Monday May 28, 2012

Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Gitmo are innocent

World ( 70 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

70 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    "Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Gitmo are innocent"

    This is exactly what myself, smithinjapan and others have been asserting for years.

    But the Fringe Right kept blindly believing the GOP talking points, all the time claiming every detainee in Gitmo was guilty.

    What they did NOT do - which is disturbingly similar to the initial claims about Saddam possessing WMD in the runup to the invasion of Iraq - was CHECK THE FACTS.

    The GOP/Bush Admin/Neocons have let America down again.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    Some will want to say (and probably will say) that the Bush administration is in the past and that they kept America safe (except for 9/11 of course). But some things need to be addressed like how America could knowingly and willingly imprison innocent men. Freedom and democracy do not mean much if America is willing to hedge on those absolutely vital ideals.

    Perhaps these crimes explain why Cheney is speaking out against Obama, to perpetuate the illusion that he did not do anything wrong.

  • 0

    Taka313

    There is nothing new or even remotely shocking about this story. It's easily proven that more than 400 of the inmates at Gitmo were released with no charges whatsoever.

    I can't imagine why Col. (ret) Wilkerson would even choose to speak out. He was so viciously and thoroughly thrown under the bus by the war-is-fun crowd, no matter how factual his words are, all the radicals will acknowledge are the bus tire tracks.

    Mr. Wilkerson, you are a good man who just peed into the wind.

    Taka

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    There is nothing new or even remotely shocking about this story.

    That the Bush administration knew that they were imprisoning innocent men and did not care should be shocking as that goes against what America supposedly stands for. But you perhaps know better and America no longer values freedom.

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    “There are still innocent people there,” Lawrence B Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. “Some have been there six or seven years.”

    Anybody else remember Bush spouting that "These are bad people in there...merciless killers"?

    Thisis the kindof thing that happens when the Constitution - which Bush swore twice to uphold - gets into the hands of a man who views it as "A goddamned piece of paper".

    If the US has any kind of claim to moral authority, criminal proceedings should be brought against the Bush cabal immediately.

  • 0

    adaydream

    This is a sad but true story.

    This story started and immediately started to unravel the day that george bush first mentioned those infamous words, "Axis of Evil" From that point on till now the republicans have been in a dream world. Ah-h-h-h, "the War on Terror."

    The people in Gitmo were just notches on the invisible war belts around the waists of bush and cheney. < :-)

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    invisible war belts around the waists of bush and cheney. < :-)

    To go with their "new clothes" no doubt.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    “We need to put those people in a high-security prison like the one in Colorado, forget them and throw away the key,”

    Isn't that too harsh?

    Wilkerson said. “We can’t try them because we tortured them and didn’t keep an evidence trail.” But I thought we were to advocate an immediate release as US law is the best and if it can't find anything they must be innocent.

    If the US has any kind of claim to moral authority" I never ever claimed that.. not once in my life. Why should everyone else? I want us to be like them and then maybe we will be liked again.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Many at Gitmo are innocent"

    And many more would torture and kill us without hesitation or remorse.

    "more than 400 of the inmates at Gitmo were released with no charges whatsoever"

    See, we don't keep innocent people locked up forever.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    See, we don't keep innocent people locked up forever.

    Sarge, innocent people shouldn't be locked up in the first place. And why do you need to be told that in the first place.

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    "Many at Gitmo are innocent"　And many more would torture and kill us without hesitation or remorse.

    And do you know how to separate the two groups of people? Little thing called Due Process. Unequivocally guaranteed by the US Constitution, which Bush swore to uphold.

    Now, what do we call people who make promises and don't keep them? And what ought to be done to those who operate against the principles and constitution of their nation?

  • 0

    adaydream

    If you keep them locked up you don't have to hear their lies about waterboarding. You don't have to hear the stories about other forms of torture and twists to humiliation.

    So keep these people locked up until they rot in hell or do the right thing and send them home. We know what the republicans want. But we can do better than that.

    Except for the less than 25 bad guys, send them home and close Gitmo. < :-)

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Here's how the debate about the guilt/innocence of Gitmo inmates has been going on this board for the last few years.

    Lefties: Charges need to be laid against Gitmo inmates. If no charges can be proven, let them go.

    Fringe Right: They are all guilty.

    Lefties: Prove it.

    Fringe Right: George Bush and his government said so.

    Lefties: Why have no charges been laid against Gitmo inmates?

    Fringe Right: Guilty, all of them.

    Lefties (to Right): Why can you not provide any proof to back up your claims?

    Fringe Right: All Gitmo inmates are guilty. Guilty, guilty, guilty. Even the ones who have not been charged with a crime. Lock 'em up forever.

