Detainees that had no connection to terrorism, tortured, radicalized against US.
 

.
National Public Radio

Detainees at military bases tortured.
Hundreds had noting to do with terrorism.
Being detained made prisoners more radicalized against US.
...


NPR, All Things Considered, June 15, 2008

· The McClatchy newspaper chain begins a series Sunday documenting abuses of detainees at American military bases in Afghanistan.
The series also alleges that many of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have little or no connection to terrorism.
McClatchy reporter Tom Lasseter talks to host Andrea Seabrook about the series.

...
Listen to the story on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/...737&m=91536727

...

Link to the McClatchy stories.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html

...

Thank You
RichC
:jester:
.

Everybody who believes that the prisoners in GITMO as abused should be afforded the opportunity to adopt one.

B

.

So far we know of 81 people that have been tortured.

And two killed.

Several of the people tortured have been innocent.

And one of the people killed was later found to be innocent.

RichC
:jester:
.

Wrong.

You know of 81 allegations and 2 have died.

The government admits to 4 people (IIRC) subjected to extraordinary techniques of interrogation (or whatever their euphemism is).

For example, are all allegations of "police brutality" true? I don't think so, though I have no doubt police brutality does occur.

Are any of these particular allegations true? I don't know.

B

.

I am simply quoting the stories by reporters.

And they did not use the word " allegedly "

They have seen the detainees,
and have sit and talked with them.

They have far better knowledge of what happened than you or I.

.

The "alleged" Mad Scientist
RichC
:jester:
.

Today's WSJ

REVIEW & OUTLOOK


Afghan Prison Break
June 16, 2008
The Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that the writ of habeas corpus should apply to non-American terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. The Taliban delivered its own commentary on the ruling the very next day, when it busted into a prison in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar and freed 1,150 prisoners, of whom 400 are Taliban members and the other 750 easy potential conscripts. Call it habeas corpus, Taliban-style.

The connection between these events is not merely their timing. The point of keeping enemy combatants at a remote location like Guantanamo is that it offers some assurance that they will not return to the battlefield to kill more Americans – something many have done when given the chance. Yet last week's Boumediene decision makes it all but certain that Gitmo will soon be shutting (or should we say opening) its doors.

The High Court's 5-4 decision will also likely bear on the "rights" that captured enemy combatants will now try to claim when detained by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters in the war on terror. As a result, the U.S. military is likely to transfer an increasing number of captured terrorists to local prison authorities, if only to avoid the endless judicial landmines it can expect trying to win convictions in U.S. court.
Fantasies about "torture" at Guantanamo notwithstanding, we have yet to meet the person who thinks the rights of the detainees are better assured in their native lands, whether that's Afghanistan, Egypt, China or even France (recently listed by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the five worst places in the world to be a terrorist). :eek::eek:As for security, the Kandahar prison break is not the Taliban's first, and it won't be its last. To the extent that the Supreme Court has made secure detentions more difficult, it has made the task of our troops more dangerous.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

This just in,,, Taliban watches court TV and military bases are insecure....
 

^^^^

.

Breaking news !!!
This just in,,, Taliban watches court TV and military bases are insecure....

That is ridiculous.

They are suggesting that the Taliban have retaliated against the United States giving detainees back their habeas rights by breaking people out of jail....

I guess they get court TV over there or something.

....

And who says military jails are more secure than the ones we have now?

They must not be that secure, because the Taliban just busted all the
people out of one.

....

Talk about bad reporting.
And not much thought being put into a story.
But I guess that is what you get when you listen to
a biased news source.

More from Neo Conservative Radio, right after this message. :D

RichC
:jester:
.

Now that we know these prisoners are radicalized against the US, we should go ahead and kill them while they are still in custody.

Absolutely not. We have too many bleeding hearts that will cry foul. Now, OTOH, if someone else were to do it or an accident happens or killed while escaping, that would be different.

This is what I would call "biased reporting by the media". All they have is allegations of the supposed victims or even worse, from their attorneys.

