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

[Reforged]

Tino, we know for a fact mercs and bounty hunters have been used by our side. Now... could you point out a news story from a western source that mentions them once? Because I'd seriously have trouble doing that.

I don't deny that we could or do use them. But I don't see a reliable news source claiming that that was how this guy was picked up. I just see some writer that even Aljazeera doesn't vouch for.

Right but my point is we know they use bounty hunters and mercs in this war. They just don't get reported because that would look bad for the military.
If bounty hunters were the ones who captured these guys do you honestly think any western news source would be allowed to obtain let alone release that info?
The medias becoming more and more restricted everyday man. Now I agree that its possible the reporters lying but you have to admit something doesn't add up here.
The rare stories we do hear about the bay, they're not good.

[Tino]

Right but my point is we know they use bounty hunters and mercs in this war. They just don't get reported because that would look bad for the military.
If bounty hunters were the ones who captured these guys do you honestly think any western news source would be allowed to obtain let alone release that info?
The medias becoming more and more restricted everyday man. Now I agree that its possible the reporters lying but you have to admit something doesn't add up here.
The rare stories we do hear about the bay, they're not good.

I don't know to what extent the US mil has used mercenaries and/or bounty hunters. I don't think it makes them look bad to do so if they are. We know they've used a firm Blackwater that employs a lot of ex-military personnel.

We also know that most people in prison claim that they're innocent. So I have no way to determine what really happened in this situation. But given the range of terrorist activity that the US has confronted, to find out that only 775 have been taken to Guantanamo, and most have been released, with only 160 remaining, doesn't give me the impression of an imprisonment system run amok. And given how many have been released, I have to wonder what the government knew about this guy that he's in the 20% that were not released.

[Reforged]

Right but my point is we know they use bounty hunters and mercs in this war. They just don't get reported because that would look bad for the military.
If bounty hunters were the ones who captured these guys do you honestly think any western news source would be allowed to obtain let alone release that info?
The medias becoming more and more restricted everyday man. Now I agree that its possible the reporters lying but you have to admit something doesn't add up here.
The rare stories we do hear about the bay, they're not good.

I don't know to what extent the US mil has used mercenaries and/or bounty hunters. I don't think it makes them look bad to do so if they are. We know they've used a firm Blackwater that employs a lot of ex-military personnel.

We also know that most people in prison claim that they're innocent. So I have no way to determine what really happened in this situation. But given the range of terrorist activity that the US has confronted, to find out that only 775 have been taken to Guantanamo, and most have been released, with only 160 remaining, doesn't give me the impression of an imprisonment system run amok. And given how many have been released, I have to wonder what the government knew about this guy that he's in the 20% that were not released.

That wouldn't be such an issue if they didn't torture their prisoners to the point that they wish for death Tino.
It would be bad enough if they were always guilty of a crime but we know thats not always the case.

[Shell B]

And at any rate, we've been through this before. His innocence should have been presumed in the light of zero evidence to the contrary until evidence could be brought forth that demonstrated his guilt.

Yes, we have been over the fact that not being charged with a crime is not the same as being innocent of one. That is why a person is found not guilty in a court. They are not found innocent. It might seem like a silly distinction to you, but it is not. Casey Anthony was found not guilty. Does that mean she is innocent? O.J. Simpson? Again, no comment on the man's detainment, just on these rash statements made to make claims sound better on both sides of the fence. "Oh, they wouldn't lock them up for no reason." "He was not charged, so he never committed a crime." This shit just goes on and on. I wish that people would take the time to think about the propaganda speak they use when discussing delicate topics. It would probably keep these arguments from getting out of hand. That's all I have to say on the topic.

[Darkstar]

Yes, we have been over the fact that not being charged with a crime is not the same as being innocent of one. That is why a person is found not guilty in a court. They are not found innocent. It might seem like a silly distinction to you, but it is not. Casey Anthony was found not guilty. Does that mean she is innocent? O.J. Simpson? Again, no comment on the man's detainment, just on these rash statements made to make claims sound better on both sides of the fence. "Oh, they wouldn't lock them up for no reason." "He was not charged, so he never committed a crime." This shit just goes on and on. I wish that people would take the time to think about the propaganda speak they use when discussing delicate topics. It would probably keep these arguments from getting out of hand. That's all I have to say on the topic.

Sure, you can be guilty of a crime without being charged, but you are supposed to charge the person with a crime within two days, or release them. It doesn't mean he was definitly not a terrorist, but it looks really bad that they never proved he was (innocent until proven guilty).

[Autumnlicious]

and died never having committed terrorism.

Making absolutely no statement on him being held or the veracity of his detainment, I have to mention one thing. You cannot say with any certainty that the above statement is true. I completely understand being upset about him being charged, but assuming that he never committed an act of terrorism when all you know about his life was that he was imprisoned without charges is a fucking stretch. He could be as innocent as a baby, but you're definitely making a claim without evidence. No charge =/= to innocent.

United States legal system operates under "Innocent until proven guilty".

The law holds that if guilt cannot be proven, then that is the case. It does not mean absolute innocence in all matters, only innocence in the matters at hand.

Your statement would appear to attempt to establish a form of guilt by the conjecture that no one is 'innocent'. Is that a fair read?

Ideologues use similar implications to justified stone walling legal measures, as if violating the legal system for personal vendettas or ideology is a justification.

The deceased was ordered released in 2010:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/16/dc.gitm...er/?hpt=T2

The defense argued that he suffered from mental illness, including epilepsy. A motion to release medical records was denied however, with no reason given.

I cannot find information relating to a supposed DC Court of Appeals overturning that ruling and is regarded as hearsay until necessary court filings or articles of substance are found.

[Cinjin]

It goes against everything America is supposed to stand for.

Sadly, I really think this is the only thing America stands for:



Most everything else is an illusion ... including the "rights" you think you have.

[Shell B]

Sure, you can be guilty of a crime without being charged, but you are supposed to charge the person with a crime within two days, or release them. It doesn't mean he was definitly not a terrorist, but it looks really bad that they never proved he was (innocent until proven guilty).

I said nothing about whether what they did was right on purpose. Yes, people are supposed to be charged if they are detained. Not being charged =/= innocent.

[Reforged]

It goes against everything America is supposed to stand for.

Sadly, I really think this is the only thing America stands for:



Most everything else is an illusion ... including the "rights" you think you have.

I don't know Cinjin. I think the majority of American citizens are after abit more than one dollar.

[Shell B]

United States legal system operates under "Innocent until proven guilty".

Hovik's OP was not the opening statement in a court case. He stated that the man "had never committed an act of terrorism." He did not say, "They could not prove he did." or "They did not charge him of one." Well, he did, but he didn't stop there. He went on to make a categorical statement, of sorts.

Your statement would appear to attempt to establish a form of guilt by the conjecture that no one is 'innocent'. Is that a fair read?

No. My statement is not attempting to establish any guilt at all. As I said, the man may be quite innocent. It might even be likely that he is, though I make no claims. What I am saying is that going out on a limb and saying that the man died without ever committing a terrorist act while knowing nothing about him save that he was held in Gitmo without being charged is not entirely intellectually honest. Statements like that raise red flags for me on the biased nature of the person speaking. If he had stopped at, "He was not charged." I would have no complaint.

Ideologues use similar implications to justified stone walling legal measures, as if violating the legal system for personal vendettas or ideology is a justification.

I'm not talking about the legal system, though. See above.



I'm going to go ahead and state my opinion on the topic, though I know it will just sidetrack all of the points I just made. I think it is abhorrent to detain a person without charges. They treated him poorly. That does not make him innocent, though, like I said, I make no claims in that respect.