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.
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
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.
...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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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".
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"
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
NPR has been worthless for years.
The spin is easy to see. Not as blatant as a Murdoch entity, but obvious enough.
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
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
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
... 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.
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