The decision was handed down by five idiots.

What a useless fuck.

Larry Mohr

Oh goodie, goodie gumdrops, the McSames add another weapon to their fear arsenal.

Maybe while Graham is at it he can introduce an amendment to allow torture... and make it retroactive.

Is this little man coming up for re-election Nov. 4 ?

"The Supreme Court just moved us closer to the day when U.S. Marine rifle teams will have to have lawyers read Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield."

Wow, Paranoia sure do run deep in the heartland!

Miranda rights on the battle field?

Uh-huh.

Presumably, this will all occur the day after they come and take away everybody's guns and a week before the rapture starts teleporting folk off-planet.

That'll be a busy month.

Hey, Graham (crackers)

Why don't you throw a coupla anti gay, anti science, anti abortion, and pro polygamy lines into that there ammendment?

Dream big, buddy!

Schmuck.

Be Well.

Like the Republicans always tell Democrats...

If Lindsey Graham can't live with and support the decision of the Supreme Court...He should leave the country and find somewhere else to do his whinning.

"To terrorists captured on the battlefield...."

As others have pointed out, hundreds of Gitmo prisoners have been released slowly over the years.

So, who were those people really? Orcs? Martians? But probably not terrorists at all.

I'm one of those that thinks Bush threw out the rule of law at Gitmo in part as a template for future acts a bit closer to home than Cuba.

It's a war, blahblahblah. I get to be judge, jury, and executioner, blahblahblah. Constitution woofwoofwoof.

Bush was president, not Lord High Chancellor.

The decision was handed down by five idiots.

Posted by Sniper

no.. the decision was correct its the people that have no understanding of the power, scope and vibrancy of the constitution that are idiots.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed Thursday to do everything in his power to overturn the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees

so he is up for committing sedition against the US?

What a dirt bag. SC deserves you Lindsay.

Graham reminds me of that douchebag Bauer

I meant Ralph Reed. Got my NeoCon evangelicals mixed up

Graham reminds me of that douchebag Bauer

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-06-14 08:59 PM |


Plus he sounds like a whining spoiled child when he talks. How the hell did he ever get elected?

You know He reminds me of a snot nosed kid that got His nads kicked in by the girl in 3rd grade. Voice and all.

Larry Mohr

Idiot doesn't even know what the ruling was about. You don't want to bring them forward to determine the legality of holding them, don't hold them where the U.S. has domain. What's Graham going go propose? That the President can detain anyone in the United States without having to submit to Habeas Corpus? A constitutional amendment that takes rights away from exactly whom?

The Constitution is about guaranteeing rights. Bad enough that bastard of "law" the MCA2006 was passed. The Supreme Court's had it's say about that, and Congress screwed up the response.

Leave it to Republicans to fuck up the basics.

(expletive deleted) Grahm.

why do the people of South Carolina keep electing lindsay? I don't get that part.

Snipe, meet Ann Coulter. On the very next thread. Strikes me that the aptly named Fascist Four who voted AGAINST tradityional American humanity constitute the single greatest - and there are many - argument against continuing Republican rule next year. herm

Human Rights,the Bane of Billionaires!!!

Boot-Lickers like Sen.Graham who spend their whole career in the service of Corporate America are duly alarmed about legal decisions giving people more rights.When people have more rights the War Mongers of Corporate America can't exploit and decimated them so readily and easily for quick profits!

PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ARISE!!

Vote this festering Anti-American parasite out of your noble ranks!

Thank Goodness for the Supremes (the 5 good ones at least).

Now the detainees can have council provided to them
by US dollars; the right to a speedy trial; the
right to face their accusers; the right to not be
confined in a solitary area; the right to be housed
in a general popolation environment; the right to seek bail;
the right to sue for redress of grievance; the right
to know the ins and outs of the sneaky US military.

We should have done this with German as well as
Japan prisoners. It's never too late, I guess.
Now is the time to show the world how compassionate
we really are. Thank Goodness Obama will continue
to shower our enemies with compassion.

Be nice to your enemies - they'll be nice to you too!

Why don't you throw a coupla anti gay, anti science, anti abortion, and pro polygamy lines into that there ammendment?


Posted by dethspud


hey.....you finnally have a good idea.....

and of course we see the principle difference between us on the right and you lefties.......you call them detainees and we call them the enemy. who is more concerned with our security? I know....
and I guess it will take losing another city before you finnaly get it. these people are the enemy out to kill as many of us as they can.....and you simply dont give a shit about that..........tsk tsk.....
one more time....as scalia I think it was said...
the united states of america will regret this decision.......

Hey Skip, what do you want to do with them? When's the "war on terror" going to be over? How long do you want to hold people picked up in sweeps, even when the very Military has said 1/3 of those still left at Gitmo aren't guilty?

Forever before being able to even see a Judge isn't long if it's not your life, I suppose.

Does that asshole realize by Him wanting to go against everything this Country stands for. He has validated the supposed enemy's very existance.

Larry Mohr

BL2, how do you know they're our enemy?

