WikiLeaks reveals US blunders at Guantanamo

US knew Guantanamo detainees were innocent: WikiLeaks

news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States held hundreds of inmates who were either totally innocent or low-risk for years and released dozens of high-risk Guantanamo inmates, according to leaked classified files.

The new leaks reveal that inmates were held without trial on the basis of often seriously flawed information, such as from mentally ill or otherwise unreliable co-detainees or statements from suspects who had been abused or tortured, The New York Times reported.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Instructions for the Breaking News Forums - Please review this link
3). Copy and paste the EXACT headline as it appears in the original news article. Do not create or sensationalize your titles. Some editorial leeway is allowed, of course, if the original title is too long, inappropriate for ATS, inflammatory, etc.

Al Qaeda is nothing more than a bogey man, an invented ghost to frighten children and the ignorant. Al Qaeda is the invisible and nonexistent enemy that the US government has manufactured to provide an excuse for its never-ending 'War on Terrorism', which is in reality a war of US aggression for US domination of the world and its resources. The US government commits 'false flag' attacks such as the 9/11 attacks; the Bali, Madrid, and London bombings; and the recent bombings and attacks in India as a way to create a false threat where no real threat exists, providing an excuse for the USA to step in to 'rescue' and 'protect' other nations from 'Terrorist' attacks that were actually perpetrated by the USA itself - David

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The Prison at Guantanamo Bay is in essence a CIA run "Terrorist Training School" where low level insurgents fighting to end the occupation of their nations by Western Coalition Forces are plucked off the battle field to be housed in Cuba with seasoned Islamic Extremists with no ties to September 11th but rather instead have the ability to preach a radical form of Islamic fundamentalism to the low level detainees and provide them with contact information for logistical support to keep fighting against the occupation once released.

This is one of the main ways that the U.S. Government has kept the War on Terror alive, by ensuring a steady stream of potential leaders and organizers and recruiters for the opposition by taking people with the will to fight against occupation and then exposing them to these ideals in a confined and heavily regimented environment.

When it works well those released go right back to the battlefield as more effective leaders versus fighters, with contacts to provide them the weapons, communications and materials to wage that fight, with the oratory and idealogical skills to recruit others into the fight.

When it doesn't work those being released simply turn around and attempt to sue their own government and ours for the illegal detention and torture they were exposed to, many having won big settlements from the British and other Nations who failed to diplomatically protect their rights as British and other Nationals after having been kidnapped and detained through an illegal process of rendition by the CIA and American forces.

It's fairly obvious that after 10 years in custody and the US not moving ahead with any kind of trials for these men, that the US has no chance of winning the trials for lack of evidence.

Guantanamo Bay really is a CIA run Terrorist Training school, based on catch, detain, school, train, release.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
it woIt's fairly obvious that after 10 years in custody and the US not moving ahead with any kind of trials for these men, that the US has no chance of winning the trials for lack of evidence.

Not true...they pretty much beat up on a 15 year old child soldier.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Actually who shares my oppinion are most of the editorialists of the Miami Herald who follow Guantanamo Bay much more closely than most publications because of the close proximity geographically to Cuba.

Newsweek has also echoed these charges in Op Eds as well.

Hundreds and hundreds of detainees have been released not just one '15 year old boy" that probably represents the sole press story you have been exposed to.

If you want to know more about what is going on in Guantanamo Bay, what's really going on there I suggest doing a search and browsing the Miami Herald Archives for news and editorials on the subject.

Your singular example is indicitive of someone only 'partially informed'

Thanks.

reply to post by solid007


Unfortunately it doesn't appear that anyone (country or political body) is prepared to hold the US to account on these matters. I suppose I might hope it to be otherwise if I believed that any other country is actually free to pursue a policy of rightiousness, but the very same guys who hold power over and direct decision making of the US and its operatives also hold sway over every other developed nation in the world.

