Just Detainees In Guantanamo

It is traditional in waging wars to take “prisoners,” but since the launch of wars in Asia and the Middle East by American leaders such as George Bush, Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama, we have invented a new term–Detainees. The men now in a prison, or should we say, a Prisoner of War camp, are not prisoners, they are Detainees. I do not recall anything in the Geneva Convention protocols(those who entered the Army, at least during the Korean War received lectures on respecting this international code of military justice) that refers to -Detainees. There currently are 154 human beings still at Guantanamo Bay prison who are – Detainees. Questions:

1. Are there war crime charges against these men?

2. Is there proof they actually engaged in fighting against American forces, either in Afghanistan or in Iraq?

3. Or, should one ask if anyone has gotten around to investigating these charges?

4. If they are guilty, why have they not been placed on trial?

Instead, these human beings are subject to forced feeding and ongoing brutality. I do not know of any prior example in American history in which prisoners in a war were denied basic human rights to be tried in a court of law–civilian or military!!

Related Posts

  • arcticredriver

    You ask if any of the men face charges. The answer is that slightly more than half a dozen men currently face charges before Guantanamo Military Commissions. Slightly more than half a dozen men were convicted before the Military Commissions. Two men had the charges against them dismissed when it became clear their confessions were coerced through torture.

    Three important caveats.

    [1] All but one of the men who were convicted plead guilty as part of a negotiated plea bargain.

    [2] Under the Guantanamo system the USA insists that they can continue to hold men indefinitely — EVEN IF THEY ARE ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES. This puts a strong incentive on suspects to plead guilty — even if they believe they are completely innocent. Under the Guantanamo system only a negotiated plea bargain can guarantee a suspect a fixed release date to look forward to.

    [3] One of the men who was plead guilty to “material support for terrorism” had his conviction overturned, on the grounds that this was an ill-defined and retro-active charge. It wasn’t a crime when he was said to have committed it. All the other men who were convicted were convicted of this crime, and their convictions are also expected to be overturned. Child soldier Omar Khadr is the only individual convicted on other charges.

    The one guy who did not plead guilty had wanted to defend himself, and wasn’t allowed to, so he ordered his court appointed attorneys to not offer a defense. This was, apparently, his way of protesting the manifest unfairness of the Guantanamo system.

    One captive, Majid Khan, held for three years in a CIA torture camp, has rocky mental health. When he agreed to a plea deal a few years ago a Washington Post editorial pontificated about his “tough but fair” treatment. His plea deal requires him to remain in custody until Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other senior al Qaeda members have been convicted, as he is expected to testify against them. His testimony against them is part of his plea deal, and the plea deal will be rescinded if he doesn’t testify against them. This, of course, could take a decade.

    The Washington Post pontificated on how it would be fair to claw back his plea agreement if he didn’t testify “truthfully”.

    Unfortunately, there is nothing on the public record to suggest he was ever guilty of anything. Rather, the reverse, it seems the only evidence against him are denunciations against him extracted under torture, and his own confessions, extracted under torture. In particular, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been called the Forrest Gump of terrorism.

    It seems that at some point during his torture KSM decided to confess to every accusation his interrogators face him with, without regard to whether they were true or false. It seems he went beyond falsely confessing to untrue accusations, but to making up brand new plots, and polluting the US intelligence pool by falsely denouncing all kinds of innocent men and women he knew. I strongly suspect that Majid Khan was merely someone he falsely denounced to confound US intelligence.

    There was one further individual, a guy named Ghailani, who the Obama Presidency succeeded in having transferred to the USA for a civilian trial, before Congress locked that down.You ask if any of the men face charges. The answer is that slightly more than half a dozen men currently face charges before Guantanamo Military Commissions. Slightly more than half a dozen men were convicted before the Military Commissions. Two men had the charges against them dismissed when it became clear their confessions were coerced through torture.

    Three important caveats.

    [1] All but one of the men who were convicted plead guilty as part of a negotiated plea bargain.

    [2] Under the Guantanamo system the USA insists that they can continue to hold men indefinitely — EVEN IF THEY ARE ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES. This puts a strong incentive on suspects to plead guilty — even if they believe they are completely innocent. Under the Guantanamo system only a negotiated plea bargain can guarantee a suspect a fixed release date to look forward to.

    [3] One of the men who was plead guilty to “material support for terrorism” had his conviction overturned, on the grounds that this was an ill-defined and retro-active charge. It wasn’t a crime when he was said to have committed it. All the other men who were convicted were convicted of this crime, and their convictions are also expected to be overturned. Child soldier Omar Khadr is the only individual convicted on other charges.

    The one guy who did not plead guilty had wanted to defend himself, and wasn’t allowed to, so he ordered his court appointed attorneys to not offer a defense. This was, apparently, his way of protesting the manifest unfairness of the Guantanamo system.

    One captive, Majid Khan, held for three years in a CIA torture camp, has rocky mental health. When he agreed to a plea deal a few years ago a Washington Post editorial pontificated about his “tough but fair” treatment. His plea deal requires him to remain in custody until Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other senior al Qaeda members have been convicted, as he is expected to testify against them. His testimony against them is part of his plea deal, and the plea deal will be rescinded if he doesn’t testify against them. This, of course, could take a decade.

    The Washington Post pontificated on how it would be fair to claw back his plea agreement if he didn’t testify “truthfully”.

    Unfortunately, there is nothing on the public record to suggest he was ever guilty of anything. Rather, the reverse, it seems the only evidence against him are denunciations against him extracted under torture, and his own confessions, extracted under torture. In particular, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been called the Forrest Gump of terrorism.

    It seems that at some point during his torture KSM decided to confess to every accusation his interrogators face him with, without regard to whether they were true or false. It seems he went beyond falsely confessing to untrue accusations, but to making up brand new plots, and polluting the US intelligence pool by falsely denouncing all kinds of innocent men and women he knew. I strongly suspect that Majid Khan was merely someone he falsely denounced to confound US intelligence.

    There was one further individual, a guy named Ghailani, who the Obama Presidency succeeded in having transferred to the USA for a civilian trial, before Congress locked that down.