WikiLeaks Releases Guantanamo Prisoner Files 426
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.
Casio F-91W wristwatch (Score:5, Funny)
Well now I know what to give for Christmas...
Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch (Score:4, Funny)
"Don't be silly Bob. Of course I don't hold giving the promotion to Dick against you. Just to show you there's no hard feelings, here's a Casio watch. That's right, just stand by the window over there."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone else think of donating one to each of the whitehouse staff? They might appreciate the thought...
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/thank-you [whitehouse.gov]:
For security reasons, please do not send perishable gifts -- such as food, liquids or flowers -- to the White House. The White House is unable to accept cash, checks, bonds, gift certificates, foreign currency, or other monetary equivalents. Additionally, items sent to the White House are often significantly delayed and can be irreparably harmed during the security screening process. Therefore, please do not send items of personal importance, such as family photographs, because items may not be returned.
Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the article:
"The Casio was known to be given to the students at al-Qaida bomb-making training courses in Afghanistan at which the students received instruction in the preparation of timing devices using the watch.
"Approximately one-third of the JTF-GTMO detainees that were captured with these models of watches have known connections to explosives, either having attended explosives training, having association with a facility where IEDs were made or where explosives training was given, or having association with a person identified as an explosives expert."
More than 50 detainee reports refer to the Casio timepieces. The records of 32 detainees refer to the black Casio F-91W, while a further 20 make reference to the silver version, the A-159W.
It's not silly at all. But it's not the reason they arrested them either.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much any watch with reasonably user-accessible alarm buzzer drive leads and adequate timer features is a potential bomb trigger. The techniques for each would differ mostly in pinout, and wouldn't strike a competent electronics hobbyist as anything special. Why chose those Casios? Because they are dirt cheap, ubiquitous, and have reaso
Re: (Score:2)
The silliness enters the picture when you consider how many non-terrorists own such watches, not when you just look at all the suspected or actual terrorists who do.
How many people running around Afghanistan wear digital watches, much less this particular model? If it's very common in the region, I would agree. But I honestly don't know.
Pretty much any watch with reasonably user-accessible alarm buzzer drive leads and adequate timer features is a potential bomb trigger. The techniques for each would differ mostly in pinout, and wouldn't strike a competent electronics hobbyist as anything special. Why chose those Casios? Because they are dirt cheap, ubiquitous, and have reasonably robust timer features.
But we're not talking about electronics hobbyists here. We're talking about a course in bomb making; Step A, then Step B, etc.
Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch (Score:4, Insightful)
The silliness enters the picture when you consider how many non-terrorists own such watches, not when you just look at all the suspected or actual terrorists who do.
How many people running around Afghanistan wear digital watches, much less this particular model? If it's very common in the region, I would agree. But I honestly don't know.
I remember seeing these in many stores in The Netherlands in the '90s. Owned one myself. In many ways it's a better watch than the fancy Swiss one I've got now. Very reliable, user-friendly, incredibly long battery life (people report 8+ years; I know I never had to change the battery in mine), and dirt cheap to boot ($8 on the web). I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's still popular in places like Afghanistan. If it wasn't so ugly I'd still be wearing mine.
Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic:
"The skin pigmentation was known to be consistent to the students at an al-Qaida bomb-making training course in Afghanistan."
"Approximately 3/4 of the JTF-GTMO detainees that were captured being brown have known connections to explosives, either having attended explosives training, having an association with a facility where IEDs were made or where explosives training was given, or having association with a person identified as an explosives expert"
"More than 50 detainees appear to be brown. The skin pigmentation of 32 detainees appear to be "Mexicanish", while a further 20 appear to be "Almost Italian".
Not silly at all.... Except there are a whole hell of a lot of brown people. And equally a whole hell of a lot of people with these watches. Hell It looks to be very similar to the first watch I ever got around when I was 10. Not to mention if I started making decisions on 33% accuracy, I'd get fired.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This 5-star review from Amazon doesn't help:
5.0 out of 5 stars This watch is the bomb!
This is the most reliable watch I've ever owned. I buy them all the time!
Published 11 months ago by K. Aubuchon
And if they're so reliable, why do you need so many of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch (Score:4, Interesting)
it's not the reason they arrested them
It sometimes was:
"In a handful of cases the detainee's possession of a Casio watch or the wearing olive-drab clothing is cited as evidence that the detainee is an enemy combatant. No basis is given to explain why such evidence makes the detainee an enemy combatant." [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to media in general. We're soaking in it.
Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say actually less than you would find on other fora.
In theory, yes. But when the difference between guantanamo or not is a cheap casio watch, then things are very different.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course the brand of watch is only one factor of many, many pieces of information that is part of the analysis of these people. If it is given due weight, not too much, and not too little, it is perfectly reasonable.
If... but in this case it's !if:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_detainees_accused_of_possessing_Casio_F91W_watches [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Casio F-91W wristwatch (Score:5, Informative)
I have that watch. In fact, it's the only type of watch that I've bought since I was a kid. I've had others given to me but always use that EXACT model. The only thing that goes wrong with them is the strap and they are cheap enough to throw away and replace.