What these leaks reveal about Guantanamo, is only the runoff from the stink pile of corruption that governs this world.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Your singular example is indicitive of someone only 'partially informed'

I would gently suggest that you inform yourself about Omar Khadr, who was prosecuted.
A little ketchup with your words, then?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Your singular example is indicitive of someone only 'partially informed'

I would gently suggest that you inform yourself about Omar Khadr, who was prosecuted.
A little ketchup with your words, then?

Wow, one out of thousands is not bad!

Lets see at the rate of one a decade, I guess all these men can be tried in what about a 1,000 years?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Your singular example is indicitive of someone only 'partially informed'

I would gently suggest that you inform yourself about Omar Khadr, who was prosecuted.
A little ketchup with your words, then?

Wow, one out of thousands is not bad!

Lets see at the rate of one a decade, I guess all these men can be tried in what about a 1,000 years?

Laugh away...you called me 'partially informed, forgive me for correcting you. The Khadr case has larger ramifications as well, but if you are dealing with absolutes, you ought to appreciate an injection of fact. Deflection is a crappy response.

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by solid007

 

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that anyone (country or political body) is prepared to hold the US to account on these matters. I suppose I might hope it to be otherwise if I believed that any other country is actually free to pursue a policy of rightiousness, but the very same guys who hold power over and direct decision making of the US and its operatives also hold sway over every other developed nation in the world.

What these leaks reveal about Guantanamo, is only the runoff from the stink pile of corruption that governs this world.

Here's the rub; to hold the US "accountable" from within the US... you must have "standing." I can guarantee that no citizen has standing to challenge the Federal government. A lawyer may attempt to file a claim on their own behalf (a benefit of being part of the BAR monopoly), but not for someone who "has no standing" in the court.

Civil institutions might attempt to challenge the practice, but as you have seen, or will see, they will get nowhere.

When the Executive Order was crafted and submitted that allowed the administration the power to unilaterally accuse, and arrest people at their whim, all the potential "accountability" went out the window.

You think the Supreme court is going to initiate a review of this on their own? Don't hold your breath.

The system we rely upon to check and balance law and government conduct has been utterly usurped. And it is not, as many armchair moralists declare, "Our own fault." This was accomplished via secret and surreptitious means, employing legal jargon, bureaucratic conspiracy, and of course, intense corporate infiltration and lobbying in the halls of government.

"Facing your accuser" was deemed no human right. "Evidence" devolved into expediently acceptable anecdotal testimony. All because the military industrial complex wanted desperately to wage a multi-billion dollar war on a couple of thousand extremist for the benefit of their interests in the Energy cartel.

Once again, American citizens were "used" like tools.... and not one true power broker cared enough that other people's children would be killed in the effort, to even try to stop it. It's rationalized as "good business." Apparently, killing people is the business they love most.

Guantanamo documents name Pakistan ISI as al Qaeda associate
Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:47pm GMT
By Chris Allbritton


af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE73O2LF20110425?sp=true

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military classified Pakistan's top spy agency as a terrorist support entity in 2007 and used association with it as a justification to detain prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, according to leaked documents published on Sunday that are sure to further alienate Pakistan.

One document (link.reuters.com/tyn29r), given to The New York Times, say detainees who associated with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate "may have provided support to al-Qaida or the Taliban, or engaged in hostilities against U.S. or Coalition forces."

(...)

Originally posted by Maxmars
Here's the rub; to hold the US "accountable" from within the US... you must have "standing." I can guarantee that no citizen has standing to challenge the Federal government. A lawyer may attempt to file a claim on their own behalf (a benefit of being part of the BAR monopoly), but not for someone who "has no standing" in the court.

No citizen has standing to challenge Guatanomo because they are not affected by it, which is where your standing argument is correct. The other thing to note is Gitmo is not civilian nor criminal, but military, and as such is subject to the UCMJ and not civil / criminal law.

Secondly, at what point did we end the war on terror in Iraq or Afghanistan? Since those conflicts are still on-going persons who are captured can be held until such time they are charged OR when hostilities end. I really would like to know where people get the mindset that any person captured during a time of armed conflict must be charged with a crime in order to be held.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Civil institutions might attempt to challenge the practice, but as you have seen, or will see, they will get nowhere.