I would never assume that a reporter, has better information than I have. That is one-step removed from taking a reporter's opinion as evidence. A reporter should never express his or her opinion, they should stick with reporting facts. To do otherwise misinforms the weak-minded reader guiding thim or her to reach conclusions that maybe unwarranted.


B

"Review & Outlook" is op/ed, not reportage.

B

.

So we take innocent people and detain them.
And because of that they becone more likely to retilate.
So we should kill them.

Makes no sense at all.

Why not let there be heabeus rights and let the innocent go ?

RichC
:jester:
.

Oh, and NPR is a beacon of truth?

How about this... release the Gitmo prisoners into say NJ. hell give them US Citizenship while you are at it...

It makes perfect sense: you've reported they are a danger now, so if we kill them, its a no-brainer that they won't hurt me.:jester:

I disagreed with the extension of habeus rights to the detainees, that's why.

As Lenin said, to make an omlet you need to break some heads, er, eggs...

Thought that was Stalin?

What would you do if your family was rounded up on suspicions of conspiracy to commit terrorism, flown to some distant location, tortured and incarcerated indefinitely with no legal rights. Would you still maintain the same position on this? I find it disturbing and very hypocritical that this country which claims to be the leader of the free and democratic world would engage in activity like this. The Supreme Court's recent decision was long overdue.

I believe it was said by Lenin during the October Revolution but I could be wrong. It SOUNDS like Good ole Joe Stalin doesn't it...

Maybe the dead will not come back to hurt you.
I think they will in a most definite way.

Many of us do not wish to live in a country that kills the innocent.
That is one of the basic fundamental rights that lets us call this
a free country and a democracy.
You know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
The things this country was founded on, thats all....

And maybe it is more dangerous to kill these people that might hurt us.
Because their wives, children, brothers, sisters, neighbors, friends
will come and kill us.

Just like the recent suicide bombers that have lost there husbands
in Iraq.

Then we have to kill more of them,
and they kill more of us.

Where does it stop ?

RichC
:jester:
.

With a mushroom cloud or several in that direction. When they are dead and evaporated. When they surrender. Whichever comes first.

Mushroom clouds are not a one-way street.

Depends on which way the wind blows.

Having been on the wrong end of a newspaper interview more than once, I can assure you that one who accepts a reporter's word as gospel is a fool indeed.

.

So
NPR is lying
The newspaper is lying
The people themselves are lying

And you know what the truth is ???

RichC
:jester:
.

My answer to the question addresses the subject of the post. Your request for me to answer an unrelated hypothetical does not. Maybe ask me that in another thread.


Engage in activity like what? What are you talking about? Extending welfare outside our borders is not a step in the right direction.

.

I think his question is quite valid and appropriate for this thread.

Why dont you try answering it, I am sure no one would object

RichC
:jester:
.

Do I have to scramble my brain with drugs and alcohol abuse to think these dead guys will come back to get me? What's it like, on the other side, anyway?

Many of us do not wish to live in a country where people on welfare get to vote, either, but thems the breaks.

Well, I don't. Why are you right and I wrong?

.

I will not degrade this thread to personal attacks.

.

Can't wait till you promise tickets to JD so he can come tell it to you in the face and not deliver on the tickets.

Welfare? Seems like an odd choice of words. I don't think that our obligation for the proper treatment of prisoners is a matter of welfare. It's a matter of conducting ourselves in accordance with the law. I hope that our laws don't wrongfully deprive people of habeas corpus rights. If they do, then I think less of us as a country.

I read the Court's opinion yesterday. Looks reasonable to me. I need to read the dissents. I understand that Roberts and Scalia really went after the majority.

Works for me.

.

You really want to kill innocent people ?

You know this will only make things worse.
Why would you want to do that ?
I don't understand.

What if it was you ?

RichC
:jester:
.

But they are not innocent if they are going to attack us, thats whats in the title of your thread.


What are we supposed to do? Sit down and have coffee with them? Gee were sorry, they don't think like we do. Its not like the Germans or Japanese we rounded up after WW2. These people don't have a moral code like we do, they do not think like us, they only respond to strength. Why do you think Saddam was so successful at ruling them?

