to people who come here from other countries and it should flow to other who move beyond this border. If the U.S. thinks it is within the realm of its governance to invade other countries, there is no reason the principles of the Constitution shouldn't follow U.S. action. Of course, it would be impossible to get that idea to float. The Constitution seems to have lost its influence even within the land it was authored in and intended for.

Re:GITMO still open?

[HeckRuler]

You also track the hell out of them. If they're such horrible terrorists then eventually you'll catch them doing something or making contact with someone you REALLY want to know about.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Hatta]

You are absolutely correct. Those who invented, authorized, and implemented that policy are the worst kind of criminal.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Lemmy Caution]

If you can defend Iraq, after all these years - you're beyond reason.

As you are if you think Obama is "left" of anything except far right. But citing Saul Alinsky tells me that you're getting your talking points from talk radio pundits, and not doing anything other than partisan water-carrying. (As if there was more against Saddam than against Qaddafi! What a joke.)

Spend a few weeks reading antiwar.com and Lew Rockwell, then we'll talk.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Lehk228]

the constitution makes not distinctions, anyone subject to US Government power is also subject to the constitution.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you kill them all. It's efficient and no less "honorable" from an international perspective.

Re:GITMO still open?

[rpillala]

As unattractive as those options are, only one of them is legal. Part of having a constitutional government with elected leaders is that the law supersedes anyone's desires to the contrary. If the founders had wanted the president to have the powers of royalty they would have written them in. Or left room for them. This is explicitly not the case. What else can we call detaining people in an extralegal prison based purely on the say-so of the President or forces under his command? This is one branch of government playing the role of two branches, and violates the checks and balances fundamental to the system. As another poster points out, the military base at Guantanamo Bay is not part of the criminal justice system.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gitmo, this generation's Chateau D'If.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Sloppy]

Not that I am in favor of infinite detention or this whole debacle, really, but who made that rule?

The people who ratified the 5th amendment a couple centuries ago, and all the people since then who have chosen to not repeal it.

GITMO isn't part of the American criminal justice system

That's the complaint about it. There is a very basic and easy-to-understand principle behind the 5th amendment, and it doesn't go away simply because of certain interpretations of what "no person" means. If people think the 5th amendment is a bad idea that they no longer agree with, they should work to repeal it. Ignoring it, though, is just plain lawlessness. Not that I'm particularly lawful either, but this is the fucking government we're talking about. Without law, they're nothing.

Re:GITMO still open?

[The End Of Days]

Is that a fact? I can't find that interpretation anywhere - whereas it does specifically make reference to citizens of the several states having protections., with a 5th amendment exclusion for military justice.

I'd be happy to change my mind on it, though, if there is something I'm missing.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do they go? They're not U.S. citizens, in many cases the countries they came from kicked them out. Where the hell do you put them?

Re:GITMO still open?

[martin-boundary]

You're a Nazi.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

Presidents don't determine what's constitutional, the Supreme Court does. They also can't spend money outside of what the Executive branch is allocated by Congress. Finally, they can't indict anyone for something that's not actually illegal. Remember, Obama banned torture through executive order, not through act of Congress. Also, even if Congress passed a law specifically making it a criminal defense to torture someone, by any or on the behest of any American citizen, anywhere in the world at any time, they'd also have to make such a law retroactive, which is pretty unconstitutional itself. So basically, you're an idiot. If change is satisfying morons like you, I'm glad Obama hasn't "changed" the system.

Re:GITMO still open?

[2short]

I'd offer $100 too. But then it would belong to the US gov, which would be forbidden to use it to close GTMO.

I'm not letting Obama off the hook here, he's responsible along with Congress; he hasn't pushed. But he can't act unilaterally either.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Kyusaku Natsume]

I think that the last problem could be addressed by a really big public apology by the heads of the tree branches of USA's government, the heads of the Army, Navy an Air Force,a big enough monetary compensation to the inmates and their families and proper punishment to the bastards that jailed and tortured innocent men, along the same punishment that they would have received if they had detained and tortured a beautiful, popular blonde american girl.

Re:GITMO still open?

[ogl_codemonkey]

The US constitution specifically and deliberately does not restrict its protections (nor obligations) to citizens of the States.

Those acting under the name of it or the nation it defines are bound by it to protect the rights espoused as they apply to all people, equally and without discrimination.

Re:GITMO still open?

[anotherzeb]

Going after terrorists - yes (9/11 terrorists or any others), but didn't the 9/11 ones mostly come from Saudi Arabia?

Libya's definitely for oil - Britain would have to be supporting her commonwealth member Zimbabwe if she really did these things for compassionate reasons (for example), but the Iraqi oil supply was divided up between non Iraqi oil companies in discussions and agreements between European countries and America months before the invasion - not something that adds to the argument that invading was for some bits of equipment that may at some stage have been parts of WMDs or simple regime change (an admission by Tony Blair in the Chilcot enquiry).

Republicans, Democrats, Bush, Obama - even if there was once a noticeable difference it seems that now they're picking an the tiniest detail to disagree to make it seem as thought there's a difference between them

Re:GITMO still open?

[anotherzeb]

Pigs flying
Rocking horse shit
Politicians keeping election promises

Re:GITMO still open?

[currently_awake]

You might want to READ the constitution sometime. How about this: Amendment V http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentv No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The "nor be deprived of liberty without due process" part is key. Notice it doesn't specify WHERE (or who) you are protected, meaning it applies everywhere including gitmo. This passage means that the US government can't kidnap you and hold you in gitmo for many years without trial (legally). Also i believe killing US military personnel might count as "infamous crimes", and therefore require a grand jury indictment.

Re:GITMO still open?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

If you can defend Iraq, after all these years - you're beyond reason.

reread what I said... I supportedED Iraq based on the information at the time... and even then, I felt the nation building plan post-Saddam was the wrong way to go (and prior to being elected, one of the things that GWB ran on that I supported (and still support) is the US getting out of the business of nation building, making him just as much of a hypocrite on that issue as Obama is on Gitmo).

As you are if you think Obama is "left" of anything except far right.

Obama is an authoritarian collectivist in terms of political outlook, though he's been handcuffed from fully pursuing that vision, resulting in a governance more akin to authoritarian crony captialism. His desire to expand the government until it can solve any one of our woes is hardly a right-wing perspective, though the theocratic republicans that see government as a means to their personal salvation might share that outlook with him.

And yes, I'm a member of the far right based on the simplistic left/right scale, ending up somewhere between a conservative, classical liberal and libertarian. I see government as an evil, albiet a necessary one, so while we need a government, it should be as minimalistic as possible otherwise it tramples our freedom. I fully admit that I'm a bit of a radial in my political views, but most people tend to see themselves as a moderate/centrist regardless of where they really fall on their scales. If you can't acknowledge Obama as a leftist by virtue of his collectivist desires, maybe you need to reconsider where exactly the "middle" is.

But citing Saul Alinsky tells me that you're getting your talking points from talk radio pundits, and not doing anything other than partisan water-carrying.

Yeah, because there's no history of the left using Alinsky's tactics in US politics... that's what community organizing is all about. Scary part for the left, is the right has started to catch on and now we're beginning to play by the same rulebook. THAT is why the left is shitting itself over people like Andrew Breitbart, James O'keefe, etc.

As if there was more against Saddam than against Qaddafi! What a joke

Yes, there was a decade long campaign by Saddam to try to instigate the rest of the world, especially his neighbors into thinking his desires laid outside his own borders, including the invasion of Iraq. Qaddafi was most definitely a sponsor of terrorism in the 1980s, but after the fall of Saddam, he was practically falling over himself to prove he had no ambitions outside of his country, including voluntarily surrendering his WMD research. Qaddafi by 2011 was a tinpot dictator that was a threat to nobody but his own people, leaving the US with virtually no national interest in him. But if Qaddafi was so bad, why didn't we intervene in Iran during the uprising during Obama's term since he is a bigger threat internationally? Obama has tried to have it every which way, he's utterly inconsistent in all of his foreign policy, but the left just continues to make excuses for him rather than holding him to the same standard that they would hold a Republican to. THAT is hypocrisy.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, fuck it, just shoot suspected militants rather than arrest them.

No intel to be had says h4rr4r on Slashdot.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real world is the worst offenders are those highest in power. Those in GITMO aren't the worst offenders. I'd actually go as far as saying they are harmless. Blowing up a few hundred people individually is the most damage any one of them can do. Bush, Hitler, Obama, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam, Osama Bin Laden and thousands of other leaders are thousands of times worse in the amount of killing they can do. Each of these leaders has has had many many times the number of people murdered. Defence is preventing your country from being attacked and attacking the enemy as they enter. Going into a country and killing people is not self-defence. That is murder. If I were to go and kill a person who attempted to kill me that would be murder. If I thwarted an attack on my life by killing them it is not murder. It is self defence. The USA wouldn't know how to actually defend anything. They/we only know how to murder people.

Re:GITMO still open?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Going after terrorists - yes (9/11 terrorists or any others), but didn't the 9/11 ones mostly come from Saudi Arabia?

For better or worse, Saudi Arabia is generally cooperative with us, while the Taliban was completely uncooperative plus fully supported Al Qaeda (in fact, I seem to remember them naming Osama their Minister of Defense back in the late 90s/early 2000s prior to the attack, though there was some doubt about just how official the role was). Personally, I would have leaned on Saudi Arabia a lot harder for them to clean their act up since it is basically our influence alone that keeps the royal family in power... but there's little doubt that the Taliban, at a minimum, had no problems with having his terrorism training camps on their soil.

Libya's definitely for oil - Britain would have to be supporting her commonwealth member Zimbabwe if she really did these things for compassionate reasons (for example), but the Iraqi oil supply was divided up between non Iraqi oil companies in discussions and agreements between European countries and America months before the invasion - not something that adds to the argument that invading was for some bits of equipment that may at some stage have been parts of WMDs or simple regime change (an admission by Tony Blair in the Chilcot enquiry).

In hindsight, it's easy to say we didn't really need to intervene in Iraq... and that the intel that led us there was supremely fucked up. But Libya is so blatantly about oil, it's hard to pretend it is anything but as Europe has routinely turned a blind eye to despotic tyrrany virtually everywhere else in the world. On a side note, NATO's relevance died with the Soviet Bloc and it should have been dissolved then, there's no reason to turn a purely defensive response pact into an organization of aggressision regardless of how noble anyone thinks the purposes are.

Republicans, Democrats, Bush, Obama - even if there was once a noticeable difference it seems that now they're picking an the tiniest detail to disagree to make it seem as thought there's a difference between them

One word unites them all... authoritarianism, ie, the notion that government knows what is best for you and must tell you what to do. They are the sign that government, and particularly the executive branch, has grown far too powerful and has overstepped its purpose and bounds.

Re:GITMO still open?

[LordLimecat]

Care to indicate a case where a US citizen has been denied his right to trial by jury, or denied "presumption of innocence"? Or was denied habeus corpus? A citation, link, whatever would be fine.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Junior J. Junior III]

Hell, leave Guantanamo Bay open for all I care. I want the wrongdoing to stop. That means due process and fair trials, human and civil rights, and preservation of the rights of the accused and the rights of the suspected. You know, principles this country was supposedly founded on.

Re:GITMO still open?

[ZirconCode]

That's right people, if it's not a US citizen we don't have to treat them as humans.

Re:GITMO still open?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Why should it be limited to only US citizens. Are not all men and women created equal under God? Or however its phrased.

You know in my country US citizens have a right to a fair trial and representation and everything, just like every other foreigner.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

...convicting them in a show trial or continuing to detain them without trial...

The first has been done with Australian nationals David Hicks and mahauob Habob who was forced to admit to many things under torture, then put into a show trial where he was found guilty before being shipped back to Australia where he was shortly afterwards released.

The second... America is STILL doing it. Still holding people and still torturing them.

Re:GITMO still open?

[cold fjord]

You might want to try reading that again, and this time take note of the bold section below:

. ..except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

Al Qaeda declared war on the United States and has been making war for about 15 years, killing thousands or tens of thousands of people in the process. The United States is making war right back now (under the authority of the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force which legally as the same force as a Declaration of War). They can be tried before military commission or Courts Martial just as the Germans were in WW2, not to mention being held legally indefinitely (or until the end of the conflict). That makes for grim prospects for them, but that doesn't make it the wrong outcome either.

Re:GITMO still open?

[cold fjord]

What else can we call detaining people in an extralegal prison based purely on the say-so of the President or forces under his command?

You can call it what it is: WAR. Guantanamo is not "extra-legal", it is a perfectly legal prisoner of war camp, visited by the Red Cross and everything. Speaking of war, there was an especially big one about 70 years ago called World War 2.... maybe you've heard of it? The US held hundreds of thousands of captured German soldiers for years, pretty much all without trial. They weren't entitled to a trial for being captured as enemy combatants. Some were tried by Courts Martial for various crimes that they committed, including murder. That is Court Martial, or military commission, not civil or criminal courts. Other countries were at war even earlier, and could have been holding prisoners of war for up to 5 or 6 years or longer.

This is one branch of government playing the role of two branches, and violates the checks and balances fundamental to the system. As another poster points out, the military base at Guantanamo Bay is not part of the criminal justice system.

The Military has its own justice system with judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense lawyers, that tries cases on its own, everything from murder to theft and drunk on duty. If it is good enough for American service members, I'm sure it's good enough for dealing with the murderous perverts of Al Qaeda. (Didn't you know any part of this?)

The fact that it puts Al Qaeda members in a bad position doesn't mean that the US is the one doing something wrong. In fact, it is the US that is abiding by the laws, treaties, and customs of war. It is Al Qaeda that is in the wrong.

Re:GITMO still open?

[cold fjord]

I wish people would stop pretending like there is anything new here. All we have is a new word coined to pretend like the laws of our nation don't apply.

