[Opislossy]

If you believe in the phrase "innocent untill proven guilty" then they are mostly all innocent.

[Beerinkol]

All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects, would they?

[thargeagsaf]

I don't understand how people can say that they are mostly guilty while at the same time acknowledging that it can't be/hasn't be proven.

[unatkot]

If they hadn't made a lifestyle choice to become ethnically terrorist, then they wouldn't be guilty and wouldn't be at Gitmo.

Simple as that.

[mymnduccete]

I think most were at least foot soldiers with the Taliban/AQ. I suppose its possible that a few were simply Arabs who happened to think it worth heading to Afghanistan for the marvelous madrassah educational opportunities, opporunities that simply werent available in Saudi, Yemen, etc, and were fingered by local informants incorrectly or maliciously.

As long as we were getting info from them it made some sense to hold them. For the majority, who are no longer sources of info, and about whom it is probably impossible to gather evidence capable of proof in a US court of law, it makes sense to just release them. At the worst, they will reappear on the battlefield as footsoldiers once again, where they are likely to end up dead, and will certainly do us less harm then their presence at Gitmo does.

My understanding is that the really highlevel guys, like Khalid sheik Muhammed, are NOT being held in Gitmo.

[Promotiona]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I don't understand how people can say that they are mostly guilty while at the same time acknowledging that it can't be/hasn't be proven. "if the glove dont fit, you must acquit"

[VogsHoock]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I don't understand how people can say that they are mostly guilty while at the same time acknowledging that it can't be/hasn't be proven. You can be guilty and not proven guilty. It's not incongruous. Stop acting like it is.

[temansertewek]

Impossible to say. What can be said for sure is that some of them are innocent. It's just the law of.. what ever mathematics. But what is the percentage, that's more interesting. Is it correlating with teh normal prison population around the world, higher or lower.

Ever since the fact came known, that some of them have been sold, it all is unknown. It's just a product of legit captures combined with wich hunt. I mean, there have been prisoners sold by the locals. So.. impossible to say.

To say they are all dangerous prisoners is IMO false. Well, maybe they now are dangerous, after being captive for so long and under harsh conditions.. I'd have hard time forgiving.

But what is certain is that there must be some dangerous individuals as well. Tough to say what the percentages are. My guess is no guess.

[AllAdobeOEMSoftDownload]

Originally posted by Lorizael
It is an illogical leap to say that the people that took enemy combatants into custody are the same people that are failing to prosecute those enemy combatants now.
It's not illogical at all. It is the same organization that isresponsible in both instances, and if there are innocent people being held then the blame lies as much with those who initially imprisoned them as with those who keep them imprisoned.

[EliteFranceska]

Mostly guilty of something.

[Leaters]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I don't understand how people can say that they are mostly guilty while at the same time acknowledging that it can't be/hasn't be proven.
Uhhhh, this wasn't a random traffic stop. Look at the circumstances under which they were captured.

[marketheal]

If any of the were obviously guilty of anything serious, they would have been tried already. Why pass up such a golden opportunity?

Gitmo is a travesty. If they are terrorist, try them. Being a soldier of the Taliban does not make you a terrorist, and those men should be released asap.

[BypeVupyide]

Originally posted by GePap
Being a soldier of the Taliban does not make you a terrorist, and those men should be released asap. Why should they be released asap? Being a soldier of the Taliban means you're a POW and liable to be held for the duration of the conflict.

[alexosnasos2]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why should they be released asap? Being a soldier of the Taliban means you're a POW and liable to be held for the duration of the conflict. Because Bush clearly stated that the prisoners at Gitmo are not POWs
(which he did as, being POWs, they would have been treated according to the geneva conventions)

[verizon]

Originally posted by Sikander
Who cares about guilt or innocence? They aren't being held because we know they committed crimes, they are being held because we are in a war with them and their ilk. We must either hold them until such time as their war with us is over or they pose no threat. The alternative is execution for the lot. See posting above.

Being held captive just because you are at war and the person took part in the war fighting against you gives the person a POW-Status and he/she has to be treated according to the geneva conventions.

And there is no doubt that the treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo is definitely not in accordance with the Geneva conventions (for example the state holding the prisoners captive must ensure that the housing of the prisoners is not worse than the housing for its own soldiers; I never heard of american soldiers being housed in cages in the open, constantly wearing shackles )

[PaulCameron]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, it doesn't...
While I think that the war against the Taliban is a clear-cut case of a war in which the POW ought to be treated under the entire Geneva convention, I can understand that the likes of you consider "unlawful combatants" not to fall under it.

The Geneva convention has expected situations like that, and the following caveat is present at the beginning of the text:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

[sat23neus2]

including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat [literally: out of the fight] by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause

[ViaxobbimeVar]

IMO the main question is not if you can make the case for them being unlawful combattants that don't deserve treatment under the Geneva convention - you probably can do that. If that is however a wise move is another thing.

[Aniplinipsync]

Originally posted by BeBro
If that is however a wise move is another thing. Well we might actually want to, you know, interrogate them. I know it is a shocking concept but it is there on the table.

[sandyphoebetvmaa]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well we might actually want to, you know, interrogate them. I know it is a shocking concept but it is there on the table. And you can't interrogate people in other conditions? What do you do with all those criminals etc.....