Freed Guantanamo inmates take up arms

[CptStern]

well I cant really vouche for them individually ..however they are sometimes involved in underhanded dealings with despots, criminals butchers and madmen ..so by association they could be considered if not at the same at the very least morally ambivalent in comparison to the average person ...knowingly funneling arms to terrorists or helping dispose of a democratically elected leader takes a certain type of personality


I guess my point about "bad apples" is that the bush administration excuses things like the torture in gitmo on rogue jailers who act on their own when in fact the opposite is true: the US government has a policy of torture ..it's not individuals but rather the government as a whole. Everything from the human pyramid to the use of dogs is offical procedure that hasnt changed in over 50 years ..it's detailed in Kubark and the Human Resource Exploitation Training manuals

this tracks methods from gitmo and compares it to guidelines in the above manuals

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/index.htm

here are the manuals-

Kubark, this is part one, the rest is in the link above:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA Kubark 1-60.pdf


Human Resource Exploitation Training:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA Human Res Exploit A1-G11.pdf

 

[Sulkdodds]

"Bad apples" is a load of bullshit, firstly because an organisation has a responsibility for the conduct of all its members, and a responsibility to punish wrongdoing adequately - something the US army has, historically had some trouble doing - and secondly because the 'incidents' (as if they were isolated) are so widespread and numerous that it is impossible their parent organisations to not support them entirely whether openly or tacitly.

The Bush administration sure as hell supports Guantanamo and internment without charge, so by extension everything that happens there.

In Northern Ireland, when the British government introduced similar measures - arresting people and holding them on no charge - it resulted in radicalisation. If people weren't pissed off enough for being treated unjustly, they would frequently meet real IRA members or more radical ideologues while in detainment, and many were swayed.

Things like this could only have been made worse by poor organisation and official obfuscation.

Damn, I guess that's kind of what happens when you detain people with no trial and zero transparency into the process!

So yeah, people taking up arms is bad, but it's not exactly unexpected to anyone except a complete idiot.

Also:

US officials claimed that some of the released prisoners returned to the battlefield. The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield."[123] However, when the DoD finally complied with a court order that required it to release the identities of all the captives who had been held in Guantanamo, none of the officially acknowledged names matched the names of the captives the DoD had asserted had returned to the battlefield.

HMMMMM.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I think I would rather try to be the good guy and lobby the UN for support against the facility. You would think that after all of the supposed violence and torture that they would seek a peaceful avenue against it.

Yes, you would think but then again I'am not suprised.

In Northern Ireland, when the British government introduced similar measures - arresting people and holding them on no charge - it resulted in radicalisation.

Perhaps they were radicals before hand, hence they're arrest?