Gitmo Innocents

[carolaa]

Report: In 2002 CIA Warned 1/3 of Gitmo Prisoners Were Innocent

Jane Mayer also reveals that the Bush administration ignored warnings from the CIA six years ago that up to a third of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay may have been imprisoned by mistake. In 2002, a CIA analyst concluded that many of the prisoners were essentially bystanders who had been swept up in dragnets or turned over to the US military by bounty hunters. Mayer also reveals that the CIA is investigating whether its agents kidnapped at least six innocent men and held them in secret prisons as part of the agency’s extraordinary rendition program. Only one of the cases—that of Khalid El-Masri—has ever come to light.

[Dr. Shane]

In a related story...

Seventh-day Adventist missionary, Eric B. Hare, perhaps the greatest children's storyteller in the history of Adventism, was taken captive by the Japanese Army and held as a prisoner against his will. Pastor Hare was not a member of any Allied military force. He was 100% innocent. He was all about peace and love. Yet despite all the good he was doing in the world Japan captured him and held him prisoner.

The wicked, evil, hate-filled and war mongering United States of America dropped not one but TWO atomic bombs on Japan in order to secure the release of Pastor Hare because President Trueman wanted to force the religion on the entire globe and make every single last man, woman, child and household cat into a Christian. After all Jesus rules with an iron rod and if the USA is to be like Christ they must drop atomic bombs on all nations that hold innocent Seventh-day Adventist missionaries prisoner.

... Back to regular scheduled programming.

[Woody]

[carolaa]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Dr. Shane]

I think it is well established that in every war in history innocent people have been taken prisoner. That shouldn't be a newsflash to anyone. It is sad but as Pastor Eric B. Hare knew, a true fact of war.

[carolaa]

I think it is well established that in every war in history innocent people have been taken prisoner. That shouldn't be a newsflash to anyone. It is sad but as Pastor Eric B. Hare knew, a true fact of war.

But I thought Gitmo was for the "worst of the worst," the ones who are undoubtedly the greatest threats to world security. They have been held and tortured for years. And a third of them are innocent?!!!

[Dr. Shane]

We don't know that 1/3 of them were innocent any more than we know 2/3 of them were guilty. There are a lot of people that want to write reports and books and make a lot of money. There are a lot of prisoners taken that never went Gitmo. We don't know what the screening process was. There is a lot we don't know so I am very hesitant to jump on some ideologue's bandwagon and either support or criticize what was done or is being done.

[Bravus]

Why don't we know? Because they weren't tried. If the rule of law had been followed and trials instituted immediately, we would know.

[Neil D]

So, let me get this straight chronicologically....

These guys were taken by US military to Gitmo. They have been held for over 5 years. They have been interogated many times during those 5 years, and the military probably aquired all the useful information within the first year of thier imprisionment. They military KNEW who was innocent and who had useful information and who did not. The military persists in declaring that all these men, whether innocent or not, are guilty by association that they were in the same country as Saddam....And yet, this persistant CIA report says that 1/3 of those prisoners were innocent bystanders.....

What a smear on American sense of justice....So much for the "American way" of truth justice and the American way....

PS- I expected better of MY American military.....

[Dr. Shane]

Why don't we know?

[carolaa]

I don't know because I wasn't there and I hear conflicting reports from different sources with various levels of credibility. My honest opinion is that liberals believe their liberal sources because they want to. Conservatives believe their conservative sources because they want to. I try to be honest with myself. I listen to sources on both side and admit I don't know. I am certainly not going to jump on anyone's bandwagon.

One of the reasons I like to listen to Democracy Now is because so much of what they investigate and bring to light eventually makes it to the mainstream news as fact. I think they try to be very accurate in their reporting. And they don't hesitate to question or criticize either major party or any candidate on issues.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

all these men, whether innocent or not, are guilty by association that they were in the same country as Saddam....

No Iraqis are in Gitmo.

Quote:

They military KNEW who was innocent

We don't know what the military knew and what they didn't.

Quote:

this persistant CIA report says that 1/3 of those prisoners were innocent bystanders.....