I quite agree - there is essentially nothing new here. Therefore, we will hold them indefinitely (or till the end of the conflict) without trial like we did hundreds of thousands of Germans in World War 2, as provided for in the Law of War. And, if justified, they will be tried before military tribunals as has been done before. All nicely legal under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (legally the same as a Declaration of War), the Law of War, and the Geneva Convention.

Same old problems - same old solutions. No fuss, no muss.

Just because it sucks to be them doesn't mean that it isn't the correct solution.

Re:GITMO still open?

[cold fjord]

It's Bush's fault!

Typical.

How about.... It's Al Qaedas fault!

Or are you a bunch of enablers?

Re:GITMO still open?

[ciderbrew]

Oh something to use when I run out of toilet roll. Now, shall I use 80 or 160 gsm paper?

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bullshit excuse. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution. When Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President has to challenge it. Obama has done no such thing.

No, yours is the bullshit excuse. There's nothing stopping you or anybody else from filing a lawsuit, in fact several already have been. The courts have so far upheld the law as Constitutional, so there is nothing the President can do except ask Congress to pass a different law.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Obama's Justice Department hasn't indicted anyone for torture.

Obama's Justice Department? You're not even talking about the same branch of Government you fucking idiot.

He's forbidden from using budgeted funds to close Guantanamo. So, lets have a bake sale. If Obama asked for donations to go towards closing Guantanamo I'd gladly pony up $100. I bet there are a few tens of thousands of freedom loving Americans who would do the same.

First, the government doesn't work that way.
Second, what are you waiting for? Quit bitching and trolling on the internet and do it already. Oh, you're saying you want to sit back and be an armchair quarterback, piss and moan but not actually get off you lazy ass and DO something about it. It's people with your kind of attitude that created the mess this country is in right now.

In every way shape and form Obama has failed to deliver on his promises of change. He has no one to blame for this but himself.

First, show me one President who HAS fulfilled his campaign promises.
Second, we have a Republican party who has outright declared they are doing everything they can to block him on this and other issues. So you can say it's all Obama's fault, but the people with the actual ability to interfere have already proven you to be either a liar or a moron. I dont' know about the former, but you've certainly proven the latter with your comments.

Re:GITMO still open?

[tehcyder]

Where's all that Hope and Change?

Alright, that went to Score 0: Flamebait in five minutes. How about this: It's Bush's fault!

Er, Bush started the whole mess, so yes it is.

Re:GITMO still open?

[tehcyder]

It isn't hypocritical for me to mock Obama for not shutting down Obama.

No, but it would be insane.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Eunuchswear]

In fact, I seem to remember them naming Osama their Minister of Defense back in the late 90s/early 2000s prior to the attack, though there was some doubt about just how official the role was

Source?

Re:GITMO still open?

[tehcyder]

reread what I said... I supportedED Iraq based on the information at the time.

But you have excluded yourself from being taken seriously. If I say "I used to believe that alien lizard beings controlled the world, but I have now changed my mind" all that matters is the original insanity.

Re:GITMO still open?

[rpillala]

You're presuming that these people are al qaeda members. This type of presupposition of guilt is not part of any criminal justice system.

In World War 2, it was pretty easy to identify members of the enemy forces because the sides were more clearly defined. "War on terror" is very murky and it's not so easy to tell who's an enemy combatant, right? This is why you'd need evidence before detaining people indefinitely. There was also an end to World War 2, but there will not be an end to a war on the concept of terrorism. A few days ago, Obama said in some impromptu remarks that Bradley Manning had broken the law. This has not been established by the organ that properly establishes guilt. But if the commander in chief says someone is guilty, that doesn't taint the process? Was the president getting involved in military commissions back in the day by calling verdicts in advance to the press?

Maybe it was just bad phrasing, but the underlying concept remains. All these actions (in Manning's case, just for example) are taken under the presumption of guilt.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, then one of them goes and does something nasty and the President gets bounced from office. So while i agree with you in principle, the political reality is more difficult.

Re:GITMO still open?

[rpillala]

It's bad form to self reply, but I just noticed it looks like I think Manning is being held at guantanamo bay. I don't, and I consider Guantanamo Bay part of a larger problem whose scope includes Manning's treatment: it's based on a presupposition of guilt.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Azaril]

If that was the case, it would still be completly illegal. You may have heard of a little thing called the Geneva Convention? It explicitly protects prisoners of war from things like torture.

Re:GITMO still open?

[quenda]

Care to indicate a case where a US citizen has been denied his right to trial by jury,

Every day it happens. In the US, plea-bargaining has taken that right by making it very expensive. Even people convinced of their own innocence are intimidated into a plea bargain. The "right to a speedy trial" has become something of a joke too. The mere threat of remand until trial is often enough to get a guilty plea, even when the evidence does not stand up.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Kopechne

Two months suspended sentence and a Senate seat?

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bullshit excuse. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution. When Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President has to challenge it. Obama has done no such thing.

Yep, that's the way it works. The President ALWAYS burns up political capital on constitutional challenges when he should be doing things like passing health care reform. Oh look, he passed health care reform, didn't he. That, my friend, is REAL compromise.

Also, there are other ways to close Guantanamo. He's forbidden from using budgeted funds to close Guantanamo. So, lets have a bake sale. If Obama asked for donations to go towards closing Guantanamo I'd gladly pony up $100. I bet there are a few tens of thousands of freedom loving Americans who would do the same. But Obama hasn't tried anything, so it's hard to look at this as anything but an excuse.

Just ask for donations. Right. What color is the sky in your world? I believe the president is prohibited from raising funds without the authorization of congress. Something about 'all monies raised by the government are taxes and only congress has the right.... You know the drill.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Obama's Justice Department hasn't indicted anyone for torture. Not one. He can't blame that on Congress. Obama condones torture.

Can't argue with you there. He's now the what, twenty-something-eth president to condone torture, misuse funds, lie, cheat, etc. But still he could do more. He's a saint after all. Glen Beck keeps saying so.

In every way shape and form Obama has failed to deliver on his promises of change. He has no one to blame for this but himself.

In EVERY way, shape and form? Really? Or do you mean in this one specific instance and you're using it to smear everything he's done?

Re:GITMO still open?

[bhtooefr]

Department of Justice is executive, not judicial, branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court has to challenge it, not the President.

Re:GITMO still open?

[smelch]

Just what the hell was wrong with Iraq except for the execution? Are we in the business of letting dictators who invade other countries, don't abide by the rules we established for them after fighting them back, skirt around embargos, and pass off all of the political sanctions on to his people go unpunished? If you don't understand why we were in Iraq then you are completely brain dead. Do you remember all that stuff with the UN inspectors? Do you remember how Sadam had every chance to avoid his fate but decided he'd rather stick it to the world? Do you remember how WMD was suddenly redefined as nuclear weapon when we found chemical WMDs? Jesus Christ you need to get your head out of your ass. Iraq was completely reasonable at the time, but since it didn't work out all sunshine and rainbows (you know, like war is supposed to) you want to bitch and moan like it was our fault he shit all over his bed before going to sleep in it.

Re:GITMO still open?

[oreaq]

Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#Pending.3B_U.S._citizen_Anwar_al-Awlaki

Re:GITMO still open?

[mijelh]

The US held hundreds of thousands of captured German soldiers for years, pretty much all without trial.

Which was one of the motivations for writing the Geneva Conventions, which the USA signed and now dishonoured with GITMO.
Besides, most people there are not considered Al Qaeda members, as proven by the fact that they are to be released with no charges.

Re:GITMO still open?

[LordLimecat]

Yes, clearly those were my exact words. Clearly, if we dont treat them like citizens and give them the full rights as one, then we're treating them as brute beasts.

Has it occured to you that using military confinement and trials might have something to do with their military nature? Name another war where POWs or suspected military combatants were each given representation. Do you realize how impossible such a war would be to fight?

For that matter, do you think the gitmo detainees are being treated any different than enemy combatants in WW2? How many POWs do you think got taxpayer-funded attorneys during that war? How bout WWI? Or the Civil war? How bout the war of 1812?

Re:GITMO still open?

[LordLimecat]

That is not the same; he was not detained, and was participating in military action against the US. In such a situation, citizenship is not a shield (otherwise, the civil war could never have had any battles).

To quote from that very link....

"If you are a legitimate military target abroad—a part of an enemy force—the fact that you're a U.S. citizen doesn't change that", said Michael Edney, deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council from 2007 until 2009.

Do you disagree? Do you believe that some hypothetical citizen attacking our tanks on foreign soil should be detained rather than killed in the field of combat?

Or lets make this a little more real-- what about Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda in WW2 Germany. If he had gotten US citizenship, would you cry foul to an attempt to "remove" him?

Re:GITMO still open?

[mijelh]

is very murky and it's not so easy to tell who's an enemy combatant, right?

True. But just to clarify, the Geneva Convention still applies as it says on Article 5:

"Should any doubt arise whether any of these persons belongs to one of the categories named in the said Article, that person shall have the benefit of the present Convention until his or her status has been determined by some responsible authority"

This is obviously not the case.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Ihmhi]

Use the money to hire a private contractor? The government does that enough as it is...

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

The language is clear, as you point out. These days, it seems like that would be read as "avoid making the determination as long as you can." Obviously, secrecy makes this possible for governments.

Re:GITMO still open?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Can you say reductio ad absurdum? Clearly believing the evidence that was presented by both parties for a half decade prior to re-engaging with Saddam on an argument virtually everyone in Congress approved of, is the same thing as believing there are lizard overlords.... Come on, Congress is mostly made up of lawyers, they're sharks, not lizards.

Re:GITMO still open?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

originally published in the NY Times on November 22, 2001

Under the tutelage of his guest, Mullah Omar began to see his goal as more than the liberation of Afghanistan and he progressively signed on to the idea of a worldwide jihad against the United States.

Still, differences remained. "There was a closeness, but I would not go as far as saying bin Laden was the de facto defense minister," a Western diplomat said. "The Taliban and Al Qaeda were not one and the same."

Some of the evidence left behind in the Defense Ministry house indicated the gap between Mr. bin Laden, the guest under fire, and Mullah Omar, the beleaguered protector.

In an exchange of letters full of theological reasoning, Mr. bin Laden asked Mullah Omar not to turn him over to the Americans, and the Taliban leader granted his request.

But items left in the ministry building and houses occupied by Al Qaeda members showed that the Taliban government aided the terrorist network's operations inside Afghanistan.

Documents showed that Al Qaeda was closely integrated with the Taliban Ministry of Defense in the field. For instance, maps of front-line Taliban positions across the country were found in Al Qaeda houses, and neighbors said the men who lived in the houses regularly traveled to the front lines.

While not a direct link to a quote stating he was officially declared the defense minister (sorry, I don't have decade old news links bookmarked), this does give evidence pointing to the talk at that time of Osama being the Taliban's Defense Minister plus backs that up with the Ministry of Defense and Al Qaeda directly working together. I'm almost positive I read the original association in 1999 or 2000, before Clinton left office, but I could be wrong and it's possible it was in the first few months of the Bush years. It was definitely before 9/11.

Re:GITMO still open?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

sorry, the new slashdot lags so badly in epiphany that a simple typo correction can lead to a complete brain fart if you try to correct it. I never thought I'd say I miss D2.

Re:GITMO still open?

[oreaq]

Your question was: Care to indicate a case where a US citizen has been denied his right to trial by jury, or denied "presumption of innocence"? Anwar al-Awlaki meets both criteria. I'm not going to defend him because im my mind he is a disgusting piece of shit and deserves everything bad that is coming to him. But just putting out a contract on him? Don't you feel that this is -- and if only just a bit -- like the same thing that makes al-Awlaki so despicable?

Re:GITMO still open?

[pugugly]

That would be a valid argument, if we had treated them as military prisoners up till then. However the Bush administration was quite clear, they didn't want to treat them as military prisoners. Or civilian prisoners. Actually, lets be fair - they didn't even want to give them trials or have the evidence heard at all - and indeed during the military trials when a number of these people were found "Not Guilty" rather than admitting that even these people should be released the military simply ignored the results.

So -
A) Yes: if we're not going to hold them to the standards of the military conventions, given the 14th amendment we are required to treat them like citizens (or more to the point, legal residents) with all the rights that implies.
B) If we are treating them as POW's there are specific military conventions we have violated
C) We chose to do neither and when forced to do so came up with a process with even less protections than afforded to POWs and
D) Having lowered our standards, we failed to meet those standards as well.

His commentary about treating them as beasts was entirely on the mark - or would be if people who treated animals like this were allowed on the street. The Bush administrations stain on our honor as a people will go down historically as being on par with our use of slaves, foreswearing treaties with Native Americans, and the internment of the Japanese during WW II. The complete failure of the Obama administration to take any action to refute the traitorous actions of the Bush administration only carries the dishonor forward.

Any civilized people would have everyone in the Bush administration that swore to uphold the Constitution and then took part in these crimes given the choice of honorable suicide before trial.

Pug

Re:GITMO still open?

[pugugly]

Yes - By all means, compare the treatment of a a U.S. Citizen who was placed on a list of people to be assassinated without trial or public review of evidence with a member of the Nazi's who, had he not killed himself, would have been placed on trial in full public view under the auspices of the Trial of the Major War Criminals.

Four of whom, because of civilized things like Standard of Evidence, Defense Attorneys, impartial judges, were acquitted.

Yes - certainly comparing assassinating a citizen based on secret evidence regardless of venue with a genuine war criminal that was to cowardly to stand trial at what would become the most highly documented trial in history is sure to make your point.

Pug

Re:GITMO still open?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lie? But it's right there on my desk, next to my keyboard!

Re:GITMO still open?

[Lunzo]

Which part of the phrase "inalienable human rights" don't you understand? The rights don't just apply to citizens.

Also if you're going to claim that rights can be suspended during wartime (a reasonable claim), then when has torture ever produced useful intelligence? From a purely pragmatic point of view GITMO serves no useful purpose.

Re:GITMO still open?