"BL2, how do you know they're our enemy?"

Posted by YAV



Because they can play Sousa marches all day without going insane; The Same Thing Over And Over.

yav...I bet that most of us on this side of the issue are concerned that they are there this long but as I understand it, the reason is that if they have a trial, the US has to divulge information that could be harmfull to this WAR ON TERROR. and I am sure that you join me in wanting our people to have every means at their disposal to keep another attack from happening.......
and I have also read that the military tribunials set up guarantee thier rights as captured enemy combatants....I DO WONDER when these tribunals are to commence.

BL2, how do you know they're our enemy?

Posted by YAV at 2008-06-14 09


because unlike you and others, apparently, I trust the military and support them in thier efforts.

"I trust the military and support them in thier(sic) efforts."

Posted by bushlovertwo


That's nice.
Get back to us when living in Houston on purpose is sane.

because unlike you and others, apparently, I trust the military and support them in thier efforts.

This isn't about the Military. It's not about what the Military does - but what they are directed to do. The Military is quite competent in carrying out the wishes of the CiC and his Administration.

"That the president can detain anyone in the United States without submitting to a writ of habeas corpus....?"

That was Bush's theory, that Commander-in-Chief during a time of war trumps all other considerations.

Lets see If I got this right, this fucking lighweight Senator from South Carolina, want to amend the Constitution so that the Republician playbook can be kept in place??? Are these fuckers that crazy??? Senator Graham was or used to be a LAWYER what a fucking JOKE!!

Someone should tell this Fucker that the only reason the Constitution has been amended in the past was to correct a HUMAN RIGHT, not for Political advantage, what a fucking ASSHOLE!!!!!!

Get back to us when living in Houston on purpose is sane.


Posted by Zatoichi at 2008


ah funny stuff.

UH OH......tiger is a stroke back after hitting the flag stick and dropping it in...
of course my SECOND hole in one went in on the fly..
HEY DID I TELL ALL OF YOU ABOUT MY TWO HOLES IN ONE??????????????

Wonders how BLT would feel if the shoe was on His foot and He was detained somewhere. Would He want a trial to prove His innocence?? Or would He say this is rightious this is just that I am being held captive by so and so Country. That they are only doing it for their "Safety"

Larry Mohr

"HEY DID I TELL ALL OF YOU ABOUT MY TWO HOLES IN ONE??????????????"

Posted by bushlovertwo


Two rounds between the eyes and it refuses to die; Or even release the caps lock key.

Anyone who lives in Houston on purpose is obviously insane.

thats right larry bud....and I assure you I wouldnt get the same rights as a citizen of that country.


AAAAAANNNNDDDDDDDDD

That the president can detain anyone in the United States without submitting to a writ of habeas corpus....?"

That was Bush's theory, that Commander-in-Chief during a time of war trumps all other considerations.


Posted by Zed at 2008



okay then just agree with this.

honest abe destroyed the constitution when he suspended habeus corpos and the patron saint of liberalism......FDR did even worse when he LOCKED UP japaneese americans in the early 40's.
just say.....YES to both and you will have a point.

remember.....YES OR NO.......

and tiger is on the green in two on the par 5 18th....with an eagle putt...

SSSSHHHHHHHH
QUIET PLEASE........

But this is America we are supposed to be BETTER than the other Country's. Oh and there are only 3 Times the writ of Habeus Corpus can be suspended. Insurection invasion rebelion. Oh and the President can not suspend the writ only Congress can. Do try again.

Larry Mohr

the sumbitch is just flat out amazing......eagle putt went right for the lead in the open....a spot that he wins from almost EVERYTIME......
just amazing.......

two eagles on the back nine.........jeez......

five shots back with 6 left to play and he ends up ahead by one.........damn.......

two eagles on the back nine.........jeez......

Damn straight, even when you know how good he is he can still amaze you.

Wow, just wow!

Be Well.

so Im here because my woman is out of town with her father....and larry is here because......well...he's larry......but what are the rest of you doing here on a saturday night?
must be slow in austin.....

Anyone who lives in Houston on purpose is obviously insane.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-06


from klippinger.com

number one city to live in this year..

houston......thank you
thank you..

they must not have been here when the humidity was 95% and no rain in sight.......

Those guys who yell, "GET IN THE HOLE!!!!!!!" are annoying

"from klippinger(sic).com

number one city to live in this year.."

You can't even spell Kiplinger.

Sufferville sucks.

It sucked in 1973, it sucks now.

Oh I'm here cause I have to stick a needle in me every other day, sorta cuts down on the drinking.

However it does result in pitty sex when I'm done so I guess I will take the good with the bad. It also keeps me from being in a wheelchair for a few extra years but really the pitty sex is a good enough reason.

Reading the lunacy on here always makes me feel better about the whole needle thing.

"HEY DID I TELL ALL OF YOU ABOUT MY TWO HOLES IN ONE??????????????"

Posted by bushlovertwo

Torn colon? OUCH!