    Lefties: But....

    Fringe Right: Guilty! (close eyes, broad sweep of hand)

    Republican Lawrence B Wilkerson: ".. the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.”

    Fringe Right: [wide-eyed, gaping silence as yet another leg of their baseless arguments over the years turns to dust.]

  • 0

    sailwind

    Here is how the debate is going on now.

    Obama is doing exactly the same thing the Bush administration did. Asserting they have the legal right to hold em without charges.

    The left.......Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush.

    I'm still waiting for 'the left' to explain why now it's okay to hold em without charges since Obama got elected.

    I really doubt we going to hear.....Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama. Even though he's doing exactly the same thing that Bush did.

    Nice to see the hypocrisy on display though.

    From the New York Times no less.

    But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html?hp

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sailwind - "I'm still waiting for 'the left' to explain why now it's okay to hold em without charges since Obama got elected."

    It's not. Since you are partially responsible for the Gitmo problem, natually you will be OK to having a number of them locked up in your home state, am I right?

    That's if any of them are guilty, of course.....

  • 0

    Badsey

    Under the Patriot Act they are innocent until proven innocent and of course quilty by association. -After all they are terrorists.

  • 0

    unscrejects

    The catch-22 is that these are people picked up from the street. And judging from what folks are saying here it's obvious many of you are not writing from published fact about where most of these people - Cheney's so-called enemy combatants, were taken from. The streets of Lusaka, Zambia for instances. How the hell does that hold up against your arguements? These folks are being held for one and only one reason. They were not captured but abducted.

  • 0

    cleo

    This can't be true. These people are in Gitmo. That proves they're terrorists who would kill you as soon as look at you.

  • 0

    Madverts

    " Little thing called Due Process. Unequivocally guaranteed by the US Constitution, which Bush swore to uphold."

    Heh, and went on to say "it's just a Goddamned piece of paper". Now ownder people are still ranting abut Bush, Sailwind.

  • 0

    Sarge

    I think all the posters who posted here after my last post, with the exception of sailwind, need to spend a night at Gitmo with all these "innocent" prisoners.

  • 0

    likeitis

    Just another day and one more reason to be embarrassed with my country's government and a select portion of my countrymen.

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    I think all the posters who posted here after my last post, with the exception of sailwind, need to spend a night at Gitmo with all these "innocent" prisoners.

    OK, Sarge, you want me in Gitmo, eh? I didn't realise I was an evildoer, an enemy of freedom who would kill you without remorse. But I must be, since you think I should be incarcerated.

    You beginning to see how thin your argument is?

  • 0

    PaulieWalnuts

    I think all the posters who posted here after my last post, with the exception of sailwind, need to spend a night at Gitmo with all these "innocent" prisoners.

    oh dear....what can I say? I can't believe you actually thought that, typed it out and then posted it.

  • 0

    sharky1

    Sounds like somebody has a bone to pick with their former boss.

  • 0

    ANOTSUSAGAMI

    sailwind- See you talk about hypocrisy but fail to realise your President put them there in the first place. Kills your whole arguement. If Obama just let everyone at Gitmo go with no trial, you'd be screaming about that too. Obama is going to make sure these people get thier due process, or do you think due process is useless? Any better ideas on how to deal with Gitmo? No? Hmmm... Sarge- You are on a roll buddy. "See, we don't keep innocent people locked up forever." You'll never live that one down. Gets my vote for "Tin Foil Hat Quote of the Year". Another new fave rivals the first-"I think all the posters who posted here after my last post, with the exception of sailwind, need to spend a night at Gitmo with all these "innocent" prisoners." - hooboy can you say meltdown? I gotta hand it to you, when you go down in flames, you really go down with style. Do you think you have one more gem in you? Love it.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Ivan - No, I don't think you're an evil-doer, I just think you need to spend some time with some of the Gitmo prisoners. I believe that would change your thinking.

    Paulie - Oh dear, same goes for you.

  • 0

    donkusai

    Sarge: I think all the posters who posted here after my last post, with the exception of sailwind, need to spend a night at Gitmo with all these "innocent" prisoners.

    You are obviously speaking from experience, I take it. It would be terribly hypocritical of you to suggest that only a night at Gitmo could possibly lead to a proper understanding of the situation if you yourself haven't done it. That would mean, by your own argument, that you have no real understanding of the status of the prisoners either and that everything you have said has no grounding in facts. So, should we believe you, or the chief of staff of the the former secretary of state? Tough call...

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge, how many of these Gitmo inmates - the ones you blindly believe are all criminal evildoers because - let's face it - the Bush administration told you it's true, it's true (so it must be!) - will you accept into your home state?