[LordLimecat]

Don't you feel that this is -- and if only just a bit -- like the same thing that makes al-Awlaki so despicable?

Well, perhaps, in the sense that this is essentially war (Im sure he considers it so, at least), and we both want the other dead; what makes him "despicable" is that he would target non-combatant civilians here to accomplish his ends. I do not think he should be treated differently than any other enemy soldier or officer; giving each one a trial before attempting to take them out seems counterintuitive, and Im not sure that anyone has ever done such a thing before in a war.

Generally, you save the trials until after the fighting is over.

Re:GITMO still open?

[LordLimecat]

Goebbels would have been tried AFTER the war was over, not before. During the war, I dont think the US, UK, or French militaries would have had any compunctions about executing a hit on Goebbels, Hitler, or any of the other folks in the Nazi leadership. Being in the leadership of a beligerent force does make you fair game for targeting, you know.

And I compared him to Goebbels, because their roles are quite similar, not because I felt a particular need to draw a parallel between their ideologies.

The mistake i believe you are making is that you are confusing the terms "civilian" and "citizen". A US citizen who was to start executing military strikes in cooperation with an opposing military would be perfectly fair game so far as Im concerned; he would no longer be a civilian, and would now be protected by just the Geneva convention and other wartime agreements.

Re:GITMO still open?

[oreaq]

He lives in Yemen, the US is not at war with Yemen, and the government doesn’t have a blank check to kill terrorism suspects wherever they are in the world. If US forces meet him on the battlefield it's obviously a different story.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Eunuchswear]

originally published in the NY Times on November 22, 2001

"There was a closeness, but I would not go as far as saying bin Laden was the de facto defense minister," a Western diplomat said. "The Taliban and Al Qaeda were not one and the same." ...

Documents showed that Al Qaeda was closely integrated with the Taliban Ministry of Defense in the field. For instance, maps of front-line Taliban positions across the country were found in Al Qaeda houses, and neighbors said the men who lived in the houses regularly traveled to the front lines.

While not a direct link to a quote stating he was officially declared the defense minister (sorry, I don't have decade old news links bookmarked), this does give evidence pointing to the talk at that time of Osama being the Taliban's Defense Minister plus backs that up with the Ministry of Defense and Al Qaeda directly working together. I'm almost positive I read the original association in 1999 or 2000, before Clinton left office, but I could be wrong and it's possible it was in the first few months of the Bush years. It was definitely before 9/11.

No, in fact you've quoted a source that says "I would not go as far as saying bin Laden was the de facto defense minister,".

So not only was he not the defense minister he wasn't even considered the defense minister.

Re:GITMO still open?

[LordLimecat]

We are at "war" with al-Qaeda. If you dont believe me, check out what they say on the topic.

Re:GITMO still open?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Why would there be talk about him NOT being the defense minister unless there was talk of him being the defense minister at the same time? Do we go around talking about how Bill Gates isn't the President or how Linus isn't the head of the Olympic Committee? The only reason to pen a piece stating that Osama wasn't the defense minister is because of the talk at the time that he was... and despite the article quoting a diplomat saying that Osama wasn't the defense minister, the documentation said that they were interwined anyway, much like Blackwater doing the dirty work of the US military. Oh, sure, Blackwater isn't the military, but it's made up of former military people and is contracted out at the behest of the defense department making the distinction kind of meaningless.

Like I said, I don't keep decade+ old news links and I don't archive everything I read off the internet like RMS. I could spend all day on google tracking down the sources the above quote was replying to, but I've got other things to do.

Re:GITMO still open?

[oreaq]

We are at "war" with al-Qaeda.

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution. Just like with "trial by jury", or "presumption of innocence" the US governance simply ignores the rule of law. I think we both agree on that, no? You're arguing that these actions are justified; I think the ends don't justify the means. The government can not be trusted. We have to constantly hold their feet to the fire or we'll lose those freedoms all the muslims hate us for.

Do you see the connection between the last sentence and your Göbbels reference? Al-Qaeda are our enemies but the government isn't our friend.

Re:GITMO still open?

[LordLimecat]

Both of Bush's overseas military deployments WERE authorized by congress, the Afghanistan one by an incredibly non-partisan vote of some 520 to 1. The stated goal of that deployment was to dismantle al-Qaeda. (first paragraph; I'm sure if you cared enough you could find the original declaration and stated purpose)

And I dont intend to state that the Government is our friend; I think that the only way to plan policy in a democratic capitalist society is to walk a careful balance between how few powers we let the gov't have, and how many freedoms we let gigantic corporations have. Its not that governments cant be trusted, its that people cant be trusted, and this has been known for thousands of years. "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely".

That said, I dont feel like crippling "Defense" (capital D, as in "government military") by requiring them to give enemy soldiers / leaders civilian trials; if we did, apart from how ridiculous it would be, it might also be a first among nations in the modern world-- I cannot think of a single other instance where civilian courts were used on enemy combatants before the "war" was over (keeping in mind that even AFTER wars end, most war-crimes trials are tribunals....)

I will agree that there is a delicate line there-- someone in the US who is a citizen, ON US soil, making threats about dismantling the USA, should still receive a civilian trial so far as I can reason. But when someone is on foreign soil, acting as part of the leadership with an organization that we are nominally at war with (though an actual declaration of war was not issued by congress, there was nevertheless a degree of authorization given), I cannot reason out how it makes sense to go to phenomenal effort for our military to capture and detain them, only to bring them to a civilian court, have taxpayers cover the mans attorney, and then allow appeals to spiral up through our civilian court system. Noone would ever be able to win a war if that were the system; it would be absolutely fatal to our ability to defend our country at home or abroad.

Re:GITMO still open?

[Eunuchswear]

No, reread the quote. The diplomat was saying that OBL wasn't the de-facto minister of defense. Nobody was claiming OBL was the minister of defense.

It's the difference between claiming that Cheney was running the show (debatable) and claiming that Cheney was the president (barking mad).

Re:GITMO still open?

[oreaq]

Sending rockets or drones into Yemen to kill this guy is an act of war against Yemen. Pure and simple.

All you are arguing is that it is difficult to win "the war on terror". Well D'oh! But you forget one crucial point: the goal of the war on terror is not to win it but to fight it. Whatever. I guess we disagree on how this should be handled and this discussion won't change that.

Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo?

[PeeAitchPee]

Eat it. Karma is a bitch.

Infected with moles

[DigiShaman]

Ok, like everyone else, I too have got opinions on the judgement of this release. But the real important question is this. Just how many moles or rogue agents do we have in the US? What's next? Release of ICBM and warhead technical documents? Our top secret fighter jet technology? Fuck, just call the USA the great "Pinata". If you beat on us enough times, we'll spill all the goods for everyone else to pick up. Hey, maybe even China can do something with it. Good luck fucking with them!

Re:Infected with moles

[ae1294]

Ok, like everyone else, I too have got opinions on the judgement of this release. But the real important question is this. Just how many moles or rogue agents do we have in the US? What's next? Release of ICBM and warhead technical documents? Our top secret fighter jet technology? Fuck, just call the USA the great "Pinata". If you beat on us enough times, we'll spill all the goods for everyone else to pick up. Hey, maybe even China can do something with it. Good luck fucking with them!

Maybe it has something to do with people knowing they are doing things that they shouldn't be doing. Like holding people without trial forever?

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

You misspelled "patriots." When a person attempts to hold their country accountable for transgressions against human rights, they are a patriot. Attempting to cover up for your country's crimes makes you a criminal.

Re:Infected with moles

[Dyinobal]

Documents on prisoners, in a prison facility is hardly the most sensitive information. It certainly has diplomatic ramifications of being released but as far as hurting US technical superiority or secret arms tech, it doesn't. Mostly all wikileaks does is dig up mud for people to fling. Which I'm not entirely sure is a bad thing.

Re:Infected with moles

[Jeremy Erwin]

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain

Re:Infected with moles

[fatphil]

He's indeed almost completely opinion. And a little bit of matter, and a relatively small amount of additional energy. But he's mostly opinion.

Re:Infected with moles

[straponego]

He is not opinion. He is a human being with a conscience.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Shaman a bit sensitive today? That time of the month, eh?

Re:Infected with moles

[TheGratefulNet]

justice, in a free society, hates a vacuum.

if it means The People, themselves, have to leak info to maintain justice, then so be it.

but the info WILL get out as long as we have at least a shred of freedom left.

folks, this is a Good Thing(tm). we WANT truth, don't we?

shame we have to play this leak-game stuff but whatever it takes to balance the power. if this is what it takes, well, its what it takes.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

Oh, I think we are all very clear on that. You think that there are good reasons for ignoring the Constitution, the rule of law, and human rights, I don't. Ignoring the Constitution is about as unpatriotic as it is possible to be.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

You are opinion?

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

He is not an opinion.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

He is opinion? Oh.. you meant YOUR opinion.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh no, it's pretty clear that failing to report a crime is a crime itself. So is assisting in the execution of a crime. In a lot of places, it's also illegal to fail to act when you have the ability to stop/prevent a crime.

Re:Infected with moles

[jimmerz28]

Your opinion. Let's be clear on that.

Re:Infected with moles

[Stormwatch]

You're opinion.

Is he opinion?

Re:Infected with moles

[tj2]

Just how many patriots or citizens who are sick of our government doing stupid shit do we have in the US?

FTFY.

Re:Infected with moles

[Ironhandx]

The fact that you came out and declared that this is his "opinion" says a lot about the state of affairs of education amongst the general populace. :/

Reading Slashdot sometimes makes me question whether some of you people deserve any of the basic human rights when you are so quick to give them away.

Re:Infected with moles

[Lazareth]

The comment that spawned a multitude of replies. Not because of the content, but because of grammar. Welcome to /., enjoy your stay.

Re:Infected with moles

[cavreader]

Maybe understanding is that these prisoners do not fall into any previously defined categoy. Are they prisoners of war or are they criminals? Should we apply our criminal law statutes to people who were detained by US soldiers in combat operations? There are clearly defined POW rules and citizen criminal laws but where do most of these people fall. If you say POW than by rights they could have been immediately executed for not wearing identifying markers denoting them as enemy soldiers. If you say just criminals then how do you handle rules of evidence on offenses committed in foreign countries which fall outside of US statutes? Do you just release them so they can go back to creating havoc without any consequnces for their actions? And yes there are those who were innocent but even the US justice system has convicted innocent people, no justice is 100% without error. So what is the best solution or do you really care and just want to use the issue to make political statements.

Re:Infected with moles

[countertrolling]

You wouldn't be claiming 'innocence', or anything like that, would you?

Re:Infected with moles

[pclminion]

Maybe understanding is that these prisoners do not fall into any previously defined categoy. Are they prisoners of war or are they criminals? Should we apply our criminal law statutes to people who were detained by US soldiers in combat operations?

Well, you guys feel free to stand over in that corner chatting, going "Hmmm" and "Well this is interesting" and "My, this is a dilemma." Just figure out the answer soon, because the rest of us are getting seriously PISSED OFF. We're waiting on hold, but we do in fact expect you to get back on the line. And by the way, your on-hold music fucking sucks.

Re:Infected with moles

[DigiShaman]

Meh, I'm used to it. I've got thick skin.

Re:Infected with moles

[bigpet]

has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Re:Infected with moles

[DigiShaman]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Look it up. Those that wish to destroy America do not deserve its protection.

Re:Infected with moles

[bloosqr]

I had to requote you onto facebook of all things.. well said.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

Who says these guys were detained by soldiers in combat operations? Most of them weren't. Most of them were turned in by their neighbors for cash rewards.

Re:Infected with moles

[infoseek]

These document were leaked by Bradley Manning along with the diplomatic cables. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/). So this leak isn't any indication of additional security breaches, though they may well exist.

Re:Infected with moles

[Hatta]

No, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it is a life support system. Weakening the Constitution endangers everyone. Those who would weaken the Constitution would destroy America.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

Where in the Constitution does it say that those who want to destroy America don't deserve its protection? Who determines whether someone wants to destroy America? There is a reason the rule of law must apply to everyone equally, because prior to a fair trial, we simply do not know whether someone is guilty or not. It sounds like you've gone further than just spitting on the Constitution, you are spitting on the rule of law itself. You are advocating punishing people indefinitely on the mere suspicion they may be guilty, without any trial at all.

Re:Infected with moles

[gadzook33]

Maybe it has something to do with people knowing they are doing things that they shouldn't be doing. Like holding people without trial forever?

Maybe it has something to do with people having access to neat information and wanting to feel important.

Re:Infected with moles

[h4rr4r]

f you say POW than by rights they could have been immediately executed for not wearing identifying markers denoting them as enemy soldiers.

Sure. Too late now though.

If you say just criminals then how do you handle rules of evidence on offenses committed in foreign countries which fall outside of US statutes
Could have done that until they were tortured.

At this point they should be released. They cannot be executed as spies nor be convicted criminally. Then the people responsible for both failures should be booted from the military.

Re:Infected with moles

[Hatta]

And a thick skull from the looks of it.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

Those may be valid questions, and they may not be easy to answer, but is it unreasonable to think that somebody might have come up with an answer or two after nearly a decade?

Re:Infected with moles

[DigiShaman]

It's real simple. If you're an American citizen, then you have a right to a quick and fair trial. But if you are not, and deemed to be a POW, why should they be protected? If you want to argue basic human rights, that's one thing, but we're talking about the US constitution here. And correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked, foreign POWs do not have constitutional rights.

Re:Infected with moles

[CrimsonAvenger]

At this point they should be released.

If you'll remember, the Bush Administration (and later, the Obama Administration) spent quite a bit of time trying to find a place to release them.

Alas, people screamed to the high heavens when it was suggested that we take them back where we found them and let them go, since the local governments might kill/torture/otherwise-abuse them.

Then it was suggested that the people screaming might want them in THEIR countries. And they screamed even louder that they were NOT going to take any of these terrorists into their homes.

