3 ms·

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

by sgpl 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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".
    - ericd 13y ago
      Who are you to say what's acceptable for someone else to do with their life? He probably doesn't adhere to the same principles you do (judging by your comments, most people probably don't). Also, it clearly says held since 2002, so not less than 10 years.
    - ucee054 13y ago
      this guy is far from innocent If you have reliable evidence then put him on trial or else shut up.
      - vxNsr 13y ago
        we don't need to put him on trial until the war ends And he doesn't need a trial, we just don't want him to go back out there and fight again which is totally fair and how POWs work. Take a look at the Geneva Convention, not the Wiki version but the actual thing either from the part that I posted or go to the UN website and take a look.
- dspillett 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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.

by sgpl 13y ago

vxNsr 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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".
  - ericd 13y ago
    Who are you to say what's acceptable for someone else to do with their life? He probably doesn't adhere to the same principles you do (judging by your comments, most people probably don't). Also, it clearly says held since 2002, so not less than 10 years.
  - ucee054 13y ago
    this guy is far from innocent If you have reliable evidence then put him on trial or else shut up.
    - vxNsr 13y ago
      we don't need to put him on trial until the war ends And he doesn't need a trial, we just don't want him to go back out there and fight again which is totally fair and how POWs work. Take a look at the Geneva Convention, not the Wiki version but the actual thing either from the part that I posted or go to the UN website and take a look.
dspillett 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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.