Obama and Guantanamo Bay

[Hovik]

Pettiness? Pettiness would be to throw a shit fit and change all of your posts to say "I eat my own shit." I'll give you condescension. I have nothing but derision for your dishonest tactics. I have no wish whatsoever to treat you with any respect. You're a peacock strutting for your girlfriend. Nothing more.

You really are a snide bitch, and I couldn't be less affected by your opinion of me. Small-minded people are of no consequence to my position, and I certainly have not a single solitary fuck to give about how much respect you have for me or anyone.

[Annik]

Have all of them been found guilty?

Get back to me when that happens, then you'll have an argument.

That was never her argument. She said "many" of them were guilty. Since some of them are guilty (and were convicted, etc), the stats support her assertion.

That might hold more weight if they had gone through any kind of due process. But they haven't. The government hasn't tried these people, therefore, we have no reason to think them guilty other than the fact that they're in this facility. It's painfully circular.

[Autumnlicious]

Oh, Syn. You know me better than that. I didn't say they were guilty or that I have proof of their guilt. I said it is likely that at least some are guilty (no presumption) and that due process must be had. I also pointed out that some have been tried and found guilty. I didn't point out earlier, but I will now, some have also been let go.

Granted.

I don't just believe the government or believe them guilty without due process. My entire argument has been that you can't just close a prison. You have to do something with the prisoners. Given that some of them may be guilty, they need to be tried so the prison can close. Anyone have an argument with that?

Granted also.

Which courts are to try them?

[Shell B]

Oh, for fuck's sake. The ones that have been found guilty were tried!

Yes, Hovik, I am a snide bitch. Better a snide bitch than a pushover who lets kids put words in her mouth. It has nothing to do with my argument, though. I don't give a shit about immature dickheads who can't argue a single fucking thing I actually said, so they make up their own shit.

---

Oh, Syn. You know me better than that. I didn't say they were guilty or that I have proof of their guilt. I said it is likely that at least some are guilty (no presumption) and that due process must be had. I also pointed out that some have been tried and found guilty. I didn't point out earlier, but I will now, some have also been let go.

Granted.

I don't just believe the government or believe them guilty without due process. My entire argument has been that you can't just close a prison. You have to do something with the prisoners. Given that some of them may be guilty, they need to be tried so the prison can close. Anyone have an argument with that?

Granted also.

Which courts are to try them?

In my opinion, they should be tried by the countries they have committed crimes against. For example, if one is being held for blowing up a house in Pakistan, he should be tried in Pakistan. Of course, there are some hold ups if the U.S. thinks they will be mistreated (haha). Sounds a little hypocritical, but it is true. We could have more tribunals, but they have to be up to U.S. standard of law. That is just my opinion.

[Tiberius]

The government hasn't tried these people, therefore, we have no reason to think them guilty other than the fact that they're in this facility.

Erm, yes they have. Some of them have been tried, and subsequently found innocent and released. Some of them were found guilty and are currently serving jail terms. Others were repatriated back to their country of nationality, and are either released or have been convicted.

[Cyberman]

I feel extremely wary about poking in here, in fact I have already composed and deleted this three or four times as I have no wish to appear like I'm stirring or taking sides or anything. It's just that I've been digging around for some kind of facts and figures behind this stuff - again, not to take sides but initially to satisfy my own interest. If I'm out of line, then I'll quite understand.

Anyway, the closest I've found is this recent piece in the Miami Herald (so how relevant/accurate it might be, I have no idea. I just present it for information):

http://www.miamiherald.com/2007/11/27/32...mbers.html

There's a fair bit of data in there, including a couple of strange ones - apparently there's been five captives with prosthetics, for example.

Please don't hit.

[Shell B]

What does it matter if they have prosthetics? Honest question.

[goddamnit]

This is quality drama and made the thread lively. I feel left out. Somebody flame me.

[Annik]

We are not talking about those who have already been tried and found guilty. All seven of them.

http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=co...orthington

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updat...2011-04-26 <- This one says 5.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=114280522 <- This one give no number, but suggests that up to 30 might be tried.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/0...e-numbers/ <- This one says 6 are currently charged, but have some very revealing numbers.

[Nine]

This is quality drama and made the thread lively. I feel left out. Somebody flame me.