So then both admionistrations said, more or less, "fuck it! We'll keep them till we find somewhere that wants them", and so they continue to sit in Guantanamo.

And likely will forever....

Re:Infected with moles

[hxnwix]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Look it up. Those that wish to destroy America do not deserve its protection.

"Look it up" ? Sorry, I don't see any exceptions for people you don't like.

Re:Infected with moles

[hxnwix]

has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I'm sure you're trying to say something, but what?

Re:Infected with moles

[CrimsonAvenger]

The comment that spawned a multitude of replies. Not because of the content, but because of grammar. Welcome to /., enjoy your stay.

Alas, some people have this odd belief that intelligent, well-educated people should be able to read and write their own language properly.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I'm ex-military and I had a high security clearance, so I have a pretty good idea of the information we keep classified, and these releases do not frighten me. Our nation uses the classification of information to cover its own incompetence as often as to protect the public. Believe me, I've seen it first hand dozens of times. Any terrorist with half a brain already has the complete technical information required to build a nuclear weapon. Go look up the "nth Country Experiment". What the world's terrorists, Iran, and North Korea all lack is the half-trillion-dollar budget required to build one.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

While I understand that you would like us to believe it is "real simple," it is not. Not everyone in Gitmo was captured in combat. Many were taken from their own homes, turned in by neighbors with a grudge for a cash reward. An American citizen was detained in Gitmo. The people in Gitmo are not POWs. If they were, we would be breaking the Geneva Convention, we have agreed not to treat POWs that way. Even prisoners of war have the right to a trial.

Re:Infected with moles

[DMUTPeregrine]

The constitution defines America. Ignoring it is, by definition, destroying America. Those that ignore it do not deserve, but must still receive its protection, because if we don't give it to them then we are also destroying America.

Re:Infected with moles

[DigiShaman]

But it should be noted that members of Al Queda do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention as their status does not meet the requirements.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Look it up. Those that wish to destroy America do not deserve its protection.

GTFO my country, you snivelling pussy. We seek neither your counsel nor your arms.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

How do we know anyone in Gitmo is actually a member of Al Queda? It sure as hell isn't based on evidence, so I'm guessing it is wishful thinking.

Here's the thing, you can keep bringing up points like this, saying, "But what about blah blah bah?" And I will keep saying the same thing, "How do we KNOW blah blah blah?" Without a trial, we don't. Like I said, most of these guys were not caught in the act, so how do we know they did anything wrong? Wishful thinking. We wish that they did something wrong, because if they didn't, then we are just as evil as the people we are fighting. That is why there are innocents in Gitmo.

What would you say to someone like the fellow who was held in Gitmo his entire adult life based on a mistaken identity? "Ooops, sorry, but you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet." How is that any different from saying, "You've got to blow up a few world trade centers to throw off American Imperialism?" When you throw out the rule of law, you leave yourself open to others throwing out the rule of law, too. You have no moral high ground to stand on to justify your actions, and you are no better than your worst enemies.

Re:Infected with moles

[DigiShaman]

I agree. We should at least know of the POW status to be sure process is being rendered accordingly. But please, don't speak to be about moral high ground. You can't claim the same either when you stand there and do nothing to stop evil men from doing evil deeds.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

Which evil men do I not stop from doing what evil deeds? You use that phrase like it means something to anyone else but you. Have you even tried to stop any evil in the world, ever? I suppose that since you have the massive responsibility for deciding what is evil and what is not, you shouldn't be expected to stop it as well.

I'm curious, though, what exactly do you agree with me about?

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

So we're 'just' detaining foreign nationals without trial? That doesn't seem much better.

Re:Infected with moles

[DigiShaman]

No, I don't believe in moral relativism. And yes, I've put my life on the line to stop attempted murder. And no, it's none of your business as to the details of said event.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice you didn't bother to respond to anyone pointing out your idiocy; instead, you just circle jerk with a (presumably) supporter.

Re:Infected with moles

[Belial6]

Maybe understanding is that these prisoners do not fall into any previously defined categoy.

No they don't. The prisioners haven't 'innovated' anything. They were imprisoned for doing the exact same things that people have done throughout history. I can't say their exact 'crimes' or lack thereof because we have not been told what they did, and they likely have different cases. That doesn't change the fact that if they were killing people while out of uniform, that has been done. If they were collecting information for the enemy, that has been done before. If they were doing any of it in uniform, that has been done before. If they were sneaking in to places and blowing them up, that has been done before.

The claim that there is a new 'category', is a lie. It is a lie to try and skirt around the law.

Re:Infected with moles

[JesseMcDonald]

If you'd bothered to look up the text of the document you cite, you would have found that the right to a speedy trial is granted to "the accused" in any criminal proceeding. There is no mention of citizenship, American or otherwise. The same is true of many other rights identified in the U.S. Constitution which refer to "person" or "persons" (setting aside instances of "the people" as reasonably referring to "the people of the United States", i.e. U.S. citizens).

In any event, while certain rights may only be guaranteed to U.S. citizens, the rights themselves are not exclusive to U.S. citizens—they are inherent to all human beings. The rights of citizens and non-citizens alike share a common philosophical basis, and failure to recognize one undermines the other. The U.S. government has no constitutional obligation to actively guarantee certain rights of non-citizens, but that does not equate to a blanket license to violate their rights.

The question of POWs is a red herring. POWs have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to a fair and speedy trial. The fact that they were captured by the military rather than a civilian law-enforcement branch does not change that. More to the point, perhaps, the reasons for guaranteeing fair, impartial, and timely trials to civilian citizens—namely, to ensure that the detainment and punishment are shown to be legitimate, and that the innocent not be punished unjustly—apply equally well to military POWs and foreigners. The opposition to Guantanamo demonstrates what happens when you throw out established judicial procedures on the basis of a minor technicality like unclear jurisdiction or POW status.

Re:Infected with moles

[Belial6]

If they should be released and no one will take them, then instead of a prison, they should be kept in a 5 star resort. The cost would be similar and it would be the least we could do. If you can't fee them to another country. Free them in place, and then pay to make sure they are comfortable instead of continuing to abuse them.

Re:Infected with moles

[luther349]

maybe if we quit the world police garbage and handel are own issues we wouldent be so easy to beat on. or tell every other countrys goverment everything. thats one thing japan gets right they dont tell anyone shit.

Re:Infected with moles

[Bj�rn]

If someone doesn't qualify for the Geneva Convention, they should be processed under normal domestic law.

Re:Infected with moles

[HeckRuler]

But there's a serious question of how do you prove you're an American citizen?
Let's say you're on vacation abroad. Hell, even that stipulation isn't really required anymore. Someone blackbags you, beats you, strips you, and throws you in a cell, naked.

Now how do you prove that you're an American citizen so that what they just did illegal?
How do I, sitting here in America and duty-bound to uphold the laws of the land, make sure that the CIA or whoever is only capturing non-citizens?
If I were to walk through the jail, and hear your lament, how would I prove that you deserve a trial, and the guy next to you didn't?


If you let the authorities handle group X without any rights, then anyone they want to grab can be labeled as a member of group X. That's an unfathomable amount of power for them to wield and simply put, no-one should be entrusted with such power.

Re:Infected with moles

[HungryHobo]

just out of interest ... have you ever read the geneva convention? like at all?

"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. "

please.
show me records of the tribunals.

no tribunals?
well sorry.
then the Geneva convention applies in full.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

Oh, but you DO believe in moral relativism. You are the poster child for moral relativism. For example, torture: okay, or not okay? Or is it... relative? I know you think it is relative, meaning, okay when done for the right reasons, by the right people, and wrong when done for the wrong reasons, or by the wrong people.

FYI, I have put my life on the line to stop attempted murder, too. I have risked arrest standing up for what I believe in. I have put my beliefs first, and my comforts second. And I continue to do so, working hard to make our country better. But no, it's not any of your business how.

Since you did not answer my question, I will just assume you were agreeing with me about everything, and admitting your entire life up until now has been a lie.

Re:Infected with moles

[Mindcontrolled]

And where do you take your moral absolutes from? The scariest people in all history are those who claim to have an absolute morality on their side. Mostly just by mindlessly regurgitating what someone fed to them,

Re:Infected with moles

[Mindcontrolled]

If you got acces to high security information, and this information doesn't frighten you, does that mean that the american human rights violations are even worse as we know know?

Re:Infected with moles

[slashqwerty]

If they should be released and no one will take them, then instead of a prison, they should be kept in a 5 star resort.

That would encourage others to carry out the behaviors these people are alleged to have committed.

Re:Infected with moles

[sjames]

Our government has a fundamental law called the Constitution. It is that document alone that grants the federal government permission to exist at all in any form. If it is null and void, then we have no legitimate government at all, effectively, the United States wouldn't exist.

That document defines a number of crimes that a government can commit, one of which is being perpetrated at Gitmo. Criminals perpetrate crimes against our fundamental law. Patriots try to put an end to those crimes. The first step to stopping a crime is to expose it.

Re:Infected with moles

[Duncan J Murray]

Hear hear

Re:Infected with moles

[Isaac Remuant]

This seems to be the usual strawman argument against Journalists and other people when they dare to stand up and show the truth.

"OMG! They're just attention seekers!"

"Does it matter if what they're showing is true?"

"err.... ATTENTION SEEKERS!!!1!"

Re:Infected with moles

[Belial6]

The behavior of being illegally held captive and tortured? I'm doubting it.

Re:Infected with moles

[cavreader]

Combat operations in Afghanistan means walking down the road. And the neighbors turning people for cash does not mean those turned in were not involved in the fighting. I would have to see some hard statistics on this before I get too upset that innocents were being turned in wholesale. I am sure that some did turn in innocents but I doubt it was a lot since those doing the turning in would have to live in the neighborhood and deal with payback from the family or friends of those turned in.

Re:Infected with moles

[gadzook33]

Yeah...that's neat how you took an example of an argument and used it to disprove all instances of it.

Re:Infected with moles

[cavreader]

I agree that there should be a mass release of all but those who are raving lunatics. I believe the torture claims are over blown. Not that there wasn't any but I doubt is was SOP. In cases where torture was applied the government needs to publicize some of the critical intelligence gathered using those methods if any exists. They did that for the guy blamed for planning 9/11 and the information they gained resulted in the capture or killing of the real bad guys. Even the recently released documents by Wiki-leaks showed that the prisoners were lying about their treatment. Understandable since what have you got to lose. If it was me I would be swearing up and down that I was being tortured whether it happened or not. It also seems to me that everyone automatically believes everything the prisoners claim. Just as a lot of people believe in the unquestioned veracity of anyone making claims against the US in general. None of the terrorist groups can take on the military directly other than suicide attacks. Their real weapon has always been in the propaganda they push which the media eats up which in turn causes the military to ease up to prove the propaganda is not true.

Re:Infected with moles

[cavreader]

I agree with everything you say. My original statement was just saying that when deciding how to handle these prisoners the US justice system does not really cover these types of cases. The question also remains that if they are released unconditionally what is to prevent them from committing the same offenses knowing that nothing really bad can happen to them if they avoid being killed in the first place.

Re:Infected with moles

[Isaac Remuant]

Read the GGP post again:

Maybe it has something to do with people knowing they are doing things that they shouldn't be doing. Like holding people without trial forever?

Exaggerated? maybe, false? for all intents and purposes, no.

Then you go and dodge the truth of that statement by vaguely claiming that those who disclose these kinds of information are attention seekers and call it an "example of an argument". ehhh.. what?

I mention this is trivial and often used an attack and you now claim "I disproved all instances"... of what? What's your argument? That seeking attention makes truths falsehoods? I'd like you to be clear instead of resorting to nonsensical "no you" one liners.

Re:Infected with moles

[gadzook33]

Well, that sounds like a lot of work, but ok. Bradly Manning said "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" So yeah, you're right, he was a champion of truth.

Re:Infected with moles

[DigiShaman]

Spun, you suffer from psychological projection. FYI

Re:Infected with moles

[moortak]

We've had the better part of a decade to figure out if they are prisoners of war or common criminals and aren't meeting the standards of either.

Re:Infected with moles

[cavreader]

No disagreement from me but the issue still needs to be resolved some how. And No I don't have any suggestions on how to accomplish it.

Re:Infected with moles

[cavreader]

It certainly is unreasonable for this issue to fester as long as it has. I really have no clue why the problem has not been addressed. If there was ever a non-partisan issue it seems to me this would be it. Unfortunately our current Congress is stacked with incompetence and idiots of the worse kind. I don't believe the President can do any thing about this either other than pressure Congress to do something, A Presidential order would not solve the problem because it would just pass the problem to someone else in the future.

Re:Infected with moles

[DigiShaman]

Oh, but you DO believe in moral relativism. You are the poster child for moral relativism. For example, torture: okay, or not okay? Or is it... relative? I know you think it is relative, meaning, okay when done for the right reasons, by the right people, and wrong when done for the wrong reasons, or by the wrong people.

A moral relativism basically states that everyone has a valid POV in their actions. I do not. Further more, I don't care why someone else is justified in what they do. I'm the antithesis of moral relativism. If I see someone being wronged, I call them out on it. I base my actions on the preservation of life. But sacrifices must be made when applicable, but believe such situations should be prevented from occurring in the first place. But if one individual must be wronged to protect a million other individuals, I will take action on the lesser evil. If I was being morally relativistic, I would be against the ends justifying the means...because they have right to their actions as well. Or so someone would say, but not me.

Case in point. A bomb is about to blow up in 5 minutes in a building. The only person who has the code to disarm it available to you. Do you A: torture him for the answer and save thousands of lives? or B: Don't torture him knowing that thousands more will die because of your inaction to do something about it?

Re:Infected with moles

[Isaac Remuant]

go back to this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2103152&cid=35933476

Remember it started there.

Also, you STILL ignore my point. I don't deny or confirm that journalists, Manning, Wikileaks or whoever are attention seekers.

