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

[Hovik]

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 His release was even demanded by the Supreme Court, yet that was rescinded.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?

[Tino]

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 His release was even demanded by the Supreme Court, yet that was rescinded.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?

It concerns me. It would also concern me if we treated non-uniformed armed combatants as US citizens who were simply accused of committing crimes. The asymmetric nature of the terrorist threat has created many situations that various governmental processes and systems were not designed to handle, and as a result, don't handle well. This is one of them. However given what we know about Guantanamo detainees, this man's death is very likely to be attributable to his actions against the United States. He was essentially a prisoner of war in a war that continues. Therefore his incarceration was justified and moral, and his death, while saddening, is due to his actions and those of his people.

[Reforged]

This is the kind of thing governments do when the public can't see, its nothing new.
Not happy about it but I'm not surprised either.

[Annik]

What actions? Did you even read the article?

[Hovik]

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?

It concerns me. It would also concern me if we treated non-uniformed armed combatants as US citizens who were simply accused of committing crimes. The asymmetric nature of the terrorist threat has created many situations that various governmental processes and systems were not designed to handle, and as a result, don't handle well. This is one of them. However given what we know about Guantanamo detainees, this man's death is very likely to be attributable to his actions against the United States. He was essentially a prisoner of war in a war that continues. Therefore his incarceration was justified and moral, and his death, while saddening, is due to his actions and those of his people.

What actions against the United States? He was picked up by bounty hunters for no reason, and was considered a terrorist without evidence.

[TaraJo]

America went into a crazy direction after 9/11. We collectively decided we'd rather keep ourselves safe from potential terrorists than keep ourselves safe from an over reaching government.

As it is, the reason this was able to happen was because he was a foreign and Arabian. You want to see it stop? All you gotta do is start treating right wing militia groups the same way you do anti-American Islamic groups, you'll see things change fast.

[Darkstar]

I'm pretty sure that they violated most of his constitutional rights, and human rights for that matter. To think that the government would just take the bounty hunters' word for it is terrible, and the fact that he wasn't released is even more despicable. Whenever new laws are drafted people against it often try to claim that it is unconstitutional, yet this is the very definition of that. It goes against everything America is supposed to stand for.

[Faith No More]

It concerns me. It would also concern me if we treated non-uniformed armed combatants as US citizens who were simply accused of committing crimes. The asymmetric nature of the terrorist threat has created many situations that various governmental processes and systems were not designed to handle, and as a result, don't handle well. This is one of them. However given what we know about Guantanamo detainees, this man's death is very likely to be attributable to his actions against the United States. He was essentially a prisoner of war in a war that continues. Therefore his incarceration was justified and moral, and his death, while saddening, is due to his actions and those of his people.

Am I correct in assuming you think everyone in Guantanamo Bay deserves to be there?

Also, taking this story at face value, how exactly was this "justified and moral?"

---

It goes against everything America is supposed to stand for.

Supposed to, yes, but in reality, after 9/11 America seemed to stand for revenge at any price.

[Darkstar]

Am I correct in assuming you think everyone in Guantanamo Bay deserves to be there?

Also, taking this story at face value, how exactly was this "justified and moral?"

Exactly my point. I got the impression that he (and some others at Guantanamo) were falsely imprisoned. I'm pretty sure that Guantanamo is infamous for a reason.

[Reforged]

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?

It concerns me. It would also concern me if we treated non-uniformed armed combatants as US citizens who were simply accused of committing crimes. The asymmetric nature of the terrorist threat has created many situations that various governmental processes and systems were not designed to handle, and as a result, don't handle well. This is one of them. However given what we know about Guantanamo detainees, this man's death is very likely to be attributable to his actions against the United States. He was essentially a prisoner of war in a war that continues. Therefore his incarceration was justified and moral, and his death, while saddening, is due to his actions and those of his people.

er.... Tino. Not to contradict you but I think you'll find he wasn't actually charged with anything. He was picked up by bounty hunters claiming he was a terrorist who since have shown signs of being corrupt and picking up random guys to turn them in for a quick buck.
He was innocent. The bay is a dead zone, normal rules don't apply so he was detained there without trial. They don't give a fuck if you're innocent or not. They just want to torture you till you break and either give them information or a scapegoat to parade. Either one is a result.
Pretty much like a modern day inquisition.