5 ms·

I think the most important part about this OpEd is the comments appearing here and elsewhere: Lots of righteous indignation for this poor fellow who claims that

by vxNsr 14y ago

I think the most important part about this OpEd is the comments appearing here and elsewhere: Lots of righteous indignation for this poor fellow who claims that he's completely innocent of any charges brought against him and if he could only talk to someone they would understand. He feels the need to kill himself to prove a point, such conviction. What do they say about a prisoner and his crime? oh yeah: there's no such thing as a guilty prisoner in Jail.

sgpl 14y ago
From the article: "I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial." There haven't been any charges brought against him, and his life for the past DECADE (10+ years) has been stuck in a fucking limbo. The US Government won't even let him commit suicide by way of hunger, so in essence he has absolutely no hope or choice as it currently stands.
- vxNsr 14y ago
  Once again these are things he is claiming, I haven't done any research into his situation and I doubt anyone here has either. All I'm saying is that taking the word of someone who is in prison for possible terrorism is a mistake. Clearly there was someone who felt this dude was dangerous or else they wouldn't have flown him halfway around the world to "sit in limbo" there are prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq and it's MUCH cheaper to keep prisoners there, the only ones flown to cuba are those deemed "a higher security risk". A hint at possible charges is hidden in the third paragraph of his plea for attention: "Years ago the military said I was a “guard” for Osama bin Laden..." he of course qualifies this by saying it's not true. But if true is fairly serious because it would imply he was highly trusted if he was a personal guard for OBL. Again I haven't done any actual research into his situation but he most probably doesn't deserve nearly half the self-righteous indignation that everyone here is displaying.
  - sgpl 14y ago
    TL:DR: This dude was at the wrong place at the wrong time; and unless the US Government can prove otherwise, they should either release him, or if he is a terrorist, it would be a net-win if they just let him die of hunger (As their reputation w.r.t Gitmo has already been sullied). -- In a parallel universe, I claim that you are committing conspiracy to overthrow the reigning King. You say you were just walking by the forest to check out wildlife. I say nonsense; I have the power to capture you. The extent of your crime is that you were in the forest. I then capture you and throw you in a dungeon/prison, parade you naked, urinate you, rob you of basic dignity, flog you when I have a bad day or just for my amusement. I also feed you the same bland food daily. This is your reality [1] I do this continuously for 20 years == 7300 days in a row. You either start growing crazy or realize it would be better to end the misery yourself. At this point you have been robbed of the aspirations you had to contribute to scientific discovery by cataloguing flora and fauna. You realize that you haven't seen your children for ~20 years. Because you have been labeled an enemy of the state, your wife was thrown out of the city limits, etc. You choose the only option that is remotely viable: deprive yourself of nutrition till you die. I rob you of that choice. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FUCKING CHOICE NOW. I strap you to a cot, and force feed you a disgusting liquid diet for the next N years of your life. You live like this for the rest of your life or till I decide otherwise. Because in this scenario, I have power, I can do whatever I please in the name of protecting the life of this King. [1] As an experiment, lock yourself in a room for a day/week with some bland nutritious food & pots & pans for bodily functions. No books, no computers, no phone or music players, or any other distractions. For added effect, wear noise canceling headphones & blindfolds. And just chill. Repeat this for a long period of time, and you'll either want to kill yourself because your existence has been reduced to nothing, or you'll go crazy. In reality you'll get pretty restless and bored within the hour.
    - vxNsr 14y ago
      Cute story but unless you know something I don't about his case which you're not sharing then it's just that... a cute story. If that's what happened well it sucks to be him but technically under the Geneva Convention and current laws of war, the US is allowed to hold him until the war ends at which point it must try him before a court (which can be a military tribunal) or trade him for it's own soldiers who are being held as POWs (which doesn't really happen because Al-Qaeda murders most prisoners). Also small quibble with your story, he's been held for less than 10 years not more than 20. He gets normal food and can talk with fellow inmates and his guards, he is not urinated upon nor does he claim he was tortured, aside from being force fed. He does have access to all sorts of entertainment, so there isn't quite 1:1 parity here. And for the record: a hunger strike (to death), like suicide is not I repeat not EVER an acceptable form of protest. Suicide is a cop-out, and a principle =/= a life. a life >>>>>>> a principle. To take your life in a form of protest is to admit you are wrong. Also someone just posted a link to his Dossier and this guy is far from innocent: He admitted to fighting for Al-Qaida, he is mentioned in Al-Qaida documentation, regarding UBL. So there you have it: he wasn't "walking in the forest to check out wildlife".
  - dspillett 14y ago
    > Once again these are things he is claiming, I haven't done any research into his situation and I doubt anyone here has either. All I'm saying is that taking the word of someone who is in prison for possible terrorism is a mistake. So you are happy with "guilty until proven innocent" and "as he might be guilty, we can't give him the chance to prove otherwise because he might fool the legal system" as a moral precedents? If there is evidence charge him and give him a fair trial, if there isn't admit so and let him go. > but he most probably doesn't deserve nearly half the self-righteous indignation that everyone here is displaying. You might be right, you might be wrong. But how will we ever know one way or the other without evidence presented? This is the sort of thing we in the west regularly chide other regimes for, and we are doing it ourselves making complete hypercrits of ourselves - this is why people who care about such things are getting rather indignant about the whole thing.
    - vxNsr 14y ago
      In times of war it is guilty until proven innocent, did you take a look at the UN link? Two powers who are "at War" can take anyone into custody that they think is "aid and abetting the enemy" and they do not have to release them until the war ends. In times of war most civil liberties are suspended, we can discuss the fairness or "rightness" of that, but until we can all calm down and talk instead of hit that's the reality that we live in. The same way a soldier gives his life to his country and with that signs away his freedom, the same way that war suddenly makes murder "legal", war gives a government body the "right" to take away what one would think are inalienable rights. I laugh at their indignation because they think they can pick and choose which parts of war to keep, but the reality is it's all or nothing and everything in between.
      - ucee054 14y ago
        The USGov are not applying the POW rules to the Guantanamo prisoners otherwise they'd have more legal protections. That's why the Bushies had to dream up the "enemy combatant" legal limbo in order to be able to abuse the prisoners like this. Even under "war rules" these prisoners should be dealt with in a better way. And "Guilty until proven innocent?" Really? Idiot.
pavanky 14y ago
You know who else did hunger strikes ? Some old chap named Gandhi.
- vxNsr 14y ago
  Nice! Gandhi also preached and practiced something called "Peaceful Protest" this guy is accused of "associating with"/guarding UBL.
  - salgernon 14y ago
    If he is accused, then surely discovery and a trial are in order. Even nazis got trials.
    - vxNsr 14y ago
      Yeah, nazis got a trial .... after the war, but when does a war end? When both sides agree to end hostilities. So as soon as Al-Qaeda agrees to end hostilities all those in Gitmo will either be freed or tried. This is life not some stupid movie or game, we don't get "do-overs" and "I'm sorry"'s. If you associate with a regime that another stronger power thinks is wrong you're gonna have a bad time. (and the UN allows it)
    - gadders 14y ago
      All Nazis? Like all of the 400k of German soldiers that were forced to work in the UK after the end of WWII? Every single one had a full trial? Wow.
  - pavanky 14y ago
    Firstly, Osama (not Usama) Bil Laden. Secondly, 11 years without trial or even a concrete charge against "an accused terrorist" would be something USA and its citizens would be appalled about if Russia or China did so to their "terrorists". Thirdly, I am against hunger strikes when they can be avoided. Simply because they can turn political and in turn can be abused. Gandhi did abuse it a bit. Indian politicians and activists do it a lot. But eleven years of being held without solid evidence or being charge is just fucked up. This is being done out of desperation and fatigue rather than ideology.
lifeformed 14y ago
It doesn't matter if he's guilty or not, he could be Hitler for all I care. He should be charged and tried, not tortured for 10 years.
- vxNsr 14y ago
  Should he be? What are the official laws regarding a POW? Certainly not that of naturalized citizens... After skimming the UN Laws for POWs[1] and reading the parts that seemed to deal with internment and time length, it's not really clear to me why he should have to be tried. Once he's be associated with the enemy he can be held until the end of Hostilities at which point the "host" country can decide when and how to exchange him with "ex-enemy" . That last part will be a little difficult because I don't think Al-Qaeda takes many prisoners. That said, they might be violating laws regarding torture but that's a whole nother ball of wax. [1]http://www.un.org/arabic/preventgenocide/rwanda/text-images/Geneva_POW.pdf http://www.un.org/arabic/preventgenocide/rwanda/text-images/...
  - jeltz 14y ago
    If he is a POW he should be released since the war was over 10 years ago.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      It was? That's news to the Taliban.
      - acjohnson55 14y ago
        Is he part of the Taliban??
        sigzero 14y ago
        Sadly, it doesn't matter since we are now in the ethereal "War on Terror".
        14y ago
madebylaw 14y ago
It doesn't look like anyone on this thread has even tried to look for what this man is accused of doing and why he's in Gitmo in the first place. You can find a dossier from the US DoD of this man at the NYTimes' own website: http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/43-samir-naji-al-hasan-moqbel http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/43-samir-na... tl;dr: Member of al-Qaida, bodyguard of Osama, fought in the front lines against US and coalition forces, consistently lied to interrogators. I'm not sure what kind of court he would be 'tried' in considering he's not a US citizen.
- yardie 14y ago
  > I'm not sure what kind of court he would be 'tried' in considering he's not a US citizen. I wasn't aware that to be tried in court citizenship is a requirement.
  - madebylaw 14y ago
    You're right, I don't think citizenship is a requirement. I guess this was my vague way of saying that these prisoners are in a legal gray area as to what court they would be tried in, what their legal rights are, and what would constitute a 'fair trial'. This seems to be actively debated in the upper echelons of US law and politics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#L...
    - yardie 14y ago
      > You're right, I don't think citizenship is a requirement. Please, download the iConstitution app and spend 10-15 minutes reading it. > these prisoners are in a legal gray area No, the prisoners and their lawyers know where they stand. The US DOJ is trying to figure out the grey are they are. The guilty ones have been tried and sentences. These others may be of questionable character but not enough to be guilty. Now the US government is filing appeal after appeal to keep the lawyers busy because in the end the US will be deeply embarrassed by this whole affair.

by vxNsr 14y ago

sgpl 14y ago

From the article: "I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial." There haven't been any charges brought against him, and his life for the past DECADE (10+ years) has been stuck in a fucking limbo. The US Government won't even let him commit suicide by way of hunger, so in essence he has absolutely no hope or choice as it currently stands.

vxNsr 14y ago
Once again these are things he is claiming, I haven't done any research into his situation and I doubt anyone here has either. All I'm saying is that taking the word of someone who is in prison for possible terrorism is a mistake. Clearly there was someone who felt this dude was dangerous or else they wouldn't have flown him halfway around the world to "sit in limbo" there are prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq and it's MUCH cheaper to keep prisoners there, the only ones flown to cuba are those deemed "a higher security risk". A hint at possible charges is hidden in the third paragraph of his plea for attention: "Years ago the military said I was a “guard” for Osama bin Laden..." he of course qualifies this by saying it's not true. But if true is fairly serious because it would imply he was highly trusted if he was a personal guard for OBL. Again I haven't done any actual research into his situation but he most probably doesn't deserve nearly half the self-righteous indignation that everyone here is displaying.
- sgpl 14y ago
  TL:DR: This dude was at the wrong place at the wrong time; and unless the US Government can prove otherwise, they should either release him, or if he is a terrorist, it would be a net-win if they just let him die of hunger (As their reputation w.r.t Gitmo has already been sullied). -- In a parallel universe, I claim that you are committing conspiracy to overthrow the reigning King. You say you were just walking by the forest to check out wildlife. I say nonsense; I have the power to capture you. The extent of your crime is that you were in the forest. I then capture you and throw you in a dungeon/prison, parade you naked, urinate you, rob you of basic dignity, flog you when I have a bad day or just for my amusement. I also feed you the same bland food daily. This is your reality [1] I do this continuously for 20 years == 7300 days in a row. You either start growing crazy or realize it would be better to end the misery yourself. At this point you have been robbed of the aspirations you had to contribute to scientific discovery by cataloguing flora and fauna. You realize that you haven't seen your children for ~20 years. Because you have been labeled an enemy of the state, your wife was thrown out of the city limits, etc. You choose the only option that is remotely viable: deprive yourself of nutrition till you die. I rob you of that choice. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FUCKING CHOICE NOW. I strap you to a cot, and force feed you a disgusting liquid diet for the next N years of your life. You live like this for the rest of your life or till I decide otherwise. Because in this scenario, I have power, I can do whatever I please in the name of protecting the life of this King. [1] As an experiment, lock yourself in a room for a day/week with some bland nutritious food & pots & pans for bodily functions. No books, no computers, no phone or music players, or any other distractions. For added effect, wear noise canceling headphones & blindfolds. And just chill. Repeat this for a long period of time, and you'll either want to kill yourself because your existence has been reduced to nothing, or you'll go crazy. In reality you'll get pretty restless and bored within the hour.
  - vxNsr 14y ago
    Cute story but unless you know something I don't about his case which you're not sharing then it's just that... a cute story. If that's what happened well it sucks to be him but technically under the Geneva Convention and current laws of war, the US is allowed to hold him until the war ends at which point it must try him before a court (which can be a military tribunal) or trade him for it's own soldiers who are being held as POWs (which doesn't really happen because Al-Qaeda murders most prisoners). Also small quibble with your story, he's been held for less than 10 years not more than 20. He gets normal food and can talk with fellow inmates and his guards, he is not urinated upon nor does he claim he was tortured, aside from being force fed. He does have access to all sorts of entertainment, so there isn't quite 1:1 parity here. And for the record: a hunger strike (to death), like suicide is not I repeat not EVER an acceptable form of protest. Suicide is a cop-out, and a principle =/= a life. a life >>>>>>> a principle. To take your life in a form of protest is to admit you are wrong. Also someone just posted a link to his Dossier and this guy is far from innocent: He admitted to fighting for Al-Qaida, he is mentioned in Al-Qaida documentation, regarding UBL. So there you have it: he wasn't "walking in the forest to check out wildlife".
- dspillett 14y ago
  > Once again these are things he is claiming, I haven't done any research into his situation and I doubt anyone here has either. All I'm saying is that taking the word of someone who is in prison for possible terrorism is a mistake. So you are happy with "guilty until proven innocent" and "as he might be guilty, we can't give him the chance to prove otherwise because he might fool the legal system" as a moral precedents? If there is evidence charge him and give him a fair trial, if there isn't admit so and let him go. > but he most probably doesn't deserve nearly half the self-righteous indignation that everyone here is displaying. You might be right, you might be wrong. But how will we ever know one way or the other without evidence presented? This is the sort of thing we in the west regularly chide other regimes for, and we are doing it ourselves making complete hypercrits of ourselves - this is why people who care about such things are getting rather indignant about the whole thing.
  - vxNsr 14y ago
    In times of war it is guilty until proven innocent, did you take a look at the UN link? Two powers who are "at War" can take anyone into custody that they think is "aid and abetting the enemy" and they do not have to release them until the war ends. In times of war most civil liberties are suspended, we can discuss the fairness or "rightness" of that, but until we can all calm down and talk instead of hit that's the reality that we live in. The same way a soldier gives his life to his country and with that signs away his freedom, the same way that war suddenly makes murder "legal", war gives a government body the "right" to take away what one would think are inalienable rights. I laugh at their indignation because they think they can pick and choose which parts of war to keep, but the reality is it's all or nothing and everything in between.
    - ucee054 14y ago
      The USGov are not applying the POW rules to the Guantanamo prisoners otherwise they'd have more legal protections. That's why the Bushies had to dream up the "enemy combatant" legal limbo in order to be able to abuse the prisoners like this. Even under "war rules" these prisoners should be dealt with in a better way. And "Guilty until proven innocent?" Really? Idiot.

pavanky 14y ago

You know who else did hunger strikes ? Some old chap named Gandhi.

vxNsr 14y ago
Nice! Gandhi also preached and practiced something called "Peaceful Protest" this guy is accused of "associating with"/guarding UBL.
- salgernon 14y ago
  If he is accused, then surely discovery and a trial are in order. Even nazis got trials.
  - vxNsr 14y ago
    Yeah, nazis got a trial .... after the war, but when does a war end? When both sides agree to end hostilities. So as soon as Al-Qaeda agrees to end hostilities all those in Gitmo will either be freed or tried. This is life not some stupid movie or game, we don't get "do-overs" and "I'm sorry"'s. If you associate with a regime that another stronger power thinks is wrong you're gonna have a bad time. (and the UN allows it)
  - gadders 14y ago
    All Nazis? Like all of the 400k of German soldiers that were forced to work in the UK after the end of WWII? Every single one had a full trial? Wow.
- pavanky 14y ago
  Firstly, Osama (not Usama) Bil Laden. Secondly, 11 years without trial or even a concrete charge against "an accused terrorist" would be something USA and its citizens would be appalled about if Russia or China did so to their "terrorists". Thirdly, I am against hunger strikes when they can be avoided. Simply because they can turn political and in turn can be abused. Gandhi did abuse it a bit. Indian politicians and activists do it a lot. But eleven years of being held without solid evidence or being charge is just fucked up. This is being done out of desperation and fatigue rather than ideology.

lifeformed 14y ago

It doesn't matter if he's guilty or not, he could be Hitler for all I care. He should be charged and tried, not tortured for 10 years.

vxNsr 14y ago
Should he be? What are the official laws regarding a POW? Certainly not that of naturalized citizens... After skimming the UN Laws for POWs[1] and reading the parts that seemed to deal with internment and time length, it's not really clear to me why he should have to be tried. Once he's be associated with the enemy he can be held until the end of Hostilities at which point the "host" country can decide when and how to exchange him with "ex-enemy" . That last part will be a little difficult because I don't think Al-Qaeda takes many prisoners. That said, they might be violating laws regarding torture but that's a whole nother ball of wax. [1]http://www.un.org/arabic/preventgenocide/rwanda/text-images/Geneva_POW.pdf http://www.un.org/arabic/preventgenocide/rwanda/text-images/...
- jeltz 14y ago
  If he is a POW he should be released since the war was over 10 years ago.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    It was? That's news to the Taliban.
    - acjohnson55 14y ago
      Is he part of the Taliban??
      - sigzero 14y ago
        Sadly, it doesn't matter since we are now in the ethereal "War on Terror".
      - 14y ago

madebylaw 14y ago

It doesn't look like anyone on this thread has even tried to look for what this man is accused of doing and why he's in Gitmo in the first place. You can find a dossier from the US DoD of this man at the NYTimes' own website: http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/43-samir-naji-al-hasan-moqbel http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/43-samir-na... tl;dr: Member of al-Qaida, bodyguard of Osama, fought in the front lines against US and coalition forces, consistently lied to interrogators. I'm not sure what kind of court he would be 'tried' in considering he's not a US citizen.

yardie 14y ago
> I'm not sure what kind of court he would be 'tried' in considering he's not a US citizen. I wasn't aware that to be tried in court citizenship is a requirement.
- madebylaw 14y ago
  You're right, I don't think citizenship is a requirement. I guess this was my vague way of saying that these prisoners are in a legal gray area as to what court they would be tried in, what their legal rights are, and what would constitute a 'fair trial'. This seems to be actively debated in the upper echelons of US law and politics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#L...
  - yardie 14y ago
    > You're right, I don't think citizenship is a requirement. Please, download the iConstitution app and spend 10-15 minutes reading it. > these prisoners are in a legal gray area No, the prisoners and their lawyers know where they stand. The US DOJ is trying to figure out the grey are they are. The guilty ones have been tried and sentences. These others may be of questionable character but not enough to be guilty. Now the US government is filing appeal after appeal to keep the lawyers busy because in the end the US will be deeply embarrassed by this whole affair.