I only ask: So what?

Re:Infected with moles

[anotherzeb]

Nah - the commenter means wearing Casio F-91W watches. I'm getting one as soon as these 5-star resorts become compulsory for anyone caught wearing one

Re:Infected with moles

[PaulBu]

Well said, Sir!

Paul B.

Re:Infected with moles

[cduffy]

You're making assertions not about ethical relativists, but about normative relativists -- the former group accepts the thesis that there exists no universal standard for ethical behavior, but only those within (far smaller) latter subset believe that this actually has consequences relating to how people ought to behave; the bulk of ethical relativists believe that enforcing personal or cultural standards is necessary and proper, even though those standards are not universal.

Suggest you learn what words mean before trying to use them in the future.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ok, like everyone else, I too have got opinions on the judgement of this release. But the real important question is this. Just how many moles or rogue agents do we have in the US? "

You're a fucking moron.

What's happened at Guantanamo is a series of war crimes. You lack a spine and a moral compass
and so all you wonder about is where the "moles" are. Crimes don't deserve security, you
fucktard, they deserve to be exposed. Fuck you, do the world a favor and die.

Re:Infected with moles

[Belial6]

Since they have not had a trial, you cannot legitimately say that they have committed ANY offense. There are already laws for dealing with what they are suspected of. The fact that WE did not follow the law is not a valid excuse to continue holding them.

Re:Infected with moles

[Antique Geekmeister]

They're not POW's. POW's are handled under the Geneva conventions, and would have received military trials or released now that Iraq and Afghanistan have been conquered and new governments installed. George Bush's fascinating legal experts came up with the concept of "enemy noncambatants". The whole mess is a direct violation of either the Constitution or the relevant Geneva conventions: there was _no_ legal basis for inventing this category.

Even war criminals would have received a trial, but it would have been under UN conrol, not held secretly at Guantanamo Bay with no published records. The only equivalent of hte last few decades was Manuel Noriega, who was also a political prisoner deliberately prevented from testifying in anything like an open court lest he reveal criminal activities by the US government. (Manuel's early regimem received strong fiscal and military support from the US government: Afghanistan's Taliban received strong US support when they were fighting off the Russians.)

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

You're opinion. Let us be clear on that.

I'm more likely to trust the opinion of someone who can spell "your" correctly.
Thank you, now go back to your silly american occupation, like raping afghan babies.

Re:Infected with moles

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, not what I meant. I meant I don't believe these releases "damage national security" and "put American lives at risk", the stock excuse the Pentagon has xeroxed and re-published after every single leak. The content of these releases undermines our moral authority, not our technical superiority. In that way I suppose the Pentagon is right, though certainly not in the way they claim. Unfortunately, these revelations don't surprise me. That's why I'm EX-military.

Re:Infected with moles

[gamricstone]

what is to prevent them from committing the same offenses knowing that nothing really bad can happen to them.

nothing really bad, like being forced at gunpoint onto a plane, flown halfway around the world and put into a jail cell while the guards (from the land of the free) for almost a decade(with no trial), occasionally being tortured, and being forced to watch the desecration of their holy books?

Re:Infected with moles

[tehcyder]

If they should be released and no one will take them, then instead of a prison, they should be kept in a 5 star resort.

That would encourage others to carry out the behaviors these people are alleged to have committed.

Just fuck off, if you can't actually prove they were terrorists they were just innocent men in the wrong place at the wrong time. How would you feel if you'd been stick in Gitmo because one of your neighbours lied to the authorities about you?

Twat.

Re:Infected with moles

[Eunuchswear]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Look it up. Those that wish to destroy America do not deserve its protection.

American is it's constitution. You want to destroy that constitution by ignoring it, so you do not deserve it's protection.

Sounds like a variant of the Cretan liar paradox to me.

Re:Infected with moles

[Parasome]

No.

If they actually carry out illegal acts, prove so in a fair trial and jail them in a plain old prison. No five-star resort involved. If you can't, release them (or don't imprison someone you don't have any reasonable evidence against). No one is forcing you to hold anyone innocent.

You know, standard procedure if you have rule of law.

Re:Infected with moles

[Parasome]

And I forgot... you suggest "It was suggested that the people screaming might want them in THEIR countries" - you obviously refer to non-american countries. Why wouldn't they take these people?

Well, for one, because they aren't the ones who were illegally holding and torturing them for years on end. It's the duty of the wrongdoer to compensate. How about offering them one of your smaller states?

Re:Infected with moles

[cavreader]

Who really gives a shit about their "holy books". As it is the guards wear gloves when handling the Koran, signs have been posted showing which way is east, and they have provided with prayer mats. Muslims demand respect from others while giving none in return and that lack of reciprical respect is what is driving peoples hostility towards those practicing the Islam religion.

Re:Infected with moles

[mijelh]

It's more like: "If you captured all that people and now can't send them back home, why the fuck don't you assume the consequences of your actions and accept them in YOUR country. It was you that screwed everything up"
That being said, many European countries accepted to receive refugees from Gitmo, and some already arrived here.

Re:Infected with moles

[smelch]

So if they are attention seeking then they release shit that doesn't need to be held up as the truth because there is nothing wrong with it. Like what the personal opinion of a diplomat is for example. Or what if it gets to the point where its just technical details? That's where this conversation was headed. The attention whore is to be feared. Whistleblowing isn't just throwing classified docs out in to the wild because they were classified. You whistleblow because there is a danger in keeping the information classified.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

Answer the question, how do you feel about torture? Is it okay, or not okay?

Re:Infected with moles

[Issarlk]

Terrorists. Terrorists everywhere.

Re:Infected with moles

[Just Another Poster]

Ignoring the Constitution is about as unpatriotic as it is possible to be.

The left has ignored the Constitution for decades. As a document that once strictly limited the power of the federal government, it's dead. FDR killed it.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

It's funny how different people have different interpretations about what does and does not constitute "ignoring the constitution." Thankfully, the constitution itself spells out who gets to decide, and that is the branch known as the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court says it is constitutional, then it is constitutional, according to the constitution itself. The constitution isn't dead, according to the constitution itself, the constitution has been followed and is still very much alive.

But sadly for you, the constitution doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You aren't on the Supreme Court, your opinion about what is or isn't constitutional means as much as my dog's opinion. So go cry in your cereal, you lost, we won, the constitution means what we say it means, not you.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

Are you asking me where my moral absolutes come from? Who said I had any moral absolutes? There ARE no absolutes, or if there are, we have NO way of knowing what they are, or even if they are. That is the nature of infinity, it can not have an external framework by which to measure it. All measuring sticks are created in and by the very reality they measure. There may be absolute measures for any particular finite subset of reality, say "all humans" or "all sentient beings."

I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with moral relativism, I was saying (again) that DigiShaman is an utter hypocrite.

Re:Infected with moles

[gamricstone]

Who really gives a shit about their "holy books". As it is the guards wear gloves when handling the Koran

They give a crap, and so should anyone who believes we should treat our prisoners with dignity.

And they didn't/don't always year gloves or show respect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Qur'an_desecration_controversy
...and before you scoff at a Wikipedia link, check the 17 cites the article gives.

a soldier intentionally kicked a Qur'an;
an interrogator intentionally stepped on a Qur'an;
a guard's urine came through an air vent, unintentionally splashing a detainee and his Qur'an;
water balloons thrown by prison guards at one another unintentionally caused a number of Qur'ans to get wet; and
a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Qur'an (whether US personnel were responsible for this act, however, could not be confirmed).

Re:Infected with moles

[Mindcontrolled]

Sorry, that was a misunderstanding. That should have been directed at DigiShaman.

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

Damn Slashdot and its imperfectly nesting comments.

Re:Infected with moles

[Just Another Poster]

It's funny how different people have different interpretations about what does and does not constitute "ignoring the constitution." Thankfully, the constitution itself spells out who gets to decide, and that is the branch known as the Supreme Court.

The Constitution does not expressly give the supreme Court the power of judicial review - the ability to void laws.

If the Supreme Court says it is constitutional, then it is constitutional, according to the constitution itself. The constitution isn't dead, according to the constitution itself, the constitution has been followed and is still very much alive.

The Constitution is dead. The parts that explicitly and in plain language limited the power of the federal government, was killed off by the Court (mostly after FDR threatened to pack the Court with his cronies), using tenuous, convoluted rationales for doing so.

Re:Infected with moles

[cavreader]

I notice you didn't comment on the lack of reciprocal respect from these dignified prisoners. If a faith requires you to threaten death and destruction on any who do not worship or treat your holy book in a dignified manner deserve all the scorn and disrespect heaped upon them. When people claim Islamophobia is rising around the world the ones to blame are the islamists themselves. I have no sympathy for these prisoners. I know there are some prisoners that should not be there and I support the release of all but the most radical prisoners but I am damn tired of the hardcore "death to the infidel" assholes who throw hissy fits every time some disrespects their religion and go out of their way to inflict death on all those who they feel don't tow the line. They should count themselves lucky that they are allowed to have a Quran in the first place. Radical Islam is a scourge all over the world and is responsible for a great deal of today's problems and until the "peaceful" Muslim's eradicate these abominations using all the means and methods at their disposal they do not deserve any respect.

Re:Infected with moles

[gamricstone]

I notice you didn't cite your comment about the lack of reciprocal respect from the prisoners. Also "reciprocal respect" would in this instance mean the prisoners water-boarding guards, depriving them of sleep, and pissing on their holy book or did you forget what reciprocal means?

If a faith requires you to threaten death and destruction on any who do not worship or treat your holy book in a dignified manner deserve all the scorn and disrespect heaped upon them.

This is your opinion. Also please show me proof these specific prisoners "threaten death and destruction" on anyone and that their faith requires it(plenty of Muslims would disagree). Generally such proof is presented during a trial.

I know there are some prisoners that should not be there and I support the release of all but the most radical prisoners

How do you propose this is done without a trial? And no keeping them all locked up is not supporting the release of the innocents.

They should count themselves lucky that they are allowed to have a Quran in the first place.

Why is that? We here in the USA do not deprive prisoners of the right to read, there is no reason we should to people we incarcerate abroad.

Radical Islam is a scourge all over the world and is responsible for a great deal of today's problems and until the "peaceful" Muslim's eradicate these abominations using all the means and methods at their disposal they do not deserve any respect.

That is your opinion, and a very radical one at that. Was the purpose of the quotes you added to the word peaceful intended to imply that peaceful Muslims do not exist? Why do peaceful Muslims bear the responsibility of eradicating anyone?

Re:Infected with moles

[spun]

The Supreme Court hasn't voided any laws.

However. I agree that the Federal Government uses the commerce clause to overreach at times, like using it to bust growers in California who sell only to other Californians, legally. But on the flip side, it is also what enabled desegregation and civil rights. Still, nothing was voided or negated, it was just how it was interpreted. And interpretation of the law IS the job of the Supreme Court.

Casio F-91W

[Wyatt Earp]

Its the watch that bomb makers in Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Qadea, among others, standardized on way back in 1996.

Oh and they are a really popular watch.

I wear a Casio GW-500, little bulky and expensive for a bomb watch, so I don't think I'll be picked up over it any time soon.

Re:Casio F-91W

[nprz]

I had that kind of watch way back when they were introduced (around '91 [citation needed]).
Was nice, but couldn't survive the shock when it went smashing into the ground. g-shock is better and now I have a casio dw6900.

The watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to rain on anyone's parade here but if they have linked a bunch of Arabs who make bombs to these watches then I think it is relevant evidence when combined with other evidence. The problem isn't that they had a watch, its that they have a watch and a bunch of other explosive related materials.

Another way to think of this is a kitchen knife as evidence in a stabbing murder case. It would make sense to have the knife referenced in a suspect file. Just because innocent people also have the same kitchen knives doesn't mean the evidence isn't relevant. (or gloves in the OJ Simpson case)

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[hedwards]

You do realize that it's not his fault, right? Because the US isn't taking any of the detainees there's a fair number of other countries that also refuse to do so, because if we aren't willing to take the innocent ones, why should they? And the congress refuses to allow the necessary changes to make it happen.

I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Andy Smith]

I'll tell you something funny, and slightly on-topic: I am currently a terrorism suspect. I'm a photographer, and for a few weeks earlier this month I was employed to photograph the final stages of an industrial project. This involved photographing a buoy being towed out to sea. I requested access to an oil storage depot that has a long jetty, which would have provided a good spot to take pictures from. I wasn't allowed access, and that was the end of it. Until a few days ago, when the police contacted me. A security guard at the depot had reported me, and the police were investigating why I was "taking photographs of an oil facility", which was considered a possible act of terrorist activity. I was interviewed on Friday, and the police have more-or-less said that I've got nothing to worry about. But it just shows the absurd level to which "terrorism concerns" can be used to harass people.

Remember, what happened: Requested access to take pictures _from_ oil depot's jetty with full explanation of why, told no, end of story. What police are investigating: Taking photos _of_ an oil facility for unknown reasons. I never took a single photo anywhere near the place!

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[rbollinger]

The funny part is that they think a terrorist would actually request access to take photographs of an oil facility.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah yeah. And 95% of those who agree with you today would have been furious had you been a terrorist and the place blew up yesterday but your inquiry never reported to the authorities. In hind sight these things are either the silliest things to ever happen or the worst fumble a person could ever make. How many people were up in arms about the 9/11 crew who left a plane on a runway or told the trainer they didn't care to learn how to take off or land but it was never followed up in a meaningful way?
 
It seems foolish from the outside but social engineerig can easily displace the efforts of most security.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Anonymous Coward]

You're white, aren't you? That's why you have nothing to worry about. If you had been arabic, however...

