Is this seriously worth it? Guantanmo inmate never charged with a crime, dies after 11 years in US custody

[Minimalist]

We cannot pretend that we know whether the man is innocent just because he never went to court.

I'm sorry, Shel, but you are way off base with that. We like to claim ( falsely, it seems ) that we are a nation of laws not men. The presumption is "innocent until proven guilty" and when we hold someone in an offshore hell hole until they die it looks exactly like what it is: An end run around the constitution which fools no one except those are willfully deluding themselves and who still want to walk around singing about "the land of the free."

When Americans torture someone in Cuba it does not make it any more right than if it happened in Detroit.

[kılıç_mehmet]

The al-jazeera article can be found here. This man was never tried for a crime, was never convicted of a crime, and died never having committed terrorism. Nonetheless, he was kept in detainment in Gitmo for 11 years before being found dead in his cell. He tried to kill himself because "death was more desirable than living there." His release was even demanded by the Supreme Court, yet that was rescinded.

How is this justifiable? Are we really okay with locking people up with no evidence or trial of any kind based on an (often mistaken) assumption?

I don't know. The same thing happens to many people worldwide.
Besides, you don't have to commit act of terrorism to be there, simply being an associate is enough, for that person could potentially be a key person in solving a case or etc. And it's no small matter either, friend.
Is it just? Perhaps not. But not everything that is necessary in the world is just.

[Tiberius]

Is it seriously worth it?

No.

It's not even unseriously worth it.

---

We cannot pretend that we know whether the man is innocent just because he never went to court.

I'm sorry, Shel, but you are way off base with that. We like to claim ( falsely, it seems ) that we are a nation of laws not men. The presumption is "innocent until proven guilty"

Shell said something similar in another thread but apparently you still don't get it. There are two types of "innocent": innocent under the law, and innocent as in "actually didn't commit the crime".

The two are not synonymous. One can commit a crime and be found not guilty (i.e presumption of innocence holds), and one can be innocent of a crime and found guilty.

Shell is 100% correct. We cannot know if someone is innocent (as in, they did not commit the crime) just because they didn't go to court. Nor can we know if they are innocent if they do go to court. We are fallible beings; we get things wrong all the time.

Now I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Shell does not support torture or the existence of Guantanamo as it currently is. She isn't condoning torture or detaining people without charge or trial; she is stating that we cannot pretend to know that any of the people there are innocent or guilty, that's all.

[Shell B]

Thank you, Tibs. You are absolutely right.

Hovik is not a judge or a lawyer. He is not the legal system, a judge or even a juror. He said in the opening statement that the man had never committed an act of terrorism. That is not even kissing cousins with, "He was never found guilty in a court of law." I know I have made myself very, very clear, so I can only assume that people really think that everyone who has never been tried for a crime is innocent of it in all aspects of the word (Some of us here in this thread have committed crimes for which they have never been tried, and yet are still guilty). I object to padding facts, Min. That is all. It's exceedingly obvious from my posts, but hell, what are you going to do?

[Hovik]

Thank you, Tibs. You are absolutely right.

Hovik is not a judge or a lawyer. He is not the legal system, a judge or even a juror. He said in the opening statement that the man had never committed an act of terrorism. That is not even kissing cousins with, "He was never found guilty in a court of law." I know I have made myself very, very clear, so I can only assume that people really think that everyone who has never been tried for a crime is innocent of it in all aspects of the word (Some of us here in this thread have committed crimes for which they have never been tried, and yet are still guilty). I object to padding facts, Min. That is all. It's exceedingly obvious from my posts, but hell, what are you going to do?

Whether or not he had committed a crime is entirely beside the point. Lacking evidence that he had done so, his innocence should have been presumed up until the point where evidence can demonstrate that he had committed a crime even remotely related to terrorism or otherwise. You seem to be pretty adamant on making the point that I implied he is "innocent" instead of "not proved guilty" as if that actually changes anything. Of course the default should be innocence in the complete absence of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps my wording wasn't entirely accurate in stating that he had never committed an act of terrorism, but my point wasn't to literally state he is as innocent as a newborn; my point was that we have no reason to assume otherwise in the complete absence of evidence. Why are you so keen on splitting hairs here?

I mean shit, you could just as likely be a terrorist as far as I know. Am I going to assume that based on current evidence? Shit no. My assumption is that you're innocent of it, and I would maintain that assumption until being proved otherwise.

[Tino]

Does it really matter whether he was guilty or innocent? They basically tortured him to death.

How do you know this?

[Autumnlicious]

Is prolonged imprisonment without due process or conviction torture?

This is a general question.

To be specific, the deceased was provided a pillow on humanitarian grounds given that he had epilepsy. That was the extant of his treatment.

Which somewhat raises the specter of denial of reasonable medical treatment as well, which is considered neglect and possibly torture.

[Reforged]

Does it really matter whether he was guilty or innocent? They basically tortured him to death.

How do you know this?

Did you even look at his injuries or his condition? How long they held him for? How frayed his mental condition was?
Whether intentional or not they pushed him towards his suicide.
If he was lying about what was done to him by the guards then actually killing himself must be the most convincing and costly way to back up a lie I've ever heard of.

[Tino]

Did you even look at his injuries or his condition?

Are we discussing the same article? The article linked in the OP has two photos, neither of which would enable me to evaluate his injuries or his condition? What are you looking at?

[Shell B]

Not splitting hairs, Hovik. Pointing out an unproven statement that should have had no place in your OP.