LOL

Those guys who yell, "GET IN THE HOLE!!!!!!!" are annoying

Yeah, McCain supporters can be a real pain in the ass.

^_^

Be Well.

...and GOD said if we nail Jesus to the cross he'll let us go to heaven. Otherwise, we're not good enough.

...and jeese this North Carolina guy must be real smart honest guy. If we could return the 8,000 innocent victims of wreckless rendition to GITMO, then we'll be safe. That's all George is trying to do is make us safe. Money has nothing to do with his policies, honest.

These Conservative Senators, like the Texas Graham and his incorrigible wife, are just corrupt. Those Graham's did more damage to the integrity of the US economy than any couple in modern times. They led the dismantling of regulation while drawing a pigs salary on the Enron Board. Their changes brought us the S&L, BCCI, Enron, Tycco, Worldcom, Housing disasters. Just like Shrub they are from Texas and they will lie for money.

......but what are the rest of you doing here on a saturday night?

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-06-14 10:16 PM | Reply

I spent the day pulling stumps, tearing down an old fence and moving furniture. I'm just sitting here trying to unwind and then go to bed

(in my next life)

Be nice to your enemies - they'll be nice to you too!

Posted by skip_wellington

Blow it outta yer ass, fella!
I'm an American, and the few times Habeus Corpus has been suspended-there have been reasons for it.
There is NO reason to Amend the fucking Constitution to REMOVE IT ENTIRELY!
Get a clue-asswipes-or get out of the way-and let the REAL Americans deal with this Seditious bastard as he deserves!

My stepfather was a real bastard-a Navy man who went REAL bad-even HE would go after Graham on this one.

Does this idiot think there is a chance in hell of getting such a thing done?

This is another example of the Republicans engaging in a self destruct.

Next on their agenda will be a salute to our leader "Sieg Hiel" to their Emperor "The Dick" Cheney, AKA "Dead Eye" Cheney.

we dont have to lie for money..

a TEN BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS.......AFTER THE BILLS ARE PAID......we will have TEN BILLION IN THE CHECKBOOK.............na na boo boo.......

Next on their agenda will be a salute to our leader "Sieg Hiel" to their Emperor "The Dick" Cheney, AKA "Dead Eye" Cheney.

Posted by keith204



more liberal jibberish........

Next on their agenda will be a salute to our leader "Sieg Hiel" to their Emperor "The Dick" Cheney, AKA "Dead Eye" Cheney.

Posted by keith204



more liberal jibberish........

BL2 wrote:
"and of course we see the principle difference between us on the right and you lefties.......you call them detainees and we call them the enemy. who is more concerned with our security?"

And of course, how many of these "enemy" people have been convicted of anything?
ONE.
How many of them have been quietly released with no fanfare (thought I'd throw that one in just for you)to their home country?
HUNDREDS.

If they are the enemy, why have they been freed?

They've been freed because of "you damn libs." If it was up to me, we'd fry everyone and anyone accused of terrorism. Oh yeah, it's a war, so they're POWs from the country of "Terror." Oh, wait, "Terror" isn't a country? Umm...

War on Terrr, rargh! Guilty until proven innocent! Shoot first, ask questions later! Hang all them people that don't look like me (white), yeehah!

BL2-Your love for the Fudge meisters is apparent. If I gave a shit about losers I would give you my sympathy. But as I don''t just accept my sincere and heart felt FUCK YOU--Get It?

How many of them have been quietly released with no fanfare (thought I'd throw that one in just for you)to their home country?
HUNDREDS.

If they are the enemy, why have they been freed?

Posted by SamBarber


well I would say thats a good question. I would also ask how many have been freed and where you got your information. not doubting it, just want more data.....

BL2-Your love for the Fudge meisters is apparent. If I gave a shit about losers I would give you my sympathy. But as I don''t just accept my sincere and heart felt FUCK YOU--Get It?

Posted by keith204 at 2008-06


sure I get it. it means that you dont have the intellectual or perhaps the informational means to carry on a debate or to defend your positions. its quite clear actually.

you dont have the intellectual o

sorry about that.....I meant to say intellectual honesty.....I am sure you are just the smartest motherfucker that every lived like most liberals....
excuse me..........

AntiCadillac wrote- Boot-Lickers like Sen.Graham who spend their whole career in the service of Corporate America are duly alarmed about legal decisions giving people more rights.

At least he has the excuse that he's defending his masters' class - and getting paid very well for it.

Unlike Vernon, Sniper, OOHRAT, FWWORM, bushlovertwo and all the other sad RW sacks that post here.

yeah thats right betterred.......and isnt that an interesting screen name for an american socialist?

Is this little man coming up for re-election Nov. 4 ?


Actually, he was just re-elected last week. Proving once again that you can feed people bullshit and they'll eat it with a smile.

tell me about it. and thanks for giving us the secret of barrywaynes success. all he has is a couple of nifty slogans....(do people still use the term nifty???)

and if bani's post is right on the other thread, hussein obama might have some 'splainin' to do as well about his supposedly NON MUSLIM upbringing....

