'I Have Become a Body Without a Soul': 13 Years Detained in Guantánamo

a reply to: Metallicus

We have no idea if he was a terrorist or hung out with them.

Did you know that we paid Iraqi's to bring in "terrorists?" That means any Iraqi with a grudge or group wanting to cash in could grab innocent people and claim they were terrorists and hand then over for cash.

They get paid and a lot of innocent people lose a good portion of their lives.

Ironically the innocents seem to have less advocation while the actual terrorists in gitmo go free. The leader of IS was freed from American custody.

Of course all the posters defending this guys detention would be entirely happy if the US government started applying the same process to its own citizens it deemed a threat to national security. Gun owners or conspiracy theorists maybe?

The Patriot Act. Hitler must laughing in his grave.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: Metallicus

We have no idea if he was a terrorist or hung out with them.

Did you know that we paid Iraqi's to bring in "terrorists?" That means any Iraqi with a grudge or group wanting to cash in could grab innocent people and claim they were terrorists and hand then over for cash.

They get paid and a lot of innocent people lose a good portion of their lives.

Ironically the innocents seem to have less advocation while the actual terrorists in gitmo go free. The leader of IS was freed from American custody.

You have a choice in the friends you keep and who you hang around with. Almost all of those in guantanimo are battlefield captures and this guy is no exception. Under wartime law he should had been executed immediatly though instead of imprisoned because its cruel to lock them up forever.(yeah military logic i know)
As it stands under the conventions he HAS NO RIGHTS,HAS NO LIFE,HAS NO LIBERTY. HE is in effect a deadman whose only use now is to fill a hole in the ground or becoem a martyr.
Oh Im innocent... know how many people say that and how few are actually innocent? Not alot of innocents ones in prison.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Of course all the posters defending this guys detention would be entirely happy if the US government started applying the same process to its own citizens it deemed a threat to national security. Gun owners or conspiracy theorists maybe?

The law is th elaw and he was caught in a warzone in the presence of al qaida fighters and armed. Geneva conventions clear on his status of a unlawful combatant. people caught like him are forfeit their rights because they didnt have the morals to fight like a man/soldier. Soldiers arent allowwed to use dirty tricks such as a terrorist does.

I want the Geneva convention upheld and this man shot dead in his summary execution as dictated by law. Once again the Obama admin is not sticking to the law by ignoring the laws on Unlawful combatatnts.

a reply to: yuppa
Could you kindly reference the section of the Geneva convention stating that unlawful combatants are subject to summary execution. You might find it difficult for a number of reasons.

I do not know if this man is innocent or a Wahabbi unwise soul.

If he is innocent then he is wrongly placed. If he is a Wahabbi unwise soul then I think he can use the timeout zone wasting away time without reason, giving him time to questions his choices. Maybe even increase his awareness and learn things about himself.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: yuppa
Could you kindly reference the section of the Geneva convention stating that unlawful combatants are subject to summary execution. You might find it difficult for a number of reasons.

According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not meet all of these, they may be considered a "illegal combatant" and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.

Soldiers who are wearing uniforms of the opposing army after the start of combat may be considered illegal combatants and subject to summary execution.

Al qaeda and taliban have both been labeled "not POW's" and as such have no protections except what th earmy gives them.

originally posted by: Metallicus
The guy may not be guilty, but I doubt he is innocent.

Well then you won't mind me locking you up, I mean, surely you're guilty of something.

a reply to: yuppa
You started of quite well quoting the actual convention then sadly wandered off into your own interpretation. There is absolutely no provision for summary execution. Indeed their status must be determined by a competent tribunal (so not a blanket decision by the US president). If not protected under article 3 as POWs then they should be protected under article 4 as civilians.
The US was an invading force in both Iraq and Afghanistan and local populations have a right to resist. That is before we even start on illegal seizure of civilians from neutral states.
The United states (and allies) casual disregard for international law has been the best recruiting tool terrorist groups could ever asked for.

a reply to: ScepticScot

nope your the one who is wrong.
wiki cuase it's fast, there are other soucres that say the same.

According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.
Summary execution

a reply to: hounddoghowlie
You might want to try reading your own link again. You know the bit about due process and summary execution being illegal.

replied to wrong memeber

a reply to: HumberWarrior

not my words copied and pasted from the source.
your not providing any sources because there are none that say that al-quidea are a legitimate militia, army or fighting force.

a reply to: ScepticScot
i guess you didn't see this above the section where the quote comes from.

Exceptions to prisoners of war statuss

or do you not under stand what the word Exceptions means.

al-quidea are seen as terrorists, in other words they have no country, no flag that represents a country, no leader that is recognized as being able to speak for a nation,not considered a standing army. therefore can not claim pow status.

My apologies. Comment withdrawn. On that point you are correct.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

a reply to: hounddoghowlie
I never claimed they could (although it is entirely possible to argue that) but that does not mean they do not get protection under the Geneva convention and are not subject to summary execution as stated by an earlier poster.

almost double posted

a reply to: ScepticScot

go read the it, it is plain to see that they can be treated different than others. the U.S. even went out of it's way to make sure that they just didn't get killed when caught. if memeory serves there have been at least 775 detainees at gitmo, many have been released other remain because the are still seen as a threat, these others can't go any where because we don't want them and others countries won't take them. can't just turn them lose where they can pick up and start all over again. i think now it's less than 200 still there in gitmo.

we are still at war with terrorist, so i see no problem holding them.