.

I have to believe that they are human beings and deserve everything
that I do.

I have been talking about the innocent people that have done nothing to us.
But we have done plenty to them.

I believe they have the right to be angry.

But I do not believe they have the right to try and kill anyone.
If they do, I think they should be held accountable for their actions.

RichC
:jester:
.

How about giving them a fair trial? Sounds reasonable to me. We gave it to the Nazis after WW2 and it showed to the world who we were. Unfortunately this time we're showing to the world how hypocritical we are, claiming to spread freedom and democracy but engaging in torture and denying legal rights to prisoners.

No to much red tape, and expense. Not to mention they will preceive that as a weakness.

The best solution right now is for the government to close Gitmo down and hand them over to countries that can handle them. Like Isreal and Syria, new Iraq government etc.

That comment is exactly wrong. The opposite is true.

I know not to blindly accept the written (or aired) word at face value.

Based on what do you say that? IIRC, OBL was even surprised that we pulled out so fast from Somalia when a few marines got dragged thru the streets. In fact, they threatened to do that again in Iraq.

I'm not sure that I see much connection between Somalia and habeas corpus, but I think that the Court's ruling is based in part on its confidence that the United States is strong enough to defend itself and comply with tradition rules for the detention of prisoners.

I heard a talk a while back by one of the defense attorneys for Zacharais Moussaoui. Moussaoui didn't believe that the American justice system would give him a fair trial. He was shocked when the jury decided not to recommend the death penalty. Despite all his efforts to belittle the judge, the prosecutors, and even his own lawyers, our system gave him a fair shake. That is when he realized that the United States is serious about due process. To me, that whole case conveyed a sense of American strength.

I haven't read Roberts' or Scalia's dissents, but from what I've read about them in the press, they seem to be based mainly on fear, which seems like a real sign of weakness. Sometimes fear is well-founded, but I am not sure that we should be so fearful that we start keeping prisoners without giving them fair hearings. "Fair" being defined according the circumstances.

So you are impressed. So what did that do? Did others break down and cry and want to leave OBL & Co? Just because YOU are impressed, doesn't mean that the enemy is, does it?

Aren't you?

I'm impressed. I'd be even more impressed if our justice system treated all terror suspects this way. Locking up suspects without a fair trial is the strategy of paranoid dictators.

I believe this is a great decision by the USSC.

What is the benefit to capturing the enemy? None.

USSC sent a message to the military.

Shoot the enemy dead; ask questions later. Point a gun anywhere near my direction - bang. Run away - bang. Harbor a known terrorist or enemy - bang.

Bullets are cheap.

Denial.

I have yet to see a decent rebuttal of the Seton Hall Report that claimed, based on careful examination of DoD documents, that only 5% or so of detainees were captured in the heat of battle by US forces. 86% were captured by forces either of Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to US forces.

In a region where tribal competition and hostilities were rampant, our guys put up posters urging people to get rich by turning in the enemy. Apparently, those who were enemies to the bounty hunters were frequently not really our enemies, at least not then.

After several years of being treated like crap by Uncle Sam, is it any wonder that many of them are only to happy to be our enemy now?

Your response here indicates why you no longer have credibility on this issue.

You have to be careful though, those terrorists are deviant. Did you know that several committed suicide in their cells? Why, that was an act of war against us. Diabolical bastids.

NPR is often quite centrist and they are no slouches in the journalism dept. You'll have to do better than that.

Impressed? No. Not in the least.

I don't know if it was in the links or not, but in yesterday's paper there was an article about this study. It seems McClatchy talked to 66 detainees let go. 7 of them were turned in by insurgents and Taliban to US troops. These guys actually were not only not insurgents/terrorists, they were pro US, and worked for the US backed Afghan government. One was in Gitmo for approx. 3 years, and was nearly murdered by the actual insurgents in Gitmo. They bashed him over the head with a shovel.

So he was pro-US when he went in. I wonder how he feels now?


Also, it looks like we'll have to invade ourselves, since we support the terrorists by giving them a place to gather their enemies so they can be killed.