Topic: After 13 Years with No Charges, British Prisoner at Gitmo Finally Released - page 2. (Read 1366 times)
November 01, 2015, 02:24:56 AM
a lot of the inmates went on to commit acts of terrorism after being released, i have mixed feelings about this
November 01, 2015, 01:06:26 AM
The article doesn't mention how or why Shaker got picked up and detained. I'm using this source as basis for the rest of my comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_Aamer
When it comes to a guy as awful and destructive as Osama bin Laden there's only one way to beat him and it involves making everyone he has contact with an enemy by association - an accessory. It sounds like that's what led to Shaker getting detained. He had originally confessed to being with/near bin Laden. That's enough to draw suspicion and enough for the US gov't to want to detain him (legality aside, but hell bin Laden organized mass killings around the planet...that kind of changes the rules, because this bin Laden was such a tyrant.)
The REAL CRIME is that according to my source, Shaker was cleared for transfer to Saudi Arabia in 2007! Why in the fuck has the US kept him around for an additional 8 years? That's fucked up. It's bad business. It's laziness. It's completely disrespectful.
The moral here is don't hang out with the worst of the world's criminals and you won't be targeted as involved in the crimes! And the irony of bin Laden is he actually had the money to fight the evils he saw in the west, to transform his homeland into what he thought it should be. Instead he killed a bunch of people that had little to do with creating (or influencing or changing) the system he despised so much.
When it comes to a guy as awful and destructive as Osama bin Laden there's only one way to beat him and it involves making everyone he has contact with an enemy by association - an accessory. It sounds like that's what led to Shaker getting detained. He had originally confessed to being with/near bin Laden. That's enough to draw suspicion and enough for the US gov't to want to detain him (legality aside, but hell bin Laden organized mass killings around the planet...that kind of changes the rules, because this bin Laden was such a tyrant.)
The REAL CRIME is that according to my source, Shaker was cleared for transfer to Saudi Arabia in 2007! Why in the fuck has the US kept him around for an additional 8 years? That's fucked up. It's bad business. It's laziness. It's completely disrespectful.
The moral here is don't hang out with the worst of the world's criminals and you won't be targeted as involved in the crimes! And the irony of bin Laden is he actually had the money to fight the evils he saw in the west, to transform his homeland into what he thought it should be. Instead he killed a bunch of people that had little to do with creating (or influencing or changing) the system he despised so much.
October 31, 2015, 11:58:07 PM
oh come on.. he coudve many more things than just staying in jails? he wasnt even charged? was money involved or he took blame for something?
October 31, 2015, 10:58:03 PM
Guantanamo Concentration Camp seems really useful for bureaucrats of Fashington D.C.
October 31, 2015, 10:05:53 PM
After 13 Years with No Charges, British Prisoner at Gitmo Finally Released
Read more at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/30/after-13-years-no-charges-british-prisoner-gitmo-finally-released.
Quote
After thirteen years held without charges at the offshore U.S. prison at Guantanamo, 48-year-old British citizen Shaker Aamer was put on a private jet just after midnight on Friday and sent back to the UK.
According to reporting by Carol Rosenberg at the Miami Herald:
[Aamer] was one of Guantánamo's best known prisoners because some Britons, including his wife and four children living in London, turned his case into a cause célèbre. In May, a bipartisan delegation of British members of parliament stumped for his release in meetings with Obama administration officials as well as members of Congress.
The transfer left 112 detainees at the Pentagon prison, 52 of them approved for transfer to other countries.
The transfer, the second release from the prison in 42 hours, left the detention center population at 112 captives. Of them, 52 are like Aamer was on the eve of his flight off this remote U.S. Navy base: Approved for release with security arrangements that satisfy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.
According to reporting by Carol Rosenberg at the Miami Herald:
[Aamer] was one of Guantánamo's best known prisoners because some Britons, including his wife and four children living in London, turned his case into a cause célèbre. In May, a bipartisan delegation of British members of parliament stumped for his release in meetings with Obama administration officials as well as members of Congress.
The transfer left 112 detainees at the Pentagon prison, 52 of them approved for transfer to other countries.
The transfer, the second release from the prison in 42 hours, left the detention center population at 112 captives. Of them, 52 are like Aamer was on the eve of his flight off this remote U.S. Navy base: Approved for release with security arrangements that satisfy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.
Read more at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/30/after-13-years-no-charges-british-prisoner-gitmo-finally-released.
Quote
Top Comments
One day, when former "detainees" like Mr. Shaker commit to putting their experiences down on paper, their stories will read like modern versions of the 19th century slave narrative. So many people in the Empire's gulags are folk who were swept up in the madness of war, and then kept prisoner for no other reason than they were "military-age" Muslim men, who came into the purview of invading American forces. Even if these people were under arms, resisting the American invaders, this does not make them "unlawful combatants." How does the invading army in an illegal war get to describe those who resist as "unlawful" belligerents? I never accepted the framing of the Guantanamo detention policy as the only way of dealing with the "worst of the worst." Guantanamo operates beyond any real measure of law; the US government is more or less unaccountable there. Guantanamo is a concentration-camp, analogous to a Stalinist prison. Many people have died there. Even the criminal US government admits that innocent people are being held there--some have been there for over a decade. This is nothing other than a policy of enslaving a certain class of people, who are stripped of all protections of the law. Guantanamo is a crime against humanity.
The facile "debate" that "detainees" must be held at Guantanamo because it is too dangerous to imprison them in the United States disguises the bigger question: by what right does the United States hold territory in a foreign country? Guantanamo is a crime against the Cuban people.
If we arrive at the day that Muslim people are rounded up and killed in the name of "national security," Guantanamo will be seen as a crucial part of the process of softening up the American people (both morally and politically) so that they are prepared to accept another holocaust. Some people will say that a genocide of Muslims will never happen, but these people are blind to reality: in some respects, it is already happening, as so many Muslim countries are literally falling apart, and nobody knows with any certainty what the future holds. I'm sure if you were alive in 1930, you never would have thought that Auschwitz was looming up ahead....
One day, when former "detainees" like Mr. Shaker commit to putting their experiences down on paper, their stories will read like modern versions of the 19th century slave narrative. So many people in the Empire's gulags are folk who were swept up in the madness of war, and then kept prisoner for no other reason than they were "military-age" Muslim men, who came into the purview of invading American forces. Even if these people were under arms, resisting the American invaders, this does not make them "unlawful combatants." How does the invading army in an illegal war get to describe those who resist as "unlawful" belligerents? I never accepted the framing of the Guantanamo detention policy as the only way of dealing with the "worst of the worst." Guantanamo operates beyond any real measure of law; the US government is more or less unaccountable there. Guantanamo is a concentration-camp, analogous to a Stalinist prison. Many people have died there. Even the criminal US government admits that innocent people are being held there--some have been there for over a decade. This is nothing other than a policy of enslaving a certain class of people, who are stripped of all protections of the law. Guantanamo is a crime against humanity.
The facile "debate" that "detainees" must be held at Guantanamo because it is too dangerous to imprison them in the United States disguises the bigger question: by what right does the United States hold territory in a foreign country? Guantanamo is a crime against the Cuban people.
If we arrive at the day that Muslim people are rounded up and killed in the name of "national security," Guantanamo will be seen as a crucial part of the process of softening up the American people (both morally and politically) so that they are prepared to accept another holocaust. Some people will say that a genocide of Muslims will never happen, but these people are blind to reality: in some respects, it is already happening, as so many Muslim countries are literally falling apart, and nobody knows with any certainty what the future holds. I'm sure if you were alive in 1930, you never would have thought that Auschwitz was looming up ahead....
Jump to: