Viewing Thread:
"Guantanamo Bay"

So then...5 people are released without charge after having been held incommunicado for 2 years without charge. These men are entirely innocent. Not one charge is levelled against them, and no implication is made that they are anything other than men who were in the wrong place with the wrong skin colour at the wrong time. These men make it clear that they were tortured both physically and mentally by American troops whilst in Guantanamo Bay. These are not terrorists or soldiers remember; they're innocent men. Now aside from the standard claim of the mentally deficient on this board (which will doubtless be along the lines of "Ah, you're so naive if you think they're REALLY innocent"; christ, I sometimes think that if Bell ever saw The Crucible he'd be at a loss as to what the problem with the Salem witch trials actually was...), there is no evidence whatsoever to claim otherwise. So the Americans, as well as torturing men who may be Al-Quaida members, are torturing innocent people.

Remind me again; why are we fighting this "war on terror"? Surely the point was to stop terror. Seems to me that we're actually fighting for the right to terrorise nations of brown men and women whilst making sure they don't get uppity and help us to reap what we sow. Has anyone with half a brain in their head got any thoughts on this one?

Skarra wrote:
> Well, to be fair to the Americans, since their 'War On Terror', there
> have been no more 9/11s. So, Terrorism might not be being destroyed,
> but, in the eyes of the US public, the 'War On Terror' must be doing
> something good.

That's awful.

9/11 was a one off.
It was never going to happen en mass.

Well, maybe more incidents might have occured if military action hadn't been taken, but abusing human of rights Prisoners of War in this case was completely unjustified.
Sure, the enemy, like Taliban and Sadamites did the same thing, but the whole point is that we're removing them because of that sort of thing.



America should learn that the best way to stop 9/11 attacks, is to stop bombing third world countries to the point where people only live to get revenge on them.
America would save a fortune, both on the bombs they would've dropped and the military expenses they get from "sorting out" the terrorists after an attack.

Belldandy wrote:
> I don't think it's right what's happening in Guantanamo after this
> amount of time, but then again I wonder what the US has to gain from
> holding the men if there is no real evidence against them. Bush could
> do without it in an election year and it would silence some critics
> as well as ease relations with other countries. Yet Guantanamo is
> still there.

Every political correspondant in the US that I've seen speaking on news programs have offered the same opinion:
There is very little interest among the American people in what happens in Guantanamo Bay. They just don't care.

Holding people on the off chance of finding some information, while being seen to be doing something by keeping people there, could be incentive enough for him.

Actually, if you go back to the worst days in Northern Ireland, we've pretty much beaten the US to most of the questinable things that are possible when fighting terrorism. I remember that several authors, including one who claimed to have been a member of the unit, claimed that the Brits operated a 'Nemesis' squadron in the country which performed various black ops.

Not trying to take the focus off Guantanamo, just saying that what the US gets caught doing we've probably done (in a more secretive manner).

Cheers.

Blank wrote:
> I didn't know. Any links?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2753483.stm

I didn't know. Any links?

We're holding plenty ourselves, we just didn't build a special camp to put them in. I forget the numbers but we've had people imprisoned since 9/11 without trial, though they get less headlines than those nasty Americans doing likewise...

I'd agree with you that there is something that seems a little dodgy about these people and the circumstances, but I don't think that's the point. The point is, you can't hold a group of people indefinitely without any kind of charge against them. It's not legal, and it's the sort of thing that the Bush and Blair governments go to war to stop. Supposedly.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

I think part of the problem is that people are too divided - the major groups protesting about Guantanamo are anti-Iraq and generally anti-war on terror.

I don't think it's right what's happening in Guantanamo after this amount of time, but then again I wonder what the US has to gain from holding the men if there is no real evidence against them. Bush could do without it in an election year and it would silence some critics as well as ease relations with other countries. Yet Guantanamo is still there.

Whilst I'd admit those that have been released had little evidence against them I think there reasons for being where they were were questionable at best.

The fact is that there stories are very strange - at least two told their families they were going to Pakistan, and 3 others they were attending a wedding...yet the three ended up in a warzone (not known as a common setting for a wedding).

They've been held there for two years, with no wrong doing, endured torture and had their freedom completely removed. Now they're back, and it's "oh, they're back. Who are they again?" Instead of what should be said, ie "What? Held for two years? In Guantanamo? No charges? No wrong doing? Why is nobody doing anything about this?"

It disgusts me.