"betterred.......and isnt that an interesting screen name for an american socialist?"

In which The BLT emits one of The Right's more erudite talking points. herm

yuk yuk..........
cant play with you right now...have to get rocco through this champsionship.....

fair enough, BL2:
I dug these up from the first page of the search engine's results and their subsequent websites.

July 30, 2007 from npr.org
"It was among the largest detainee transfers from Guantanamo. Over the past few years, about 420 prisoners have been released -- that's more than half the total number incarcerated at Guantanamo since the opening days of the war on terror."
(that's as of a year ago)

December 5, 2007 www.boston.com
"About 470 prisoners have been released, and the United States said it intends to try 60 to 80 of those still in detention." (six months ago)

theage.com.au October 6, 2004
"Brigadier-General Martin Lucenti told The Financial Times that the US did not have enough evidence to prosecute all the prisoners, alleged to be al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Of the 550 that we have, I would say most of them, the majority of them, will either be released or transferred to their own countries," he said. Most of these guys weren't fighting. They were running. Even if somebody has been found to be an enemy combatant, many of them will be released because they will be of low intelligence value and low threat status." (2.5 years ago)

(looking above)
Most then are hardly "the worst of the worst," are they?

But this is America we are supposed to be BETTER than the other Country's. Oh and there are only 3 Times the writ of Habeus Corpus can be suspended. Insurection invasion rebelion. Oh and the President can not suspend the writ only Congress can. Do try again.

Larry Mohr

Habeas Corpus does not apply to non citizens, on foreign soil. The military should send these poor hapless folks to facilities located as close as possible to liberal bastions in this country. The result will be less POW's and prisoners being turned over to the government of the country they are captured in.
When these same 5 unelected legislators find that the 2nd amendment does not exist in the DC handgun case, REAL change will occur. This change will not be what you on the extreme left are thinking of.

Insurrection, invasion, rebellion: All and more could describe a battlefield.

Westerner is obviously illinformed. First of all Until the lease is up GITMO is a US Naval Base. Secondly the US Constitution applies to all who are under Her Jurisdiction. Since GITMO IS US Soil the US Constitution applies. Please do try again.

Larry Mohr

GITMO IS US Soil the US Constitution applies.

NOT SO. Neither are LEASED facilities elsewhere.

If they were citizens it would apply.

Well Westerner the SCOTUS Disagrees with You. Funny Dat Be.

Larry Mohr

Doesn't matter if they are US Citizens or not. The Constitution applies to all who are under Her jurisdiction. Please do so ever try yet again for You know not what You speak about westerner.

Larry Mohr

So Ginsberg or ONE of others is your argument? OJ didn't do it either. A 5 to 4 decision is hardly THE Supreme Court.

It's funny that the right wing is up in arms about the Supreme Court ruling that Gitmo is US soil for the purposes of the constitution. Would they prefer it to be Cuban soil for the purposes of Cuban law?

Just why they they want Gitmo NOT to be the USA legally escapes me.

In any case, one reason the Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo is far different from occupied Germany, where previous cases considered POWs held overseas, is that Gitmo is leased to the USA in perpetuity (meaning forever)

It's funny that the right wing is up in arms about the Supreme Court ruling that Gitmo is US soil for the purposes of the constitution. Would they prefer it to be Cuban soil for the purposes of Cuban law?

Just why they they want Gitmo NOT to be the USA legally escapes me.

In any case, one reason the Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo is far different from occupied Germany, where previous cases considered POWs held overseas, is that Gitmo is leased to the USA in perpetuity (meaning forever)

So, "Take no prisoners" will be the new policy.

Why am I not surprised by this?

Posted by frankf55

You assume that I meant to kill the prisoners, no doubt? That is not what my meaning was. The logical way to avoid the publicity platform this would provide our enemies, would be to let the government of the country they are captured in hold them. I would think Gitmo would be a country club in comparison. Many German POW's were held in this country. NO trials.
What gives?

So, "Take no prisoners" will be the new policy.

Posted by westerner at 2008-06-16 12:40 PM | Reply

Then there should be murder charges brought up if this indeed happens.

Larry Mohr

So, "Take no prisoners" will be the new policy.

Posted by westerner at 2008-06-16 12:40 PM | Reply

Then there should be murder charges brought up if this indeed happens.

Larry Mohr

Larry-
Refer to my last post.

Westerner

"Nice" ass covering westerner. There is only one meaning that can be intellectually disserned from the statement "Take No Prisoners" and that means to Murder them.

Larry

No ass covering required. You hear what you want. Care to respond to that OTHER thing that..... well, maybe ya didn't want to hear?

Many German POW's were held in this country. NO trials.

You know, the ones captured in OTHER countries.

Them that were captured for $25k bounties? Did you collect, too?:>)

I admit I have not read the majority opinion. However, if it is tied to the War Powers Act vs. a Declaration of War. The War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional in this man's opinion.

Many German POW's were held in this country. NO trials.

With full protection of the Geneva Conventions.

Our history and the history of the POWs held in the United States is quite interesting, but it really doesn't help your point. Not if anyone takes a moment to scratch the surface of what you're equivocating.

Course it was a matter of "National Security" at the time that FDR (Dem) pushed it through.

This enemy is not signatory to the Geneva convention. Therefore, we are not bound by same.

This enemy is not signatory to the Geneva convention. Therefore, we are not bound by same.

Posted by westerner at 2008-06-16 01:30 PM | Reply

BULLSHIT We are too bound by the Geneva COnventions. We signed the things for God sake. God some people are really stupid.

Larry Mohr

If You want to get down to brass tacks Westerner. Terrorist attacks are declared Criminal Acts. Therefore these setainees are entitled to charges being filed on them within 72 Hours of being detained. If not then legally they should be let go. Now do You want that Westerner or do You wish for them to be able to challenge their detainment while still being held in GITMO??

Larry Mohr

This enemy is not signatory to the Geneva convention. Therefore, we are not bound by same.
Westerner

BULLSHIT We are too bound by the Geneva COnventions. We signed the things for God sake. God some people are really stupid.

Larry Mohr

Larry READ-

he High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Sooo?

Now you say that folks with arms, attacking US Armed Forces are just like those that break into houses in any town U.S.A?

The administration has met what the court wanted in their prior decision. Only now it is an ELECTION year. This is NOT a legal decision my friend. It is without a doubt a political one.

he High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

You missed that part didn't You Westerner.

Now you say that folks with arms, attacking US Armed Forces are just like those that break into houses in any town U.S.A?

Posted by westerner at 2008-06-16 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Since they are declared terrorists their actions must be declared actys of terrorism. SInce Acts of Terrorism fall under the category of Criminal Acts then You must declare them Law Emforcement matters. It's no different than a Pirate on the High seas attacking a vessel. It is a criminal Action therefore those caught shall be charged with their respective crimes. Do try again.

Larry Mohr

The administration has met what the court wanted in their prior decision. Only now it is an ELECTION year. This is NOT a legal decision my friend. It is without a doubt a political one.

Posted by westerner

as are gitmo detainee mostly political prisoners today...Lyndon LaRouche spent 5 years as a political prisoner in Rochester, Minnesota along with a friend of mine who was there as one for 60 days:>)

he High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

You missed that part didn't You Westerner.

Larry Mohr

The present convention IS described in the text numb nuts.


Since they are declared terrorists their actions must be declared actys of terrorism. SInce Acts of Terrorism fall under the category of Criminal Acts then You must declare them Law Emforcement matters. It's no different than a Pirate on the High seas attacking a vessel. It is a criminal Action therefore those caught shall be charged with their respective crimes. Do try again.

Larry Mohr


I'm sure if a U.S. warship were attacked the perps would be tried in a civil US court. Thus, ENEMY COMBATANT is the designation.

I'm sure if a U.S. warship were attacked the perps would be tried in a civil US court. Thus, ENEMY COMBATANT is the designation.

Why a civil court? It'd be a criminal court - and it's been done, or do you need a reminder of what Clinton actually accomplished? Bush had the option in the Cole bombing, once his Administration figured out who was behind it, but chose to do nothing - calling it "swatting at flies."

OK - civilian

Re: Sooo? Now you say that folks with arms, attacking US Armed Forces are just like those that break into houses in any town U.S.A?

Let's try to get this straight. The vast majority of prisoners at Gitmo were from the battlefields in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the ordinary insurgents who attack US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan are merely prisoners of war. Ordinary POWs have to be treated like ordinary POWs under the Geneva Convention.

The ones in Gitmo are NOT ordinary POWs. The ones in Gitmo who were captured on a battlefield are being held on suspicion of being "unlawful enemy combatants." This is considered a war crime,

Those who were captured in places OTHER than Iraq or Afghanistan, the folks who were NOT captured on a battlefield and did NOT have arms attacking US forces, are being charged with being terrorists.

The Supreme Court is saying that it has a right to get involved in the trials of both groups when they have been brought to US territory, and it rules that Gitmo is really US territory for the purposes of US law.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

I believe that this article is relevant to the discussion. I have to send it in parts:
Guantanamo afterthought & footnote -- they stuffed it full of innocent civilians, and got crap for intelligence
McClatchy Newspapers
(wire service, US newspaper chain)
Sunday 15 June 2008

America's prison for terrorists
often held the wrong men

by Tom Lasseter, McClatchy Newspapers

GARDEZ, Afghanistan -- The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted "Allahu Akbar" -- God is great -- as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar's head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men -- and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds -- whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials -- primarily in Afghanistan -- and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners.

Prisoner mistreatment became a regular feature in cellblocks and interrogation rooms at Bagram and Kandahar air bases, the two main way stations in Afghanistan en route to Guantanamo.

While he was held at Afghanistan's Bagram Air Base, Akhtiar said, "When I had a dispute with the interrogator, when I asked, 'What is my crime?' the soldiers who took me back to my cell would throw me down the stairs."

The McClatchy reporting also documented how U.S. detention policies fueled support for extremist Islamist groups. For some detainees who went home far more militant than when they arrived, Guantanamo became a school for jihad, or Islamic holy war.

2n part of the article:

Of course, Guantanamo also houses Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, who along with four other high-profile detainees faces military commission charges. Cases also have been opened against 15 other detainees for assorted offenses, such as attending al Qaida training camps.

But because the Bush administration set up Guantanamo under special rules that allowed indefinite detention without charges or federal court challenge, it's impossible to know how many of the 770 men who've been held there were terrorists.

A series of White House directives placed "suspected enemy combatants" beyond the reach of U.S. law or the 1949 Geneva Conventions' protections for prisoners of war. President Bush and Congress then passed legislation that protected those detention rules.

However, the administration's attempts to keep the detainees beyond the law came crashing down last week.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that detainees have the right to contest their cases in federal courts, and that a 2006 act of Congress forbidding them from doing so was unconstitutional. "Some of these petitioners have been in custody for six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention," the court said in its 5-4 decision, overturning Bush administration policy and two acts of Congress that codified it.

One former administration official said the White House's initial policy and legal decisions "probably made instances of abuse more likely. ... My sense is that decisions taken at the top probably sent a signal that the old rules don't apply ... certainly some people read what was coming out of Washington: The gloves are off, this isn't a Geneva world anymore."

Like many others who previously worked in the White House or Defense Department, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the legal and political sensitivities of the issue.

McClatchy's interviews are the most ever conducted with former Guantanamo detainees by a U.S. news organization. The issue of detainee backgrounds has previously been reported on by other media outlets, but not as comprehensively.

McClatchy also in many cases did more research than either the U.S. military at Guantanamo, which often relied on secondhand accounts, or the detainees' lawyers, who relied mainly on the detainees' accounts.

The Pentagon declined to discuss the findings. It issued a statement Friday saying that military policy always has been to treat detainees humanely, to investigate credible complaints of abuse and to hold people accountable. The statement says that an al Qaida manual urges detainees to lie about prison conditions once they're released. "We typically do not respond to each and every allegation of abuse made by past and present detainees," the statement said.

Little Intelligence Value

The McClatchy investigation found that top Bush administration officials knew within months of opening the Guantanamo detention center that many of the prisoners there weren't "the worst of the worst." From the moment that Guantanamo opened in early 2002, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White said, it was obvious that at least a third of the population didn't belong there.

Of the 66 detainees whom McClatchy interviewed, the evidence indicates that 34 of them, about 52 percent, had connections with militant groups or activities. At least 23 of those 34, however, were Taliban foot soldiers, conscripts, low-level volunteers or adventure-seekers who knew nothing about global terrorism.

Only seven of the 66 were in positions to have had any ties to al Qaida's leadership, and it isn't clear that any of them knew any terrorists of consequence.

Third part:

If the former detainees whom McClatchy interviewed are any indication -- and several former high-ranking U.S. administration and defense officials said in interviews that they are -- most of the prisoners at Guantanamo weren't terrorist masterminds but men who were of no intelligence value in the war on terrorism.

Far from being an ally of the Taliban, Mohammed Akhtiar had fled to Pakistan shortly after the puritanical Islamist group took power in 1996, the senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. The Taliban burned down Akhtiar's house after he refused to ally his tribe with their government.

The Americans detained Akhtiar, the intelligence officer said, because they were given bad information by another Afghan who'd harbored a personal vendetta against Akhtiar going back to his time as a commander against the Soviet military during the 1980s.

"In some of these cases, tribal feuds and political feuds have played a big role" in people getting sent to Guantanamo, the intelligence officer said.

He didn't want his name used, partly because he didn't want to offend the Western officials he works with and partly because Afghan intelligence officers are assassinated regularly.

"There were Afghans being sent to Guantanamo because of bad intelligence," said Helaluddin Helal, Afghanistan's deputy interior minister for security from 2002 to early 2004. "In the beginning, everyone was trying to give intelligence to the Americans ... the Americans were taking action without checking this information."

Nusrat Khan was in his 70s when American troops shoved him into an isolation cell at Bagram in the spring of 2003. They blindfolded him, put earphones on his head and tied his hands behind his back for almost four weeks straight, Khan said.

By the time he was taken out of the cell, Khan -- who'd had at least two strokes years before he was arrested and was barely able to walk -- was half-mad and couldn't stand without help. Khan said that he was taken to Guantanamo on a stretcher.

Several Afghan officials, including the country's attorney general, later said that Khan, who spent more than three years at Guantanamo, wasn't a threat to anyone; he'd been turned in as an insurgent leader because of decades-old rivalries with competing Afghan militias.