Because they challenge on consitutional / civil liberty violations, and as stated above, its military and not civilian.

Originally posted by Maxmars
When the Executive Order was crafted and submitted that allowed the administration the power to unilaterally accuse, and arrest people at their whim, all the potential "accountability" went out the window.

If you checked, the executive order that was first issued was challeneged by several detainess, who actually won the case. The US Supreme Court stated the President did not have the legal authority to establish tribuanls by executive order, because Congress is responsible for the UCMJ. This led to the military comissions act of 2006 and later 2009, which codified what the President wanted to do. It also addressed the deficiencied the Supreme Court noted, mainly the Supreme Court could not be removed from the process - period.

So accountability did not go out the window, the Supreme Court made sure of this, while also pointing out the injuries to seperation of powers by the Executive issuing an EO where authority clearly falls to Congress.

Originally posted by Maxmars
You think the Supreme court is going to initiate a review of this on their own? Don't hold your breath.

Asked and answered above.

Originally posted by Maxmars
The system we rely upon to check and balance law and government conduct has been utterly usurped. And it is not, as many armchair moralists declare, "Our own fault." This was accomplished via secret and surreptitious means, employing legal jargon, bureaucratic conspiracy, and of course, intense corporate infiltration and lobbying in the halls of government.

I disagree and personally I think this view is there because people dont completely understand how their rights work. I think this becomes more problematic when people dont understand the international implications when dealing with detainees during times of armed conflict.

Originally posted by Maxmars
"Facing your accuser" was deemed no human right. "Evidence" devolved into expediently acceptable anecdotal testimony. All because the military industrial complex wanted desperately to wage a multi-billion dollar war on a couple of thousand extremist for the benefit of their interests in the Energy cartel.

Care to support this with factual sources that support the claim?

Originally posted by Maxmars
Once again, American citizens were "used" like tools.... and not one true power broker cared enough that other people's children would be killed in the effort, to even try to stop it. It's rationalized as "good business." Apparently, killing people is the business they love most.

While we are on the topic of used like tools, care to explain how any of this is solely Bushs fault? During his Presidency, both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings, and at ANY time they could have stopped funding whatever they wished.

The Taliban and Al Queida are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, because they dont meet the criteria for it. They are clssified as enemy combatants, as prescribed by UN laws, and per the UN laws, it makes those captured subject to the jurisdiction of the country who captures them, as well as what judicial system, civilian or military, they will face.

UN agreements want a person to be charged as soon as possible, yet people seem to assume that any person captured must be charged, which is a fallacy (I refer people to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war I, Panama, Grenada, Gulf War II, etc etc etc).

Some info for those who are intrested -
Hamdan Vs. Rumsfeld
Hamdi Vs. Rumsfeld
Military Comissions Act - 2006
Military Comissions Act - 2009

List of convicted persons -
Zacarias Moussaoui
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali
Ahmed Ghailani
Libert City 7
Richar Reid
Jose Padilla
Christopher Paul
Buffalo Six
Lyman Faris
Virginia Jihad Network
Dhiren Barot
Shahawar Siraj
Yassin Aref
Mohammed Hossain
Hamid and Umer Hayat
Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana
Toledo Terror Plot
Syed Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee
Assem Hammoud

March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Mohammedalso plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton.

Fort Dix Attack


These are just a few of the convictions to date....

ATS Thread - 'War criminal!': Ron Paul backers crash Cheney-Rumsfeld reunion

Also: The information below is taken from one of my posts in the War Criminal!! thread. I went through and pulled out the running commentary between myself and Aptness, but its possible I missed some. All information below this is from tht thread and is not directed at any one person in this thread.

I include it because it walks people through the start up to the present with the Detainees, their lawsuits, court reaction, legislation and Supreme Court rulings. The info is presented for people to get a complete picture, however, as you can see from this thread and the war criminal thread, it is still open to interpretation.