    Oh, and by your judgement, ALL Gitmo inmates are guilty as sin, even the ones you or the previous government you so strongly supported STILL have ZERO evidence against.

    Sheesh Sarge, see how flimsy, no - non-existant - your case is?

    Yes, I thought so... :-)

    Heck, it's getting too easy destroying the arguments of the Fringe Right these days.

    They really need to put up a stronger argument than "president Bush said so so therefore it must be true!"

  • 0

    Sarge

    Don - All I'm sayin' is a night at Gitmo would open some eyes.

    Sushi - "How many of these Gitmo inmates... will you accept into your home state?"

    Heck, Sushi, the countries where these inmates came from don't want them back. Check it out.

  • 0

    Taka313

    sarge,

    If anyone should have to spend a little time with the Gitmo inmates, it should be those that had no problem with innocent people being picked up alongside the terrorists in the first place. You should go there, spend a few days alongside them and explain to them that your latent fears are more important than their human rights, even if they were innocent.

    Sailwind,

    Please stop this childishness.

    No one on "the left" thinks it's OK for those people to be held without due process because Pres. Obama is now our leader. What many of us "lefties" understand, is that Pres. Obama was painted into a corner. Innocent people were detained, without due process and without miranda rights. That makes trying them a heck of a lot more difficult than if they were detained legally.

    To be honest, we "lefties" really wanted bush to fix the problem because it was a problem of his making. We wanted the person responsible for the mess to clean it up. Does the concept of accountability for your actions bother you or something? Also, aren't you at least a little curious as to what it would look like for george w. bush to be accountable for something in his life? I think that would be fascinating because it's like Halley's comet. You only see it maybe once in a lifetime.

    Another reason Pres. Obama isn't as roundly criticized is that it's kind of understood that Gitmo was not the only clusterfork bush left for Pres. Obama. The president's plate of problems looks like rush limbaugh's at Thanksgiving. It runneth over.

    But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the bush administration.

    WOW. That's some story and from the "liberal" media, no less (you forgot to rant about that in your post btw).

    If you could look past your Obama Derangement Syndrome, you might be able to reason that they pushed for a similar ruling in order to buy time to do the job right. Had the courts ruled it was totally illegal, it would have meant either disobeying the law, or just letting them run free. The bush administration didn't care if it was legal or not, so they didn't have to factor that into their plan. Pres. Obama does have to factor in the legalities, making the situation far more difficult than it would be if he just said, "screw their rights" like the previous administration did. Hence the need for more time. Rome was not built in a day.

    Pres. Obama doesn't get carte blanche from the left, Sailwind. If, after a few months, there are no changes or proposals regarding the prisoners detained at Gitmo, you WILL hear about it from the liberals because, for the most part, we believe no one is above, or, just as importantly, beneath the law. It's a belief I am very proud of having.

    Taka

  • 0

    donkusai

    Sarge, I am sure there are some people there who would leave me in little doubt that they are pure evil. I am in full agreement with you there. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that we let everyone in Gitmo free. The question is whether there are any innocent people in there. Considering many of these people were picked up from outside the "combat zone", such as from the streets of Pakistan and other places, then we can't be as assured of guilt as we could be if they were all picked up as combatants from the field.

    All we need to do is sit down and determine the guilty from the innocent. How on earth could we possibly do this? Perhaps by presenting evidence and allowing the person to defend themselves. We could even us the court system, considering that is what it's there for and what the constitution says should be done. What do we do with the guilty? Lock them up forever, or send them to death row, whatever the law says. And the innocent? Send them home.

    If nothing else, trials would tell us once and for all if all the remaining detainees are guilty or not, and would stop all this silly arguing.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sarge: "Heck, Sushi, the countries where these inmates came from don't want them back. Check it out."

    Well, then, sarge, don't abduct and torture innocents and lock them up, as bush has done. Seems quite logical, but then, I guess any morons who support abducting innocents without rhyme or reason can't see the fact that it's illogical.

    The reason they aren't wanted back now is that while they were fine when innocent people going about their daily business, when your former government kidnapped and unlawfully imprisoned and waterboarded them they probably did as dick cheney desired and helped GROW terrorism.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Taka - "a few days alongside them and explain to them that your latent fears are more important than their human rights, even if they were innocent."

    That's an INCREDIBLE sentence.

    You hit the nail bang on the head then dropped a nuke on it to finish it off.

    Wow.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    And I agree with Taka: people like sarge should have to go to Gitmo and explain to ALL of the inmates that they are incarcerated for 'the right reasons', etc.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Taka313 - "sarge"

    It's Sarge.