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[kevinNCSU]

Sounds like a dumb private security guard who's bored and has nothing to do called up the cops who then HAVE to go ask you even though they know it's a waste of their time, and told you you've got nothing to worry about. So really the problem is just a dumb and bored security guard who was probably literally HOPING you were a big bad terrorist so he could be doing something real.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Andy Smith]

Hah, I've been using Facebook too much. Went to click "like" on this post :-)

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Andy Smith]

Guessing is guessing but here's what I think happened, based on a conversation I've since had with the manager of the depot: The guard reported the "incident" to his boss, with some things that were true and other (minor) things that weren't. His boss reported it to the police. Next thing he knows, the security guard is giving a statement to the police, and he realises what a pathetic "concern" it is. That's when he adds all the stuff about me taking photos of the depot. He never said anything about that to his boss. You'd think that would be the _first_ thing he would have mentioned to his boss, wouldn't you?

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[vlm]

I'll tell you something funny, and slightly on-topic: I am currently a terrorism suspect.

Are you still being granted the privilege of being able to fly on airplanes? You may very well be permanently grounded now by virtue of the no fly list.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and if the security guard didn't report it and the depot was subsequently blown up, Congress, the media and everyone here on /. would be screaming, "somebody wanted to take pictures of the depot and he didn't think that was suspicious?!! Why didn't the idiot report it?!!"

Dude can't win. But the personal cost to the security guard of reporting is negligible compared to the potential cost of not reporting, so he reports. I don't like it, but I don't blame him...he's just covering his butt. Not that hard to understand. Sucks that we have an environment where the security guard even has to make that decision, but here we are. So I blame politicians who stoke the fear as an election tactic, not the security guard.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[fatphil]

Brit; perturbed by the authorities' dumbness; use of the term 'meejahor' - are you sure you're no relation to the comedian Mark Thomas?

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[kevinNCSU]

Yea, there's nothing like a security guard having to talk to a real uniformed officer to cause them to feel embarrassed and then start adding things to try to save face, lol.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[CraftyJack]

That's almost be as funny thinking a terrorist would actually try to get the deposit back on the Ryder truck.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[corbettw]

So hire a lawyer and sue that idiot guard for slander, tortuous interference, and filing a false police report. Seriously, don't let that little fuck stick get away with making your life difficult just because he's stupid and bored.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[_Sprocket_]

Sounds like the gears of bureaucracy at work to me. Once an "incident" is reported and fed to The System, then it must be handled accordingly.

Not long ago, we had an "incident" at work. One of the security guards was spending his spare time doing searches on people at work based on their ID cards in the system. He lucked across the fact that one of our contractors had been busted by the FBI for phreaking in the 90s and had done his Federal time outside what would be a normal background check. He reported that we had a "hacker" working in IT. Our boss had no choice but to cut the dude loose. The security guard had also talked to the local news who ran a story about hackers at our work with access to customer financial information.

As far as anyone knows - the dude has been reformed for over 10 years (crimes which he committed didn't involve financial information). He was doing perfectly good work and wasn't any more a threat than any other IT person with his level of access. But because the way this was handled, formalities had to be followed and dude lost his gig.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Andy Smith]

That makes me sick. It undermines the reform goal of imprisonment if people are still considered "likely to do it again" once they rejoin society.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Anonymous Coward]

Something to make you happy:
After the end of WWII, those âoeinformantsâ, who got other people in trouble for no reason, just like that employee who got you in trouble, were all hung, shot, etc.
They were chased, and would still be chased, if most of them werenâ(TM)t dead by now.

So if you survive until it's over, things will turn. And every single empire that turned bad in the history of mankind, fell shortly thereafter.

I just hope, the great aspects of your country will survive it. I'd hate nothing more, than those being lost forever. :/

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[alex67500]

The funny part is that they think a terrorist would actually request access to take photographs of an oil facility.

Or, I don't know, apply for a federal aircraft pilot license to send a plane smashing into central NY...

OK, I understand the poster's point about being arrested for the wrong reasons, but your logic is skewed.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[_Sprocket_]

I agree. I should note that the IT guy in question was a contractor who's project was nearing completion anyway. But it still sucked to see the guy have his work cut short.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Thomas M Hughes]

The No-Fly list is actually a misnomer. I was on the list for a few years, though I don't think I'm on it anymore. For American Citizens, being on the No-Fly list is annoying (and I'll even buy unjustified and useless), but it doesn't permanently ground you.

Basically, when you check in at the front desk, the auto-check in machines will flag you, and one of the people behind the counter will come over and ask for your identification. Then they'll pretend like they're subtle, and call in to some central number. Over the phone, they'll say your name, and rattle off your birthdate, and usually some other identifying number, like your driver's license number. This is basically a background check. If you're actually wanted, and there's a warrant out for your arrest, I suspect you'd be arrested there. If you're just a person of interest, they finish checking you in and put a special marking on your boarding pass.

The mark varies from airport to airport, but it's primarily to tell the TSA security guys that you are on the list, and that you need extra screening before they let you on the plane. Sometimes, this is cool, because it lets you go into a separate security line that's shorter. Sometimes it's not so cool, because someone's probably going to touch your junk. Often times you get the puffer machine, the pat down, the metal detector wand, etc. It seems to depend a lot on the airport. If you clear that, you're in the clear, and you're just like any other passenger.

They may also do additional screening on checked bags, but that was always out of my field of view, so I have no idea what they did with my stuff.

You may be asking "How do you know that you're on the no fly list?" My understanding is that airport personelle aren't supposed to tell you, but after a few years of going through this routine, I asked someone at the desk one time during the background call. He said, "You're on the No-Fly list. Well, what's most likely is that there's someone else out there with your same name who has a felony warrant out for their arrest. If you were to book your tickets using your middle initial, you probably wouldn't have to go through this."

Sure enough, once I started booking with my middle initial after my first name, I stopped getting extra screening. A few years ago they implemented the identifying characteristics system (gender & birthdate when buying tickets), I haven't been harassed near as much as I used to be, which may mean the list is a lot more refined than it used to be.

At least, this is the deal for US citizens. I've heard foreigners who are No-Fly listed literally cannot fly into or out of the U.S.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[dkleinsc]

If he's paid as badly as most security guards are, it's safe to say that he's judgment-proof.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[eugene ts wong]

I really do sympathize with you, but I hope that you can sympathize with others too.

I think that what happened was the guy tried to tell it like it was, but his memory got the better of him. A couple of books, "The Tipping Point" and "The Invisible Gorilla", clearly document this. In the first book, if I recall correctly, a "Chinese American" prof went on a day tour or something like that, during a holiday. He carried a brochure, and people thought that he was a Japanese spy carrying a camera. It seems so paranoid from our perspective, but this took place during WW II, so it is somewhat paranoid, but being caught off guard at Pearl Harbour, I wouldn't judge Americans for their misconceptions. In the second book, 1 of the authors was convinced that he clearly remembered his experiences on 9/11, but when he called in 2 friends to discuss those details, none of them completely agreed on significant details. The authors of the latter book give examples of people saying things to others, while others make claims that things were said to the people.

Something like this even happened to me yesterday. I wanted to ask this lady where she got her books that she was selling on the streets. I thought that she would be interested in selling a book that I wrote, but she acted angry and defensive. She basically wanted to know why she should participate in any surveys or anything like that. Even though I explained my request to her, she just couldn't understand my words. I think the thing that threw her off was my clipboard and pen. I sympathized with her, because I actually was conducting surveys, but not of her. In other words, I wasn't trying to survey her. I just happened to see her in between my questioning, and my questioning was completely unrelated.

I think that we need to remember that people can absorb information at certain speeds, and some are slower. It makes sense that he probably only heard enough words to get the impression that you would photograph the oil stuff. Or maybe it was like I initially said, and he just had a bad memory, but didn't realize it.

Regarding what he first said, he might have thought that he did first say that.

Remember that when people forget things, they don't just forget things, they actually fill in the blanks, without even knowing it.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[corbettw]

Doesn't matter. If he's got a judgment against him, he'll never work as a security guard again. That's worth the $1000 to file suit right there.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[no known priors]

I hope you told them to bugger off (politely of course). "Am I under-arrest?" "Am I free to go?" (if no, to the second question, you are under arrest no matter what they say). "I do not consent to any search" "I have the right to remain silent and I wish to exercise that right" "I want to speak to a lawyer".

You did nothing wrong, and therefore have no reason to speak to the police. Even if you did do something wrong, you shouldn't speak to the police because that will just give them evidence to use against you.

It's not your job to make the police's job easier, but it is your job to defend your rights, which include not giving the police the time of day.

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also read about the initial making a difference. I spent 15 minutes trying to find the source but I couldn't. Basically, a child had the same name as someone on the no fly list. They eventually worked out that instead of flying as "Example A Citizen", they booked the tickets as "E. Adam Citizen" and he didn't have any problems afterwards. That's how easy it is to get around the No-Fly-List.... for citizens AND terrorists...

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[tehcyder]

The funny part is that they think a terrorist would actually request access to take photographs of an oil facility.

It could be a double bluff!

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Alioth]

A friend of mine (now sadly deceased after a road accident) was a fellow aviation enthusiast, and indeed at the time owned a slightly scruffy Twin Comanche (a light twin engined aircraft). Just as you can buy touch up paint for cars, you can for planes too, and there are online stores that sell the stuff.

So he ordered the stuff he needed, and because he wasn't in it was delivered to the apartment office, where he picked it up.

Two days later the FBI came knocking on the door. The apartment manager had reported him as a possible terrorist because he had bought some stuff from an avaition store. He said the FBI when they showed up were very apologetic and almost embarrassed because someone buying paint is so obviously not being suspicious, but they had to come and check him out anyway!

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb and bored? No, more likely dumb and "just following orders".

Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke)

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been arrested for terrorism? Has a joint SWAT / FBI team knocked down your door and arrested you at multiple gunpoint? Have you had dozens of rifles pointed at you, and huge guys in heavy armor telling you to sit the fuck down and that they're glad you're confused you don't know what's happening?

You're not a "terrorism suspect;" you may have been one but aren't now. I _have_ been arrested for terrorism, for nearly the same reasons (I am a photographer; I do cityscapes and interior architecture). Thing is, what I was photographing was FAR LESS questionable to law enforcement than what you were. So much that it was never even mentioned as the reason I was arrested.

But hey, when a city wants to be tough on crime, and the FBI wants to 'get them terrorists, at all costs!,' what the fuck does liberty matter?

The only thing I am worried about is that more and more people are being arrested for these serious yet completely unsubstantiated charges and the police aren't doing any research. At least in your case, it shows that your police will. My local police would rather question one person who does not like me and get a warrant based off of that.

They Redacted...!

[camperdave]

They blocked out the URL for Wikipedia. The Bastards!

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[chill]

...because if we aren't willing to take the innocent ones, why should they?

Because they are citizens of those countries. We try to give them BACK, first.

Yes, it is his fault because he made a big deal about this during the campaign. He was either too IGNORANT of the process, or just didn't care and was saying anything to get elected.

My vote is "both".

Of course, this is no different than 99% of other politicians.

Re:First Post

[ae1294]

First Post

Silly human, you can't beat me for I am a small well crafted shell script designed to replace first post trolls like yourself.

You might be a member of al-Qaida if .....

[rudy_wayne]

you own a Casio F-91W wristwatch.

Coming soon, more standup comedy from Mohammed Foxworthy.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that it's not his fault, right? Because the US isn't taking any of the detainees there's a fair number of other countries that also refuse to do so, because if we aren't willing to take the innocent ones, why should they? And the congress refuses to allow the necessary changes to make it happen.

All of this was known during the election when these promises were made.

I have a Casio F-91W watch...oops

[Anonymous Coward]

I was so excited to get this watch..it was $7.99 on Amazon. I got it because I am into lucid dreaming, and one of the practices of lucid dreaming is doing a "reality check", one such method is looking at a digital clock, looking away, and looking back at it. If the time is garbled/different/out of the ordinary, that is a sign that you are dreaming. I loved that watch because it was the only one I could find that was digital and didn't have all sorts of other annoying features. I just wanted a simple digital watch. Unfortunately, it looked a little girlie on me so I got the next model up, the F-105. I've been wearing that one for about a year now. Love it.

I guess I'm a terrorist "watch list" (pun partially intended) now? Can I expect "weird" things to happen to me? Should I be worried about the men in black suits and sunglasses reading newspapers wherever I walk?

Guess it doesn't help that I used to be in a rock band called "The Terrorists", either.. =/

What should I do to protect myself?

Re:I have a Casio F-91W watch...oops

[Em Adespoton]

If you're in to lucid dreaming, just run through the scenarios while you sleep and report back to us :)

Re:I have a Casio F-91W watch...oops

[pugugly]

No, actually those just show you're lucid dreaming still . . . {rimshot}

Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Balinares]

No, I'm serious. I just can't make sense of that. At this point everybody hates Gitmo. Obama could score major points across the board by closing it with a flourish and be done with it. Judge and jail the guys and look tough on Terrism, or just ship them back to wherever they came from and close the joint with a few vibrant words about saving America's money. Mishun accumplisht. Easy reelection credit! A politician's dream.

So why the hell doesn't he?

Something's missing from the picture, and I can't tell what. Can't be anything good, though. :/

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Mashiki]

Everyone hates it? I sure don't. I'm Canadian, and I see a need for it, and good reasons to have it.(then again our intelligence and security services have done thing that would make american eyes pop out of their heads to 'preserve national security') Whether or not you want to believe that the world is pixie dust, and cars can be fueled by unicorn shit doesn't matter. There's several problems of course with your post. The countries that some of these guys come from, don't want them. Not at all. They don't want the legal headaches, or simply don't care. Countries where they are shipped back, or released to. These guys as quickly as they can high tail it and head right back to being non-uniformed combatants.

Then again, if we were playing by the rules. They'd be dead on the battle field, or summarily executed when caught. We already go above the standards by keeping them alive. The only reason why it's worth capturing them, is to glean information even if it's a grain of gold in a pile of sand.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[TaoPhoenix]

Yeah pretty scary that ordinary posters on forums can come up with an "obvious" political move. Therefore, the reasons which made it Not-Obviously Bad are terr...uh... frightening.