We are talking about a book written by liberal Jane Mayer. She cites an alleged CIA report. Everything we know about this report is according to her. I don't suspect that she is making things up but given her known bias I certainly am not going to place much confidence in her perspective. That would be like trusting Rush Limbaugh's interpretation of a report on Clinton that only Rush Limbaugh has seen.

Quote:

I expected better of MY American military.....

Please don't spit on these men and women when they come home and call them baby-killers or terrorist torturers.

[Woody]

Quote:

Please don't spit on these men and women when they come home and call them baby-killers or terrorist torturers.

I agree Neil. This is not be good.

[Bravus]

Shane quotes me:

Quote:

Why don't we know?

And responds:

Quote:

I don't know because I wasn't there and I hear conflicting reports from different sources with various levels of credibility. My honest opinion is that liberals believe their liberal sources because they want to. Conservatives believe their conservative sources because they want to. I try to be honest with myself. I listen to sources on both side and admit I don't know. I am certainly not going to jump on anyone's bandwagon.

You excised my own answer to my own rhetorical question: we don't know because there was no trial. This is not about multiple sources of news, and it's not about liberal and conservative. Natural justice says prisoners have the right to hear and respond to the charges against them in a timely manner, and those proceedings should be public so that justice is seen to be done. If there had been open trials we would know.

[there buster]

And we never knew how many of the German POWS were actually Nazis, because they were enemy combatants. If they were combatants but were not wearing uniforms, they could be summarily shot as spies. And all under the "Geneva Convention."

Oh, and we didn't grant them trials either.

Since Al Qaeda abjures uniforms as a tactic, it would be an option to execute them all. No one, of course, is advocating that.

In war, it can be difficult to distinguish the perpetrators from the accessories. When the combatants refuse to wear uniforms, or worse, disguise themselves as civilians, this makes matters worse. But any confusion is the fault of those who choose to hide among the civilians. They intend it, they choose it, they use it.

Quote:

Natural justice says prisoners have the right to hear and respond to the charges against them in a timely manner, and those proceedings should be public so that justice is seen to be done.

Natural justice? Well, it wasn't natural for thousands of years of Earth's history. Or perhaps you're an advocate of 'natural law,' as are Justices Scalia and Thmoas.

The idea of natural justice coincides with the Declaration of Independence where rights are endowed by the Creator, NOT by governments, and that governments are responsible to "Nature, and Nature's God."

But that strikes socialism at its heart.

[carolaa]

Here's an interesting interview from today. Some of it sounds more reassuring, while other things remain concerns. Keep in mind that this is the former chief prosecutor - not a defense attorney.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/fmr_chief_guantanamo_prosecutor_says_military

[there buster]

Interesting. Bravus says:

Quote:

Natural justice says prisoners have the right to hear and respond to the charges against them in a timely manner, and those proceedings should be public so that justice is seen to be done. If there had been open trials we would know.

And what does this fellow "DemocracyNow" finds so interesting have to say:

Quote:

the nation has an inherent right, that goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia, to detain enemy combatants, to keep them off the battlefield from causing harm today and tomorrow. Prosecuting folks for violating the law of war is not really focused on today and tomorrow; it’s holding people accountable for what they did yesterday.

Since the Gitmo detainees were in fact detained because they were found in battlefields, the U.S. has "an inherent right, that goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia, to detain" them. The only reason for them to get any sort of trial is if they are charged with a violation of the law of war.

That throws Bravus' assertion out the window. They were detained in a war zone. No further charges are necessary to keep them "from causing harm today and tomorrow."

And thus, the title of this thread is invalidated. Whether or not they are 'innocent' of war crimes has nothing to do with whether they can be detained. In most past wars, the vast majority of combatants were not guilty of war crimes--but their detention was quite lawful.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Quote:

I expected better of MY American military.....

Please don't spit on these men and women when they come home and call them baby-killers or terrorist torturers.

Don't know what you are talkin' about, Shane...No one here in my neck of the woods, and there are a lot of rednecks around here, and peaceniks, who are NOT saying anything of what you are claiming. Maybe in YOUR neck of the country, but not here. We appreciate what the military is doing....But we also know that there are oppertunities for bad apples to come to fruition in the military....