    "innocent people being picked up alongside the terrorists"

    It happens. Didn't you know that? Gosh, if we made absolutely sure that no innocents were ever taken into custody, there would be a whole bunch more terrorists running around who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse.

    Anyway, the innocent ones and the ones which we can't prove are terrorists are being released.

  • 0

    Sarge

    And I agree with common sense: people like smithinjapan should have to go to Gitmo to see in person the scumbags who would torture and kill him without hesitation or remorse.

  • 0

    Sarge

    What is clear from this debate is that individuals like Sushi are more interested in reading the terrorists their rights than in fighting them.

    Hundreds of Gitmo inmates have been released. More will be released. Hopefully none of those released will have been mistakenly released and end up torturing and killing Sushi.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Honestly, it's people like Sushi who are ripping the honorable, brave people making sure that the terrorists don't torture and kill him.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - "there would be a whole bunch more terrorists running around who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse."

    Heh, that's Sarge's trusty comeback when he knows he doesn't have a case worth toilet paper.

    Which, as reliable as the sun is at rising every morning, is every time. :-)

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - "Hundreds of Gitmo inmates have been released. More will be released. Hopefully none of those released will have been mistakenly released and end up torturing and killing Sushi."

    If you get your facts from the same place you cook up your arguments, I'll agree you live in a fantasy land.

    Sarge, it's people like you who puts Dads behind bars and kept them away from their children for 5, 6, 7 years - but hey! what do you care!?

    At least we can all clearly see where you stand - not on the side of America, nor do you agree with the U.S. Constitution.

    Clearly, the Constitution is just a 'goddam piece of paper!" to you, too, but we all knew that from the get-go.

  • 0

    jeancolmar

    Amen SushiSake3

    This is no time for a moral vacation on the part of the people who opposed the evils of George Bush. Just because Obama was elected does not mean everything is okay. Everything is not okay. Gitzmo remains. Bush's wars remain. Enough of Bush remains which Obama seems not in a hurry to get rid of. Also Obama wants to continue that idiotic war in Afghanistan.

    Above all the US remains an empire. And that is a dangerous thing.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    And I agree with common sense

    Apparently common sense does not include freedom or democracy.

  • 0

    PaulieWalnuts

    Sarge, I've been reading your posts for a couple of years now...today's have been your most entertaining yet. more please!

  • 0

    PaulieWalnuts

    ouch!

  • 0

    sailwind

    From my link about Obama

    But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.

    I like Obama.....He screws these people also. Good job B.O

    By the way he has got full support on this one. You on the left can blame Bush till the cows come home.

  • 0

    adaydream

    sailwind

    You on the left can blame Bush till the cows come home.

    We will, but it's not just the ones on the left who blame george bush. I hear more and more from republicans who finally come to the truths that we're not safer and that Gitmo turned into one of the biggest embarrassments that this country must undo.

    It's more than the left. I see people everyday that were hard core republicans who got tired of the bush decisions vote for Barack Obama. If those middle of the road Americans or republicans had voted their their party or like that have previously voted, John McCain should have won. But he didn't

    It was Barack Obama's stand against george bush's policies that for him elected.

    So sailwind, preach your stand and I'll listen to you. But it took the left, fence sitters and the right who got Obama elected. < :-)

  • 0

    Nessie

    Many at Gitmo also guilty. And not just the staff.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Those right-wingers foaming at the mouth as a defence of the mockery of the constitution are unable to formlate a coherent, mature response.

    'Nuff said.

  • 0

    Taka313

    sarge,

    According to your "common sense," if your wife or child is abducted and taken away to Gitmo, you won't even raise your voice in protest, because "it happens." Nope, you'd allow your wife to be stripped and moved from cell to cell repeatedly while exposed to bright lights for days at a time. You would proudly shake hands with the men who force fed your children water until they urinated on themselves, and who cares if they are perfectly innocent, "it happens."

    The difference between people like you and people like me is, I don't fantasize about it happening to you.

    Taka

  • 0

    Sarge

    Taka313 -

    It's Sarge, and no, I don't support keeping people locked up indefinitely without being charged or given a fair trial, and no, I would not proudly shake hands with men who force fed my children with water until they urinated on themselves, and no, I don't fantasize about it happening to you. But as you have admitted, hundreds of Gitmo prisoners have been released, and some of them have been involved in terrorist activities after being released.

    Sarge

  • 0

    Taka313

    sarge,

    So...let's say your wife is captured and put in Gitmo and then released after years of confinement where she was forced to endure solitary confinement in brutally cold temperatures, while having to change her cell repeatedly for weeks on end and where she couldn't sleep because she was always subjected to extremely bright lights. Meanwhile, you have no legal recourse to find out where she is or even if she is alive.