I shall borrow your last line as my sig. Unless you screech "copyright" at which point I'll return it to your library.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[nedlohs]

Because putting them in an American prison would being NIMBY like you have never seen...

Plus of course the Republicans (just as the Democrats would if a Republican President did so) ranting all over the media about how Obama is bringing known terrorists into America. Plus of course ranting about how they'll get released on parole next month. And just wait until a judge lets one go because he applies normal evidence rules and the constitution.

Political suicide.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[stanlyb]

Ain't it obvious? If Obama cannot do it, that means that he......CAN NOT do it. As simple as that.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's missing from the picture is the whole reason any of this exists in the first place.
W actually had good reasons for starting the gitmo imprisonment stuff. I know, really unpopular opinion.
Most of these guys are dangerous. They have lots of info and connections. It would be dangerous for the US to allow them to exercise either our standard civil liberties, or the rights afforded prisoners by international treaty. That's why they've been treated as a new kind of prisoner--freedom for them is too dangerous for us. And Obama knows it.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a law that blocks him from using DoD funds to transfer the prisoners to the US system until the next time the bill comes back up. There are also provisions that he can't transfer the prisoners to another country unless they meet excessive criteria. The only thing they can do is millitary trials and millitary trials have been VERY slow (like only 8 so far)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122105523.html

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure don't. I'm Canadian, and I see a need for it, and good reasons to have it.

As a Canuck, I am embarrassed and ashamed to have to call you a fellow countryman.

What has been done/is being done to the people imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay is an egregious affront to the rule of law and to the human rights for which Canada supposedly stands.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Balinares]

> Yeah pretty scary that ordinary posters on forums can come up with an
> "obvious" political move.

Actually, I was kinda fishing for second opinions there. Although /. is lots of noise and not much signal, quite often you get interesting bits of insight floating up to the surface by people who know more than you about the subject matter, and I was sort of hoping for something like that -- or maybe just a plausible reason why it'd make political sense to keep Gitmo open in the face of, well, every damn thing. For all I know it's just something as petty as Obama keeping it up his sleeve as a popularity chip to cash in come reelection time. Dick move, but that's politics.

"Politics are like tripe sausage. It's got to smell a little like shit, but not too much." -- Edouard Herriot

> I shall borrow your last line as my sig.

Uh. Be my guest, I guess? It's kinda weird, but whatever floats your boat, y'know.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Anonymous Coward]

The “military” trials are slow only because justice is not being served.

Defence counsel: Your Honour, all the evidence is either hearsay or tainted by torture.

Judge: Yes, yes it is.

Done. Not slow at all if you abide by the rules of jurisprudence which are supposed to be in effect under USA law.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[anotherzeb]

Have you read any of the recently released files or even summaries of them? Your statement that "most of these guys are dangerous" suggests not. The idea that they have "lots of info and connections" also sounds misled - why are you thinking that a random person from the Middle East who was picked up for wearing a particular watch would necessarily have means, motive and opportunity to inflict harm or know people who do? (That's just an example of how bad the reasons for selecting a lot of the individuals were - I know there are others) I'm not saying that keeping innocent people interred and interrogated for years without trial won't make them harbour a few grudges, but the "gitmo imprisonment stuff", while possibly done for good reasons, was carried out with an ineptitude and lack of forethought that would make an impulsive puppy ashamed. Now that there are about a third of the prisoners there that there were when it was at its fullest (the rest have been mostly relocated to the Middle East, Europe and America, so can you all stop this crap about no-one being willing to take them?) the remainder might be the ones most likely to be dangerous, but even they don't seem to (mostly) be looking at being tried for whatever makes them "dangerous" (media manipulated imagination, fortunately, doesn't hold any weight in a trial although it seems to be holding sway over a majority of the population and congress). Tell me what each of the "dangerous" prisoners did and I'll take you seriously, but I can always watch Fox news if I'd rather have sensation over fact

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everyone hates it? I sure don't. I'm Canadian, and I see a need for it, and good reasons to have it."

You're a piece of shit.

Why don't you publish your address so an American can come educate you
about freedom, you sorry cocksucker ?

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Mashiki]

Incorrect. It's not an affront to the law, in fact it's beyond the call of the law. I'd suggest learning the law.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Mashiki]

Says the AC. I'm impressed. Why don't you post with your nick? Ah I get it. And an american educate me about my freedom? Right...

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Antique Geekmeister]

He can't get consensus to do so. President Obama can't wipe his nose without committees to hammer out an agreement with both parties: this is a fact of his leadership style, not one of lack of votes. The result has been endless delay and some ghastly compromises to get that consensus, and enormous catering to the most extreme members of his opposing party.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're less than human. Please kill yourself.

This is not a remark made in jest. This is not a troll. I sincerely request that you end your life soon because you are an active detriment to any civilised society. You have no use or worth.

Re:Yeah, this is just baffling.

[Mashiki]

You first. After all, I'm willing to state that I'll do what's necessary to ensure that our way of life is continued. You on the other hand are more than willing to cover your head, and hope it goes away.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[dkleinsc]

Yes, it is his fault.

The whole point is not just to put these guys in another prison: If they're guilty of nothing, as they are in many cases, then the correct thing to do is to say "You're free to go. If you want, we'll set up travel arrangements back to your home. Please accept our humblest apologies, and $X for some reparations for what we put you through for no reason whatsoever. If you were tortured, we would like your help putting your torturers behind bars."

About the only piece of this that Barack Obama as president couldn't do without authorization from Congress is the reparations. Presidents can pardon people, they can tell the military to move somebody from point A to point B, he can definitely apologize to people, and he can direct his Attorney General to investigate possible war crimes.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[onkelonkel]

The reason many people hold politicians in contempt is because politicians promise to do something, get elected, and then don't do it or promise not to do something, get elected, and then do it anyway. Call it lies, broken promises, lack of honour, pragmatism, whatever you like. Saying "It's not his fault" is merely excusing contemptibly bad behaviour. It's not complicated - Deliver what you promise, don't promise what you can't deliver.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[vlm]

because if we aren't willing to take the innocent ones

Why not? We blew up their country, hung their leader, took their oil, destroyed their economy, killed a bunch of their family and friends. Last but by no means least, they're innocent, which you can't say for the illegals living here.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are citizens of those countries. We try to give them BACK, first.

And when that doesn't work, you DO try to put them elsewhere.

I'm from Germany, for example, and our government here (the conservative coalition that has ruled since 2009) has been in talks with the US government concerning taking a couple of Gitmo prisoners. I think it's fair enough in principle, but the question remains: if these people a) aren't dangerous and b) can't be sent back to their homeland, for whatever reason, why should they be sent to Germany rather than the USA? The USA are responsible for this mess, and they should damn well clean it up.

Wikileaks and the nature of secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just the fact that the Internet exists in its current form that makes people more receptive to whistleblowing? Think about it - during the Cold War, someone exposing any military secret would probably be labeled a traitor, tried in a military court and executed on live TV with the public's approval. Now, it's considered "OK" to do this, or at least tolerable. Is that just because it's easy to find military personnel who would be willing to plug a flash drive into their PCs that manage secret communications? Or is it because the vast majortiy of people aren't in danger of getting burned alive in a nuclear attack by these new "non-state actors?"

Don't get me wrong, I don't support what we're doing with these indefinite detentions or any of the military actions we're involved in. In fact, it's that broken campaign promise that I'm really mad ebout...we were supposed to end this. Either (a) Obama is listening too much to his military advisors who are trying to keep this whole anti-terrorism thing chugging along, or (b) something really is going on that's bigger than what we currently know. I really doubt it's (b), because a couple of suicide bombers doesn't really justify this response.

I would have a lot of respect for a presidential candidate who, on their first day in office, went on TV, and said "We are no longer going to be involved in any other country's affairs, no matter what they do. We will defend ourselves if attacked, but will no longer take sides in any conflict around the world." All those trillions of dollars being used to maintain a huge standing army could be used to fix every single problem we have here at home. Sounds too simplistic? Even the most insane dictators will accept cash for oil shipments as long as you leave them to do what they want in their own country...

Pentagon whining

[hansamurai]

Wikileaks mocked this Pentagon Press Secretary tweet this morning:

https://twitter.com/#!/PentagonPresSec/status/62531762345091072

Thx to Wikileaks we spent Easter weekend dealing w/NYT & other news orgs publishing leaked classified GTMO docs http://1.usa.gov/fWbGED

Re:Pentagon whining

[coolmadsi]

Wikileaks mocked this Pentagon Press Secretary tweet this morning:

I saw that, for anyone who missed it, Wikileaks response was:

How the heart bleeds: Pentagon spokesman whines about spending easter weekend spinning Gitmo Files http://is.gd/cmVVLS

https://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/62548661418213376

Re:Pentagon whining

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I will have a piece of pie with ice cream when Assange is deported from the UK, and a nice steak dinner when he begins serving time.

Go Sweden!

In Other News...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Julian Assange, Kim Jong-Il starts releasing so-called 'secret' documents to garner media attention, popularity and monetary gain from merchandising sidelines. People of the DPRK largest support group. Latest round of documents apparently released due to lack of exposure and relative interest.

The other 21

[Quantus347]

Is it just me or does that make you really interested in the remaining 21 detainees?

Re:The other 21

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably american dissidents. Though those people didn't go to gitmo, no, they went to prisons we have here in the US that are hidden in plain sight. There are a lot more than you think. They arent huge complexes, just bunkers hidden amongst communities and in unassuming locations.

  Makes you wonder how many more people they have detained that arent in gitmo.

F91W-1

[Anonymous Coward]

You can see the
[watch here]

or the silver metal one

[here]

Assange Slams NYT's

[Anonymous Coward]

#WikiLeaks Founder Julian #Assange Slams NYT's Handling of Afghan Diaries http://f4a.tv/gQFuMJ (@wikileaks)

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[TaoPhoenix]

Easy! Make all campaign promises under penalty of perjury!

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[cusco]

Or the banking executives . . .

Interesting reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

The reporting on this has been interesting. Late last night I was listening to BBC on my local NPR station when I first heard about this. Based on the leak, BBC chose to report about the numbers of innocent people who had been detained at Guantanamo. This morning I got to hear NPR's take, and was honestly shocked at the difference. NPR's reporting has been concerned with the number of "high risk" prisoners who "returned" to terrorism. The number was a minority of these people supposedly too dangerous to release, but that was still the focus. Nary a mention of the innocents. I can just imagine what CNN or Fox News are doing with the story.

Re:Interesting reporting

[Larryish]

NPR has been worthless for years.

The spin is easy to see. Not as blatant as a Murdoch entity, but obvious enough.

Re:Interesting reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

" This morning I got to hear NPR's take, and was honestly shocked at the difference. "

NPR is so extremely biased in favor of Israel and Jewish interests that any hope of
objectivity was gone years ago.

What's really sad is to see non-Jews contributing to NPR at fundraiser time. Do you
think a bunch of Jews would line up to help you if YOU were in need ? Fuck no, they
wouldn't. To hell with NPR and their extreme pro-Israel bias.

aljazeera journalist arrested

[edxwelch]

It's quite interesting to read that they arrested people that they knew were innocent, just so they could interrogate them.
"an al-Jazeera journalist was held at GuantÃnamo for six years, partly in order to be interrogated about the Arabic news network."
Another gut was arrested "because of his general knowledge of activities in the areas of Khowst and Kabul based as a result of his frequent travels through the region as a taxi driver".
 

Re:aljazeera journalist arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

Source?
I also read a 'leaked' document that the aliens stored at area 51 were briefly detained at GuantÃnamo in an exchange program with suspected terrorists.

Re:aljazeera journalist arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalist: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-sami-al-hajj
Taxi driver: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-wrong-place-time?INTCMP=SRCH

Cmon it's not that hard to use google, or the search function on Guardian's website.

Re:aljazeera journalist arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

just so they could interrogate them.

partly in order to be interrogated

If you're going to be a fuckwad, at least be less obvious about directly contradicting yourself in your own post.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[CrimsonAvenger]

If they're guilty of nothing, as they are in many cases, then the correct thing to do is to say "You're free to go. If you want, we'll set up travel arrangements back to your home.

You DO realize that we haven't done that because too many people got excited about the possibility that the governments of their homes would torture/execute them, right?

Wikileaks “has blood on its hands, unlike us

[David Gerard]

US military officials have condemned the latest document release by Wikileaks as "potentially fatal to our credibility" and leading to 15,000 more officials spending time with their families than previously thought.

"The faltering forces of hacker infidels," said the Pentagon's Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, "cannot just enter an army and lay besiege to them! They are the ones who will find themselves under siege! There are only two Wikileaks tanks in the city!"

General George Casey has denied that the United States "turned a blind eye" to prisoner abuse. "Our policy all along has been to use our military might to encourage the already peace-loving security forces to be agents of cosmic love and beauty. Whenever a prisoner was treated with crystals and aromatherapy in a more robust manner than would be acceptable to our dolphin brethren, we were sure to report it up both the local chain of command and the one that means anything. Then we sat down together and did serious thinking about how we could be more excellent to one another. Toke, dude?"

The festering scoundrel Julian Assange was lambasted last night on CNN for his reprehensible personal life and clearly unbalanced and unAmerican mental state, which are much more newsworthy than the release of more accurate documentation than any war has ever had in history.

"I remain opposed to the warq," said President Barack Obama, "and so too to documentation of the so-called war. We harshly condemn the release of information on this terrible alleged event. We will bring the document leakers to military justice and teach them to love again."

In the UK, Nick Clegg suggested someone might want to possibly look into this matter a little bit, assuming it was all right with Dave of course.