I've *never* had a problem buying that model, in the last, what, 15-20 years? It's always the cheapest digital watch available in any high-street store (i.e. not cheapy 50p kiddies things).
- It has a digital display.
- It's waterproof. I regularly go swimming with one without even thinking about it any more.
- I've never had to replace a battery in one (even the strapless ones I kept are still going).
- It has a cheap standard battery if I ever do.
- It shows date, day and time on a single display without pressing anything.
- It has alarm and stopwatch if you need it.
- You can turn all the stupid bleeps and bloops off.
- It has a light that's powerful enough to see the display perfectly in complete darkness (later models have an "electroluminscence" display that's even better) and doesn't run your batteries down even with every-day use over a long period and also to semi-illuminate other things in an emergency (I have read an entire novel by that light!)
- It keeps good time and is easy to change when timezones changes
Gimme an MSF (radio-sync) version, with electroluminesence and a decent strap and I'll give you a hefty sum and never have to buy another watch again!.
But as a terrorist marker? Not unless you can trace back that watch's serial number to a particular batch - you can buy it EVERYWHERE, even abroad, without any hassle at all. And I don't even think they *have* serial numbers (I've never seen one). It's like saying all the terrorists were wearing shoes. Equally as true. Equally as useless as a marker.
Re: (Score:3)
GITMO still open? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the trash can next to habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence.
Re: (Score:3)
You know in my country US citizens have a right to a fair trial and representation and everything, just like every other foreigner.
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:5, Insightful)
Awaiting congress to overturn the line in the last defense spending bill which prohibited the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US courts system. Of course, even without that, all of the evidence against the key detainees is irrevocably tainted by torture and other factors.
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, even without that, all of the evidence against the key detainees is irrevocably tainted by torture and other factors.
BINGO Afaict there is no way to give these detainees a fair and effective trial. So the choice essentially comes down to either releasing them, convicting them in a show trial or continuing to detain them without trial. None of which are very attractive options.
There is also the side problem that even if they weren't enemies of the USA to begin with they are very likely to have become enemies of the USA after experiancing gitmo.
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:5, Insightful)
What?
You let them go. Plain and simple, if you have no admissible evidence that is the rule. There is no choice involved.
As to your side problem, maybe someone should have thought of that before kidnapping and torturing them?
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:4, Interesting)
The people who ratified the 5th amendment a couple centuries ago, and all the people since then who have chosen to not repeal it.
That's the complaint about it. There is a very basic and easy-to-understand principle behind the 5th amendment, and it doesn't go away simply because of certain interpretations of what "no person" means. If people think the 5th amendment is a bad idea that they no longer agree with, they should work to repeal it. Ignoring it, though, is just plain lawlessness. Not that I'm particularly lawful either, but this is the fucking government we're talking about. Without law, they're nothing.
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:5, Insightful)
As unattractive as those options are, only one of them is legal. Part of having a constitutional government with elected leaders is that the law supersedes anyone's desires to the contrary. If the founders had wanted the president to have the powers of royalty they would have written them in. Or left room for them. This is explicitly not the case. What else can we call detaining people in an extralegal prison based purely on the say-so of the President or forces under his command? This is one branch of government playing the role of two branches, and violates the checks and balances fundamental to the system. As another poster points out, the military base at Guantanamo Bay is not part of the criminal justice system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that the last problem could be addressed by a really big public apology by the heads of the tree branches of USA's government, the heads of the Army, Navy an Air Force,a big enough monetary compensation to the inmates and their families and proper punishment to the bastards that jailed and tortured innocent men, along the same punishment that they would have received if they had detained and tortured a beautiful, popular blonde american girl.
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bullshit excuse. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution. When Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President has to challenge it. Obama has done no such thing.
Also, there are other ways to close Guantanamo. He's forbidden from using budgeted funds to close Guantanamo. So, lets have a bake sale. If Obama asked for donations to go towards closing Guantanamo I'd gladly pony up $100. I bet there are a few tens of thousands of freedom loving Americans who would do the same. But Obama hasn't tried anything, so it's hard to look at this as anything but an excuse.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Obama's Justice Department hasn't indicted anyone for torture. Not one. He can't blame that on Congress. Obama condones torture.
In every way shape and form Obama has failed to deliver on his promises of change. He has no one to blame for this but himself.
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Saying the Constitution doesn't apply to someone, especially just because of a political boundary, seems pretty ridiculous to me. I'm not saying Hatta is the one responsible for saying that, I'm referring more to the lawyers and officials who came up with that. The principle of inherent human value found in the Constitution should have no boundaries. It should apply to people who come here from other countries and it should flow to other who move beyond this border. If the U.S. thinks it is within the realm
Yeah, this is just baffling. (Score:2)
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 wha
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah pretty scary that ordinary posters on forums can come up with an "obvious" political move. Therefore, the reasons which made it Not-Obviously Bad are terr...uh... frightening.