That is why I hold MY American military to a higher standard. They play fair, even to thier detriment. They get the job done, and if they need to do it ruthlessly, they do so according to the Geneva convention, and other principles that apply to the rules of war.

But if they are out to maim and murder people, then they are out to harm mankind, and as far as I am concerned, they can be tried as war criminals....

[carolaa]

Since the Gitmo detainees were in fact detained because they were found in battlefields, the U.S. has "an inherent right, that goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia, to detain" them. The only reason for them to get any sort of trial is if they are charged with a violation of the law of war.

That throws Bravus' assertion out the window. They were detained in a war zone. No further charges are necessary to keep them "from causing harm today and tomorrow."

And thus, the title of this thread is invalidated. Whether or not they are 'innocent' of war crimes has nothing to do with whether they can be detained. In most past wars, the vast majority of combatants were not guilty of war crimes--but their detention was quite lawful.

What exactly is the "battlefield"? The entire country of Iraq? The entire Middle East? The entire world?

Anyway, it seemed to me that the main point of the interview was showing that even the chief prosecutor (not a defense attorney) felt so strongly that the detainees will not get a fair trial, that he resigned over the issue:

AMY GOODMAN: Except the CIA is saying that perhaps up to a third have been held mistakenly, not even enemy combatants, as Bush has defined it.

COL. MORRIS DAVIS: Right. And that, I’ll agree with. I mean, I—I guess I drank the Kool-Aid on that one, as well, believing that the CSRT process and the administrative review boards were a robust process where the individuals did get, you know, a significant look at whether they were being properly detained. And I think that’s what the Supreme Court has done in Boumediene, is say there’s some doubt about the validity of that process and that these individuals are entitled to some meaningful review. But I think if a person gets meaningful review and they’re determined to be an enemy combatant and we’re engaged in armed conflict, that we have the right to detain them and keep them off the battlefield.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think they got meaningful review at Guantanamo?

COL. MORRIS DAVIS: Well, it certainly appears that that’s doubtful in many cases.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Don't know what you are talkin' about, Shane...

Oh, let me quote it again.

Quote:

I expected better of MY American military.

Please show me, tell me, amaze me with stories of other nations with military in combat situations that has acted more ethical and more just than the American men and women in uniform.

Prisoner abuse takes place in nearly every prison, civilian and military, that I am aware of. That is not to excuse it. That is not to say it is acceptable. But if it takes place in county jails and state prisons, why would we expect it not to take place in military prisons? Why would anyone "expect" more from "their" military than they get from their state and federal civilian prisons?

[Dr. Shane]

These extremist websites and blogs are not going to offer a balanced perspective. That is not to say I like what is going on in Gitmo. But going to extremist blogs is kind of like going to the candy store owner for dental advice.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Don't know what you are talkin' about, Shane...

Oh, let me quote it again.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

You make it sound like it is the norm, even in our civilian prisons.

It is! I have been sitting in A.A. meetings for over 20 years. I have known many many people that have served in prison and anyone that doesn't think abuse in civilian prisons is the norm has no place in a discussion about prisons. The reason we don't have prison reform is because felons can't vote!

I am still waiting for the name of the country with a more ethical military than ours. What nation should be our example?

[there buster]

Quote:

What exactly is the "battlefield"? The entire country of Iraq? The entire Middle East? The entire world?

Anyway, it seemed to me that the main point of the interview was showing that even the chief prosecutor (not a defense attorney) felt so strongly that the detainees will not get a fair trial

A battlefield is where soldiers fight. The detainees were picked up by soldiers where they had been fighting.

"It seemed to me. . . ."

But since there was no need to try any of them, it's essentially moot. They can be detained without trial. . .that whole "Treaty of Westphalia" thingy.

[carolaa]

These extremist websites and blogs are not going to offer a balanced perspective. That is not to say I like what is going on in Gitmo. But going to extremist blogs is kind of like going to the candy store owner for dental advice.

I don't consider Democracy Now to be an extremist program. Most of the things they uncover are eventually proven true. I admit sometimes they put a liberal/progressive slant on a news story, but I think I can see through that. I really don't care a lot whether a perspective is "balanced" or not. What I care about is the truth, the whole truth. And I usually find it there.