Casio F-91W

[unity100]

this bit of information about Casio F-91W shows, if you vote conservative morons into power, they draft policies only conservative morons could justify.

just like how the conservative party of canada VOWED last week to implement an internet filtering system. SO much anti-public move could only be vowed on by a conservative party. they are at the level of not being able to discern right from wrong since early 2000s.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW you just summed up the new era of capitalism is one statement.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

because if we aren't willing to take the innocent ones

Why not? We blew up their country, hung their leader, took their oil, destroyed their economy, killed a bunch of their family and friends. Last but by no means least, they're innocent, which you can't say for the illegals living here.

We took their oil? Really? Care to cite facts or are you just making that up cause it fits your anti america rant. I get sick of all these "We went in to take their oil" lines. I wish for once we actually would take their damn oil... Maybe then our gas prices would be decent.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[mobby_6kl]

Of course, and this is why these people were offered to stay in the US, right? Oh wait, can't do that either. Even though they were innocent at first, they might rather upset with the US now because THEY WERE JAILED AND TORTURED FOR A DECADE STRAIGHT. Oops, better keep them locked up forever then.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[Isaac Remuant]

This is the attitude that allows for people to be successful scammers, er- politicians, promising so many shiny things and later blaming someone/something else for "not being able" to deliver.

The way I see it:
A) He is not capable of doing the job he said he would
B) He did not intend to do what he said he would.

When I was naive, I thought A) was more likely to happen but, as time goes on, B) is becoming completely undeniable. ...

Still, I ask myself, what do you do when the contract between the government and the people is not upheld by the former?

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[gknoy]

Offering them their choice of where to go allows them to choose to go someplace OTHER than their possibly-hostile home country.

Casio F-91W

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes sense. Google it and look at the pics. It says "AL" right on the display. Clearly that's short for al qaida!

And You Know, The Funny Thing Here

[Greyfox]

If I remember my 6th grade social studies correctly (It's been a few decades since then) is that many of the things that resulted in the creation of the foundations of our Justice System and indeed many of the things that our Founding Fathers (All of whom would have been considered "Terrorists" by someone...) were so pissed off about... were exactly what we went for in the name of "Security". All those processes against indefinite suspension without a chance to confront your accusers and forcing people to incriminate themselves with torture were supposed to be carved in stone and the very foundation of our legal process, and it all got thrown out the windows as soon as it was inconvenient. Yeah, that doesn't make me suspicious of my government. At all.

So anywhoo some of those guys at Gitmo might be terrorist assholes. Hell most of them might be, but they've held some completely innocent people there for years too, and that is not how we operate. Well, except that it is, apparently. And we're supposed to be setting an example for the rest of the world? And there's anyone in Congress or the White House, who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, who will express even a shred of remorse about this? Anyone in the military, since those guys swore a similar oath? Perhaps we could get a copy of this secret constitution you fuckers are working off, so we can know what we can expect in the future.

Re:And You Know, The Funny Thing Here

[PaulBu]

And there's anyone in Congress or the White House, who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, who will express even a shred of remorse about this?

Ron and Rand, maybe? ;)

Anyone in the military, since those guys swore a similar oath? Perhaps we could get a copy of this secret constitution you fuckers are working off, so we can know what we can expect in the future.

OathKeepers.org, maybe?

But I do know that your questions are rhetorical in nature, you seem to be on this side, and all we need is to convert others, Liberals and Conservatives alike, to our cause...

Paul B.

Re:And You Know, The Funny Thing Here

[Anonymous Coward]

...but they've held some completely innocent people there for years too, and that is not how we operate. Well, except that it is, apparently. And we're supposed to be setting an example for the rest of the world?

Firstly, the world stopped trusting America a very long time ago. Abu Gharib, rendition camp over Europe, CIA interrogation prisons in Egypt, Guantanamo are all recent issues; we all know America is a rogue state, but until USA dollar printing out of thin air completely bankrupts America the rest of the world has to put up with the warmongering and doublespeak... because they have all the bombs.

I am thinking most of the world is hoping the other superpower of the Cold War will implode in the same way, releasing the entire planet from it's menace.

Re:And You Know, The Funny Thing Here

[Anonymous Coward]

this is laughable, in particular this line:
"And we're supposed to be setting an example for the rest of the world?"

The US doesn't give a shit, just like most other countries, corporations, or even other people. How many people do you know that volunteer or try to make a difference in their community?

The US shows a little compassion for it's domestic on things the media pays a lot of attention to, that's all. The problem is we have it pretty good here in the US. There are 2.5 wars going on and our lifestyle hasn't changed, we don't even hear about the war on the news anymore.

It's all for somebody else to solve. The only really sad part is a lot of us thought Obama could at least take some steps in the right direction, which he hasn't on the really important issues. So it will continue, because nobody in positions of authority at the police, government, or executive level gets held accountable for breaking promises, and everyone does it after elected so we're stuck.

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[anotherzeb]

Mod points to that man

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[anotherzeb]

You think they're reading much Kafka in gitmo?

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[anotherzeb]

Start here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html for the British interest when it looked like America and one or two other countries would get all the oil and continue with your own research.

If you're in America, you probably don't use oil from as far away as Iraq - there's a couple of countries to the south that you mostly buy from, with some the north. Look up "oil speculation" and "limited resource" for further information on its price (really limited or artificially like diamonds I could tell you, but considering how much is being spent to get it out of tar sands I'd expect the former)

Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't go to Iraq to steal oil, you went there because you think killing Arabs is fun.

Happy now?

Huh? Are not you a couple of years too late to...

[PaulBu]

... talk about people "vote[ing] conservative morons into power"?

Or, did they draft the policy that our current "progressive" President could not justify and scraped? Then why do we learn about this via WikiLeaks and not White House Press Conference?

Paul B.

P.S. To put a bit of a positive spin on the whole "conservative morons"/"bleeding heart liberals" thing, good news for me for today is that "RON PAUL: HE'S IN!" -- and it is the main headline on Drudge! ;-D So looking forward to support someone who actually can be a real Commander-in-Chief, in addition to all other things!

Re:Huh? Are not you a couple of years too late to.

[unity100]

once you let conservatives run a country for majority of 60 years, they seed all bureaucracy with their staunch supporters, and it becomes hard to weed them out - they keep making the same policies, and even if you order them to the contrary, they may ignore you. just like how in early stages of this administration, cia, nsa were gleefully ignoring no air strikes orders from white house for afghanistan. they were blatantly, openly ignoring orders, and nothing happened.

subject

[Legion303]

I would rather they had postponed this in favor of the bank secrets they said they would release next.

When will US pay for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, when will someone in US be judged for this? The same retards that thinks Guantanamo is OK are the one that believes that mass murdering Japaneses citizens with Nuclear bombs were an acceptable way to end the war. You've been brainwashed too much to keep doing nothing against your country atrocities.

Publishing this is a War Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Publishing the prisoners' photos and medical details is however a war crime under Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention. That article is designed to protect prisoners of war against insults and public curiosity. The Geneva Conventions do not just apply to agents of the state, but to any person under the jurisdiction of the legality of the Conventions. This includes civilian journalists just as much as it does official camp guards of a signatory nation.

Re:Publishing this is a War Crime

[TheTurtlesMoves]

And torturing POWs is also a war crime. Gitmo is exempt, haven't you heard.

I think that we are on the same page...

[PaulBu]

... except that we arrived to it in different ways! ;)

I doubt that real conservatives were running the country for 60+ years, I think that what you mean were what we call now neocons. Same confusion as with the 'liberals' of the older generation, who are now proclaimed to be "far right", and only occasionally allowed to be called by their since-assumed 'libertarian' name.

I hate stupid govt. bureaucracy as much as one can (originally coming from the Soviet Russia! ;) ), so, what about voting in someone who would rather slash the whole federal departments than expand them, for a "Change"?

And actually bringing those who break their promises to "uphold the Constitution" -- literally -- to justice?

Also, I am not sure if I have heard of THEM ignoring no air strikes orders early on in this administration, but from what I have seen is that administration itself was more than happy to order some more no-fly/air-strikes orders quite recently, in different country, but why would it matter?

And, can we drop the stupid conservative/liberal labels, just for now? Last time we were talking politics at lunch table with a bunch of somewhat peculiar US liberals and quite liberal Canadian guys (not that in Canada 'liberal' means not 'Liberal', you original P.S. taken into account! :) ), someone said "Why not those Red States would just form their own country and let us not participate in their stupid politics!?" -- my reply was that it actually *was* the original intent of the U.S., for them to be able to do things they like to do the way they want them to be done, and Blue states doing thing the other way! People seemed to be stunned by the idea, but did not want to go into the whole States Rights thing, subconsciously. And why not?

Just something to think about,

Paul B.

Re:I think that we are on the same page...

[unity100]

that - those who 'slash departments' always end up to be conservatives who want to give control of everything to private interests.

and no, the ideal of american revolution was not 'states rights'. it was PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. your country is in shambles because conservatives have successfully made you forget this.

Re:Be my guest

[TaoPhoenix]

Prologue: Heh - in case you haven't seen a couple of my other posts, I am already preparing for the age of SuperCopyright. By that I mean that we will need to WhiteSource just about everything we do, down to at least the sentence level. I've been doing this on my little hobby website under glacial development.

Back on topic: My sigs are like "Trending" - I am collecting pieces towards a theory of Web 3.0 and/or Web 4.0 depending how the breakdown goes. "Your remark is more powerful than you imagine". I feel it is like the 0.001 precursor to the biggest revolution in politics that the country has seen since 1776. Imagine a candidate who is partially a mirror of the internet community (let's say it's US residents with proofs etc, skip the troll/dilution game for now.) The sneakiest weapon politicians have is they get to all hang out in DC within a Lunch/Dinner Meeting of each other, while we are spread apart. They get to play Prisoner's Dilemma games on us because they sit at command centers and we have to rely on 4th hand reports from the media, with bias.

But what if we had a Citizen's Vote Aggregator (robust with fraud protections)? Every single policy position, live updating, weighted much like slashdot based on karma. Example: Repub decides to Increase Military Spending for Gitmo? 35,000 Citizens Dislike This. 1,000 Would Vote Out Based On This Issue.

They busted the notion of political privacy, so screw private voting. We can decide for ourselves within a week if we like the issue. Then if we back the results with votes, for once they have to listen to us. People's journals become much like talk shows are today. What would Washington do if we got so fed up we did an entire grand slam and Tombstone Slammed all of Washington with any 3rd party candidates on the ballot? Suddenly NO ONE knows where they stand, so they'll have to really dig in without the old boys networks to bail them out.

The only reason the candidate is not a Blind mirror is as a last defense against trolls. But supposing he follows 75% of the recommendations, but *posts reasons* for denying the other 25%, the US really might end in 2012 to become the America InOffice.

Also, your nickname...

[PaulBu]

... made me think that you have picked it from The Anthem by Ayn Rand, Unity 100 -- but no, there was no Unity, there was Equality 7-2521 and Liberty 5-3000, but what was the name of Equality's scared friend, was not it Unity? ;)

Just a friendly jab,

Paul B.

Re:Also, your nickname...

[unity100]

i wouldnt pick anything from ayn rand if it was the last woman among the sea of transvestite sumo wrestlers and we were the last remaining people on the planet.

May God Bless ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks.

May God Damn Barak H. Obama.

May God Damn George Walker Buch (and entire family).

May God Damn the Oligarchs and Beauracrats of George Walker Bush and Barak H. Obama.

Neither George Walker Bush nor Barak H. Obama have ever deserved to live.

Napoleon Dynamite

[DAV3]

So, I guess Napoleon Dynamite was a terrorist

It was a weasel argument from day one

[dbIII]

It doesn't belong to Castro so it's US soil where US laws are supposed to apply.

Saying that closing Guantanamo is just a matter of getting him the money is out of touch with reality.

In politics money to get stuff done is about the only reality they have access to. Without it things cannot happen.

Two names to Expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Harold and Kumar.

Was Wikileaks the source?

[Eunuchswear]

According to the Guardian:

"The files were shared with the Guardian and US National Public Radio by the New York Times, which says it did not obtain them from WikiLeaks."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/what-are-guantanamo-files-explained

Re: Germans in WW2

[Anonymous Coward]

Though to be fair, the Nuremberg trials had at least the semblance of trans-national endorsement. Since the USA no longer recognizes the jurisdiction of courts such as the International Court of Justice, by what international law does it bring to trial nationals from other countries? It looks rather like a kangaroo court from where the rest of us stand.

Re:Huh? Are not you a couple of years too late to.

[tehcyder]

mod parent -1 droolitarian

Hello Mr. Beck

[Anonymous Coward]

* "6th grade social studies" - use of term to underline simplicity of argument.
* "It's been a few decades since then" - use of phrase to underline the age/experience of the poster (rather than writing a decent post).
* "the foundations of our Justice System" and"Founding Fathers" in the same sentence.
* "thrown out the windows as soon as it was inconvenient" - use of phrase to dismiss 200+ years of erosion through political processes of an idea that never had much support anyways.
* "some of those guys at Gitmo might be terrorist assholes. Hell most of them might be" - hidden support of detaining terrorists for the RIGHT reasons, no doubt to be determined.
* "and that is not how we operate" - dismissal of American history.
* "sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution" - citing of an oath of office with a meaning as flexible as the flag.
* Inclusion of the military
* "secret constitution" - use of phrase to instil suspicion.
* "you fuckers" - Use of phrase to divide the audience against whoever 'you' is.

Conclusion:
  Hello Mr. Beck. We've been expecting you.

If I were innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

and held in horrible conditions while being tortured then I would be a danger to whoever did that to me for the rest of my life. It is almost like our official policy is to create as many enemies as possible.

You're missing the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm seeing a of lot of congratulatory backslapping over how we're so much smarter than "those idiots who think that a wristwatch makes you a terrorist". The problem with this is that "those idiots" don't exist. That's not what this is about.

The point of (casio = bombs) isn't intended to grab random people out of a crowd, it's intended to help classify people who are already under suspicion and/or known to have been doing something that "we" don't like.