Slashdot Mirror
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.
Well now I know what to give for Christmas...
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Patriotism, the last refuge of the fucking moron.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think I'll wait for the DVD or Blurays.
Where's all that Hope and Change?
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
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.
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?
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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'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!
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.
They blocked out the URL for Wikipedia. The Bastards!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
...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.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
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
you own a Casio F-91W wristwatch.
Coming soon, more standup comedy from Mohammed Foxworthy.
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.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
He is not opinion. He is a human being with a conscience.
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Your opinion. Let's be clear on that.
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?
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. :/
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
You're opinion.
Is he opinion?
Circumcision is child abuse.
Just how many patriots or citizens who are sick of our government doing stupid shit do we have in the US?
FTFY.
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.
The comment that spawned a multitude of replies. Not because of the content, but because of grammar. Welcome to /., enjoy your stay.
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.
I am officially gone from
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.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
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.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
You wouldn't be claiming 'innocence', or anything like that, would you?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.
Meh, I'm used to it. I've got thick skin.
Life is not for the lazy.
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 mocked this Pentagon Press Secretary tweet this morning:
https://twitter.com/#!/PentagonPresSec/status/62531762345091072
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Is it just me or does that make you really interested in the remaining 21 detainees?
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
I had to requote you onto facebook of all things.. well said.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Easy! Make all campaign promises under penalty of perjury!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Or the banking executives . . .
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Life is not for the lazy.
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....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
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?
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
Not a sentence!
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.
Life is not for the lazy.
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.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Life is not for the lazy.
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?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So we're 'just' detaining foreign nationals without trial? That doesn't seem much better.
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.
Life is not for the lazy.
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.
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.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
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.
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.
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.
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?
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
If someone doesn't qualify for the Geneva Convention, they should be processed under normal domestic law.
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
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.
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.
Offering them their choice of where to go allows them to choose to go someplace OTHER than their possibly-hostile home country.
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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,
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
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?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
That would encourage others to carry out the behaviors these people are alleged to have committed.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
Hear hear
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!"
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
The behavior of being illegally held captive and tortured? I'm doubting it.
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.
Yeah...that's neat how you took an example of an argument and used it to disprove all instances of it.
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
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.
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.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
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.
Mod points to that man
Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
Spun, you suffer from psychological projection. FYI
Life is not for the lazy.
You think they're reading much Kafka in gitmo?
Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
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.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
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.
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.
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)
Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
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?
Life is not for the lazy.
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?
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
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
Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
... 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!
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.
Read radical news here
Well said, Sir!
Paul B.
I would rather they had postponed this in favor of the bank secrets they said they would release next.
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.
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.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
... 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.
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.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
... 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.
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.
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.)
So, I guess Napoleon Dynamite was a terrorist
In politics money to get stuff done is about the only reality they have access to. Without it things cannot happen.
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?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
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...
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
And torturing POWs is also a war crime. Gitmo is exempt, haven't you heard.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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?
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
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.
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
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
mod parent -1 droolitarian
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
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?
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.
-1 Angsty.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
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.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
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.
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.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Answer the question, how do you feel about torture? Is it okay, or not okay?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Terrorists. Terrorists everywhere.
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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 before you scoff at a Wikipedia link, check the 17 cites the article gives.
And they didn't/don't always year gloves or show respect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Qur'an_desecration_controversy
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).
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
Sorry, that was a misunderstanding. That should have been directed at DigiShaman.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Damn Slashdot and its imperfectly nesting comments.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The Constitution does not expressly give the supreme Court the power of judicial review - the ability to void laws.
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.
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.
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?
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton