Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Al Jazeera Cameraman: Gitmo is 'Most Heinous Prison Ever'
littlegreenfootballs.com — That Al Jazeera cameraman recently released from Guantanamo Bay was dragged out of his hospital bed (he ’s the victim of a hunger strike) and propped up in front of the cameras by the Sudanese regime yesterday in Khartoum, to say that the Gitmo facility was the absolute worst prison in all of human history. It was heinous.
Zacktopia- 29 diggs
- digg it
- Zacktopia, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14So it is written. So should it be done.
- seksanbir, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9so sayeth the spider
- 2knights1horse, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10You guys are unfeeling. Can you imagine the horror of having your Kobe beef served to you medium well, when you asked for medium rare? And, far too many put on needless weight without proper workout facilities, and motivational trainers to keep them in jihad killing shape. Next time you see some white gloved kafir hand someone their book of hate, keep that in mind.
- 140Suffolk, on 05/07/2008, -3/+9Just a reminder: he wasn't released because he wasn't guilty. He was released as part of an amnesty program.
- anidal, on 05/07/2008, -11/+2Really? Guilty of what? 6 years in prison and no allegation was ever brought to trial. Why not?
Also, I was not aware of any amnesty program in effect in Gitmo. Perhaps you have sources?- Troika37, on 05/07/2008, -2/+12Why do you insist on applying Constitutional protections to non-citizens? Further, why do you insist on applying them to illegal combatants?
- anidal, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2Screw the constitution. Regardless of citizenship, all humans should be afforded at least the basic human right of representation i.e. a trial. If they're found guilty, hold em for life, kill em, whatever. But at least give them a fair chance to tell their side of the story.
Under the current system, the US can arrest anyone for whatever reason and hold them for an indefinite amount of time by labelling them illegal combatants. How the hell have they been judged as illegal without a trial?- tskier, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8Gee. Maybe because they were on the battlefield with a weapon and shooting at us.
- Troika37, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6"Screw the constitution." Followed immediately by: Give them a speedy trial.
You really don't have a hypocrisy sensor do you?
I'm all about supporting and defending the Constitution. That IS, after all, the oath I swore. I believe all US citizens enjoy the protection of our Constitution, and others are covered by Geneva. The Conventions specifically mention how to deal with illegal combatants and how to judge them as illegal. - Troika37, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6And here they are:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Geneva proscribes execution for those captured while in violation of any of the above mentioned requirements. Perhaps you'd rather we follow the 'rules' to the letter? - anidal, on 05/08/2008, -6/+1"Gee. Maybe because they were on the battlefield with a weapon and shooting at us."
Wrong, he was a cameraman. And all allegations against him involve providing logistic support. Hence not technically a combatant in the means you're saying.
When I said screw the constitution, I meant 'forget about weather or not he should be afforded constitutional rights, he should at least be given basic human rights'.
You mentioned Article 4 part 2 of the Geneva conventions which deals with those who are without doubt illegal combatants. Since, in the case of Al-Hajj, it was not determined if he was in fact an illegal combatant, Article 5 of the Geneva conventions comes into play:
Article 5
...
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
In contrast with the requirements, the Annual CSRT afforded to detainees is a farce, since they never hear specific charges against them, nor are they provided any counsel.
Finally, regardless of the tribunal decision, the Geneva Convention does NOT proscribe execution for those in violation. Where are you getting this? If a person is in violation, he can be expected to be treated humanely (did not happen) and be expected to be given a trial in a "regularly constituted court" (did not happen).
Yes, I do prefer the US follow the rule to the letter. - Troika37, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6Geneva does indeed proscribe execution. "However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws." (Convention IV, Art. 64)
The existing penal laws specify the death penalty for murder, bombing, et al.
Since you want us to follow it to the letter, then you won't mind us executing every single person captured in Iraq. Article 5 protections clearly do not apply to them, as there is no doubt that those captured while engaged in combat operations are illegal combatants under Geneva. This was last invoked in 1976 when American and British soldiers were executed by the Angolan government for engaging in unlawful combat.
If a combatant is to be protected by the Conventions, he must be recognizably distinct from the civilian populace, by uniform and by command structure. More specifically, he should not be able to hide behind civilians. In this way, opposing combatants can know with a high likelihood who is a legitimate target. Once we know that a captured combatant is covered by the Conventions, we are very limited in actions we take against him. The rationale is simple: if we start impaling prisoners and sticking them on pikes as a warning, the opposing side will do the same to our captured troops. Our respect for their troops is the price for their respect for our troops. It's similar in spirit to Mutual Assured Destruction, only in the other direction.
Those two have to go together. It's a settled matter that unlawful combatants in wartime may be summarily executed. Why? Because they're hiding among civilians, violating principle 1, and so they don't rate the protections of principle 2.
The truth is the GC isn't crystal clear on this matter because it wasn't designed to work with terrorism. The Geneva Conventions are not unilateral: they're an agreement between signatories to the Conventions; and then it's customary to extend the protections to non-signatories, as long as they act in accordance with the Conventions. The terrorists are not signatories, and they're not acting in accordance with the Conventions. - anidal, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1Al-Hajj has had no allegations of bombing, murder or anything of that nature. As mentioned before, he was suspected of providing logistic support which does not carry the death penalty. Regardless of the charge however, the existing penal laws of the United States require a trial before any punishment is carried out. GC is clearly not being applied here. Bush has himself admitted a controversial allowance to liberally interpret the GC (unilaterally!) to support the violations in Gitmo.
Al-Hajj was kept in prison for 6 years without any trial. One would think that if there was any evidence against him a trial would take place as early as possible, so that the US could be rid of a terrorist, medals awarded and an embarrassing international situation avoided. None of that happened. Why?
