Gitmo aint that bad after all

[KinKyJ]

Says this Algerian dude:

An inmate of Guantanamo Bay who spends 22 hours each day in an isolation cell is fighting for the right to stay in the notorious internment camp.
Ahmed Belbacha fears that he will be tortured or killed if the United States goes ahead with plans to return him to his native Algeria.
The Times has learnt that Mr Belbacha, who lived in Britain for three years, has filed an emergency motion at the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC asking for his transfer out of Guantanamo to be halted. He was cleared for release from Camp Delta in February and his lawyers believe that his return to Algerian custody is imminent.
Mr Belbacha says that if he returns to Algeria, he faces the threat of torture by security services and murder by Islamist terrorists.

Full article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2169795.ece

And I thought I had seen it all

[toasty]

Re: Gitmo aint that bad after all

Why exactly are we releasing him? If he was captured and put in Gitmo, shouldn't we be moving him into the criminal justice system here and prosecuting him?

[tiddles]

Re: Gitmo aint that bad after all

i bet he has a mask and chain fetish or something. that sick fuck

[KinKyJ]

Re: Gitmo aint that bad after all

Why exactly are we releasing him? If he was captured and put in Gitmo, shouldn't we be moving him into the criminal justice system here and prosecuting him?

smart post

i bet he has a mask and chain fetish or something. that sick fuck

dumb post

@ Jim: The question I ask myself from the beginninjg is on what grounds there people are being "arrested" and deported? "Arrested" not because I'm pro fundis, but because I can hardly imagine that troops have the training to discern (in certain situations) suspects from others...

[toasty]

Re: Gitmo aint that bad after all

@ Jim: The question I ask myself from the beginninjg is on what grounds there people are being "arrested" and deported? "Arrested" not because I'm pro fundis, but because I can hardly imagine that troops have the training to discern (in certain situations) suspects from others...

I'm not sure this directly answers your question, but the way it is supposed to work is that the justice system works in two parts -- you have police/soldiers making a preliminary determination that someone is suspected of wrongdoing, and then a court/tribunal of some sort of determination that this person has, in fact, done something worthy of punishment. In reading further into this article, it looks like a tribunal did, in fact, ultimately determine that he didn't pose a threat, so I guess releasing him is appropriate, making my initial comment somewhat nonsensical.

Inevitably, though, the Rush Limbaughs of the world will point to this as evidence that Gitmo is a great place to be, and that allegations of torture are incorrect. That misses the point, though -- one of the biggest criticisms of Gitmo has nothing to do with the conditions but with the fact that people have just been left to rot there without step two of the process ever occurring. This puts the soldiers who arrest "enemy combatants" in the position of also serving as judge and jury, determining their long term fate -- which is an obvious problem, for the reasons you suggest.

For people captured on a battlefield who are not US citizens, there is a reasonable argument that we are permitted to hold them until the conflict is over. For US citizens, the Supreme Court has now made it clear that we cannot just hold them indefinitely without charging them with anything or putting them through the justice system.

For people who are rounded up abroad not based upon the fact that they are shooting at us but on some other basis, I think it's pretty clear that we can't just hold them indefinitely without doing something to determine if they belong there or not, but it's admittedly a hazy area. The big concern, I think, is that holding these folks without trying them further reduces what little credibility we have left in the international arena. The Bill O'Reilleys of the world suggest that people who oppose Gitmo want to see everyone released back onto the battlefield to recommence kicking our asses. That's ridiculous. We just need to try them, and if they're found guilty, punish them appropriately.

just rambling here. pardon the stream of consciousness.

[KinKyJ]

Re: Gitmo aint that bad after all

Thanks for the clarification concerning US nationals and foreigners. Didn't know how that worked...

The Bill O'Reilleys of the world suggest that people who oppose Gitmo want to see everyone released back onto the battlefield to recommence kicking our asses. That's ridiculous. We just need to try them, and if they're found guilty, punish them appropriately.

I think he has a point there: lock up a guy for a few years in Gitmo (or a secret CIA prison of your choice) without charges/trial and he doesn't need any other reasons hate Americans and to pick up a gun or a bomb belt when Osama tells him to. The irony of that is that he might not have done that before being held prisoner in these great resorts. Imo, this shit creates more problems than it solves...

Scary...