The substance of Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld had to do with Congressional legislation that was requested by the adminiatration to remove the US Supreme Court from having an authority over combatents captured on the BattleField, restricting them solely to Military TRibunals. As you correctly point out, the Supreme Court ruled that the UCMJ has the Genevea Conventions built into it, and that any attempt to remove the Supreme Court from the military tribunal process was illegal and not supported by any laws.

The Supreme Court ruled in the end that they, The USSC, did have jurisdiction over captured combatents and that the administration lacked authority to establish any type of military tribunal without the express authorization under law by the US Congress, because any attempt to do so violates the UCMJ.

Result -
The Courts decision did not prohibit the use of military tribuanls for captured combatants provided it is done within the confines of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions because they provided more protections that the military tribunals the Bush Administration wanted.

Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld court case is its continuation. The Military Commision Act of 2006 was authorized by Congress and signed into law by Bush after the Supreme Court RUling on Hamden. The congressional authorization corrected the misteps the court cited as grounds to reverse the DC Circuit court ruling.

The Military Commisiuon Act of 2009 expanded more rights to captured enemy combatents and was signed into law, and USA vs. Al Qosi was the first detainee to have the amendement applied to their court action.

1st Geneva Convention
2nd Geneva Convention
3rd Geneva Convention4th Geneva Convention

Protocol 1
Protocol 2
Protocol 3

Specifically the 3rd Geneva Convention establishes the treatment of person captured during armed conflict, and also specifically details in article 4 what exactly constitutes a Prisoner of War status.

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

What an Unlawful Combatent is under the UN.

International Humanitarian Laws (Rules of War / Laws of Armed Conflict / Laws and Customs of War).

The basic prinicple for the Rules of War is

The law is mandatory for nations bound by the appropriate treaties.

There are also other customary unwritten rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. By extension, they also define both the permissive rights of these powers as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.

Under the International Humanitarian Laws (Codification), which encompass all 4 Geneva Conentions, all 3 subsequent protocols of the conventions, the Hague Convention, The Lieber Code, The ICRC, Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field and the Principle of Humanity is incumbent on signatory nations, but is not intended to act as a suicide pact when engaged in warfare gainst an entity that is not a signatory to the convenentions / rules / UN treaties or actions taken by soldiers are in violation of said treaties if they are a signatory.

And again, The war in Afghanistan is against the Taliban / Alqueida, who are NOT the recognized government. They are not sigantories to any UN treaties discussed here. The Afghan Government became officaly adopted and recognized by other countries as well as the UN in 2005. We are NOT at war with the current government of Afghanistan, but against a "faction" as the UN labeled them when the coup occured by the Taliban.

Basic rules of IHL
1.Persons hors de combat and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely.
2.It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.
3.The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
4.Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
5.No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
6.Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
7.Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.[22]

This first part is important

Violations and punishment during conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.

Why? Because of this portion -

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5)

They fall under either civilian Domestic Law, or Military Tribunal as required by UN laws.

At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.

Which is non specific and again defers to the country who has them in custody. Then we move on to this portion which is paramount to the argument:

Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant.

They are already classified as terrorists as well as enemy combatants both under UN criteria and US law, both Militarily under the Military Comission Act of 2006 as well as US Domestic Law because of the Suprepe Court decisions placing the combatants under Military Law and Tribunals.

This is important because of the final section:

Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.

The IHL, which is the governing laws for war, which encompass all 4 geneva conventions as well as the 3 protocols allow for those to be tortured / executed. It does not approve u[] NOR condemn such acts.

US Law dealing with Foireign Treaties (Treaty Clause in the Constitution) and the subsequent Supreme Court case that ruled a Foreign treaty is not the supreme Law of the land because it would violate the Constitution which says it is the Supreme Law of the Land. What occured in court was the acknowledgment of Foreighn Treaties under International Law, but moving their status to Body of Federal Law, which makes the treaty valid, and applies it to the US as Law. It also allows that treaty, or parts of it, the be challenged in US Federal Court, which is what occured with the Bush Administration. It also allowed limited forms of "torture" IE waterboarding and sleep deprivation, and any person who engaged in that activity has qualified immunity under Supreme Court rulings extending backwards prior to the court rulings.