It's what makes the US better than the Angola and other third world countries, an inalienable sense of human rights which _should_ exist. Could they kill everyone they suspect, hell yes, but don't claim the moral high ground when what you're doing is no better than what terrorists and fundamentalists would've done in the same situation. - Troika37, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5The laws of the United States are not at issue here. The laws of the United States do not apply to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen et al. Nor do Constitutional protections. Geneva doesn't apply to non-signatories through anything but courtesey.
Even if you assume Al-Hajj is not an illegal combatant, but instead a POW, his holding is authorized. POWs are kept until hostilities cease. We are under no obligation to return him to the field, especially given the track record those released have for blowing things up later. - exgop, on 05/09/2008, -5/+2***** you, you a traitor. I hope you get Aids
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/09/2008, -5/+2The USA has signed on to the Geneva Convention and various other international treaties concerning the treatment of prisoners. The crimes committed by the Bush admin and their lackeys are exactly the ones that sent the Nazis to the gallows at Nuremberg.
- Troika37, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Really cake? The Bush Administration has concentration camps set up wherein millions of Muslims have been systemically murdered?
Surely you have sources.
Also, please read up the thread. Geneva protections are not afforded to non-signatories by anything other than courtesey. If you are implying we should be courteous to terrorists, please explain why.
- anidal, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2Screw the constitution. Regardless of citizenship, all humans should be afforded at least the basic human right of representation i.e. a trial. If they're found guilty, hold em for life, kill em, whatever. But at least give them a fair chance to tell their side of the story.
- 140Suffolk, on 05/07/2008, -3/+8Sorry. I confused him with another cameraman, Bilal Hussein, who was just released after a couple of years in custody in Iraq because of amnesty. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VUGK500& ...
"BAGHDAD (AP) - An Iraqi judicial committee has dismissed terrorism-related allegations against Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein and ordered him freed after nearly two years in U.S. military custody.
The decision by a four-judge panel says Hussein's case falls under a new amnesty law and orders Iraqi courts to "cease legal proceedings." The ruling says that Hussein should be "immediately" released if no other charges are pending"
In case you don't know, Bilal was caught in a jihadi murderer's apartment. With explosive residue on his hands. Is that guilty enough for you?
Back to the Al-Jazeera cameraman, Al-J said "...Al-Hajj was held without being charged or given a trial"
During a war, combatants in UNIFORMS are not "charged or given a trial" Legit POWs are just held until the end of hostilities. Un-uniformed combatants, on the other hand, are spies or saboteurs, and get a short tribunal and death.
Also, there is no indication that this guy is not guilty. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/01/gitmo ...
CNN says "...U.S. Embassy in Khartoum said the transfer "is a result of many factors and the work of many hands. An important one was the cooperation between the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum and the Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Intelligence and Security Service."
Get it? That means there was some kind of bargain. We'll do this-and-this if you send us these guys back from Guantanamo.- anidal, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2No worries, we all make mistakes. I don't know anything about Bilal, so I can't say much about him. I don't see the point of your writing up his entire case though, since its completely irrelevant here as you yourself said it was a confusion. We're talking about Al-Hajj.
We'll never know if he was guilty or not will we, since he was never afforded a trial. One would think that if there was any concrete evidence against him a trial would be started as soon as possible and he would be convicted. Since this didn't happen, we can easily beleive the evidence was weak or non-existent. Why else detain someone for 6 years and bring about international condemnation upon yourself?
The cooperation aspect was, as stated from the Sudanese embassy, a memo from the US embassy asking them to confirm Al-Hajj as a regular citizen and to guarantee that he wont ever leave Sudan. In fact, there wasn't much cooperation since the Sudanese delegation was denied US Visas to travel for negotiations.
- anidal, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2No worries, we all make mistakes. I don't know anything about Bilal, so I can't say much about him. I don't see the point of your writing up his entire case though, since its completely irrelevant here as you yourself said it was a confusion. We're talking about Al-Hajj.
- Troika37, on 05/07/2008, -2/+12Why do you insist on applying Constitutional protections to non-citizens? Further, why do you insist on applying them to illegal combatants?
- anidal, on 05/07/2008, -11/+2Really? Guilty of what? 6 years in prison and no allegation was ever brought to trial. Why not?
- Erythroxylum, on 05/07/2008, -2/+11Heinous? Maybe one of the guards shouted at him when he flung his ***** or jizm at them [1]. That coupled with the fact that the detainees are being - by being held captive - prevented from doing their Islamic duty of assimilating, subjugating and killing (but mostly killing) the infidels of the world.
Anyway, he's free now, and he can get back to his jihad. In his case, peddling propaganda for Al-Jazeera.
[1]. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?I ... - 140Suffolk, on 05/07/2008, -2/+8From Al-Jazeera : "...Al-Hajj was held without being charged or given a trial"
During a war, combatants in UNIFORMS are not "charged or given a trial" Legit POWs are just held until the end of hostilities. Un-uniformed combatants, on the other hand, are spies or saboteurs, and get a short tribunal and death.
Also, there is no indication that this guy is not guilty. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/01/gitmo ...
CNN says "...U.S. Embassy in Khartoum said the transfer "is a result of many factors and the work of many hands. An important one was the cooperation between the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum and the Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Intelligence and Security Service."
Get it? That means there was some kind of bargain. Sudan agreed to do this-and-that and the USA agreed release these guys back from Guantanamo. Not innocent. Just a devil's bargain. - Maninthemiddle, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7He ended with, "Thank you for coming, now I need to go hit the StairMaster, the godless demons at Guantanamo packed an extra 20 pounds on me."
- 2knights1horse, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Here's another pus bucket, and prior guest at the luxury resort gitmo.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL017621 ... - exgop, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Those air conditioned cells in the Caribbean must of been hell
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by