I shall borrow your last line as my sig. Unless you screech "copyright" at which point I'll return it to your library.
Re:GITMO still open? (Score:4, Interesting)
Where's all that Hope and Change?
Alright, that went to Score 0: Flamebait in five minutes. How about this:
It's Bush's fault!
Re: (Score:2)
This criticism is sound only if it comes either from the far left - for whom Obama was, barely, the lesser of two evils - or the anti-war right (American Conservative magazine, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul - sort of - etc), who were fighting the Bush administration every step of the way. Obama is guilty for having failed to disassemble Gitmo and for carrying on the obsession with "global security" (we used to be interested in *defense.* Now we're interested in "security." See a problem here?)
But when that charge
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean? Gitmo is closed down. He promised he would during the campaign.
I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke) (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Guessing is guessing but here's what I think happened, based on a conversation I've since had with the manager of the depot: The guard reported the "incident" to his boss, with some things that were true and other (minor) things that weren't. His boss reported it to the police. Next thing he knows, the security guard is giving a statement to the police, and he realises what a pathetic "concern" it is. That's when he adds all the stuff about me taking photos of the depot. He never said anything about that to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So hire a lawyer and sue that idiot guard for slander, tortuous interference, and filing a false police report. Seriously, don't let that little fuck stick get away with making your life difficult just because he's stupid and bored.
Re: (Score:3)
If he's paid as badly as most security guards are, it's safe to say that he's judgment-proof.
Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke) (Score:4, Insightful)
I really do sympathize with you, but I hope that you can sympathize with others too.
I think that what happened was the guy tried to tell it like it was, but his memory got the better of him. A couple of books, "The Tipping Point" and "The Invisible Gorilla", clearly document this. In the first book, if I recall correctly, a "Chinese American" prof went on a day tour or something like that, during a holiday. He carried a brochure, and people thought that he was a Japanese spy carrying a camera. It seems so paranoid from our perspective, but this took place during WW II, so it is somewhat paranoid, but being caught off guard at Pearl Harbour, I wouldn't judge Americans for their misconceptions. In the second book, 1 of the authors was convinced that he clearly remembered his experiences on 9/11, but when he called in 2 friends to discuss those details, none of them completely agreed on significant details. The authors of the latter book give examples of people saying things to others, while others make claims that things were said to the people.
Something like this even happened to me yesterday. I wanted to ask this lady where she got her books that she was selling on the streets. I thought that she would be interested in selling a book that I wrote, but she acted angry and defensive. She basically wanted to know why she should participate in any surveys or anything like that. Even though I explained my request to her, she just couldn't understand my words. I think the thing that threw her off was my clipboard and pen. I sympathized with her, because I actually was conducting surveys, but not of her. In other words, I wasn't trying to survey her. I just happened to see her in between my questioning, and my questioning was completely unrelated.
I think that we need to remember that people can absorb information at certain speeds, and some are slower. It makes sense that he probably only heard enough words to get the impression that you would photograph the oil stuff. Or maybe it was like I initially said, and he just had a bad memory, but didn't realize it.
Regarding what he first said, he might have thought that he did first say that.
Remember that when people forget things, they don't just forget things, they actually fill in the blanks, without even knowing it.
Re: (Score:3)
That makes me sick. It undermines the reform goal of imprisonment if people are still considered "likely to do it again" once they rejoin society.
Re:I am currently a terrorism suspect (no joke) (Score:4, Informative)
I'll tell you something funny, and slightly on-topic: I am currently a terrorism suspect.
Are you still being granted the privilege of being able to fly on airplanes? You may very well be permanently grounded now by virtue of the no fly list.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, I've been using Facebook too much. Went to click "like" on this post :-)
They Redacted...! (Score:2)
You might be a member of al-Qaida if ..... (Score:2, Funny)
you own a Casio F-91W wristwatch.
Coming soon, more standup comedy from Mohammed Foxworthy.
Pentagon whining (Score:2)
Wikileaks mocked this Pentagon Press Secretary tweet this morning:
https://twitter.com/#!/PentagonPresSec/status/62531762345091072 [twitter.com]
The other 21 (Score:3)
aljazeera journalist arrested (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
And You Know, The Funny Thing Here (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:If You See Suspicious Activity (Score:5, Insightful)
Patriotism, the last refuge of the fucking moron.
Re:If You See Suspicious Activity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If You See Suspicious Activity (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Infected with moles (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Infected with moles (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 unifo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Infected with moles (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to requote you onto facebook of all things.. well said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Infected with moles (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Infected with moles (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Infected with moles (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Infected with moles (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 b
Re: (Score:3)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
You're opinion.
Is he opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The comment that spawned a multitude of replies. Not because of the content, but because of grammar. Welcome to /., enjoy your stay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Infected with moles (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Hey Obama, remember you promised to close Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy! Make all campaign promises under penalty of perjury!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
NPR has been worthless for years.
The spin is easy to see. Not as blatant as a Murdoch entity, but obvious enough.
I think that we are on the same page... (Score:3)
... 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 w