    Then, after she is released, you'll both just go away quietly, right? You won't want revenge or justice, right? Will you just be happy to have the shell of the woman you married back in your life or do you think you'll want some payback?

    Now then, knowing that's happened to people, who, except for their nationality and skin color, are JUST LIKE YOU, can't you understand why they may take up arms against the U.S. instead of wrapping themselves up in the flag and busting out a verse of some Lee Greenwood?

    Taka

  • 0

    Sarge

    Taka313 -

    So... let's say your wife is captured, tortured and killed by a Gitmo prisoner who was released. You won't want justice or revenge, right?

    Apparently you didn't read my post - I said I don't suppport keeping people locked up indefinitely without being charged or given a fair trial.

    I'm sorry you're not Proud To Be An American.

    Sarge

  • 0

    likeitis

    Honestly people, we would all be far better off to just ignore Sarge's posts when its about "complicated" subjects.

  • 0

    Taka313

    sarge,

    O.K., let's say my wife IS captured, tortured and killed. I'd by white hot with rage, wanting nothing but revenge.

    I think, based on your previous posts, you would feel the same. The difference between you and I is that I can empathize with the families of the people who aren't talking hypothetically about these things. I loathe the people who would do harm to an innocent. But I also realize that you cannot defeat an ideal by embracing it. That's my point.

    So...what is YOUR point? Are you trying to say that it is O.K. and just to embrace the immoral ideals of our enemies to stop our enemies from practicing and spreading their immoral ideals? If so, does the term, "circular reasoning" mean anything to you?

    Now, before you get into a huff, I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. You've made some progress today here sargie. You've actually stated that you don't support keeping people locked up indefinitely without being charged or given a fair trial. That's a first from you, that I've ever seen. Normally, you just resort to "cutting off heads to spite blather blather blather." I congratulate you and thank you for coming around on that matter. I truly wish I wouldn't have had to shame you into it by dragging your wife and children into the discussion.

    Taka

  • 0

    Sarge

    Taka313 - You didn't have to "shame" me into saying anything - heck, anyone familiar with my posts knows I'm for fairness.

    "you cannot defeat an ideal by embracing it"

    The U.S. government is guilty of waterboarding three scumbags who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse, and the torture wouldn't be waterboarding, it'd more like shooting bullets into your hands and feet, then your legs and arms. Not exactly embracing their ideals.

    "sarge" / "sargie"

    Can you at least respect the rules and address me using my proper handle?

    Sarge

  • 0

    Taka313

    scumbags who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse is not the same as beheading innocent people.

    This old nut again? Are you that devoid of thought that after over half a decade, you cannot come up with something new?

    Can I prove there were more? No. However, the incident at Abu Ghraib and the fact that the govt. has admitted to it, at least 3 times, leads me to believe, there is a strong probability that more have been tortured. Can you prove it was only three?

    And for your old, tired, silly catch-phrase, it completely nullifies your early claim of desiring fairness.

    A little bit immoral is indeed different than intensely immoral. However, it's still immoral. And when we act in an immoral fashion, we act contrary to the beliefs of our founding fathers and we put our troops at greater risk of suffering the same consequences.

    Taka

    Moderator: Please address other readers by their correct user name.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Taka313 :"How do you know the 3 people that were tortured by the U.S. gov't were guilty of anything?"

    For cryin' out loud - according to the 9/11 Commission Report, Khalid Sheiek Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. But, hey, what does the 9/11 Commission know, eh?

    Here's another thing for you to ponder, Taka313.

    I'll consider responding to any future posts by you addressed to me when you can address me by my proper handle, which is Sarge with a capital S.

    Sarge

  • 0

    Sarge

    Paulie - "same line again and again?"

    It's tried and true.

  • 0

    Taka313

    "What does the 9/11 commission know?"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nRoGNqiHBY

    But don't let the facts get in the way of your hypocrisy and double standards sarge.

    Taka

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    And it's all gone quiet over there...

  • 0

    Sarge

    Heh - Taka313 still believes Khalid Sheik Mohammed is innocent.

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    But, hey, what does the 9/11 Commission know, eh?

    True, true - the masterly tome which proves you can melt reinforced steel columns with gasoline.

  • 0

    Blue_Tiger

    Just another disgruntled Scott McClellan: side with `em when the approval ratings are up, but once they sink, thanks to media bias, jump ship, turn coat, and make a cool million with alleged "insider" information. Mr. Obama will have his turncoats, too, and here's hoping turnabout is fair play when the Obama turncoats start coming out of the woodwork (but I'm not going to hold my breath)...

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all