Guantanamo prisoners made public

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · March 06, 2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by BBC

The US defence department has released the names and nationalities of some of the inmates detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for up to four years.

I read about this in the Independent today, but couldnt find it so used the BBC Source for it. I also read about some of the detainees, and found some info on that.

Originally Posted by BBC

Feroz Ali Abbasi, British - submitted written complaints about military police

Originally Posted by BBC

Abdul Gappher, Uighur from western China - accused of seeking to join Uzbek Islamist group but says he was training to fight the Chinese

Originally Posted by BBC

Mohammed Sharif, Afghan - accused of serving as a Taleban guard but said he was forced to work for them

Its quite nasty, really. Look on the site, and you'll see what they get up to in Cuba. Heres just a glimpse.

Originally Posted by BBC

Answering the questions from the BBC's Today Programme through his lawyer, Fawzi al-Odah said hunger strikers were strapped to a chair and force-fed through a tube three times a day.

Yeugh... Thats me being sick.

**Perikles** · March 06, 2006, 12:02 PM

I think that the prisoners are treated in a bad way by the USA and should be treated a bit more humanly, but why would the USA spend money keeping them if they did not pose a threat at all?

**Erik** · March 06, 2006, 12:02 PM

You forgot to provide a link to the article.

edit:

Originally Posted by Spartacus-Popat

It's hidden :wink: In the first line "BBC SOURCE".

Oh, I must be going colour blind

Originally Posted by Perikles

I think that the prisoners are treated in a bad way by the USA and should be treated a bit more humanly, but why would the USA spend money keeping them if they did not pose a threat at all?

It's only taxpayers money.
The CIA (or whoever runs those prisons) only makes money from it.

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · March 06, 2006, 12:04 PM

It's hidden :wink: In the first line "BBC SOURCE".

**Tom Paine** · March 06, 2006, 12:03 PM

Why did it release a mob of them to theUK without trial then? Without charging them or anything? The UK did nothing either....

**Ahlerich** · March 06, 2006, 12:54 PM

they acually let some teerorists go? man they make one mistake after the other. all this debates would have been easy avoidable. they should not have taken prisoners to begin with. heeh (ironic laugh)

**Erik** · March 06, 2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ahlerich

they acually let some teerorists go?

No, just some of the innocent people.

I think less than 5% is actually a terrorist.
Most are innocent people who were only labled as terrorists by their political opponents, who get a nice bag of money from the US for every "terrorist" they deliver.

**Ahlerich** · March 06, 2006, 01:22 PM

thats even worth. if they d let them all rot there there would not be innocent ppl. only legends and leftie propaganda of innocent ppl.

(sarcastic again)

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · March 08, 2006, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by The Independant

UN human rights investigators have called for the immediate closure of the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. The US has rejected the closure call, with White House spokesman Scott McClellan saying that the facility houses "dangerous terrorists".

Yes, the US has officialy gone mad. The UN go to find WMDs for the Americans, they send troops to fund the wars started by America, and their demands are ignored. Someone likes to be dominant

Originally Posted by Mr Howells, minister in charge of British policy in the ME

Our alliance with America is based on shared values. If those shared values ae seen by the rest of the world to be terribly flawed, that actually undermines the cause of democracy. If Guantanamo is undermining those shared values then it should go.

The Americans, namely US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, came up with, IMO, pitiful excuses.

Originally Posted by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

The 500 Guantanamo detainees included terrorist trainers, former bodyguards of bin Laden, and potential suicide bombers. We operate Guantanamo because there is a necessity, a need, for the US to detain enemy combatants "somewhere".

Look at my first post. Yes, they're truly extremists.

**Ahlerich** · March 08, 2006, 12:06 PM

"potential suicide bombers" is great u gotta love it.
take a muslim, take everything from him even his rights as a human, let him "live" for 4 years in a secret prison not protected by human right laws, treat him bad and maybe torture him...now you just "raised" an potential suicide bomber gratulations

**Radier** · March 08, 2006, 12:41 PM

Remember that these prisoners where the ones having their arms out of their windows so that they should look like airplanes and then they screamed "nine eleven! nine eleven".
I can understand that the guards don't treat them well.

I am sure they all are scumbags.

**Elu Barcino** · March 08, 2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Radier

I am sure they all are scumbags.

Despite the fact that there isn't actually any proof of their actions?

**Perikles** · March 08, 2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Elu Barcino

Despite the fact that there isn't actually any proof of their actions?

Like I said before, Why would the USA want all the bad attention and press it gets and spend money on keeping them if they did not pose a valid threat or problem to the USA?
They wouldn't!

**Elu Barcino** · March 08, 2006, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Perikles

Like I said before, Why would the USA want all the bad attention and press it gets and spend money on keeping them if they did not pose a valid threat or problem to the USA?
They wouldn't!

They why don't they publish that information? 'They are terrorists' is not any kind of proof. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is a basic tenet of our democratic system. Do we really want to betray our values that badly?

**Ahlerich** · March 08, 2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Perikles

Like I said before, Why would the USA want all the bad attention and press it gets and spend money on keeping them if they did not pose a valid threat or problem to the USA?
They wouldn't!

because those "prisoners" are the only showable "success" the usa had with its war on terrorism
it serves them to stay "credible" and "capable" of fighting terrorism in the eyes of those americans who do not care if "terrorists" human rights are violated

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · March 08, 2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Radier

Remember that these prisoners where the ones having their arms out of their windows so that they should look like airplanes and then they screamed "nine eleven! nine eleven".
I can understand that the guards don't treat them well.

I am sure they all are scumbags.

And British men beat up Muslims or any other Middle Eastern lookers after 7/7. You can't condone such actions, it is the betrayal of what your country stands for.

**Elu Barcino** · March 08, 2006, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Spartacus-Popat

And British men beat up Muslims or any other Middle Eastern lookers after 7/7. You can't condone such actions, it is the betrayal of what your country stands for.

Precisely. Many people seem to neatly forget that there are idiots in both groups of people.