Ghalib Hassan was an Interior Ministry-appointed district commander in Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, a man who'd risked his life to help the U.S.-backed government. Din Mohammed, the former governor of that province and now the governor of Kabul, said there was no question that local tribal leaders, offended by Hassan's brusque style, fed false information about him to local informants used by American troops.

More:
The Pentagon declined requests to make top officials, including the secretary of defense, available to respond to McClatchy's findings. The defense official in charge of detainee affairs, Sandra Hodgkinson, refused to speak with McClatchy.

The Pentagon's only response to a series of written questions from McClatchy, and to a list of 63 of the 66 former detainees interviewed for this story, was a three-paragraph statement.

"These unlawful combatants have provided valuable information in the struggle to protect the U.S. public from an enemy bent on murder of innocent civilians," Col. Gary Keck said in the statement. He provided no examples.

Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, until recently the commanding officer at Guantanamo, said that detainees had supplied crucial information about al Qaida, the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

"Included with the folks that were brought here in 2002 were, by and large, the main leadership of al Qaida and the Taliban," he said in a phone interview.

Buzby agreed, however, that some detainees were from the bottom rung.

"It's all about developing the mosaic ... there's value to both ends of the spectrum," he said.

Former senior U.S. defense and intelligence officials, however, said McClatchy's conclusions squared with their own observations.

"As far as intelligence value from those in Gitmo, I got tired of telling the people writing reports based on their interrogations that their material was essentially worthless," a U.S. intelligence officer said in an e-mail, using the military's slang for Guantanamo.

Guantanamo authorities periodically sent analysts at the U.S. Central Command "rap sheets on various prisoners and asked our assessment whether they merited continued confinement," said the analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. "Over about three years, I assessed around 40 of these individuals, mostly Afghans. ... I only can remember recommending that ONE should be kept at GITMO."

'War Council' Rewrites Detainee Law

At a Pentagon briefing in the spring of 2002, a senior Army intelligence officer expressed doubt about the entire intelligence-gathering process.

"He said that we're not getting anything, and his thought was that we're not getting anything because there might not be anything to get," said Donald J. Guter, a retired rear admiral who was the head of the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps at the time.

Many detainees were "swept up in the pot" by large operations conducted by Afghan troops allied with the Americans, said former Army Secretary White, who's now a partner at DKRW Energy, an energy company in Houston.

One of the Afghan detainees at Guantanamo, White recalled, was more than 80 years old.

Army Spc. Eric Barclais, who was a military intelligence interrogator at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan from September 2002 through January 2003, told military investigators in sworn testimony that "We recommended lots of folks be released from (Bagram), but they were not. I believe some people ended up at (Guantanamo) that had no business being sent there."

"You have to understand some folks were detained because they got turned in by neighbors or family members who were feuding with them," Barclais said. "Yes, they had weapons. Everyone had weapons. Some were Soviet-era and could not even be fired."

A former Pentagon official told McClatchy that he was shocked at times by the backgrounds of men held at Guantanamo.

" 'Captured with weapon near the Pakistan border?' " the official said. "Are you kidding me?"

"The screening, the understanding of who we had was horrible," he said. "That's why we had so many useless people at Gitmo."

In 2002, a CIA analyst interviewed several dozen detainees at Guantanamo and reported to senior National Security Council officials that many of them didn't belong there, a former White House official said.

Despite the analyst's findings, the administration made no further review of the Guantanamo detainees. The White House had determined that all of them were enemy combatants, the former official said.

Rather than taking a closer look at whom they were holding, a group of five White House, Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers who called themselves the "War Council" devised a legal framework that enabled the administration to detain suspected "enemy combatants" indefinitely with few legal rights.

The threat of new terrorist attacks, the War Council argued, allowed President Bush to disregard or rewrite American law, international treaties and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to permit unlimited detentions and harsh interrogations.

The group further argued that detainees had no legal right to defend themselves, and that American soldiers -- along with the War Council members, their bosses and Bush -- should be shielded from prosecution for actions that many experts argue are war crimes.

With the support of Bush, Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the group shunted aside the military justice system, and in February 2002, Bush suspended the legal protection for detainees spelled out in Common Article Three of the 1949 Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, which outlaws degrading treatment and torture.

The Bush administration didn't launch a formal review of the detentions until a 2004 Supreme Court decision forced it to begin holding military tribunals at Guantanamo. The Supreme Court ruling last week said that the tribunals were deeply flawed, but it didn't close them down.

In late 2004, Pentagon officials decided to restrict further interrogations at Guantanamo to detainees who were considered "high value" for their suspected knowledge of terrorist groups or their potential of returning to the battlefield, according to Matthew Waxman, who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, the Defense Department's head official for detainee matters, from August 2004 to December 2005.

"Maybe three-quarters of the detainees by 2005 were no longer regularly interrogated," said Waxman, who's now a law professor at Columbia University.

At that time, about 500 men were still being held at Guantanamo.

So far, the military commissions have publicly charged only six detainees -- less than 1 percent of the more than 770 who've been at Guantanamo -- with direct involvement in the 9-11 terrorist attacks; they dropped the charges in one case. Those few cases are now in question after the high court's ruling Thursday.

About 500 detainees -- nearly two out of three -- have been released.

During a military review board hearing at Guantanamo, Mohammed Akhtiar had some advice for the U.S. officers seated before him.

"I wish," he said, "that the United States would realize who the bad guys are and who the good guys are."

How Foot Soldiers, Farmers Got Swept Up

How did the United States come to hold so many farmers and goat herders among the real terrorists at Guantanamo? Among the reasons:

After conceding control of the country to U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001, top Taliban and al Qaida leaders escaped to Pakistan, leaving the battlefield filled with ragtag groups of volunteers and conscripts who knew nothing about global terrorism.

The majority of the detainees taken to Guantanamo came into U.S. custody indirectly, from Afghan troops, warlords, mercenaries and Pakistani police who often were paid cash by the number and alleged importance of the men they handed over. Foot soldiers brought in hundreds of dollars, but commanders were worth thousands. Because of the bounties -- advertised in fliers that U.S. planes dropped all over Afghanistan in late 2001 -- there was financial incentive for locals to lie about the detainees' backgrounds. Only 33 percent of the former detainees -- 22 out of 66 -- whom McClatchy interviewed were detained initially by U.S. forces. Of those 22, 17 were Afghans who'd been captured around mid-2002 or later as part of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, a fight that had more to do with counter-insurgency than terrorism.

American soldiers and interrogators were susceptible to false reports passed along by informants and officials looking to settle old grudges in Afghanistan, a nation that had experienced more than two decades of occupation and civil war before U.S. troops arrived. This meant that Americans were likely to arrest Afghans who had no significant connections to militant groups. For example, of those 17 Afghans whom the U.S. captured in mid-2002 or later, at least 12 of them were innocent of the allegations against them, according to interviews with Afghan intelligence and security officials.

Detainees at Guantanamo had no legal venue in which to challenge their detentions. The only mechanism set up to evaluate their status, an internal tribunal in the late summer of 2004, rested on the decisions of rotating panels of three U.S. military officers. The tribunals made little effort to find witnesses who weren't present at Guantanamo, and detainees were in no position to challenge the allegations against them.

end of article

Doesn't matter if they are US Citizens or not. The Constitution applies to all who are under Her jurisdiction. Please do so ever try yet again for You know not what You speak about westerner.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


IN THE HISTORY OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA< this is the first time that enemy combatants have recieved this constitutional protection.

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER......

and AGAIN....it comes down to you not understanding that this is a war and they are the enemy......

"....it comes down to you not understanding that this is a war and they are the enemy......"

This is BLT's essential lie. It is NOT a war. (I capitalize for BLT.) It takes congress to declare a war.This is a grossly illegal Bush invasion for oil, BLT. Let it in, cuz it ain't gonna go away. herm

Guantanamo was the start,by the Bush Regime,of a Stalinist-like Gulag!

Guantanamo Bay prison wasn't created to incarcerate terrorists! It was created by the Bush Regime as a "test case" to see if they could undermine and destroy the US Constitution to the point where they could arrest and imprison anyone they wanted to and without laying any criminal charges or providing the accused with a trial.The next step would then be to use this omnipotent (fascist) legal power to arrest and imprison any important leaders or militants in the USA who were in any way a threat to the survival and unlimited continuation of the Bush Regime!

Re: IN THE HISTORY OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA< this is the first time that enemy combatants have recieved this constitutional protection. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER...... and AGAIN....it comes down to you not understanding that this is a war and they are the enemy......

True, but some of the accused are not enemy combatants. They were picked up in countries far from the battlefield and are being accused of being terrorists, not combatants. Those combatants that are being held at Guantanamo are being accused of being "unlawful enemy combatants" not ordinary enemy combatants.

Since Guantanamo is now considered to be the USA for the purposes of US law (and why not, would you prefer it to be subject to Cuban law?), it can be pointed out that neither have persons accused of being "unlawful enemy combatants" have been held on US territory nor have persons been held accused of terror OTHER than to be tried by American criminal courts (except perhaps during the Revolution or Civil War or shortly after the Civil War).

If you are saying that the War on Terror means that the Bush administration can just pick up anyone on a street in Rome or Berlin or any city and charge that he is a terrorist and not have any trial and hold that person until the end of the War on Terror, then we strongly disagree. And I think most Americans would disagree with you. The people of Europe would certainly think that a country that picked up people and never charged them and held them forever was a strange and terrorist-like country.

The "War on Terror" is not a real war. A dictionary will prove that.

and there in lies the discrepancy.....
the problem is that if your enemy thinks they are at war with you and you are still talking about this shit instead of acting, then people will get killed.....SO>....it stands that since we havent had ANOTHER ATTACK SINCE 9/11......that bush's action beats the shit out of liberals wanting to DO SQUAT to keep us safe........

Oooh...keep us safe. keep us safe, keep us safe, keep us safe....

If you think the highest good is to "keep us safe", you're a big pussy.