My argument on this topic is purely legal, that the actions taken were within the confines of US law, and in conjunction with UN treaties, noting the exceptions the UN points out when dealing with entites who are NOT party to any UN treaties, also noting the exceptions when enemy actions violate those laws we are held to.

This is not a new concept and the reason for the nuremburg citation is because of Russia. Durring WWII they were not a signatory to the Genevea Conventions or any other treaty that governed the treament of captured soldiers.

This is why POW camps seperated prisoners of treaty countries away from those who were not. Russians face horrific POW conditions by the Germans, and at nuremburg this was specifically brought up as a defense to German actions towards Russians, which resulted in the non signatory exceptions which are present in todays laws.

The question then becomes how do you combat an enemy who does not abide by any rules of warfare, from recognizable unofrms, to rank structure, to treatment of civilians, captured personnel?

They dont get a walk on their actions.

Originally posted by solid007


Al Qaeda is nothing more than a bogey man, an invented ghost to frighten children and the ignorant. Al Qaeda is the invisible and nonexistent enemy that the US government has manufactured to provide an excuse for its never-ending 'War on Terrorism', which is in reality a war of US aggression for US domination of the world and its resources. The US government commits 'false flag' attacks such as the 9/11 attacks; the Bali, Madrid, and London bombings; and the recent bombings and attacks in India as a way to create a false threat where no real threat exists, providing an excuse for the USA to step in to 'rescue' and 'protect' other nations from 'Terrorist' attacks that were actually perpetrated by the USA itself - David

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

What an incredible leap in logic, from that article to your claim Terrorists don't exist.

while releasing others who posed a grave threat

In fact that quote from the article completely negates your argument. Odd you would chose that article when it does not support your rant.

I doubt that form of propaganda will work out for you. All evil men use and know the tactic of trying to convince people they don't exist. The end result is they identify themselves as who they are by the act of spreading the propaganda. Only those who wish to be fooled by such lies are fooled.

so...wikileaks is a trustworthy source? or only when it fits a specific narrative?

reply to post by WilliamRikeronaSegway


People use wikileaks to cherrypick their arguments.. They use what fits, and ignore the info that does not. Case in point is the wikileaked info regarding the discovery of WMDs in Iraq. Leaked documents show there was an active wmd rpogram up to and after the 2003 invasion.

However, when this info made it to light, people began to change their tune on wikileaks, stating it was false info, or downplayed the amount of wmd's discovered (checmical and biological) suggesting that because it was not on a massive scale, it didnt qualify (even though multiple UN Resolutions, in addition to the peace terms at the end of the 1st gulf war stated NO wmds - period)..

Source

People will pick and choose the info that supports their argument... Take this threa topic as an example.. At what point was it decided that all captured persons were terrorists? At what point was it decided that all captured persons were pows? At what point was it decided that all captured persons must be charged with a crime in order to be held.

Oh please. Innocent? of what? How many are being re sought? How many are top commanders of the most dangerous terrorists networks?. The guy responsible for the fed ex bombs was in Gitmo and they released him. He's currently hiding in Yemen. Seems like you wanna hug the terrorists. lol Enjoy

Posted today about this..

These Nazi Satan-worshipping child-raping pedos inside the Pentagon/Fed Reserve and their pedo pals over at the Vatican need to all step down NOW!

We've had enough of this crap.

Originally posted by WilliamRikeronaSegway
so...wikileaks is a trustworthy source? or only when it fits a specific narrative?

The information Wikileaks releases is trustworthy because no-one was ever supposed to see it. Get it?

Considering that these latest leaks also reveal that Al Qaida have acquired a nuclear bomb which they plan to detonate on US soil if Bin Laden is captured or killed, do you not think it is wise that these prisoners are kept until we sort out the truth from the seriously flawed information?

"AlQaida associate Sharif Al Masri stated in June or July 2004, upon encountering difficulties moving the nuclear bomb, detainee (Abu Farajal Libi) commented that if Al Qaida was able to move the move Al Qaida will find opperatives to use it"

The device was apparently being hidden somewhere in Europe.

Wikilks -Nuke